Volume 68 — Wisconsin Reports

The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. There was a verdict for the plaintiffs for $151.05, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant appealed.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ The plaintiff in this action of ejectment, commenced May 24, 1883, claims title to the premises in question under three tax deeds,— one executed and recorded January 23-24,1877; one May 12-13,1880, on sale of 1877; one May 29, 1882, on sale of 1879.

In the year 1869 the defendant carried on the business of banking at Grand Rapids in this state. In October of that year, James Curran, plaintiff’s intestate, deposited with him $540, and received therefor the following certificate, written and signed by one Moody, the defendant’s clerk: “ J. D. WlTTER, RANKER, GRAND RaPIDS, WISCONSIN. “ $540.

Ejectment. The action was brought by Ohcvrles A. Lam-oreux against Charles Myers, the son, Eliza Myers, the widow, and Frederick LIuntley, the administrator of the estate of J. L. Myers, deceased. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Action to recover tbe sum of $300 alleged to be due to-the plaintiff as the balance of the purchase money of a tract of land sold by him to the defendant company. The answer was a general denial. ' The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment thereon the defendant appealed.

ÁEPEAL from tbe County Court ;o| Milwaukee County. In August, 1884, Elias D. Davis an'd Ezra Michelbacher were partners in business in Milwaukee, and, being largely in debt and insolvent, they executed several judgment notes, amounting in all to about $15,000, to three different persons. • Judgments were immediately entered on these notes in the circuit court, executions were issued, and the judgment debtors’ entire stock of goods was seized by virtue thereof and sold to…

The principal facets are stated in the opinion. The sixth assignment of error there referred to was based upon the ruling of the court below in permitting the plaintiff to prove that' after the death of the mother the younger children were entirely supported by their older brothers and sister. There was a verdict for the plaihtiif for $1,750. A motion for a new trial was denied, and from the judgment entered on the verdict the defendant appealed.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: This action was commenced February 24,' 1883. The defendant’s demurrer to the complaint on the ground of insufficiency was overruled by the trial court; and the order overruling the same was affirmed by this court. 58 Wis. 625.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: This action is to enforce the specific performance of an alleged implied contract to assign to the plaintiff an invention made by the defendant while in the employment of the plaintiff, commenced March 8, 1885, and before procuring the patent.

Action to enforce a lien upon certain lumber and shingles for the amount due for labor and services performed in the •manufacture thereof. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinions. The defendant The Shell Lahe Lumber Company appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Tayloe as a part of the opinion: This action was brought to recover the contract price of a lot of logs which had been cut and put into the river by the plaintiff for the defendant.

Action to enforce a lien for labor performed and materials furnished by the plaintiff as a subcontractor in and about the erection of a bridge in Chippewa county.

This action was commenced in. March, 1881, to set aside, as a cloud upon the plaintiff’s title, a sheriff’s deed of certain premises described as lot 4, township 30, range 7, in Chippewa county.

<p> Tax deed: Limitation of actions: Proof of publication of notice of sale. </p> <p>1. The limitation of one year prescribed in sec. 3, ch. 309, Laws of 1880, does not cure defects in the notice of a tax sale or in the proof of publication thereof, but only defects “ going to the validity of the assessment and affecting the groundwork of the tax.”</p> <p>2. Proof that the notice of a sale was published “for five weeks successively, commencing on the 9th day of April, and ending on the 7th day of May, 1879,” does not show a publication “ once in each week for four successive weeks ” prior to the sale on May 13, as required by sec. 1130, R. S.</p>

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Tayloe as a part of the opinion,: Upon the affidavit of the relator, Joseph Terry, the circuit court of Douglas county issued an alternative writ of marth&amus directed to the appellant, treasurer of said town of Superior, of which the following is a copy, omitting the title of the action: “ On reading and filing the affidavit of Joseph Terry, the relator above named, dated the 11th day of June, 1886, and on…

The case is stated in the opinion. They contended, inter alia, that admissions and declarations of the assignor are never competent evidence in favor of the as-signee, and they are not made competent by being declarations against interest, offered after the assignor is dead. Abbott’s Trial Evidence, 11; 3 Field’s Lawyers’ Br. 359; Ont/ram v. Morewood, 5 Term, 123; Brashear v. Burton, 6 Am.

