Volume 70 — Wisconsin Reports

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: This action is upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, June 10, 1885, wherein and whereby the defendant, in effect, agreed to make good all such immediate loss or damage as might be sustained by the plaintiff by fire and lightning to the building and property therein specified, not exceeding the sum insured, from June 10,1885, to June 10, 1890, and containing this clause: “…

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The plaintiffs had a verdict in the circuit court, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant appeals. To the point that evidence of other accidents was inadmissible, they cited, besides authorities referred to in the opinion, Blair v. Pelham, 118 Mass. 420; Whitney v. Gross, 140 id. 232; Ogle v. BrooJcs, 87 Ind. 600; Gibbons v. Wis. Valley P. Go. 58 Wis. 335.

Croix County. This is an action brought to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been received March 27,1880, by the plaintiff to his person and property, by reason of a defective highway in the defendant town, upon which he was traveling. There was a special verdict by which the plaintiff’s damages were assessed at $1,021.65. A motion for a new trial was denied, and judgment for the plaintiff for the above amount and costs was rendered by the court.

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Dane County. The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: January 2G, 1886, Francis F. Ford died, leaving a will bearing date January 25, 1884, which was admitted to probate in the conntjr court of Dane county, Wisconsin, May 1 Y, 1S86, and which will and schedules annexed are to the following effect: “Know all men by these presents, that I, Francis F. Ford, of the city of Madison, county of Dane, and state of…

This action was brought under sec. 2256, R. S., to recover the damages therein prescribed for the refusal of the defendants to discharge a certain mortgage on real estate, executed by the plaintiff to one Amidon, and by the latter duly assigned to the defendants, which mortgage it is alleged was theretofore paid.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for La, Crosse County.</p> <p>The case is sufficiently stated, in the opinion.</p>

Action to recover damages for the loss of saw-logs, etc., through the negligence of the defendant boom company. The plaintiff had a verdict for $725.52, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant appealed.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Oassoday: This is an action for damages for the publication of the following alleged libel: “MassübRb’s !Caed’ Analyzed. “I noticed in the Republican and Leader of November 26th a ‘card’ (?) from W. P. Massuere, referring to the recognition for the heroic services of John Kline in the late fire, in which he ungentlemanly and maliciously reflects upon the honor and manhood of myself. “In self-protection I desire…

This is an action in the nature of trover, brought by the plaintiffs, who were copartners, to recover the value of a machine known and described as a “ Pomeroy First Reduction Roller Mill,” which it is alleged the defendant unlawfully converted to its own use. The answer admits that the plaintiffs were copartners and that the defendant is a corporation as stated in the complaint, and denies all the other allegations in the complaint.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Taylor as a part of the opinion: This action was brought to recover the possession of a steam-engine, two boilers, and other articles of machinery. The action was tried by the court without a jury. The court found in favor of the defendants, and judgment was entered in their favor, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court.

The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. Upon the filing of the defendant’s answer the circuit court rendered judgment awarding the peremptory writ of mandamus. The defendant appealed.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Marathon County.</p> <p>The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p>

Ejectment for certain land situated in the county of Wau-paca. A patent therefor wras issued July 18, 1855, by the state of Wisconsin to Austin C. Burchard, who died intestate, September 10, 1863, seized of the land in controversy. He left surviving him a widow and two children. The latter are the plaintiffs. Nellie was born December 27, 1858, and Horace on November 19, 1861. ITe left no other heirs.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Price County.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. To the point that the instruction asked as to when a private person is justified in making an arrest without warrant was correct, they cited Samuel v. Payne, 1 Doug. 359; BecJcwith v. Pkilby, 13 Eng.

AEPEAL from the Circuit Court for Marathon County. Action to recover commissions alleged to be due upon a sale of defendant’s real estate effected by the plaintiff. At a term of the court at which the cause had been noticed for trial the defendant applied for a change of venue, on account of the alleged prejudice of the judge, but the same was denied. The case being reached for trial was submitted to the jury upon the plaintiff’s evidence alone.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Monroe County.</p> <p>The appeal is from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p>

The defendants appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. They contended, inter alia, that the property passes at once on a sale, if such is the intent, though the seller is afterwards to make a delivery of the goods. Benj. on Sales, sec. 329; Bingham v. Eggleston, 27 Mich. 324; Boynton v. Veazie, 24 Me. 286.

