Volume 6 — Wisconsin Reports

ON the 13th. of February 1854, the complainant and August Flertzheim took a lease from one Fowler, the owner of the tenement No. 221 East Water street, Milwaukee, for the term of three years and two and one half months from that date, “ to be used as cabinet wa/re rooms?

<p>INFORMATION IN THE NATURE OF A QUO WARRANTO.</p>

The defendants ill error brought an action in tbe court below, in assumpsit, upon a promissory note, in which an issue was made up, and the cause noticed for trial at a term of the court to commence on Monday, the first day of September, 1856. On the 21st of August, 1856, the defendant in that suit served upon the attorney for the plaintiff, a notice in writing, requiring the plaintiffs to appear and be sworn as witnesses on the trial of the cause.

Tbis cause baying been before this court twice before, and the facts fully reported in 4 Wis. E., 154, and also again in 5 Wis. E., 62, a repetition of the pleadings, and testimony will not be here given, but reference is made to the former reports for the history of the case.

Tbe plaintiff in error brought an action of ejectment against tbe defendant in error to recover possession of tbe N. W. J of Sec. 26, T. 17, E. 18, Eond du Lac County. Npon tbe trial of tbe issue in tbe cause, the plaintiff introduced tbe original patent from tbe Nnited States, and a regular chain of title from tbe patentee to himself of tbe premises described in bis declaration.

In the autumn of 1844, the complainant, Eay, then engaged in the mercantile business in the city of Milwaukee, purchased, on credit, a bill of goods' at Buffalo, in the State of New York, of the defendant, Oatley, then a merchant of that city.

This was an action commenced before a Justice of the' Peace before whom a trial was held, a judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court. Held: a judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court.

This was an action or proceeding m rem commenced by the respondents against the appellant¿ under chapter 116 of the Eevised Statutes, to recover damages as for alleged injuries, done by the latter to the steamboat H. T. Yeatman, of which last mentioned boat the respondents claim to he owners and possessors.

This was an action of trover, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, before a Justice of the Peace, for taking and converting four hogs, the property of the plaintiff, &c. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and the cause was tried without a jury.

<p>Where the clerk on his return sent up all the papers filed in the case, none of them attached together, hut enclosed in an envelope, the appeal was dismissed.</p> <p>The rule of the court requires the clerk to return the notice of appeal and the judgment roll, or a Certified copy thereof, when directed by the Circuit Judge.</p> <p>The judgment roll consists of certain papers attached together, 'but loose papers filed in the cause, inclosed in an envelope, will not be taken for, or deemed a judgment roll.</p>

The Complaint in this case sot forth and counted upon a promissory note dated the 8th day of September, A. D. 1856, made by Nicholas Hoffman, Ferdinand Sauer and Henry Millman, for the sum of fifteen hundred and fifty dollars, payable to Adlebert Jung or order, at the State Bank of Wisconsin, nine months after date, which had been endorsed by the said payee to John H. G-eve, and by the latter endorsed to the plaintiff below, Lyman Elmore.

The defendant was indicted for manslaughter, for killing Herman Alhriclit, by a blow, with a chisel, upon the top of his head.

On the fourth day of November, 1857, the plaintiff's below, Thomas T. Peeve and George W. Eoe, by Butler, Buttrick and Cottrill, their attorneys, filed their complaint against Lewis L. Lee and Michael Steever, upon the note copied below.

The respondent, Davis, brought an action of covenant in the. Circuit Court of Dodge County against the appellant, Judd, upon the covenant of -warranty in a deed of real estate executed hy the appellant and wife to the respondent. The action was brought before the taking effect of the present code of practice, but came to this court since the taking effect of this code. The declaration was in the usual form, alleging that the covenant was made by the defendant alone.

TMs was an' action of assumpsit, brought by Ernst Prieger, Paul O. Face and Jacob Hube, plaintiffs, against The Exchange Mutual Insurance Company, defendant, to recover the amount of loss sustained by the plaintiffs by the burning of their paper mill, which was insured by the defendant in the sum of fifteen hundred dollars. The declaration contained a special count upon the policy of insurance, which was in the usual form, and also the common money counts.