The action was brought bjr Hiram Smith.' After the defendants had appealed to this court he died and the cause was revived in. the name of his executor, Henry Divan.

The plaintiff, Maria A. Kelly, presented to the county court of Eoek county, for allowance against the estate of Henrjr P. Strong, deceased, a claim for $1,200.

I11 May, 1885, the relator, William Giblin, presented to the supervisors of the town of Union his affidavit showing that he was the owner of Teal estate in such town, which was surrounded by the lands of other persons and was shut out from all public highways, and containing the other averments of fact required by B. S. sec. 1215,1 and peti-tionecl such supervisors to lay out a road from bis lands to a public highway, in accordance with that section of the statute.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Book County.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p> <p>[No brief on file.]</p>

The case is stated in the opinion. They contended, inter alia, that tbe river being a navigable river and a public highway, the respondent has no right to place an obstruction therein without the consent of the legislature. E. S. secs. 1596, 1598; Jones v. Petiibone, 2 Wis. 308, 318; Wis. B. Imp. Oo. v. Lyons, 30 id. 61, 65-67. Any obstruction placed in such a river would be a public nuisance; and the creation of “such a nuisance may be prevented by injunction.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday : This action was to recover eight dollars, the alleged agreed purchase price of a pair of boots alleged to have been made by the plaintiff for the defendant upon his order, but which he refused to take or pay for. In addition to denials, the answer alleged a failure of performance of the contract on the part of the plaintiff, in' that the boots did not fit the defendant.

The defendant railroad company instituted proceedings for tbe condemnation of a strip of land 100 feet wide, comprising three and 48-100 acres, across a farm which the plaintiff claimed to own. The commissioners of appraisal awarded the sum of $300 as compensation for the land taken and for the damage sustained by reason of such faking. This amount was paid into court.

On May 7, 1884, the plaintiff’s intestate was run over by a car on the railway of the defendant'company, at Horicon, and killed. This action was brought by his widow, who had been theretofore duly appointed administratrix of his estate, to recover damages therefor. The complaint alleges-that the death of the intestate, was caused by the negligence of the defendant company.

<p> (1) Appeal to S. G.: Exceptions to finding of facts. (2J Paupers: Legal settlement. </p> <p>1. Unless the findings of fact are excepted to in writing and such exceptions are inserted in the bill of exceptions, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings cannot be inquired into on an appeal irom. the j udgment. So held in a case where the findings were announced orally and the appellant had no knowledge that written findings had been made and filed until the bill of exceptions was made up, and no notice of the entry of judgment had been served on him.</p> <p>2. A pauper about sixty years old, having a legal settlement in the town of G., was supported for ten years at the expense of that town in the poor-house of the town of S. Afterwards one D. was employed by the town of G. to support him for about six months at $1 per week, and thereafter for four years he lived with D. in the town of S. and worked for his board and clothes. D. then refused to support him, and he applied again to the town of G. for support, which was refused, and he was then supported by the town of S. Held, that he was a pauper all of the time mentioned, and therefore did not acquire a legal settlement in the town of S., and the town of G. remained liable for his support.</p>

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. To the point that the transaction in question was fraudulent and the chattel mortgage void, counsel for the respondents cited Anderson v. Patterson, 04 Wis. 557; Smith v. Welch, 10 id. 91; Grant v. Lewis, 14 id. 487; Wait on Eraud. Conv. 198, 257.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. ° Justice Cassoday; This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint for insufficiency, in an action to foreclose three several tax certificates purporting to be issued on three several sales of the same land, each to Oconto county, by the county treasurer thereof, at the dates, respectively, May 16, 1882, May 15, 1883, and May 20, 1884, and' each purporting to be for the nonpayment of the taxes,…

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Oconto County.^</p> <p>The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion.</p>

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Ohvppewa County. The plaintiffs duly presented to the Chippewa county court, for allowance, their verified claim against the estate of Patrick O’Donnel, the defendant’s testator, founded upon a judgment recovered by them, in the county court of the county of Peterborough, in the province of Ontario and dominion of Canada, against the testator in his life-time.