Action to recover damages for the killing of an ox, which it is alleged strayed upon the defendant’s railroad track at a point where the defendant was bound to fence the same but had neglected to do so. The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. The plaintiff had a verdict for $75, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant appealed.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Tayloe as a part of the opinion: This action was brought to recover damages for the neglect of the defendant in not properly watching and caring for the plaintiff, while he -was in his charge, being then sick, and temporarily deranged from the effect of such sickness.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The defendants appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. They argued, among other things, that there was no contract authorizing a forfeiture for condition broken; the written receipt does not contain one, and the parol evidence is improper and does not show such a contract. Conditions to defeat an estate or work a forfeiture are strictly construed.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: This action was commenced August 18, 1884, to enforce a lien for certain mill machinery and materials purchased of the plaintiff by the defendant Theodore H. Peters, and used by him in the erection, construction, and repairing of a steam saw-mill upon the lands described.

The following, statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: September 29, 1884, C. 0.

Action upon a policy issued by the defendant The Standard Fire Office, insuring the plaintiff against loss or damage by fire to the amount of $1,650, from July 1, 1883, to July 1, 1886. Two hundred dollars of the insurance was upon a frame building, and the balance upon personal property. The risk was re-insured by the defendant The Phenix Insurance Company. An order overruling a demurrer to the complaint was affirmed by this court on a former appeal.

This action was brought to recover damages for injuries to the plaintiff’s horses, sleigh, and harness, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the employees of the defendant company in running one of its trains between the cities of Chippewa Falls and Eau Claire, in'February, 18S3. At a highway crossing the train ran against and upon the property in question, and inflicted the injury complained of. The case is further stated in the opinion.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: This cause was commenced in 1883. This is the fourth appearance of this case in this court. The nature of the three several causes of action alleged in the complaint will be found in 58 Wis. G25.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries to the person and property of the plaintiff, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the employees of the defendant company in operating one of its trains on the Wisconsin Talley division of the company in the city of Wausau. The railroad of the defendant company passes through that city from north to south on the east side of and near the Wisconsin river.

Garnishment. The facts are stated in the opinion. The plaintiffs appealed from a judgment in favor of the garnishee. to the point that the transfer of all of the defendant’s stock to the garnishee amounted to a voluntary assignment for the benefit of creditors, cited Winner v. Hoyp, 66 Whs. 227; Martin v. Daysman, 14 Fed. Eep. 166; Dahlmon v. Jacobs, 15 id. 863; 8.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Oassoday: The defendant erected and maintains a mill-dam upon and across the west branch of the Fond du Lac river, thereby creating a water-power to run his flouring-mill. The plaintiff owns a farm upon the river a few miles above. July 3, 1882, this action was commenced under the mill-dam law for damages to the farm caused from flowage by reason of the dam.

The plaintiffs brought an action against Anthony Roth-gery, and caused M. J. Meisen to be summoned as garnishee. They obtained a judgment against the principal defendant. The garnishee answered, denying that he was indebted to the defendant or had any property in his possession or under his control belonging to said defendant, but alleging that he held property under an assignment made to him for the benefit of the creditors of said defendant.

The cause was before this court on a former appeal, and is reported in 68 Wis. 303. This appeal is from an order directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff counsel fees and suit money during the pendency of the proceeding for a modification of the original judgment as to alimony.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tatloe: This proceeding was commenced in the county court of Columbia county, by a petition filed in that court by Sarah J. Johnson.

The facts are stated in the opinion. The circuit court dismissed the appeal from the county court on the ground that no undertaking had been given as required by sec. 4032, E. S., holding, in effect, that where a guardian prosecutes an appeal for the benefit of the ward he can do so without giving an undertaking, but if ho takes the appeal for his own individual interest and benefit, or for the protection of the sureties on his bond as guardian, an undertaking must be given.…

An instrument in writing executed in the name of Ann Lee Spaulding ivas presented to the county court of Sauk county as the last will and testament of Ann Ward, deceased, together with the petition of Edward Lee, a son and heir at law of the deceased, praying that the same be admitted to probate.

