www.PixelPatriot.blogspot.

com

THE

Qhicago

yournal

Jegal

of

Legal

^ews.

Intelligence.

CONTAINING
CASES

DECIDED

IN

THE VARIOUS

UNITED

STATES

COURTS;

THE

SUPREME COURT OF

ILLINOIS, AND OTHER STATES; HEAD NOTES TO IMPORTANT CASES IN ADVANCE

OF THEIR PUBLICATION

IN THE

REPORTS OF THE STATE COURTS;

RECENT ENGLISH CASES; ALL THE LAWS OF THE UNITED

STATES OF A GENERAL NATURE PASSED IN 1872;
LEGAL INFORMATION and GENERAL NEWS.

Myra

VOLUME

BRadwell,

IV. OCTOBER,

1871,

Editor.

TO

SEPTEMBER,

1872,
CHICAGO

LEGAL

NEWS

COMPANY,

161 & 163 LaSallb Street.

1872

TABLE

OF

STYLE OF CAUSE.
JUDGE.
NATUKE OF CAUSE.
PAGE.
196
Acers v George
Per Curiam-Partition Fences
Adams Ex. Co. v. Stettauers.Lawrence.... Liability of Common Carrier
234
Babcock v. McCamant
Walker
Alteration of Record
67
Bartemeyer, Sr., v. State of
Iowa
Miller
"Writ of Error
201
Bell v. Prewitt
Thornton Chattel Mortgage
374
Broughton v. Smart
Breese
Breach of Promise of Marriage...
341
Beygeh et al v. City of Chicago
McAllister. . .Special Assessments
121
233
Beyon et al v. United States.Strong
ReceiverStolen Money
Bethell v. Mathews
Chase
Bill of Exceptions
253
359
Bingham v. Jackson
Rogers
Doctor's Bill Minor Child
Boggs v. Willard et al
Blodgett
Removal of Case
325
228
Bohring v. Root
Newcomb....Release of Surety
Black v. Curran
Davis
Homestead Right
'
257
Bliss et al v. Heasty et al Walker
Attachment
271
Brown v. Brown
Lawrence.. ..Contradicting Return
174
Bragg v. Lorio et al
Woods
Confiscation
183
Britten v. Butler
Blatchford ...Confiscation Act
169
Bryant v. Hawkins
Wagner
Attorney's Liability as Partners67
Buckles v. Harlan
Breese
Plea, Another Action Pending...
10
Burnham v. Muller
Thornton Chattel Mortgage
139
Burton v. Green...'
Breese
Chancery Jurisdiction
175
Bush v.Shaw
Lawrence.. ..Irregularity in Sale
423
Carroll Adm'r, etc. v. United
States
Chase
Confiscation
184
389
Caulkins v. Cheney
.Williams Ecclesiastical Law
Carter v. City of Chicago McAllister...Widening Street
Chidester v. Springfield &
111. S. E. R. R. Co
Lawrence.. ..Description
City of Chicago v. O'Hara... Lawrence....Mandamus
218
City of Chicago v. People ex
rel H. Norton
McAllister...Special Assessment
67
250
Clinton v. Englebrecht
Chase
Utah Case
County of Bath et al v. AmyStrong
Mandamus
209
County of Madison v. Peo
ple ex rel The T. W. & W.
R. R. Co
Walker- ..Subscription to R. R. Stock..
34
Colter Ex parte
Downey .Murder
464
Creighton v. Board of Sup. of
San Francisco
Crocket.. ..Mandamus
67
Creote et al v. City of Chi
cago
McAllister. . .Special Assessment
106
Daniels v. Wilbur
Sheldon
Presenting Account
464
Dannavan et al v. Green Walker
Taxation in aid of R. R. Co
182
Denison, Adm'r, etc. v.
Denison
Alvey
Marriage
169
Dewey et al v. Echert
Sheldon
Bill to Enforce a Claim
211
Doupe v. Genin
Rapallo
Landlord Repairs
82
Donavan v. Den...|
Withey
Injunction
210
Driu v. Beal
Sheldon
Damages Ex. of Property
161
Fahey v. Pres. and Trustees
v 139
of Harvard
Per Curiam..Damages Excavation
Fargo etjal v. McGregor, as
signee, etc
Chase
Writ of Error
263
Fisher et al v. Miester
Release of Homestead
343
Fitzgerald et al v. Hettin
ger et al
Breese
NoticeRecitalsDecree
271
Force v. Town of Batavia....Breese
Aid of Railroad
400
Ford v. McVay
McAllister...Apprentices
285
Gardner v. Witboard
Sheldon
Jurisdiction of City Courts
124
Gibson v. Chouteau et al Field
Public Domain Patent..
373
Glazir v. Streamer
McAllister...Practice
406
Grace v. Newbree
Taxation of Attorney's Fee
30
Greely et al v. People ex rel
Rexford
Lawrence. . . . Assessments
422
Hawes v. Rhoades
Worden
Foreclosure of Mortgage
99
Hardin v. Crate
Thornton. ...Tax Deed
357
Haywood v. Collins
Thornton. ...Service of Publication
462
Hickey v. Stone et al
Breese
Judgment Enjoined
212
Holms v. Fihenburg
Lawrence.. ..Jurisdiction of City Courts
124
Horter et al v. Harlan
Briggs
For Fraud
374
Hoffman et al v. Zollinger..Worden
Set Off.
460
Hurley v. Frank
Chase
Error and Appeal
289
Jackson et al v. Spink
Thornton Sheriff's Sale
309
Jerome v. Bigelow
Williams Not to Follow Profession
194
Johnson v. Salisbery
Lawrence Rescission of Contract
103
Karr v. Parks
Niles
Disfiguration
422
King et al v. Smith
McKennan..Manufactured Article
281
Kingsbury et al v. Burnside
et al
McAllister....Delivery of DeedConstruction
of a Trust
25
Klinger v. State of Mo
Bradley
State Judgment
289
Labouchere v. Dawson
Romilly
Good Will
162
Leibbrandt impl'd v. Myron
Lodge, etc
McAllister...To Set Aside Judgment
52
Logansport Gas Light and
Coke Co. v. Knowles
Nelson
Proof of Articles of Association
75
Longinotto v. Marss
Bacon
Specific Performance
440
May et al. v. Chaffee et al... Nelson
Patent Case
9
Musgrave v. Musgrave
Walker
Married Women, Liable for Costs
101
Marsh v. Sayles et al
Drummond..Patent
461
Mathews et al v. Cowan et al.Sheldon
Fraud on Sale
233
McKenna et al v. Meny
Thornton. ...Necessaries
218
McClellan, assignee, &c, v.
Fosbender
Blodgett Setting aside Judgment
406

CASES.