APPEAL-from the Circuit Court for .Door County. Replevin. The cause was before this court on a former appeal, and is reported in 66 Wis. 113. After the circuit court had, by the order or judgment there appealed from, directed that the execution be recalled, such execution was returned to the clerk by the sheriff with the following in-dorsement thereon: “ Door County — ss.

This appeal is in the same cause as that last reported (ante, p. 220). After obtaining the order there appealed from the plaintiffs moved that the original judgment in favor of the defendant be ordered satisfied by a return of the property therein described, and that the defendant have and accept in satisfaction of such judgment the property which had been tendered to him by the plaintiffs. The motion was granted, and the defendant appealed from the order made thereon.

<p>Joinder of causes of action: Judgment is a “ contract.”</p> <p>A judgment for the payment of money only is a contract within the meaning of subd. 2, sec. 2647, R. S., authorizing the joinder of . several causes of action when they arise out of contract, express or ■ implied.</p>

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Bode County.</p> <p>Replevin. The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion.</p>

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the amended complaint, alleging, in effect, that ever since 1883 the plaintiff has been and still is the owner of the land described; tlqat during said time there has been and now is a public street used as such, known as Twelfth street, in said city, passing and located along the northerly side of said premises and affording the only convenient…

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Kenosha County.</p> <p>The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p>

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Tayloe as a part of the opinion: This action was commenced by the plaintiff to set aside the proceedings of the defendants inlaying out and opening a ditch through the plaintiff’s land. The action was brought to a hearing in the circuit court in the March term, 1884.

The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. Held: as conclusions of law from the facts found, that the conditions precedent contained in the conditional release had never been performed, and that said release was of no effect; that the defendant George F. Flanders was indebted to the plaintiff, as -executor, upon the note and mortgage, in the sum of $1,600, with interest from…

Action to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence. The allegations of the complaint are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The plaintiff appeals from an order sustaining a general demurrer.

APPEALS from tbe County Court of Milwaukee County. The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: May 28, 1885, the plaintiff, in an action commenced by summons and attachment personally served on both defendants, April 23 and 29,1885, upon a debt accruing prior to April 16, 1885, recovered judgment for $2,203.18 against the firm composed of said defendants E. 8. Hoyt and Wesley Kinney, in the county courts for Milwaukee county.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: It appears from the record that January 28, 1886, and after the plaintiffs had commenced an action in the county court for Milwaukee county against the defendants, E. 8.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday : It appears from the record that June 3, 1885, the plaintiff recovered a judgment in the circuit court for Milwaukee county against E. 8.

The action is upon an insurance policy for $1,000 issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff on a stock of drugs. It bears date June 23, 1884, and is for one year. In February, 1885, the insured property was destroyed by fire, and thereafter the plaintiff made due proofs of loss as required by the policy.

<p> Divorce: Alimony or partition of estate? </p> <p>? Every provision made in a judgment of divorce for the support of the wife, unless it is expressly declared to be a division and partition of the estate of the husband, will be construed as alimony, and the court may afterwards, under changed circumstances, modify such judgment as may he just.</p>

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The plaintiff appealed from a judgment on the verdict for the defendant.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: This action was brought in justice’s court. The complaint declared upon an account in writing, which charged-the defendant with the contract price of an ice-box, $90, and $48.41 for extra work thereon and interest. The answer alleged damages for failure to build the ice-box according to contract. October 23,1885, and-upon trial had, the plaintiff recovered judgment for $141.63 damages, and $26.32 costs.