The case is stated in the opinion. The petitioners appealed from the order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the petition. They argued, among other things, that the drainage laws being founded upon the general police powers of the state, the duties imposed thereby upon county or town officers are public rather than corporate duties, and such laws are not a part of the system- of town or county government.

The following statement of the ease was prepared by Mr. Justice Tayloh as a part of the opinion: This is a garnishee action commenced by the plaintiff, Batten, against B. T. Biehards. The garnishment is upon a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against Richard S. Smith and George J. Smith, and the garnishee summons was issued after judgment in favor of Batten against said Smiths, and execution issued upon said judgment against the said Smiths. The Smiths were merchants.

This is an action to recover damages for the alleged conversion by the defendants, William, Bradley and Thomas MeBurnie, of certain sheep, cattle, and grain claimed by the plaintiff, Maria Stennett, as • her property. The complaint is in the usual form of complaints in actions of trover.

Garnishment. The garnishee, an attorney at law, had in his hands for collection several claims against the defendants, amounting to $546.53. Held: a note for $546.53, payable on or before six months after date, and a chattel mortgage of a large portion of their stock in trade. This action was commenced June 22, 1886, by a creditor whose claim was not secured by the mortgage. At that time the defendants were still in possession of the mortgaged property.

Action to restrain the defendants from using any water, parcel of a certain water-power on the Fox river, in hostility to tbe title of the plaintiff, without leasing or purchasing the same from the plaintiff. The principal facts are stated in the opinion and will not be repeated here.

. This appeal is in the same action as that above reported,., and was taken by the plaintiff from so much of the judgment as refused to allow it costs. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Ejectment. The principal facts are stated in the opinion. The bridge which was in use at the time this action was commenced was constructed in 1884 and 1885. Previous to its construction the canal had 'been crossed, since 1854, upon bridges built about 180 feet east of the present bridge, and abutting upon lots 1 and 2 in block 13.

Ejectment. The action was brought by Robert Campbell against Olla M. Campbell, the widow of his brothér Thomas R. Campbell, to recover eighty acres of land in Outagamie county. The land had been purchased in 1871 by Thomas R. Campbell and Paul Campbell, another brother of the plaintiff.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: It appears from the record that December 26, 1885, John Steve,… Held: in effect, that the defendant’s interest in the notes and mortgage was not exempt, and ordered the plaintiff’s debt to be satisfied from the same, and for that purpose a receiver was appointed, etc. Upon affidavits and the record, the circuit court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why such order of the commissioner should not. be…

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The plaintiff appealed from a judgment in fsfvor of the defendant. The answer in abatement must show that the person is still living. Durgess v. Abbott, lHill, 477; Indiana v. Woram, 6 id. 33; Stephen on Pleading (Heard’s ed.), 47. It must show knowledge.in the plaintiff. Ffeio York Dry Doelc Go. v. Treadwell, 19 Wend. 525. It must give the names of all primarily liable, alleging that there are no others.

This case, and the facts tvhich the testimony introduced on the trial tended to prove, are sufficiently stated in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff, as follows: “This is an action of trover, brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, to recover the value of certain property seized by the defendants under certain chattel mortgages.

The following statement of the case was prepared, by Mr. Justice Tayloe : This action was commerced in justice’s court, in December, 1883. On the return day of the summons, the parties appeared, and the case was adjourned without any issue having been joined in the case.

APPEALS from, the Circuit Court for Fond du Lao County. Action by Anna J. Kelly to recover damages for personal injuries received by her, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the employees of the defendant company. In August, 1882, the plaintiff went upon a train of the defendant company at Fond du Lac, as a passenger, intending to leave the train at Yan Dyne station, north of that city on defendant’s railway.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, Mary J. Smalley, on the evening of October 16, 1884, by reason of her stepping into a hole described in a sidewalk in the city of Appleton.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: This is an action of ejectment [commenced August 25, 1884] to recover 220 acres of land described. The complaint is in the statutory form. At first the answer was merely a general denial. Upon the trial of that issue, there was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the ejectment of the defendants and six cents damages and costs. That judgment was affirmed by this court. 64 Wis. 671.