APPEAL IN EQUITY PROM WINNEBAGO CIRCUIT COURT.' On the 7th day of September, 1865, the complainant filed his hill in this cause in the Circuit Court of Winnebago county, and therein set forth that said complainant was seized in fee of certain real estate and appurtenances in the village of Mena-sha in said county, — that some time before the month of April, 1855, he employed Lyman Fargo to sell the same to such persons and price as he should see fit, — that said Lyman Fargo…

This was an action of covenant brought by tbe defendant in in error against tbe plaintiffs in error, in tbe Circuit Court, upon a certain agreement entered into between said'parties on tbe 15th day of December, 1851, in and by which tbe plaintiff below undertook and agreed to perform certain labor in and about enlarging the slide and improving tbe capacity of tbe same for running lumber at Big Bull Falls, on tbe Wisconsin River, according to the specifications and…

This case was fully reported, (4 Wis. E., 144), when before this court on a former occasion, and to which reference is now had. The cause having come up again, on an appeal from a final decree of the circuit court, reference is farther had to the opinion of the court herein delivered, for the facts now presented in the case, npon which the decision is founded.

This was an action of trespass quarre clanisum fregit in which the defendant justified as a town supervisor, that the locus im, quo was a public highway, and that he committed the supposed trespass in the performance of his official duty in opening the highway. The legality of the proceedings in laying out and establishing the highway thus became the issue.

The declaration or complaint in this case alleges “ that the said plaintiff, heretofore, to-wit: on the twenty-seventh day of February, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, at the county of Dane aforesaid, paid and delivered to the said defendant the sum of two hundred dollars and fifty cents, then and there by the said defendant to be received, used and applied towards and upon the payment of the principal sum and interest thereon accrued, mentioned in the…

appeal PROM Milwaukee county court. The object of this action was to recover the amount of a certain promissory note, made by the defendant, Power, on the 24th day of May, 1856, for $600, and payable in sixty days after date, to, and indorsed by, the defendants, Hill.

Tbe plaintiff in tbe court below brought an action of trover before tbe Justice of tbe Peace and filed bis declaration for tbe taking and converting, by tbe defendant to bis own use, tbirty-nine bushels of winter wheat, of tbe value of forty-four dollars; thirty-two bushels of rye, of tbe value of twenty-four dollars, and eighty bushels of oats, of tbe value of twenty-four dollars, to tbe damage of tbe plaintiff of one hundred dollars. Tbe defendant pleaded tbe general issue.

APPEAL E35.0M ROCK CIRCUIT COURT. Tbis was an appeal from an order of tbe Circuit Court of Bock county overruling a motion to vacate a judgment rendered against tbe defendant in default of a plea, ou an affidavit of merits. Tbe facts and circumstances of tbe case are stated at large in tbe opinion of tbea court.

This was a bill for specific performance of a parol agreement for rthe purchase of a lot in the city of Milwaukee. The important question in the case was upon the fact of the agreement being made, which was alleged by the complainant and denied by the defendant. It was brought to issue and tried by the court below upon testimony taken in open court, and the Circuit Judge found for the defendant.

This was a motion to vacate tbe satisfaction of a judgment rendered in tbe District Court of Milwaukee county, in favor of tbe… Held: that it was “ competent to the debtor for the purpose of establishing an accord and satisfaction, to prove by parol a ratification by the principal, of the acts of the agent, by showing that with knowledge of the facts, he reaped the benefit of the compromise, by accepting in whole or in part, its fruits.” The court remarks on page…

This was an action of trespass on the case brought by the appellant against the respondent, before a justice oí the peace.

This cause came into the court below, on appeal from a decree of the judge of probate of Milwaukee County, upon the final account of said McDougall, as administrator of the estate of Norman Follett deceased, and was made on the 28th day of October, 1850, to the Circuit Court, and thence to this Court.

The respondents commenced an action, in the Circuit Conrt of Milwaukee county, against the appellant, hy summons; and at the same time an attachment was issued against both defendants, on the ground that they were not residents of the State of Wisconsin, upon which the property of the defendants in the city of Eacine was attached.

This was an action of trespass bonis asjportatis, brought before a justice of the peace of Waushara county. The plaintiff declared for taking and carrying away ten tons of hay, claiming eight dollars damages. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Upon the trial the jury found for the defendant, and the justice entered judgment accordingly.

This was an indictment for larceny in stealing a plow, of the value of twenty-one dollars; and was tried in the Eock Circuit Court at the November Term, A. D. 1855, and.a verdict of guilty rendered. It appears from the hill of exceptions, that the jury, after having retired and deliberated, came into court and stated that they were unable to agree.