PAGE.
STYLE OF CAUSE.
JUDGE.
NATURE OF CAUSE.
McWilliams v. Morgan
Sheldon
Dedication
138
241
Mowry v. Whitney
Miller
Annulling Patent
61
Moody v. Nelson
Per Curian...Arbitration
290
Moeller et al v. McLagan Walker
Failure to Keep Margin Up
440
Mulkern v. Ward
Libel
Myers et al v. Manny et al..Walker
Foreclosure of Mortgage
342
Nelson et al v. City of Madi
son
Hopkins DedicationPrescription
297
O'Connor et al v. Wilson et
al
Walker
Amending Sheriff's Return
217
Ohara et al v. Carpenter Cooley
To Indemnify from a Draft
35
81
Oliver v. Bass
Miller
Venue in Personal Actions
Omaha N. B. v. IstN. B St.
Paul
Lawrence.. ..Letter of Credit
483
Parker v. Garrison et al
Sheldon
Specific PerformanceChattels....
People ex rel 10 sailors v.
Sedgeley, Master, etc
Moulton
Rights of Seamen
202
People ex rel Waite v. Stebbins et al
Jameson Woman Suffrage
97
People ex rel Scott v. Board
437
of Supervisors DuPage Co.Williams County Seat
People ex rel Stickney v.
453
Palmer, Gov., etc
McAllister...P. Magistrates in Chicago
People T. of Jefferson v.
Boettcher
,
Breese
TownTrespass
423
People of U. S. in Utah v.
10
Young, Sr
McKean
Mormon Case
People ex rel Hickey v.
33
Bradley
McAllister. ..Habeas Corpus
P. Mill Lumber Co. v. City
115
of Chicago
McAllister ...Placita Indispensable
66
Power et alv. Pitstick
Scott
HighwaysAppeals
President and D.B.W. Tenn,
v. C. B. Louisiana
Swayne
Confederate Notes
253'
Primm et al v. The City of
227
Belleville R. R. et al
Thornton Special Tax
Pierce et al v. P. of S. P.
449
Cemetery et al
Potter
Dead Bodies
124
Reed v.ITyler
Sheldon
CloudTax Deed,
5
Reese, Jr., v. Herr ex. etc. ..Sheldon
Husband and Wife as Witnesses..41
Richmond v.Richmond et al.Blodgett Absolute Deed a Mortgage
101
Rue v. City of Chicago
McAllister...Special Assessments
169
Rogers v. Retter et al
Davis
Com. of Handwriting
Sanderson impleaded v. City
49
of LaSalle
Breese
Taxation
237
Sawyer et al v. Weage
Williams To Furnish Abstract
V.i>.)
Schultz v. Hay
Per Curiam..Mechanic's Lien
374
Schall et al v. Bowmar et al.Breese
Constitution of 1870
180
Schoff et al v. Hobart et aL.Williams Rights of Shareholders
Shepardson v. Green
Dixon
Formed Judgment
73
58
Smith v. Archer, adm'r
Edwards Trover for Cattle
101
Smith v. City of Chicago Per Curiam..Special Assessments
Spencer v. Board of Regis
51
tration
Carrter
Woman Suffrage
State of Wisconsin v. City
of Duluth
Miller
Suit by State
405
Stevens et al v. Hoy, adm'r,
etc
.".
Walker
Contract of Indemnity
202
Supervisors of Stevens Co.
v. Manny
Thornton Taxes Paid under Protest
17
Supervisors of Warren Co. v.
Patterson
Breese
Powers of Board to Erect Build2
ings.
193
Teyler et al v. Shipman
Cole
Sale of Liquor
Thompson v. Someberger... Breese
Forcible Entry and Detainer
147
Thompson,Amanda B., in re.Rogers
De Facto Officer
90
Thomas et al v. City of
Richmond
Bradley
Notes of City of Richmond Void137
Town of Lakeview v. Rose
Hill Cemetery Co
Williams Police Power
36]
Turner v. Newman
Blodgett
To Restore Records
United States v. Wells
Nelson
Crimes under U. S. Laws
113
United States v. Dollar Sav
ings Bank
McKennan..Taxations on Earnings
341
United States v. Clayton Dillon
Enforcement Act
50
139
United States v. Ritchie
Giles
U. S.Tax on Salaries
United States v. Muir
Jameson Naturalization
170
249
United States v. Tarble
Field.....
Federal Authority
105
United States v. Joe
Green
Criminal Information
United States v. Becket et al.Blodgett
Tax on Distilleries
452
Ulrich v. Ulrich
Kingman Divorce Writ of Error
18
Ward v. State of Maryland-Clifford, J....Power of U. S. and State to Tax129
Webb v. Sharp
Bradley
Landlord's Lien
145
White et al v. Hermann
Lawrence.. ..Duplicate as Evidence
464
Webster v. City of Chicago..Per Curiam-Sale of Land for Tax Suspended116
Winchell et al v. Edwards
258
et al
McAllister.. .Foreclosure by sc. fa
Wicker v. Hotchkiss
Thornton.. ..Malicious Prosecution
358
Willard v. Boggs....
Sheldon
Absence of Mortgagor in Rebel
lion
17
Williams v. Wight et al
Booth
Power of B. of Trade
106
Yeager et al v. Farwell et al.Davis
Liability of Indorser
145
Zuckermann v. Sonnenschein
Thornton ...Slander
138
59
Zschacke v. The People
McAllister...Conversation

905 93

IV

TABLE

OF

CASES -Continued.

INSURANCE CASES.
ADMIRALTY.
PAGESTYLE OP CAUSE.
JUDGE.
NATURE OF CAUSE.
PAGE.
STYLE OF CAUSE.
JUDGE.
NATURE OF CAUSE.
89 Com. Ins. Co., Chicago, v. T.
Cass, The Gen., In re
Longyear .. .Towage
B., Chicago
Thornton ...Declaring on Policy
268
The Home Ins. Co. v. The
487 Hayes v. Ottawa O. & F. R.
S. Green River
Miller
Stranded Vessel.
Sheldon
Condemning Right of Way

V. R. R. Co
122
The Lake Shore & M. S. R.
153 Hall et al. v. The N. & C. R.
R. Co. v. Cochran
Sherman .. Injury to Bridge.
R. Co
Strong
Subrogation
168
241
The Marquette
Longyear.... Salvage
Home Mutual Ins. Co. of N.
Munch et al. v. The Sucker
O. v. Stockdale
Durell
Tax on Dividends
326
201
. Damages Collision . .
State
Nelson
163 Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v.
The Ottawa
Longyear .. .Injury to Wharf
Robeston
Thornton Representations Forfeiture
43
The Storage Co. v. The B.
218 Semmes, adm., etc., v. C. F.
Thomas
McKennan .Wharfage
Ins. Co. of Hartford
Suit within one yearRebellion..
114
United States v. Steamer
461 The Phoenix Ins. Co. v.
.Imperfect Register..
Lac La Belle
Miller
Slaughter et al
Davis
Gunpowder clause
73
BANKRUPTCY.
PROBATE CASES.
359
Atkinson in Re
McCand less .Creditor Contempt
187 Bursen et al. v. Goodspeed,
Carter, William, in Re
Greaham Fraudulent Preference
adm'r
Sheldon
Administrator's Sale
City Bank of S. L. & D., San
224
81 Carthew v. Enraght
Discretionary Trust
Francisco In Re
Hoffman ...Offset
440
1 Freeman v Freeman
Sheldon
Heir as a Witness
Cook & Gleason in Re
Hopkins ...Transfer by Partner
140
209 Graham, Elizabeth,in.Re,etc.Penzance ...Married Woman's Will
Ecpart et al. v. Greely
Kreekel
Insolvency
310
357 Long v Thompson et al
Breese
Distribution without notice..
Ess in Re
Blodgett ...Secret Partner
131
473 McClurken v McClurken...Thornton ...Ex Contract, etc
Goodall, assignee, v. Tuttle Hopkins ...Jurisdiction
477
6 McCray et al v Lipp et al... Downey
Rule in Shelley's Case
Hunt, Charles, in Re
Hoffman ...Levy on Homestead
460
66 Rice, adm'r, etc., v Houston,
Jones in Re
Dillon
Exemption
121
adm'r, etc, et al
Davis
Right to sue in U. S. Court..
Kablys et al in Re
Hopkins ...50-cent clause
161
281 Shepard, adm'r, etc., v.
Lake in Re
Blodgett ...Transfers
309
Rhodes et al
Thornton ...Administration
Leibenstein et al in Re
Delabay
Stay of proceedings
453
421
Lyon in Re
Nelson
Ownership
RAILROAD CASES.
76
Markson, assign., v. HobsonDillon
Bank suspension
73 Chicago & N W R R Co v
Merchants Ins. Co. in Re ...Blodgett ...Act of bankruptcy
289
Sacchi in Re
Woodruff ...Rights of Mortgagee
111 Central R R Co
Williams ... Contract as to running..
474
137 Chicago & NW R R Co v
Sands Ale Brewing Co. inifeBlodgett ...Insurance Equitable Lien.
299
Shower In Re
Ballard
Discharge
Right
to
sue,
etc
Wheaton, adm'r,
Field
181
Smith et al. v. Teutonia Ins.
Fent etalvTP&WRRCo, Lawrence . . . Proximate and remote cause..
326
130 G W R R Co v Burns et al... Lawrence ... Not transporting, etc
Co
Sherman ...Act of Bankruptcy
130
Smith v. Mason, assignee of
Hannibal & St J R R Co v
66
Sawyer
Clifford
Possession of property
Responsibility as Com. Carrier...
Swift
Field
145 Ill Central R R Co v FrankStrachn iniJe
Hopkins Purchase of claims
Toof et al., Martin, assigned,
As Common Carriers
enberge et al
Breese
146
etc
Field
Preferences Insolvency.
113 Ill Central RR Co v Abell.. .Lawrence ... Jumping from train
176
Traders' N. B. Chicago v.
Mich S&NIRRCov
Campbell, etc
Miller
Fraudulent preference
257
As
Common
Carrier
Heaton
Worden
164
421 Peoria & R I R W Co v
White v. Jones,assignee,etc.Ballard
Preference
Condemnation
of
land.
Warner
Thornton ...
342
HUSBANDS', WIVES' AND WIDOWS' PROPERTY RIGHTS.
The People ex rel The D &
Eminent
Domain
S L R R Co v McRoberts.Thornton ...
Battles et al. v. Jones
Higbee
Rights of Wife
259
227
Bressler et al. v. Kent
Sheldon
Separate Estate
166 Pitts, Cinn & St Louis R R
Duty
of
Company
as
to
cars,
etc.
Bucher v.Ream, assignee,etc.Williams Separate Estate
Co v Thompson
Lawrence ..
90
9
Donoghue v. City of Chicago.Scott
Dower
193 Ryan v C & N W R R Co.. .Walker
Injury to Servant
250
Higgins v. Pelzer
Wagner
Judge. Against Wife
423 Toledo, W & W Railway Co
Martin et al. v. Noble
Scott
Release of Dower
v Smith
Per Curiam .Damages
IS
157
Pride v. Bubb
Hatherley...Power of Disposition
8
161 Union P RR Co v Nichols...Valentine.. .Who a Passenger