Ejectment. The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. A motion for a nonsuit, made at the close of the plaintiff’s testimony and renewed at the close of the testimony for the defendant, was granted, and from the judgment dismissing the complaint the plaintiff appeals.

The action is by a lessee against his lessor for failure of tbe latter to give the lessee possession of the leased premises according to the covenants in the lease.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Taylob as a part of the opinion: In August, 1884, Bertha Meissner and Joseph Breslauer obtained two judgments against Max Meissner. These judgments were obtained in the county court of Milwaukee county. Executions were issued upon both these judgments and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Milwaukee county, and by virtue of such executions said sheriff seized a stock -of goods belonging to said Max Meissner.

This case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. The defendants appealed from an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint. argued, among other things, that the contract set' out in the complaint was in effect an agreement for copartnership in the operation of the- quarry, and if executed would' convey no interest in land, but only an interest in the profits of woi’kirig the quarry.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Oassoday: August 28, 1874, one Joseph H. Porter, at a sale of school and university lands, bid in the several pieces of land in question situated in section 16, township 36 N., of range 12 E., and obtained from the state the;usual commissioners’ certificates thereof. Eor several years the interest and taxes were paid as they became due, until April 28, 1880, when the last payment was made.

Action to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land.

An instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of Levi Silverthorn was presented to the county court for probate by Levi J. Silverthorn, one of the executors named therein. The probate thereof was opposed by Rebeeea Silverthorn, the widow of the alleged testator; After a hearing, the county court admitted the instrument to probate. Mrs. Silverthorn thereupon appealed to the circuit court, and the matter was tried in that court.

<p>APPEAL from tlie County Court of Fond cko Lao County.</p> <p>The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p>

<p> Officers: Superintendent of county asylum: Reward for return of escaped lunatic. </p> <p>The overseer or superintendent of a poor-house and county asylum cannot recover the reward offered for the return of an insane person, who has escaped from another asylum and has been placed, by the authorities of a town into which he wandered, in the asylum ,of which such overseer has charge; and a promise to pay such reward to him, and a guaranty of such promise, are without consideration.</p>

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: It appears from the record that the defendant Servatius made his two promissory notes, each payable to the order of the defendants Fritz and Blankenburg, both of whom indorsed each of said notes for the accommodation of said Servatius, one bearing date January 19, 1877, for $1,000 and interest, and the other bearing date April 25, 1877, for $1,025.83 and interest, and each of which was, at the time of…

The plaintiff in error, William A. McFarland, was prosecuted before a justice of the peace at Deerfield in Dane county, for selling liquor without license. One Nelson appeared as his attorney. For some reason this prosecution Avas discontinued.

The case is stated in the opinion. They contended, inter alia, that the defendant was entitled to have the defense of his personal property considered by the jury. 2 Addison on Torts, 693; 1 Hilliard on Torts, 204-6; Cooley on Torts, 167; 3 331. Comm. 120; Ayres v. Birteh, 85 Mich. 501; Abt v. Bovrgheim, 80 Ill. 92; Oreen v. Goddard, 2 Salk. 641; Gates v. Lotmsbuo'y, 20 Johns. 427.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: ■It appears from the record that, December 24, 1884, the defendant, Haberkorn, made a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors to the garnishee, Beinig; that December 26,1884, the plaintiffs commenced an action against Haberkorn, and at the same time served garnishee summons and affidavit therein upon him and the garnishee, Beinig/ that January 8, 1885, the garnishee appeared in the action…

Action to recover the sum of $150, alleged to be due to the plaintiff as his commission 'for procuring a purchaser for certain machinery. The facts-will sufficiently appear from the opinion. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendants appealed.