The appellant in this case caused a judgment, by confession, to be entered in the court below, on the third day of June, 1857, against the respondents, by virtue of a warrant of attorney for that purpose duly executed, upon the promissory note^, in writing of the respondents, of which the following is á copy: “ $300 MadisoN, May 13th, 1856. “ On the 20th April, 18 57, after date, for value received, I “ promise to pay Hiram Carter, or order, at the State Bank, “ Madison,…

This was an action of ejectment brought by the defendant in error to recover lots 8 and 9, in block 58, in the village of Madison ; and was tried at the November Term, 1856, resulting in a verdictfor the plaintiff in ejectment, and a judgment for possession, and costs.

This was an action of assumpsit commenced by declaration in July, 1856. The declaration alleged that the plaintiffs were co-partners doing business under the name and firm of “ Bennett, White & Company,” on the first day of September, 1854, at the city of Boston, State of Massachusetts. The cause of action is stated in the declaration to arise out of a letter and proposition to contract and guaranty, addressed by the defendant to the plaintiffs at the instance of one Alex.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by respondent, Ely, against tbe appellant, for the possession of a tract of land in Lock county, and itwas tried by a jury, at Janesville, before J. M. Eeep, circuit judge, at the June Term, 1856.

APPEAL 1ÍROJI THE RACINE CIRCUIT COURT. The complainant commenced an. action, for the foreclosure of a mortgage, and ihe payment of two promissory notes for the sum of three hundred and seventy-eight dollars and thirty-three cents each, and one promissory note for the payment of three hundred and seventy-eight dollars and thirty-four cents, by filing his hill of complaint and serving a subpoena upon the defendants in the circuit court, for the county of Eacine, on the 7th…

This was a bill in equity for the purpose of reforming and compelling the specific performance of a real contract.

appeal PROM Milwaukee circuit court. Lavinia Scott died intestate, leavingnon-ancestralpropertyin tbe state of Wisconsin, to-wit: in the county of Milwaukee, where letters of administration have since heen granted, but leaving no children nor other lineal descendants, no husband and no parents, nor other heirs in the direct ascending line, and no brolher or sister, nor brother’s or sister’s issue, but leaving three uncles and one aunt of the whole blood, on the father’s side…

This was an action under the provisions of ch. 120, E. S., to enforce a mechanic’s lien.

Tit is was a writ of certiorari issued to the county judge of Jefferson county, to review a proceeding had by and before him on a writ of Habeas Corpus issued for the production of the bod v of the petitioner wbo was imprisoned in the jail of Jefferson county. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

That on the 14th day of May aforesaid, the relator presented to Charles Claxton, a justice of the peace of said town, a written notice of appeal from the determination of said supervisors, wherein .the order of said supervisors in the premises, and the highway by them discontinued, were pertinently set forth and described, and giving notice of his appeal to the said justice to reverse the determination of said supervisors.

APPEAL IN EQUITY FROM MILWAUKEE CIRCUIT COURT The appellant filed bis bill in equity in tbe circuit court of Milwaukee county, setting forth, among other things, that in the month of November, then last, (1855), and before the execution of the contracts therein set forth, he entered into negotiation and had conversations with the appellee relative to the purchase of his interest, being one-sixth part, in the firm of Aldrich, Smith & Go., of Two Rivers, Manitowoc county,…

The plaintiff declared in trespass, charging the defendant with taking- and driving away twenty-two sheep, the property of the plaintiff, to his damage one hundred dollars. Plea, general issue.

Tbis was an action for forcible detainer, brought by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, lessee, of certain premises, upon account of an alleged breach of the condition of the lease by the lessee, in cutting timber. The plea was “ not guilty,” and the cause was originally tried in a justice’s court on that issue and a judgment rendered therein for the plaintiff.

The appellant* plaintiff below, complained of the respondent, defendant below, that David Mowry, a resident of Rhode Island, about the 14th of August, 1847, placed in the hands of the defendant, an… Held: but Massachusetts relaxes its narrow rule when the attaching creditor is nqt a citizen of that state. Means vs. Hapgood, 19 Pickering, 105. III.

<p>APPLICATION FOE PEREMPTORY MANDAMUS.</p>

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace, where it was tried and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. It was appealed by the defendant to the county court of Milwaukee county, where it was again tried by a jury, at the June Term, A. D. 1857, and a judgment again rendered for the plaintiff.

This was an action of replevin brought by the plaintiff below to recover “ sixty thousand pounds of lead ore, said ore being unwashed from the dirt dug out and raised therewith, and being what is commonly known and called wash-dirt mineral, and were lying and being,” &c., of the value of twelve hundred dollars.