The case is stated in the opinion. The plaintiff appealed from a judgment in favor of the defendants. To the point that the plaintiff’s exceptions are general and cannot therefore be reviewed on appeal, they cited Newell v. Doty, 33 N. Y. 83; Smith v. Ooollaugh, 21 Wis. 427; Paggeot v. Sexton, 23 id. 195; Thomas v. Mitchell, 27 id. 414; Klattv. Mallon, 61 id. 542; Gillett v. W. O. Oo. 44 id. 463; Musgat v. Wybro, 33 id. 515.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: December 27, 1881, the plaintiff, Fred J. Hoffman, and the defendant, William T. King, entered into a written contract, wherein and whereby, in effect, Iloffman agreed to sell and deliver to King, at what was known as “Dick Noble’s Mill,” in Jackson county, Wisconsin, 1,000,000 or more feet of merchantable pine lumber, the same to be cut and sawed into lengths and sizq^ or dimensions as directed from…

The facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. The appeal is from an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint. To the point that the statute should be strictly construed, they cited Stone To the point that tender of money due on a mortgage discharges the lien of the mortgage, he cited Garuthers v. Humphrey, 12 Mich. 278; Moynahan v. Moore, 9 id. 9; Kortright v. Cady, 21 N. Y. 343; Moore v. Gortl, 14 Wis. 213-219.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: August 29, 1878, the defendant John Bruhling recovered a judgment against the defendant Patrick Tierney for $115.36, damages and costs; and the same was on that day duly docketed. During the years 1878-1882, three several executions were issued thereon, and each returned wholly unsatisfied.

The case is stated in the opinion. They contended, inter alia, that the circuit court could not affirm a part of the judgment and reverse a part. It could not change a judgment from one in rem to one in personam, without going into the merits of the case, which could not be done on certiorari.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Taylor as a part of the opinion: The respondent commenced an action in justice’s court against the appellant to recover a small sum alleged to be due him for work and labor.

Action to recover damages for injuries by surface water to certain property in the defendant city. Tbe facts will sufficiently appear from tbe opinion.

The ease is stated in the opinion. The defendant appealed from a judgment establishing the title of the relator to the office of city clerk of the city of Chippewa Falls. To the point that the ballots were improperly rejected as evidence in the case, they cited People ex rel. Dailey v. Livingston, 79 N. Y. 279; People ex rel. Daily v. Livingston, 18 Hun, 59; People ex rel. Lake v. Higgins, 3 Mich. 233; People ex rel.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: November 1, 1886, the plaintiff, as owner in fee simple, filed his verified petition with the clerk of the circuit court for Portage county, addressed to the judge of said court, for the condemnation of a strip of land 100 feet wide, described, through what was known as the public square in the village of Plover in said county, and for the appointment of commissioners to appraise the value thereof and…

Action to recover damages for personal injuries. The substance of the complaint is stated in the opinion. The plaintiff appealed from an order sustaining a general demurrer to the complaint. They contended, inter alia, that the relation of fellow-servants did not exist between the plaintiff and those operating the train by which he was injured.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Taylob as a part of the opinion: This is an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.

<p> Counties: Conveyance of land: Evidence of authority of county cleric: Recital in deed. </p> <p>Th® real estate of a county can be conveyed only in pursuance of authority given by the county board, and a- recital'in a deed that the county clerk was authorized to execute it by a resolution passed by the county board on a certain day, is not per se evidence of that fact. The resolution itself should be introduced.</p>

<p>ERROR to the Municipal Court of Dane County.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p> Criminal practice: Limiting number of counsel to address jury: Constitutional law: Discretion. </p> <p>1. In a criminal case the court may in its discretion limit the number of defendants’ counsel to address the jury.</p> <p>3. L., M., and P. were tried together for murder. L. and M. were represented by their attorney, and the court assigned an attorney for P. After both of said attorneys had addressed the jury, another attorney asked leave to address the jury on behalf of L. The attorney making such request had stated at the beginning of the trial that he appeared as advisory counsel, and had not participated actively in the trial. A part of the defense of L, and M. consisted in an effort to prove that P. alone was guilty of the murder. Held, that there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to permit such attorney to address the jury.</p>

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: The plaintiff in error and one Albert Moessinger were indicted in the municipal court for Milwaukee county, June 1, 1886.