INDEX.
Circuit Court in Kansas, 400
Salary of Consul at Tien Tsin, 316
Land district in Florida, 410
Sale of public property, 426
Land District in Kansas, 332
" in W. D. Mo., 380
Claims for additional bounty, 235
Sailors' and Soldiers' homestead, 219
Land district in Minnesota, 320
Shreeveport, a port of entry, 188
Lands in Michigan 426,
Clearance of Ferry-boats. 349
Soldiers discharges and claim agts. 320
Legislative, judicial, and executive ex
Collection district of Du Luth, etc, 332
Commissioners of Claims to appoint S.
Soldiers' and Sailors' homesteads, 400
penses, 410
Texas P. R. R. Co., in relation to, 260
Corns., 304 Linkton land district, Oregon, 259
The Restoration of Gilbert Morton, 219
Construction of a bridge, etc, 332
Mail contracts, 259
Construction of bridge at St. Joseph, Mining resources of U. S. 302
The rights ofp't owners of vessels, 234
Healing, 407.
Time of holding court in 8th circuit, 319
Mo., 260
National cemeteries to protect, 349
Supplemental, 407.
" atHar'b'gVa,234
Title of, 310, 407.
Construction of bridges across the N. Carolina W. Judicial district, 350
" in W. Va, 184
Mississippi, 350
New Land district in Nebraska, 235
Acts of Congress :
Abatement of taxes on certain spirits, Construction and repair of fortifica
" W. D. of Wis, 302
Paintings etc, for exhibition, free of
To admit certain mach'y duty free, 185
tions, 426
333
duty, 188'
Acc'ts of army and navy officers, 367
Convention between U S and Mexico, Pay ofcertain rear admirals, 351
To aid in the construc'n of tel'phs, 351
Act to reduce int. rev. taxes, etc., 188
188
To amend Int. Rev. act, 234
Payment of enlisted men, 315
Additional land district in Minn., 195 Convention between US and Sweden Paymaster general of the army, 351
To amend Nat'l Cur'y act, 185
and Norway, 189
To appoint George Plunket, 219
Port of entry at Pittsburgh, 219
"
"
"
Nev., 195
Adjustment of private land claims, 426 Between U S and Austria, Hungarian Post office deparment, 380
To auth'e a bridge at St. Jos'h, Mo, 188
Administration of justice, 343
Empire, 321
Post office department, appropriations Toauth'e pay't of Duplicate checks,
Appointment of shipping comm'rs, 367 Between U S and German Empire, 428
etc, 185
for, 349
To auth'e sur. from Lake of the Woods
Apportionment of representatives, 184
Republic Equador, 429 Post routes in Iowa, 185
348
to Rocky Mountains, 195
"
"
Kingdom of Denmark, Post Roads in Vermont, 185
Appropriations for civil and diploma
430
Powers etc, department of justice, 188 To bridge the Mississippi, 218
Courts in N D of Georgia, 350
Time of paym't of Pre-emp's in Minn
tic expenses, 410
Presidental electors, election for, 348
Creation of Land districts, 348
Appropriations for consular and diplo
etc., 302
Prevent extermination of fur-bearing
To change boundaries of the district of
Diplomatic and Consular systems, 380
animals in Alaska, 188
matic service, 320
Appropriations for deficiencies, 316
Duty on tea and coffee repealed, 260
Brazos de Santiago, 234
Private contracts with Indians, 319
Indian Dep't, 333
Enlistment of Minors, 316
Protection of national cemeteries, 319 To enforce rights of citi'ns to vote, 261
"
sundry civil expen
Error in act corrected, 351
To establish
123
Proceedings in criminal cases, 380
<i Post<Roads, 304
Executive and judicial expenses, 261
Public lands, donations of, 350
ses, etc., 410
"
" certain Post Roads, 427
Appropriation for invalid and other For more effective system of quaran
Proclamations by President, 478, 479,
To exempt certain Iron in Phil'a, 185
tine, 428
pensions, 185
480
Appropriation for issue, etc., of securi
For holding elections, 332
Rank of professors of mathematics, 348 To extend time to complete Green Bay
For public park near Yellowstone riv
etc., Canal, 185
ties, 332
Redemption of lands, 400
Appropria'n for military academy, 332
er, 185
Relating to steam pressure on the To reduce duties on imports and inter
naval service, 330
nal taxes, etc, 351
Holding court in Toledo, 332
Mississippi, 123
To regulate Criminal Practice, 332
Appropriations for repair, preserva
Increased pay of promoted officers, 351 Relief of Albert W. Gray, 348
To release internal taxes, etc, 195
tion, etc., of public works, 415
Increasing pensions, 400
Alexander Smith, 185
To perpetuate testimony, 302
Appropriate
for support
of army,
366
In relation to pensions, 188
"
John Beaument, 426
n
ii
! 427
To prevent obstructions in administra
In relation to boundaries, 235
"
Certain Naval officers, 333
"
to supply deficiency in In relation to the Monroe land dis
tion of justice, 426
G. W. Morse, 195
trict, 195
"
of officers and men of the To refund duties, 427
P. O. D., 185
To restore the Records of the U. S.
A system of deposits to prevent deser
In relation to the removal of causes,
Kearsarge, 234
Courts in N. D. 111., 195
tion, etc., 316
218
Relief of Sarah S. Trapp, 410
Transp'n of goods, etc., in Texas, 260
Internal Revenue tax on canned Removal of political disabilities, 320
Bankrupt law, 400
Useless Military Reservation, 410
meats, etc, removed, 188
Bunk reserves, etc., 410
Reporting the printed debates, 219
Vacancies in Offices in Terr's, 410
Bonds in lieu of destroyed, etc., 348
Land sold for taxes in insurrectionary Removal of the Kansas Indians, 302
Bridges across the Mississippi, 316
States, 302
Restoration of Lazarus L. Reamey, 333 Account.
Bound by account presented, 464.
Land district in Dakota, 320
Retired officers in the army, 426
"
"
"
426

Abandonment, 19.
Abbott's U. S. Digest, 344.
AB8TRACT.
Contract to furnish. 237.
In Cook county, 408.
Accord and satisfaction, 133.