In tbe month of November, 1856, the plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant before Walter Demmon, a justice of the peace, of the town of West Bend, in said county, for the sum of $57,46. Thomas Jenner and other persons, describing themselves as supervisors of the town of Polk, made an affidavit, and executed a recognizance for appeal.

Oh the 2d day of October, 1854, the appellant, Minert, entered into a contract in writing, with one Goodlander, for the sale of certain premises in Green county; in and by which he agreed to convey to said Goodlander, in fee simple,' clear of all incumbrances, the premises sold, on or before the first day of May then next ensuing.

This was an action of replevin, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, before a justice of the peace, who, upon trial, rendered a judgment for the defendant, who appealed to the circuit court.

The action was brought in the circuit court of Dane county by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error upon a certain contract in writing between the parties, in and by which Taylor agreed to put up and build and finish on the outside and inside a dwelling house particularly described in, and according to a plan annexed to, said contract, and to have the house completed by the 15th of June then next, (1855,) the house to be located on the spot to be designated…

<p>APPEAR IN EQUITY FROM THE COLUMBIA CIRCUIT COURT.</p>

The appellants, complainants in the court below, filed their bill in equity in the circuit court of Milwaukee county, to foreclose a certain mortgage executed on the ninth day of May, 1856, to one Jane Garvey, by Joseph Shepherd and wife, two of the respondents for the payment of the sum of $7,000, at or before the expiration of ten years from that date, with interest thereon semi-annually in advance, at the rate of ten per cent, per annum, which mortgage, together with the…

The declaration of tbe plaintiff below set forth that Vleit street, in tbe second ward of tbe city of Milwaukee, “at tbe time of tbe committing of tbe grievances, &c., therein mentioned, and hitherto had been and still is, a common public street and highway, for all persons to go, return, and pass, and repass, in, by and with horses, coaches, wagons and other carriages, .at their free will and pleasure, at? &c.that the defendant below, well knowing the premises, wrongfully,…

Tlic action was brought by the defendants in error on the 26th of December, 1854, against the plaintiff in error, before a justice of the peace, and was removed to the circuit court by appeal, where it was tried by a jury at the November term, 1856. The pleadings and bills of particulars are found in the opinion of the court.

The defendant in error brought an action against the plaintiff in error before a justice of the peace, wherein he recovered a judgment, and the defendant therein appealed to the county court of Calumet county.

An action was brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, upon a book account, to which the defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of set off. The cause was tried before the justice, who rendered a judgment for the plaintiff for $9.30 and costs. This judgment was removed to the circuit court of Calumet county by writ of eertiora/ri, where it was reversed.

This was an action brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error for the value of sixteen bags of wheat, averaging two and a half bushels each. Upon trial in the court below the plaintiff proved the delivery of the wheat on the defendant’s railroad at the station at Eagle, to be transported to Milwaukee, consigned to Eddy and Watkins, commission merchants at the latter place. The value of the wheat was also proved.

This was an action originally brought before a justice, whose judgment was reviewed in the circuit court, and there reversed; to reverse which judgment of the circuit court this writ of error was brought. The facts appear in order and detail in the opinion of the court. 1st. The promise of Hutson (if it may be called a promise), is to pay the debt of Craft; and no consideration is expressed upon the face of the agreement, and therefore void by the statute of frauds.

This was ejectment by the defendant in error for a part of lot 28, in the north ward, in the city of Green Bay, and was tried in the Brown Circuit Court, January Term, 1857.

The plaintiff declared in trespass on the case upon promises, for money lent; money laid out and expended; money paid, and received by the defendants for the use of the plaintiff, &c.; and gave notice of the cause of action, the endorsement by defendants, upon the bill of exchange, copied, and served with the declaration as follows: “ Express Exchange Office, “ Adams & Oo. “ Downieville, San Francisco. “ Exchange for $250.

The defendant was convicted upon an indictment for adultery.