EEPOETED from the Municipal Court of Bode County. The case is stated in the opinion. To the point that it is only in case of a conviction that the court is authorized to certify the case up for the decision of questions arising upon the trial, they cited sec. 4721, E. S.; State v. ZZneifle, 12 Wis. 437; State v. Parish, 42 id. 625.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Taylob as a part of the opinion: This is an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction pending the litigation.

MaNdamus. Upon the affidavit of the chairman of '■ the board of supervisors of the town of Baraboo, made on behalf of said town, an alternative writ of mandamus issued out of this court, directed to the Board-of Supervisors of Saule County, commanding said board .to appropriate the sum of $2,500 (that being one half of the cost of the construction of a certain bridge over the Baraboo river in said town of Baraboo), and cause said sum to be levied upon the taxable property of…

Mandamus. The facts in this case are similar to those in the case of State ex rel. The Town of Baraboo v. The Board of Supervisors of Sauh County, ante, p. 485, and need not be stated.

The case is stated in tbo opinion. This appeal is from an order denying a motion to vacate an order dissolving a preliminary injunction. They contended, inter alia, that any act outside the pojvers granted by the charter is beyond the authority of a municipal corporation and therefore null and void. Dillon on Mun. Corp. sec. 55; Robinson v. Mayor, dé Am. Dec. 625, and note; Smith v. Kewbern, 16 Am. Eep. 766.

APPEALS from the Circuit- Court for Washington Count y. The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: This action was commenced June 3 2, 1886, to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant, George Sehantz, and bis wife, since deceased, given to secure a note executed and delivered by them to one Joseph Schantz on or about June 20, 1864, for $130, with interest annually at seven per cent, per annum, due two years after that date, upon the…

The action was brought by the plaintiff, as the assignee, for the benefit of creditors, of Joseph 'Wolf, Jr., and W. G-. Liebig, to recover the possession of certain personal property of the alleged value of $2,185.82.

The case is stated in the opinion. They contended that the assignee was entitled to the property taken on the writ of attachment. As between the assignee and the defendants the assignment is valid ( Vernon v. Upson, 60 Wis. 418, 422) and transfers all the defendant’s interest in the property to the assignee. The assignee, as well as the plaintiffs and other creditors, have interests which the court was bound to protect.

The case is stated iu the opinion. The plaintiffs in the action are Emma• Backhaus, an infant, and her grandmother, Louisa Backhaus, by whom the said Emma has been supported, and to whom, it is alleged, the defendant Ayas bound to pay, for such support, the sum of $49 annually out of the income of the balance of the trust fund remaining in his hands. The defendant, Henry Backhaus, appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

The case is stated in the opinion. The appeal was taken by the city of Green Bay. To the point that the class designated was sufficiently definite to uphold the bequest, they cited Hoxoard v. Am. Peace Soc. 49 Me. 288; Heuser v. Harris, 42 Ill.- 425; 2 Story’s Eq. Jur. 1139; Prickett v. People, 88 Ill. 115; Gould v. Taylor Orpha/n Asylum, 46 Wis. 106; Perry on Trusts, secs. 698, 699; Attiy Gen. v. Clarke, Ambler, 122; Hesketh v. Murphy, 21 Am.

The following statement of the case was prepared by-Mr. Justice Cassoday: This is an action of ejectment. Roth parties claim title from Jacob Albright, deceased. The plaintiff claims one sixth of two thirds of the forty acres of land described, under the will of the deceased. The defendant Joanna Al-Iright claims the whole of said forty acres of land, as constituting the homestead of the deceased, as his widow, and also as grantee prior to the making of the will.

Action upon a judgment, alleged to have been recovered b}'' the plaintiffs against the defendant in Delta county, Michigan. The answer, besides defensive matters, contains two counterclaims, the substance of the second of which is stated in the opinion. The plaintiffs demurred to the second counterclaim on the ground, among others, that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, and the defendant appealed.