I N D R X. Continued.
When an account stated may be
opened, 30.
Action to quiet title, 409.
Admiralty.
Authority of master, 202
Collision, 156, 201.
Duty of Master, stranded vessel, 487.
Injury to bridge not a marine tort, 153.
Jurisdiction, 89.
Libel against vessel for injury to
wharf, 153.
Libel will not lie for wharfage, 218.
Lighter, subject to jurisdiction of, 89.
Measure of damages in case of col
lision, 201.
Mortgage lien, 175.
Negligence, exception in bill oflading,
487.
Repairs, loss of service, 201.
Salvage, 241.
Salvors lien not on personal baggage,
84.
Salvor by contract, 241.
Signing shipping articles, 202.
U. S. Supreme court rules in, 252.
Towage, 89.
Void contract, 202.
When seamen may be discharged, 202.
Admissions to the bar, 93, 101.
From other States, 204.
Of women, see Hon. Matt. Carpenter's
argument, 186.
Women in Washington, 186.
Albany Law Journal, 20.
Aldermen indicted, 84, 116, 148.
Alteration ofjudgment record, 67.
Of contract, 149.
American Law Review, 20, 92, 344.
Law Register, 20.
Law Times, 20.
Leading Cases, 68.
Appeal.
Party must be aggrieved, 7.
Apprentices, void indentures, 285.
Appraisers.
All must be present, 44.
Arbitration, 61, 107.
Effect on pending suit, 61.
Arkansas Reports, 26th vol., 236.
Articles of association, proof of, 75.
Assault and Battery.
Damages in, 293.
Attachments, against boats and vessels,
forthcoming bond, 31.
Action for maliciously suing out, 271.
Finding, as to publication, 462.
Judgment in when conclusive, 271.
Liability of sureties on bond, 271.
Suit on bond, 425.
What record must show, 461.
Where judgment does not show publi
cation, 462.
Where no personal service, 461.
Attorney at Law.
And client when relation ceases, 345.
Attorney elected for cities etc., must
be, 489.
Contests, between, and client, 263.
Duty of, when papers in case des
troyed, 406.
Fees, taxation of, 30.
Good faith required of, 345.
Liability of, for neglect of duty, 253.
Liability of, for acts of partner after
dissolution, 57.
Note providing for payment of fees,
203.
B
Baggage.
Liability of carriers for, 53.
Bailment, 123.
Balfour's M. J. of Insanity, 204.
Bane.
Account of Partner, 36.
Banker's Lien, 68.
Bankruptcy.
Act of, 73, 209.
Adjudication relates back, 281.
Appointment of Receiver, effect of, 73.
Assignee may bring suit in other Dis
trict Courts, 473.
Assignee cannot by petition obtain
possession of property from third
party, 65.
Assignee not bound to move against
sheriff, 257.
Assignment of bankrupt terminates
policy, 175.
Bank account of bankrupt, 36.
Complete power in Federal courts to
administer the bankrupt law, 473.
Concurrent jurisdiction, 65, 73, 289.
Congress no power to compel State
courts to take jurisdiction, 473.
Contempt, creditor proceeding in State
court, 359.
Contest between assignee and Sheriff,
257.
Discharge, validity of, where may be
contested, 132. "
Duty of insolvent corporations, 73.
Effect of general assignment, 130.
Entering judgment on cognovit, 156.
Exemption, 66.

Failure to pay commercial paper, 187.

Fifty cent clause construed, 121, 299.
How secret partner becomes liable on
paper, 357.
Illegal, preference, 75, 113, 187, 257,
421.
Insolvent insurance company, 73.
Insolvency, 113, 209.
Insurance equitable lien, 137.
In State court in actions ex delicto, 374.
Jurisdiction of State court, 289, 374.
Jurisdiction of court, 83, 473.
Levy on homestead, 5.
Law suspends State insolvent laws, 73.
Ownership of personal property, 421.
Payment of rent, act of, 73.
Purchasing claim to offset, 81.
Purchase of claims after com. of pro
ceedings, 145.
Power of insolvent partner to sell, 1.
Right of mortgagee, 289.
Secret partner though solvent may be
adjudged a bankrupt, 357.
Suspension of payment by bank, 75.
Transfer of note by payee, 281.
Transfer pending proceedings, 281.
What debts may be offset, 81, 284.
What claims provable, 209.
When proceedings of State court will
not be stayed, 309, 361, 374.
When entitled to discharge, 121, 299.
Who not a trader, 392.
Bates, Hon. Geo. C, 44.
Bench and bar, 93, 344.
Bennett's Fire Insurance Cases, 244.
Bigelow block, 175.
Bigelow's L. & A. Insurance Reports, 174.
Bigelow's Law of Estoppel, 443.
Bills approved by the governor, 175, 196.
Bills signed by governor without amend
ments void, 393.
Bill or Exceptions, 61.
In U. S. courts, 253.
What it should contain, 115, 161, 253.
When necessary, 61.
When evidence should be in narra
tive form, 93.
When on confession of judgment, 253.
When should contain instructions, 161.
Bissell's Reports, 6.
Black, Col. James B., Reporter, 100.
Bliss on Life Insurance, 84.
Board op Trade.
No judicial power, 106.
Bounty money, promise to pay, 377.
Bradwell, James B.
Library burned, 2.
Bradwell Myra.
Letters to in regard to the fire, 11, 14,
22, 29, 45. 53.
In matter of application for admission
to the bar, 108.
Hon. Matt. H. Carpenter's argument
in case of, 108.
Bridges.
Injury to not a marine tort, 153.
Breach of promise of marriage, action
for, 341.
Browne on Divorce, 300.
Building :
Blown down in progress of erection,
377.
Line of, 156.
C.
Carpenter, Hon. Matt. H., Argument of
in Myra Bradwell's case, 108.
Caton's, Judge, Park, 6.
Cattle breaking over partition fence, 196.
Cemeteries :
Legislative power, how far it extends
over, 282.
Our cemeteries not a nuisance, 282.
Police power to regulate, 282.
Certiorari :
To revise proceedings of Town Board,
356.
Champertous Agreement, 83, 91.
Law as to, 263.
Chancery :
Allegations in bill, as to possession and
title, 175.
Before bill to enforce claim should be
reduced to a judgment, 211.
Bill to quiet title, 77.
Bill of review, 53.
Bill, when multifarious, 468.
City enjoined from widening streets to
take in court yards, 298.
Cross-bill, 342, 444.
Decree upon constructive service, 156.
Decree dismissing bill, 329.
Dissolution of injunctiondamages,
176.
Effect of recitals in decree as to service,
271.
Jurisdiction of as to administrator's
sale, 30.
May order surviving partner to sell
real estate at private sale, 164.
Married women decreed to pay costs,
101.
May remove cloud when owner in
possession, 124.

Preservation of evidence in, 164.