The appellant made claim against the estate of James Evans, before the commissioners, for twenty ounces of gold dust, valued at $340 ; which claim was disallowed by the commissioners, but on appeal from their decision, the circuit court allowed the claim, and being about to enter judgment therefor, the appellant’s attorney proposed to allow a credit upon the amount, of $275, for the price of a span of horses, wagon, and harness, appellant had purchased of the widow of the…

The bill sets forth that on the 20th clay of January, 1855, the defendant sued the complainant before C. Coolbangh, a justice of the peace of Winnebago county, for damages for the breach of the conditions of a certain lease between the parties, and therein recovered judgment for sixteen dollars and eighty-seven cents, and costs; from which judgment complainant appealed to the circuit court of said county, wherein, when the cause there came on for trial, the defendant (then…

The defendant in error brought an action against the plaintiff in error in the court below, which was noticed for trial as follows: “ Outagamie County Cieouit Couet : £ ‘ N orthern Bank 1 vs. V “ Theodore Conkey. ) “You will please take notice that the “ above entitled cause will be brought to trial at the next term “ of the said court, to be held at the court house, in the city “ of Green Bay, in said county, on the third Monday in October, A. D. Í856.” Upon the cause being…

In Equity, APPEAL IN EQUITY PROM THE 'WINNEBAGO CIRCUIT COURT.

Tlie Fill alleges that some time previous to 1851 complainant Everts was seized in fee of the equal undivided one-half part of certain real estate in Milwaukee county, which had been formerly purchased hy complainant and one Peter Bender of Agnes ; and that being so seized, complainant made a written agreement, on the 31st of May, 1851, with said Agnes, to convey to him complainant’s said interest in said premises, and the min thereon, “ for the consideration of five hundred…

The plaintiff in error brought an action against the defendant in error before a justice of the peace, for goods and merchandize, as per bill of particulars, to which the defendant pleaded the general issue and filed his bill of set off. On coming to trial the defendant admitted the correctness of the plaintiff’s-account and offered evidence in support of his setoff, in which was included an item for turning twenty-four table legs at fifty cents each.

The plaintiff in error brought an'action of assumpsit against the defendant in error before a police justice in the city of Janesville, wherein ho declared “ on all the common counts in “ assumpsit for money had and received by defendant to plain- “ tiff’s use, to his damage one hundred dollars.” To which declaration the defendant pleaded the general issue.

The plaintiffs commenced a suit in debt, on the 24th day of March, A. D. 1854, by filing and serving a declaration, in the common form, for the penalty, without setting out the conditions of the bond. “The defendants craved oyer'of the bond which was sot out as follows, viz : the condition of their obligation is such, that whereas, Orville W. Barnes (and others) have presented a bill in chancery against the plaintiffs for llie allowance of an injunction to stay certain…

The plaintiff sued out an attachment in the county court of Dane county on the 17 th day of November, 1853, against the defendant, and- the writ was levied upon lands on the 19th day of November, 1853.

This was an action on the case for flowage of lauds. The declaration was filed on the 15th dav of December, 1854, in the circuit court of Calumet county, alleging the possession of the premises, the building of a dam on the stream which ran through the land, by the defendants, at a point below tlie land, whereby the land of the plaintiffs was flowed, to their damage, &c. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of a form ersnit, in bar, brought in the circuit…

Tbis was a bill filed by a settler upon the public lands, against a subsequent fraudulent pre-emptor and purchaser,'to set aside the conveyance by the government and vest the title in the complainant.

The plaintiff in error brought an action of trover in the court below, against (he defendant in error, and declared for conversion of 50,000 feet of oak plank, of the value of $500; to which the defendant pleaded the general issue.

This was an action on the case npon section 39, chapter 59, of the revised statutes, for the refusal to discharge a mortgage, after due demand and tender. Held: for the purpose of this action, as well as for other purposes. Sickles vs. Sharp, 13 J. R., 498; Smith’s Stat. and Const.

On tire lOtli day of January, 1854, a petition was filed witli the judge of probate of Walworth county, representing that Matthias Mohr, of said county, was then insane, and wholly incompetent, by reason of said insanity, to take care of himself and manage his property; under which petition such proceedings where had by and before said judge of probate, according to, and in pursuance of, the 18th chapter of the revised statutes, sections 12, 13 and 14 ; that thereafter, on…

APPEAL IN EQUITY EROJÍ THE MILWAUKEE CIRCUIT COURT. This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Milwaukee county, hy Lyndsay Ward, who was purchaser of mortgaged premises, at a sale under final decree of foreclosure, in a suit where John A. 0. Gray was complainant, and Henry A. Hayden and Virginia Hayden were defendants.

APPEAL FROlil THE ROCK CIRCUIT COURT. The respondent, Burns, brought an action of trespass, qum'e clcmsum fregit^ against the appellant, Dodge, for entering upon a part of lot 24 in Smith and Bailey’s Addition to Janesville.