This action was commenced in January, 18S7, to foreclose a certain mortgage on real estate, executed August 11,1873, by the defendants Garter ¿o the administrator of the estate of Robert Blakely, deceased, and his successors, to secure the payment of a note of even date for $800, and ten per cent, interest, made by said defendants Edwin B. and Acldey Garter to David Williams, administrator of the estate of Robert Blakely, deceased, or bis successor, payable in three years…

The following statement, of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Taylor as a part of the opinion: This is a proceeding by manclamios to… Held: the electors of said town did by proper vote pass and adopt the following resolutions, namely: [As no question is raised upon the sufficiency of these resolutions, it will only be necessary to state briefly their substance.] The ^solutions are preceded by a preamble setting forth that the temporary bridge across the Fox river in the…

Action to recover damages for the injury to the plaintiff’s lot caused by the alleged unlawful grading of the street in front thereof. An order overruling a demurrer to the complaint was affirmed on a former appeal. 68 Wis. 241. On the trial the only question submitted to the jury was as to the amount of the plaintiff’s damages, which the jury found to be $800.

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment entered on a verdict for the defendants.

This action was brought under ch. 143, R. S., to enforce a lien upon certain premises of the defendant therein described, for an amount alleged to be due the plaintiff for labor performed and materials furnished by him in and about the erection of a building for the defendant on such premises.

Action to recover the value of goods alleged to have been sold and delivered to the defendants, Croissant and Grange, as copartners. The defendant Grange answered separately, denying the partnership. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for $621.14, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant Grange appealed. Other facts are stated in the opinion.

The action was brought by Carrie Melin upon a policy of insurance against injury or death by accident, issued by the defendant company to her son, John M. Melin. The policy was dated October 13, 1885, and recited that in consideration of an order on the M. & N. R’y Co. for $30, payable in instalments, the company insured the said John M. Melin in the principal sum of $300 for the term of twelve months ending October 13,1886.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: The complaint alleges, in effect, that in January, 1886, the defendant, a corporation of Wisconsin, at Milwaukee, employed the plaintiff, Geo. W. Stone, Jr., as traveling salesman for the term of one year, for $1,200 and expenses, payable monthly, from which he was discharged without cause September 16,188’6, and for which he claims damages.

Application to compel the transfer of stock upon the books of a corporation. The facts are stated in the opinion.

This action was brought to recover damages suffered by the plaintiff by reason of an alleged nuisance maintained by the defendant company, an'd for the abatement of such nuisance.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Tayloe as a part of the opinion: The defendants in error brought an action of ejectment to recover the possession of a small tract of land in the city of Menasha, and lying on the southerly side of the north channel of the Pox river.

This action was brought in the circuit court for Dodge countjr for the purpose of compelling the defendants to interplead and litigate between themselves which of them are entitled to receive the amount of a judgment for $1,000 recovered against the plaintiff by the defendants Sloan and Corry, in the circuit court for Winnebago county in this state, on a policy of insurance issued by the plaintiff to ■Sloan.

Action to recover the balance due on a contract for lumber sold and delivered. The facts are stated in the opinion. The defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

<p>Ceetiobaki to the Commissioners of the Public Lands.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice OassodaY: It appears from the record that September 20, 1886, this action was commenced before E. A. Hull, justice of the peace, to reSover a forfeiture incurred by Augxbst Oust in violating sec. 1418, R. S., by maintaining a slaughter-house within one eighth of a mile of a dwelling-house; that on the return day, September 27, 1886, the venue was changed to the nearest justice, E. L. Powell, whereupon, on demand…

The plaintiff corporation controls and uses a portion of a water-power at Kaukauna, in this state, created by a dam across the Fox river at that place, which was erected for the purpose of improving the navigation of that river, and claims to own all the surplus water-power created by such dam. The water is drawn by the plaintiff from the pond above the dam, into a canal on the north side of the river, and is there used by lessees of the plaintiff to propel machinery.

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Outagamie County. The following statement, of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice TayloR as a part of the opinion: . This action was brought by the respondents for the purpose of settling their rights in and to a certain water-power on the Fox river, and to restrain some of the appellants from diverting the water of said river from their said power.

The case is stated in the opinion. The plaintiff had a verdict for $349.26, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant appealed.

CeRtioRARI. The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: May 5, 1887, the relator was committed to the insane asylum, under ch. 194, Laws of 1887, and by virtue of the following commitment, t.o wit: The State of Wisconsin,, to the Superintendent of the Milwaukee Insane Asylum, greeting: Whereas, heretofore Charles H. Larkin, by his complaint in tvriting addressed to Hon. James A. MalloRy, judge of the municipal court of the city and county of…