Supplemental bill, 176.
To decree specific performance of
agreement relating to chattels, 282.
Waiving answer under oath, 31.
When will enjoin ecclesiastical court,
389.
When complainant must be in posses
sion, 175.
When injunction will not be granted
before final hearing, 389.
Will relieve against a false return, 217.
Chattel Mortgage:
Effect of renewing when execution
out, 139.
Filing in clerk's office, 74.
Fraud in execution of, 374.
Mortgagor's testimony and declara
tions, 374.
Notice and irregularity in sale, 31.
On vessel, 273.
Possession of the property, 31.
Rights of prior and junior mortgages,
31.
Cheney, Rev. Charles E., case of, 272.
Chicago :
Account of fire in, 2.
Bar, meeting of, 6.
Bar, aid to, 28.
Court House, 220.
Daily Law Record, 37, 284.
Directory, 92.
Lawyers, 92.
Military occupation of, 28, 44.
Chicago Law Institute, 6, 29, 45, 85.
Report of Julius Rosenthal, the libranan, 29.
Church, removal of, 77.
Cincinnati Superior Court Reporter, 273.
Cities :
Power to create debts without consent
of, 253.
Election not called by proper officer,
406.
Citizen :
Who is, 97.
Female not entitled to vote or be regis
tered, 97.
Claims of pardoned rebels, 311.
Coins, manufacture of, 85.
Colored, rights of, 21.
Cloud on Title:
Removal of in equity when owner in
possession, 124.
Color of Title, 107, 357.
Adverse possession, 53.
Tax deed as though judgment void,
357.
Colored Citizens:
Rights of, 21.
Excluded from cars, 293.
Collateral Security.
Right to sue on principal debt, 38.
Common Carrier, (See Railroad.)
Cannot relieve himselfby contract, 154.
Duty to the public, 154.
Failure of goods to arrive, presump
tion, 234.
Liability of beyond their line, 311.
Liability of, to assured, 269.
Limit in bill of lading, 245.
Removal of liability, 146.
Special contract by, 154.
Common Counts.
Evidence under, 156.
Recovery on, 273.
Commission Merchant.
Must keep margins up, 290.
Condemnation.
For roads, should be by jury, 211, 342.
Confiscation.
Act construed, 169, 183, 184.
Authority of commander, 169.
Effect of proclamation of amnesty on,
183.
Irregularities in proceedings, 183.
Rights of widow of a deceased rebel,
184.
Seizure of property under, 169.
What constitutes, 167.
Confederate States.
No defense that horse was purchased
for, 125.
Notes, 253, 441, 444.
Constitutional Law.
Common council no judicial power,
106.
Legislative power, 162.
Power to create debt without consent
of city, 253.
Constitution of 1870.
When separate articles, went into
effect, 374, 393, 424, 442, 455.
Conveyances.
Statutory, 312.
Alteration of, 149.
Capable of partial preformance, 262.
Duplicate as evidence, 464.'
Executory for sale of land, 477.
For sale of, liquors in 111., in violation
of Iowa statute, 193.
For sale of liquors, validity of, 375.
In violation of law, void, 211.

v
Not to follow profession within certain
limits, 194.
Not to carry on business within certain
limits, 229, 194, 828.
Of guarantee construed, 463.
Place of, 193.
Rescission of, 277.
Signed by husband and wife, contract
of husband alone, 409.
To indemnify from draft, void, 35.
To indemnify bail, 202.
To furnish abstract of title, 237.
Under seal, assumpsit for failure to
perform will not he, 163.
Whether sale or bailment, 245.
Copinger's Index to Forms, 164.
County.
Attorney employed by, 375.
Buildings, erection of, 2, 283.
Clerk, same as of commissioner's
court, 30.
Commissioners may issue bonds, 283.
Seat, contest, in Du Page, 437.
Subscription in aid of railroads, 182.
Cook County.
Abstracts, 408, 466.
Circuit court, practice in, 29.
Court house, 409.
Judges, salary, 156.
Matters, 76.
Corkhill's Rules of Practice, 77.
Corporation.
Action by stockholder for suing out
an injunction, 210.
By shareholder to restrain payment
of costs in a libel suit, 328.
Cemetery, how may be regulated, 282.
Tax on dividends, 325.
Liability of directors, 392.
Notice of meeting to trustees, 409.
Provision in by-laws as to becoming
bail, 186.
Private, what contracts enforcible
against, 393.
Right of shareholder to vote, 186,
Service of summons on, 84.
When existence must be proved, 329.
Where in two States right to sue in
U. 8. courts, 181.
Courts and Jurors, 14.
Council.
No judicial power, 106.
Covenants.
To build, 6.
Coventry, Alex. C, Obituary of, 175.
Cox, Trade Mark Cases, 124.
Cram, Jacob A., Obituary of, 205.
Criminal Court of Cook Co.
City liable to pay the clerk his fees, 218.
Jurisdiction of, in habeas corpus cases,
33.
Jurisdiction of, 33.
Criminal Law.
Conversion of goods, by a bailee, 59.
Defense of habitation, 53.
Game of Keno.
Information in U. S. Courts, 105.
Indictment for larceny and burglary,
375.
Pardon before conviction, 272.
Same act, an offense by State and
federal law, 113.
Custody of Children.
In Illinois, 252.
Custom, 90.
How proved, 90,
D
Damages.
Excessive, 293.
For bodily disfiguration, 422.
For personal injuries, 139, 422.
How estimated, 161.
Liquidated, 101.
On appeal to Supreme court, 21.
Owner liable over to town, 139.
Measure of, 21, 161.
Pecuniary ability of one defendant,
131.
Proximate case, 326.
Punitary damages, 131.
Remote cause, 326.
Rule as to value of property.
Daniel's Chancery Practice, Notice of,36.
Dead bodies, property in, 449.
Deady's reports, 424.
Decree.
Dismissing bill, 329.
Notice to amend, 329.
Presumption as to service, 271.
Recital of service in, 271.
Recital of due notice, 271.
When final, 342.
Where service defective, 271.
Dedication.
By prescription, 297.
Effect of making plat, 138, 297.
Plat must be by owner, 297.
To public use, 7, 138, 297.
What constitutes, 138, 297.
Deed.
Absolute cannot show by parol to be a
trust, 465.
Assent of grantee necessary to delive
ry, 25.

VI
Condition in as to use, 2.
Delivery of, 25.
Description in " on either side there
of construed," 203.
Lost proof of, 175.
To be entered, 329.
When a mortgage, 41, 205, 273.
With a restriction, 164.
Denio, Hon. Hiram, Obituary of, 37.
Depositions.
Notice to take, etc., 67.
Dillon's Reports, 77, 408.
Diploma obtained by purchase, 360.
Disney's Reports, 392.
Distribution.
To grand and great grandchildren, 148.
Distillery, 452.
Rule for estimating tax on, 452.
Divorce.
Alimony, 131, 465.
Custody of children, 163.
For cruelty, 21.
For desertion, 21.
Liability of husband for attorney's
fees, 131.
Writ of error in, 18.
When a man knowingly marries the
wife of another not entitled to, 409.
Dower.
Allowance in lieu of, 193.
Assignment of in County Court, 477.
Effect of release of when deed be
comes inoperative, etc., 157.
When allowance cannot be changed,
193.
When barred, 157.
When cannot be restored, 157.
When not barred by release, 157.
Draft.
Contract to indemnify from void, 35.
Interest of Marshal in contract to !empt from, 157.
Drawn without being placed on letter
of credit, 463.
Driscoll, Daniel D. Obituary of, 76.
Duplicate as evidence, 464.
Du Page County Seat Contest, 437.
Dwarris on Statutes, 21.
E.
East St. Louis.
Power to create a debt against with
out consent, 253.
Easement, 441.
Transfer of, 36.
Ecclesiastical Law, 389.
Power of general over local organiza
tion, 389.
Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts, 389.
Ejecting passenger, 228.
v
Ejectment.
Entry by consent must be a demand
before action, 477.
For possession under an executory
contract, 477.
Judgment in, 67.
Pleadings in, 263.
Election.
Affidavits of witnesses, 437.
Called by unauthorized officer void,
406.
Cannot be adjourned for dinner, 437.
Directory and mandatory, 437.
Effect of changing voting place, 162.
To vote on tax in aid of Railroad,
182, 406.
For location of County seat in Du
Page, 437.
Meaning of majority of voters, 182.
Oath to voters, 437.
Residence defined, 437.
Registry law, 182, 437.
Under Enforcement Act, 50.
Elements of Law by Matkby, 262.
Eminent Domain.
Assessment of damages by a jury, 227
The exercise of tho right under the
New Constitution, 227.
Power of commissioners, 227.
Enforcement Act, Construction of, 50, 1
English Law Books, 44.
Enos, A. W., Obituary of, 205.
Equitable Interest, 67.
Estoppel, 409.
When Owner Estopped, 133.
Evidence.
Admission, 406.
Comparison of Writing, 169.
Chinese Testimony Not Within 14th
Amendment, 361
Duplicate Copy as, 464
Journals- of General Assembly as, 393
Printed in what form, 93
Rule as to Examination of witness, 374
When Patent Conclusive, 374
Executory Contract for Sale of Land, 477
Execution
Prior Levy, 46
Exemption
From Execution, 38
F.
False Return
Equity will relieve against, 217
Field's International Code, 148