APPEAR FR0J1 THE RACINE CIRCUIT COURT. This was an action of trespass, de loivis, commenced by tbe appellants against tbe respondents. Tbe appellants claimed title to tbe goods, as assignees in possession, of one Orson Sheldon. Tbe respondents, defendants below, in tlieir answer, alleged that tbe assignment by Sbeldon to the plaintiffs was fraudulent, and made to binder and delay the creditors of tbe said Sbeldon.

This was ejectment by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, to recover the possession of lot 7, in block 109, in the city of Madison, and was tried by a jury at the November term, 1857. To prove the issue on his part, the plaintiff introduced : Firstly. A patent from the United States, for certain lands, of which said premises are a part, to James D. Doty and Stevens T. Mason, dated August 10,1837. Secondly.

action was commenced before Albert Smith, Esq., a justice of the peace in and for the county of Milwaukee, and the complaint set forth that the plaintiff was in possession of the store, No. 189 East Water street, city of Milwaukee; that said plaintiff was doing business in said store as a merchant; that the defendants were an incorporated company, and by the terms of their charter were authorized to make and sell gas, and were engaged in making and selling gas; and that by…

This was an action commenced by attachment, and prosecuted under and hy virtue of the provisions of an act of the legislature of this… Held: or so much thereof,” &e. On the 12th clay of April, 1854, the plaintiff filed a declaration in the common money counts, with the following bill of particulars attached: “ The following bill of particulars (of which this is a part) exhibits the number of the certificates, evidences of indebtedness — which the plaintiff will offer in…

This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace of Columbia county.

<p>Certificates of deposit purporting to be issued by the Wisconsin Marine and Tire Insurance^Company, payable on demand to the bearer, are not bank bills, within the meaning of the statute providing punishment for uttering, &c., false and counterfeit bank bills.</p>

The defendant in error, John L. Uline, commenced proceedings under chapter one hundred and twenty of the Eevised Statutes of Wisconsin, concerning the lien of mechanics and others, by filing his petition for a lien against the double saw mill of the plaintiff in error, in the county of Marathon, on the 29th day of March, A. D. 1852, situated on the north-east quarter of the north-east quarter of section number seven, (7,) township number twenty-eight, (28,) north of range…

This canse was commenced by hill in chancery alleging a mistake in a deed from the defendants, Hollis Holley and Laura Jane Holley to the plaintiff, Thomas S. Newton, in omitting twenty-two feet of land off the west side of lot three, in block (22) twenty-two, in the village of Stoughton, in Dane county and state of Wisconsin; which deed purports to convey the north half of fractional lot 2 in fractional block 1Y, the south half of fractional lot 1 and Y£ feet in width off…

This was an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Milwaukee county, dissolving an injunction.

The bill in this case is long, and, together with the answer, sets forth the relations of the parties in labored detail, and embraces principally matters not relating to the points decided. Extracting from it, however, such parts only as elucidate the issue in this court, it appears that Pettibone and Hubbell, in February, 1850, were partners, engaged in the lumbering business, and owned a saw-mill in the county of Oconto, in this state.

Tbis was an action of trespass de ionis asportatis by defendant in error, the declaration being in tbe usual form.

This was an appeal by Bobbins from an award of commissioners, of the value of certain land taken by the railroad company for the use of their road. In the circuit court judgment was rendered in favor of Bobbins, from which the company appealed to this court.

This was a bill in equity to stay proceedings at law, in some eighty actions of ejectment commenced and prosecuted by the said Bellangee, against the said Crocker and others.

This case was brought to this court some time since, tbe facts of which as contained in the bill of exceptions are voluminous, but all those essential to the consideration of the points considered in the opinion of the court, are therein stated. The briefs and arguments of counsel cover the whole case, and as it would be difficult to confine them to the point or points adjudicated, they are reluctantly omitted.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by declaration in the circuit court of Marquette county, and was tried at the March term, 1856, before a jury. The suit was brought to recover the amount of a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “ $350. “ Oxfoed, Nov. 13th, 1851. “ Six months after date we promise to pay to the order of “L. Gr.

The plaintiffs, suing in behalf of themselves and the other stockholders of the Manitowoc & Mississippi Eailroad Company, represent that they are stockholders and directors of said company, (the entire board of directors consisting of nine members), and that about the 16th day of December, 1854, the defendant Jones entered into a certain contract with said Eail-road Company, as follows, to-wit: “ Memorandum of an agreement made the sixteenth (16) day of December, A. D. 1854,…