EEEOE to the Circuit Court for Jaolcson County. The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of the offense charged in the second count of the information, to the effect that July 25, 1885, at the county of Jackson, in said state, tbe said Nicholls, the freight and express car of the American Express Company there situate, then and there unlawfully, feloniously, and burglariously did break and enter,…

erecting in the city of Sheboygan for manufacturing purposes, a tin roof with standing seams, at a stipulated price per square; the defendant to furnish the materials therefor.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Taylob as a part of the opinion: This action was brought to recover for an alleged shortage on a sale of logs made by the defendants to the plaintiff.' The contract of sale upon which the action was founded was in writing, and the following are copies of the bill of sale and guaranty on which the action is founded: “Know all men by these presents, that A. Weed & Go., of the village of West Depere, in the county…

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassodat: The complaint is upon a promissory note executed by the defendants, Bosch and Noble, jointly, February 12, 1883, payable to the plaintiff, for $528 and interest.

The action was commenced against J. L. Nowlin and W. H. Eobison, who constituted the firm of J. L. Nowlin & Co.; and O. W. Baker was summoned as garnishee. The garnishee answered, denying all liability as such, and justifying his possession of certain property of defendants under and by virtue of an assignment thereof to him for the benefit of their creditors.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Grcmford County.</p>

This action was brought to recover damages for an assault and battery alleged to have been committed by the defendant upon the person of the plaintiff. The parties are neighbors, but not friends. On a certain Sunday afternoon they met in a public highway. Several other persons were present.

The case is stated in the opinion. To the point that the defendant merely undertook to pay his own debt in a particular way, and that it was a promise founded upon a new and sufficient consideration moving to the promisor from the debtor at the time the promise was made, they cited Putney v. Farnham, 21 Wis. 187; Iloile v. Bailey, 58 id. 434; Calkins v. Chandler, 36 Mich. 320; Bates v. Don-nelly, 57 Mich. 561; Fa/rley v. Cleveland,4 Cow. 432; Young v. French, 35 Wis.

<p> Instructions to jury: Duty of court and of counsel: Contracts: Board furnished to mother-in-law. </p> <p>Where the court has correctly charged the jury upon all the main questions involved, the failure to give additional or more specific instructions, which were not requested by counsel, is not error. So held, where the question raised by the pleadings was whether there had been an express contract by a mother-in-law to pay her son-in-law, with whom she lived, for her board, and the court had charged the jury that she would not be liable to pay for such board in the absence of an agreement, but had failed to instruct the jury that they should consider all the circumstances for the purpose of determining whether or not an agreement should be implied or inferred therefrom.</p>

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: The complaint in this action was, in effect, upon an account for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered by the plaintiff, of Boston, to the defendants at La Crosse, at their request, September 23, 1884j on a credit of sixty days, at the agreed price of $78.25, and which were reasonably worth that sum; that no part of it had been paid, but was due, with interest, from November 23, 1884, for…

Action to recover damages for injuries occasioned by an assault upon the plaintiff by one of the defendant’s employees.

The action was brought in 1885 to recover damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff because of the alleged negligence of the defendant. This appeal is from an order sustaining a general demurrer to the complaint.

<p> Logs and timber: Damages for cutting: Good faith: Mistake of law.. </p> <p>One who acquired title to land with knowledge of .facts which rendered such title invalid, or who learned such facts- before cutting the timber, is not protected by sec. 4269, R. S., as amended by ch. 239, Laws of 1882, but is liable for the highest market value of the timber cut by him, even though he believed that such facts did not in law invalidate his title'. But mere notice that another person claims to own the land 'is not inconsistent with good faith in cutting the timber.</p>

Action under sec. 1397, R. S., to recover double the expense of rebuilding a partition fence. The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and the court, after filing its findings of fact and conclusions of law, rendered judgment dismissing the complaint with costs. The plaintiff appealed.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: It appears from the record that a few days prior to January 7, 1886, Moritz Paley, of Tomah, being insolvent, counseled with S. ~W. Button, an attorney at law and a circuit court commissioner of that place, in regard to making an assignment for the benefit of creditors.

Upon the petition of the relator an alternative writ of mandamus was issued, commanding the defendants to appoint electors, under sec. 1237, R. S., to appraise the damages done upon his lands by the construction of a ditch for the preservation of a highway. The circuit court overruled a motion to quash the alternative writ, and, on appeal, its order was affirmed. See 6G Wis. 199.