I N D E X. Continued.
Fines Collected by Justices, 361
Fire
Destruction of Legal News Office by, 2
In Chicago, 2
Fisher's Digest of Criminal Law, 204
Forcible Entry and Detainbr
Actual possession necessary, 147
By whom it may be maintained, 149
Cannot recover part of premises, 147
Statute of limitations, 147
Foreign Law Books, 93
Forfeiture of Contract, 329
,
Foreign Guardian
Sale of Land by, 310
Forged Paper
Voluntary Payment of, 229
Fourteenth Amendment, 361
Construction of, 361
Fraud
In the ex. of propertydamages, 161
Fraudulent Representations, 301
Fraud and Circumvention, 124, 406
G.
Gazzani on Bankruptcy, 212
Garnishee Proceedings, 53, 164
Good Will
In Business, sale of, 162
Governor Palmer v. Gen. Sheridan, 28
Grade, Change of, 133
Gross
Township Organization of, 37, 92, 465
Statutes, 284
Guarantee, Contract of construed, 463
Guardian and Ward
Duty and power of guardian, 218
Female of age at eighteen, 242
Liability of minor for torts, 233
Marriage of ward, effect of, 375
Of minor when entitled to adminis
tration, 6
Pleasure trip, 218
What are necessaries for minors, 218
Habeas Corpus.
Custody of Prisoner pending, 174
Jurisdiction of TJ. S. and Federal
courts in, 249, 289
Jurisdiction of Criminal court of Cook
Co. in, 33
Will not determine right to office, 90
Habitual Drunkard, 108
Handwriting.
May be proved by comparison, 169
Hanover on Horse Law, 409
Haw's Will Case, 174
Hill's Law of Procedure, 344, 455
Hillard on Contracts, 124
Highways.
Condemnation should be by jury, 211,
342
Commissioners laying out road, 123
Liability of cities for safe condition of,
21, 107, 329
Notice in condemnation, proceedings,
342
Powers and duties of officers in es
tablishing, 66
Proceedings on appeal, 66
Time of filing order, establishing, 123
Homestead, 454, 477
Absence of, effect of, 22, 133, 257
Conveyance prior to judicial proceed
ings, 257
Judgment lien on, 22
Of bankrupt, levy on, 5
Release of, 343
Sale of under execution, void, 133
Transfer to wife, 21
What a signing by wife, 343
When sheriff deed passes title on
abandonment, 257
Howe, ChiefJustice, resignation of, 61
Husband and Wife.
Action for enticing away husband, 148
As witnesses, 5
Hulet, Miss. A. M. refused admission to
the bar, 37
Illinois Statutes, (See Statutes.)
Illinois Reports, 69
Notice of 52d p. 21, 53d p. 76, 54th p.
220, 55th p. 490.
Incorporated Company, meaning of, 162
Indiana Reports.
Notice of the 33d p. 29, of the 34th p.
392
Indians.
Land to be sold only with consent of
President, 310
Indorser.
Undertaking of, 145
Indemnified, 228
Subsequent promise, 145
Inferior Courts.
In cities, their jurisdiction, 101
Information.
Criminal in U. S. Court, 105
Infectious Disease.
Liability for communicating, 44
Infants.
Liability for torts, 233
Injury.
While doing an unlawful act, 273

Liability of as to repairs, 82
Liability for different stories, 252
Langdell's Cases on Sales of Personal
Property, 443
Larceny by bailee, 329
Laws of U. S.
Legal News selected to publish, 108
For 1872, p 467
Law books in Chicago, 12
Law books, 44
Laws of 1872, p 205, 213
By State Journal Co., 262
Laws of United States (See Acts of
Congress)
Lawyers and law books, 12
Law
Submitted to a vote of people, 162
Letter
Copy of as evidence, 441
Letter-press copy, 441
Of Credit, 463
Legal News
Awarded the publication of land title
notices, under Burnt Record Bill, 360
Complimentary letters, 11, 14, 22, 29,
45, 53
Destruction of office by fire, 2, 6
Files complete, 21
Publication of the Laws, Decisions and
Legal Notices, 69
Selected by the Federal Courts for the
publication of Legal Notices, 69
Selected to publish United States laws,
108
Statute declaring the Legal News a
medium for the Publication of Legal
Notices, 69
Leavitt's Reports, 244
Legal Notices
When not good in a daily paper, 212
Legal
Gazette, 20
Opinion, 20
Matters in Utah, 220
Matters in Illinois, 204
Matters in Chicago, 2, 12, 68
Exchanges, 2, 20
Legislature of Illinois.
Extra session of, 2
No power to authorize inhabitants of
a strip of land to subscribe to R. R. stock,
34
Power to impose tax, 34
And its work, 36
Legislature.
Power over Board of Supervisors, 57
Power to regulate action of council, 272
Libel.
As to damage to company, 440
Liberty of pursuit, 37, 68, 186
Lien.
Of levy on personal property, 107
Life Insurance.
Suicide, 441
Wife may assign policy, 465
Limitations, Statute of.
Act of 1839, p. 129
Absence in Rebel lines, effect of, 114
Against wife, 259
Of U. S- as to wrongs during Rebel
lion, 169
On open account, 5
Begins to run on restoration of peace,
456
State against patent title, 373
Liquor.
Sale of in 111. with intent to violate
Iowa statute, 193
Indictment for selling, 251
Validity of contract for sale of, 375
Location of County Seat.
In Du Page Co., 437
Lost Records.
(See restoration of Records,) 100
Lowell's Reports, 273
Lost Paper.
Proof of, 21,45
Deed, proof of, 175
M.
Malicious Prosecution, 409
Advice of counsel in, 358
Want of probable cause, 358, 409
Mandamus, 425, 468
Jurisdiction of U. S. Courts to issue,
Kansas Reports, volume 6, p 328
Kerr on Fraud, 117
209
Manufactured article, what is, 281
Kerr on Injunctions, 29
Married Woman :
Kerr on Receivers, 196
Disposing capacity of, 155, 161, 310
L.
Conveyance by without husband void,
409
Laches
Doing business, etc, 441
In what manner availed of, 345
Judgment
against in debt void, 423
Ladies Own Magazine, 329
Power to contract, sue and be sued,
Langdell's Select Cases, notice of, 36
244
Land Title Notices, to be published in
Rights in land purchased before 1861,
Legal News, 360
259
Land
Power of sale, mortgage executed by,
To be sold only on permission of Pres
184
ident, 310
When liable for costs, 101
Landlord and Tenant
Married
Woman's Property Law, 7, 244
Custom between, 196
Power of sale, mortgage executed by,
Landlord's lien, 145
Landlord not liable to rebuild, in case
184
Separate property, 90, 161, 195
of fire, 82