This is an action of trover to recover the value of 150 bushels of winter wheat, of the alleged value of $150. The taking and conversion of the wheat by the defendants, and the value thereof, is not controverted. Each party claims to own the wheat, and this is the only controversy in the case. The wheat was raised on the farm of one Paul Pam-pauch, and was harvested in July, 1881.

Action upon a policy of insurance against fire. The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. They contended, inter alia, that the misrepresentation, in the proofs, of the amount of loss and damage defeated any claim under the policy.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice TayloR as a part of the opinion: The plaintiff was a brakeman on the defendant’s road, and received an injury while in its employ. At the time the injury was received he was in the act of coupling cars of said company on said road in the usual course of his employment. This action was brought to recover damages of said company for the injury so received.

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. argued, among other things, that the language used by the district attorney in his opening address was improper, and the failure of the court to stop him then and there is good ground for a new trial. 1 Am. Crim. Rep. 580; State v. Williams, 65 N. C. 505; Ferguson v. State, 49 Ind. 33; State v. Krmg, 64 Mo. 591; S. O. 2 Am. Crim.

<p>ERROR to the Circuit Court for Bichland County.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p> <p>They cited Brown v. Maryla/nd, 12 Wheat. 419; License Gases, 5 How. 504-574; Balter v. Oallendar, 118 Mass. 390; Richards v. Woodward, 113 id. 285; Sdanlan v. Childs, 33 Wis. 663; St. Paul v. Troyer, 3 Mian. 291; Sarbecleer v. Slate, 65 Wis. 171.</p> <p>argued, among other things, that the legislature might prohibit absolutely both the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. State v. Downer, 21 Wis. 277, 279; Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129; Beer Go. v. Mass. 97 U. S. 25; 22 Cent. L. J. 281, note. By the statutes in question the legislature intended to permit manufacturers to sell at wholesale at the place of manufacture, but did not intend to grant to them a privilege,of selling to customers for consumption, which was denied to other persons. State v. Tarver, 14 Lea, 660; State v. Joyner, 81 N. 0. 534.</p>

• The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Tayloe as a part of the opinion: This action is brought by the plaintiffs, owners of real estate subject to taxation in the town of Fifield, to have it adjudged by the court that a vote of the electors of said town, at the annual town meeting in said town, on the first-Tuesday of April, 1886, to raise $5,000 as a road tax in said town for the year 1886, is void as to the sum of $3,000, and to restrain the…

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. The lapse of time fixed by the statute of limitations destroys the debt, and not the remedy merely. Brown v. Parker, 28 Wis. 21; Carpenter v. State, 41 id. 36; Pierce v. Seymour, 52 id. 212. And a debt so barred is no consideration to support a payment or a new promise.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: Action in trover. May 14,1885, the defendant, as sheriff, seized the lumber in question, a part being at Runkel’s-mill, and the rest at Bricldey’s mill, so called, all in Eau Elaine, Portage county, and then appraised at • $5,545.38,'as the property of Benjamin Brickley, on an attachment in a suit against him and in favor of one Andrew Wilson upon a note of -$1,210 and interest at ten per cent, from March 10,1882.

Oroix County. Action upon a promissory note. The principal facts are stated in the opinion. The reparks of the counsel for the defendants, therein referred to, addressed to the jury, related to one 0. E. Storing, the principal witness for the plaintiff, who testified that he was the agent of the plaintiff and that his business consisted in maliing contracts and settlements for it.

The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. argued, among other things, that the plaintiff had the right to commence this action and to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the collection of the judgment in the state court. 3 PI. Comm. 405; 1 High on Inj. sec. 296; Story’s Eq.

The action is upon a promissory note for $10,000, signed in a firm name by one of the copartners, and by other makers, payable to the Eeedsburg Bank, and by the bank assigned to the plaintiff. Peter Ilagenah, a member of the firm, denies that it ever executed the note or is liable thereon, and appeals from the judgment as against himself.