Injunction, 1
Damages on dissolution, 176
In ecclesiastical cases, 389
In cases of libel, 440
Maliciously sued out, against a cor
poration, 210
To prevent collection of a judgment,
46, 212
When court will grant before final
hearing, 389
Innkeeper.
Lien of, 408
Insane.
Sale to insane person, 150
Insanity, defense of, 443
Bankrupt Co. not bound to report to
Auditor, 467
Absence of insured in Rebellion, 114
Covenant to insure, 137
Defect in proof of loss, 85
Effect of change of title, 176
Forfeiture, 43, 176
Gunpowder clause, 73
Liability of com. carrier and under
writers, 269
Marine policies, 269
May be by parol, 20
Nearest magistrate, 85
Omission to indorse, consent on policy,
176
Prohibition on smoking, 293
Proof of loss, 85, 176
Representations of Agents, 293
Renewal of, 176
Renewal Receipt, 43
Representations of Assured, 43
Rights of Mortgagee and Mortgagor,
137, 293
Subrogation 269
Set-offs in Insurance Cases, 81, 284
Warranty of Good Health, 43
Whose name suit to be brought in, 269
Interest
"Annual," meaning of, 283
On Decree, 153
Internal Revenue. 93
Returns, 52
Earnings of Dollar Savings Bank, sub
ject to, 341
Salaries of Officers, not liable to, 139
Iowa Reports, volume 31st, p 360
Iowa Statutes, revision of, 77
Jameson, Hon. John A., 28
Journals of General Assembly, 393
As evidence, 393
Jones' Forms, 174, 409
Joyce on Injunctions, 292
Judicial Notice, 453, 456
JudgmentAssignment to pass, must be, etc, 425
Against married women in debt, void,
423
By publication what record must show,
462 .
Clerical mistake in, 375
Estopped by, 74
Former as a bar, 74
Foreign action on, 75
Its requisites, 123
In attachment, when conslusive, 271,
462
Lien, duration of, 46
Power of court over, 67
Record must have a placita, 115
When against all or none of defend
ants, 123
Will not be set aside at subsequent
term, 406
Jurisdiction
Concurrent of State and Federal courts
over offense, 113
Of inferior courts in cities, 101, 124
Of U. S. and State courts in habeas
corpus cases, 249
Of Stale Judge over prisoner held
under U. S. authority, 249
Over the person, 271
Special appearance, 163
Jurors
Mode of summoning in territories, 250
Justices of the Peace
Increased jurisdiction, 13

I N D K X. Continued.
Separate charged in equity, 155
Under law of 1861,
What constitutes their separate prop
erty, 67, 155, 195
Marriage :
Breach of promise of, 14, 341
Common law as to, 269
License, penalty for issuing, etc, 22
To be ralid in Maryland there must be
some religious ceremony, 269
Marshal :
Authority of, 113
Maryland Law Eeporter, 424
Masters in Chancery in Cook county, 329
Mayor Medill's message, 60
McCunn, Judge, obituary of, 344
Measure of damages, 21, 38, 67, 91
Mechanic's Lien, 53, 139
Of sub-contractor, 139
Medical Services:
Physician best judge when necessary,
409
Services to the poor, 163
Military :
Law, 169
Occupation of Chicago. 28, 45, 69
Occupation of New Orleans, 169
Miscellaneous :
A generous donation, 60
A heavy verdict, 148
A law suit over a corpse, 443
All men created equal, 197
A novel record, 1
Hangers on about courts, 361
Kind words and material aid, 11
Letters to Myra Bradwell about the
fire, 11, 14, 22, 29, 45, 53
Make haste slowly, 292
Outrageous if true, 300
Speech of a rural member, 37
The first law book since the fire, 220
The standard of greatness, 100
Twenty-one years ago, 345
Missouri Reports, notice of 47th, 92
Mitchell, Hon. James T., 84
Mormons :
Proceedings against, 19, 250
Mortgage :
Absence of mortgagor in rebellion, 17
Decree of foreclosure, 253
Defective acknowledgment, 345
Error in decreeing possession, 342
Failure to pay any all due, effect of,
149
Foreclosure,240, 258, 342, 393
Foreclosureproduction of note, 99
Foreclosure by scire facias, 258
Mis-description in, 258
Possession of premises, 342
Release by married woman, 262
Right of mortgagee in bankrupt court,
289
Sale under trust deed, 245
Sale en masse, 258
With power of sale by married woman,
184
AVant of title no defense to foreclosure,
277
Municipal Corporations :
Power to levy tax, 227
Tax must be uniform, 227
Their liability in case of fire, 60
Murder, punishment of, 476
Myer's Laws of 1872, p. 236
N
Naturalization.
In what court may be, 6
Is a judicial proceeding, 170
Power of court to set a side judgment
of, 170
When United States bound by, 170
National Bank Shares.
Taxation on, 5
Navigable Stream.
Right to bridge, 91
Negligence, 298
Contributary, 273, 313
In crossing street, 84, 93
Ice upon platform, 174
New Hampshire Reports, Vol. 51st, p 442
NegroesUnconstitutional to exclude from pub
lic schools, 361
New Trials.
How many may be granted, 38
Verdict against the evidence, 377
New York Daily Transcript, 20
Notes.
Of city of Richmond, void, 137
Notice of posting, 229
O
Officer.
Acts of De Facto, 90
Officers' Return.
Contradicting, 147
P
Palmer, Gov. John M.
On the military occupation of Chica S'28
Parent and Child.
Custody of child, 133
Land occupied by permission of child,
283

Mother liable for doctor's bill for mi

nor child, 359
Partition.
Who entitled thereto, 53
After improvement, 425
Partnership,
Assets, application of, 70
Bank account of partner, 36
Contract between partners, 14
Injunction to restrain use of name, 262
Liability of attorney for acts of late
partner, 57
On sale, survivor enjoined from cor
responding with old customers, etc, 162
Power of Court over Estate of partners,
164
Power of insolvent partner to sell, 1,
164
Real estate, 176
Remedy as between partners, 53
Sale of partner's interest, 163
Survivor may be ordered to sell the
real estate at private sale, 164
Patent
Ancient mode of annulling, 241
American legislation on, 13
Appeals in patent cases, 300
Jurisdiction of Federal courts, 83
Jurisdiction of State courts, 83
Note given for, 140
On foreign-made article, 37
Proceedings to annul, 241
Rights of joint owner, 9
Tax on patent agents, legal, 164
When purchaser may use, 9
Patent Title, 373
Application for rejected, 461
In the U. S. courts, 373
In the State courts, 373
Must be renewed within a reasonable
time, 461
Patent when conclusive, 373
State statute of limitations against, 373
When application may be renewed,
461
Payments
Application of, 21
Penalty
Debt, for, 156
Suit by town for, 21
Philips' U. 8. Court Rules and Practice,
117
Photographs as evidence, 85
Placita indispensible to valid record, 115
Pleading
Averment of indorsement, 21
Amendments to, 93
Declaration for issuing marriage li
cense, 22, 30
Declaration on special agreement, 273
Non-assumpsit sworn to, 406
Of another action pending, 10
Plea of non-assumpsit sworn to before
J. P., 406
Upon bond with condition, 123
Police magistrates in Chicago, 453
Police Power
Over counties, 328, 282
Portrait, contest for, 253
Power of legislature over supervisors, 57
Practice
_
Act, copy of, 171
In U. S. courts, law regulating, 284
Motion to take up case at a particular
time, 30
Motion to set aside judgment 52
On appeal from J. P., 406
Pre-emption
Power of officers to adjudicate on, 77
Pre-emptor may sell, 77
Rights, 77
Principal and Agent, 83
Attorney in fact not authorized to con
vey for nominal sum, 83
Probate Law
Administration without regard to will
not void, 453
Appointment of guardian ad litem, 242
Distribution to grand and great grand
children, 148
Equitable title descends to heirs, 293
Foreign administrator, 205, 262
Heir as witness, 140
Order finding next of kin conclusive,
174
Order of distribution without notice
void, 131
Power of administrator as to incum
brances on land, 46
Right of administrator to sue in U. S.
court, 161
Power of court over record, 131
Rule in Shelley's case, 450, 454
Suit in U. S. court for death of intes
tate, 181
Time of filing petition to sell land, 30,
242
Wife as witness, 140
When heirs bound by administrator's
acts, 53
When guardian mav be administrator,
6
Probable Cause, 358
Professional Rascality, 470