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. They contended, inter alia, that there was no valid levy. Libby v. Murray, 51 Wis. 311; Bryant v. Osgoocl, 52 N. H. 185. The tax-warrant could not legally be renewed or extended by the separate action of the supervisors. 1 Dillon on Mun. Corp. (2d ed.), secs. 196-8, 319; Lay v. Jersey Oity, 19 N. J. Eq. 112; Butler v. Charlestown, 1 Gray, 12; Baldwin v. Canfield, 26 Minn. 43.

Tbe case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Oassoday: In tbe summer of 1882 tbe defendant agreed to buy of tbe plaintiff a self-binding reaping machine, on condition that tbe plaintiff would take in part payment tberefor a certain old machine at $50, and upon the further condition that tbe defendant need not keep such machine unless it worked to bis satisfaction, and that if it did not so work then the plaintiff was to take it back and pay the defendant for such old machine in…

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Tayloe as apart of the opinion: This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court requiring the defendant to make his special answer more definite and certain. The complaint sets out a cause of action against the defendant to recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff, which it is alleged was received by the negligence of the railroad company.

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Juneau Countju This action was commenced in 1882 to recover damages for the wrongful conversion in 1868 and 1869 of pine logs belonging to the plaintiff. The facts are stated in the opinion. They contended, inter alia, that the defendant could not, by taking forcible possession of the logs innocently cut upon his land by the plaintiff, deprive the latter of the enhanced value created by his labor.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Oassoday: The plaintiff in his complaint alleged, in effect, that the defendant was justly indebted to him in the sum of $3,315 for 250,000 feet of saw-logs theretofore sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff, and at his special instance and request. The answer was a general denial. At the close of the trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $600 damages.

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Outagamie County. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: This action was commenced October 8,1885, and is based wholly upon a breach of the covenant of seizin and right to convey. November 11,1885, the defendants gave notice of an offer to allow judgment for $210, with interest from September 12, 1883, which was rejected. • The jury was waived, and the cause tried by the court May 7,1886.

The case is stated in the opinion. The defendant Hamilton appeals from a judgment declaring the conveyance by the defendant corporation to her to be void. contended, inter alia, that except when brought by a receiver, an action of this kind can be maintained only after the legal remedies have been exhausted. Smith v. Weelcs, 60 Wis. 94. The former proceedings by bill in equity have been superseded by proceedings supplementary to execution (secs. 3030, 3031, R. S.).

For a history of the litigation between these parties prior to the commencement of this action, see Sutton v. Chapmcm, -64 Wis. 312. This action was brought in pursuance of the decision there made, to recover the amount paid on the judgment against Chapman in justice’s court. . The facts are stated in the opinion. The defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. contended that the plaintiff had failed to show that he was the real party in interest, as he was bound to do. Getzlaff v. Seliger, 43 Wis. 302. There being no express trust, he could not sue as trustee. Kimball v. Spicer, 12 Wis. 668; Bobbins v. Dev-erill, 20 id. 142; Carpenter v. Taimo, 36 id. 297; Tate v. 0. & M. B. Co. 10 Ind. 174; Oonyngham v. Smith, 16 Iowa, 471.

Action to recover tbe purchase price of a quantfiy of pine cord-wood alleged to have been sold and delivered to the defendant. The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. The plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing the complaint.

The cause was before this court on a former appeal, and is reported in 63 Wis. 652. The plaintiff’s leg was broken by her fall, and tho evidence tended to show that as the result of her injury she was confined to her bed for three weeks, and was obliged to go upon crutches for three months; that she suffered a great deal of pain during that time, and still suffers during a change of the weather; and that the injury will to some extent be permanent.

<p> Appeal: Evidence to sustain verdict. </p> <p>Where a judgment rendered in justice’s court upon the verdict of a jury is affirmed by the circuit court without a trial de novo, this court will not reverse the judgment if the evidence tended to support it and the credibility of witnesses was in question.</p>