Promissory Note.
Assignment after maturity, 164, 123
Assignment of, may be by parol, 221
Consideration, patent right, 108, 229
Endorser, undertaking of, 145
Fraud in obtaining, 406
Indimnified indorser, 228
Intent in signing, 236
Misapplication of, 91
Mutual securities of, 203
Transfer of pending proceedings in
bankruptcy, 281
To pay also attorney's fees, 203
Without (!ate, 229
Prosecuting Attorney.
When county not liable to pay, 203
Public Domain, 373
When patent title conclusive, 373
Public Use.
Property taken for, 361
Publication
In a daily paper, when not valid, 212
As to Sundays and holidays, 101
Defective certificate of, 101, 461
How proof may be made, 462
When judgment does not show, 462
Presumption as to publication, 462
Purchaser.
Pendente lite, who so regarded, 38
Quiet Title.
Action for, 409, 441
Quo Warranto.
Appeal in, 423
Cannot test validity of law, extending
limits of city, 253
Final judgment in, 253
R
Railroad
Baggage on connecting lines, 91
Bonds voted at town, election, 406
Condemning for right of way, 122, 227
Contract in regard to running in con
nection, 474
Damages on condemnation by a jury,
227, 342
Damages proximate and remote cause,
326
Directors contract to transfer, valid,
301
Duty of Co to provide cars etc, 9
Election not called by proper officer
void, 406
Exclusion of colored persons, 293
Freight over different lines, 146
Ice upon platform 174
Injuries received in leaping from
train, 176
Injuries to servants in employ of, 250
Law of 1852 in regard to condemning
land construed, 122
Liability as common carriers. 91, 99,
146, 154
.
Liability of, beyond its line, 311
May demand freight in advance, 146
Percentage in lieu of taxes, 187
Removal of Common Law Liability,
146, 154.
Rules as to passengers, 293.
Servant when injured in different
departments, 250.
Subscriptions to stock of by county,
162, 182, 406.
Special contract as to freight, 154.
Subscription to stock of, 34.
Taxation in aid of, 182, 406.
When train fails to stop at station, 176.
When freight not transferred within
reasonable time, 130.
When in two States right to be sued
in Federal Courts, 181.
Who considered a passenger, 82.
Rebellion.
Absence of mortgagor in, 17
Bond taken during, 132
Laws in aid of void, 137
Notes of City of Richmond void, 137
Official acts of disqualified person, 407
Sale by Court while State in, 408
Settlement with Rebel Court, 375
Receiver.
Liable for money stolen, 233
Record.
No presumption as to notice, 462
Restoration of, 196, 361
What a valid record must contain,
115
When finds due publication, 462
Recognizance.
Effect of forfeiture, 202
Right of surety to pay the same, 202
Recoupment.
When allowable, 107
Redemption from sal*, 46
Registry Law.
Enabling Act, 437
Religious Societies.
Election of Trustees, 77
Minister as Trustee, 77
Place of Election, 77
Removal.
Of cause to U. S. Court, 325.

Vll
Replevin.
Title to land cannot be shown, 465
When bond for less than double value
etc., no jurisdiction, 195
Restoration of Records.
Draft of Act by the Judges, 18
In U. S. Court must be under U. S.
law, 361
Land Title Notices to be published in
Legal News, 360
Law for, 196
Order in relation to, 272
Return of Officer.
Can be amended on notice only, 217
Contradictory, 147,217
Of officer's amendment of, 38, 217
When amended as a matter of course,
217
Within what time may be amended,
217
Revenue Law.
What is a manufactured article, 281
Riddle Hon. A. G. Argument on Wo
man Suffrage, 51
Right of Property.
Trial of, 123
Right of Way.
Act of 1852 construed with reference
to present Constitution, 122
Mode of condemning stated, 122, 227
Roads.
A jury should be called to condemn,
211
Effect of Constitution of 1870 on loca
tion of, 211
Root's Law of Corporations, 443
Round's Printer's Cabinet, 229
Rowell & Go's. American Newspaper
Reporter, 292
Rules.
Of Superior Court of Cook County, 12,
164, 272
Of Supreme Court of Illinois, 13
Of Circuit Court of Cook, 272
Sabuath.
Injured while violating, 273
Safes v. Bank Vaults, 6.
Sale.
Delivery of possesion, 393
Effect of adjournment, 309
For cash, fraud for failure to pay on
delivery, 233
Irregularity in cured by lapse of time,
422
Margins must be kept up, 290
Of chattels, what constitutes, 393
Of good will. 162
Of land en masse, 46
Of personal propertypossession, 421
Of personal property, when title pass
es, 101
Proceedings to set aside, 156, 422
Redemption from, 46
Under trust deed, notice in St. Louis
Legal Record good, 12
While mortgagor in rebellion, 17
Who may question, 422
Sale of T*eal Estate to pay debts:
Agreement to pay liens out of pro
ceeds, 425
Appointment of guardian ad litem.
242
Assignment of dower by county court,
477
Insufficiency of petition, 133
Possession of land after, 273
Recitals of due notice in decree, 271
See as to power of chancellor to order,
30
Time of filing petition, 30, 243
What an excuse for not making, 242
Within statute of frauds, 425
When void, 133, 271
Where service defective and no find
ing in decree, 271
Salaries of State Officers :
Not liable to internal revenue tax, 139
Saunders on Negligence, 244
School
Directors, power to execute note, 176
Suit to recover on trustees' bond, 205
Seal:
The word with a scroll, 245
Skrvick *
Amending of, 217, 462
Constructive, 156, 461
No presumption as to notice, 462
Recitals of in decree, 271, 462
When it may be contested, 212
When service defective, 271
Set off:
In insurance cases, 284
In equity against a debt due an estate,
245
Of principal against debt to P. & S.,
451
Purchasing claim to, 81
What debts may be, 81
Sharpstein L. & A. Ins. Cases, 204
Shelley's Case
Adhered to in Illinois and Indiana,
450-454
Sheriff's Return, (See SummoniSer
vice.)

Vlll
Sheriff's Sale :
Effect of adjournment, 309
Irregularity in, 309
Of equitable title, 309
What requirements directory, 309
Side-Walks
In cities, 298
Slander :
When intent material, 133
Slaves :
Emancipation of pending suit, 360
Smith's Equity Jurisprudence, 132
Smith's Manual of Common Law, 132
Snell's Equity, 312
Southern Law Eeview, 273
Special Assessments, 100
Confirmation of, effect of, 106
Defective certificate of publication, 101
Equitable defenses, 106
Fraud in, 375
Legal defense, 106
Liability of city to contractor on, 57
Negligence in making, 58
Order ot judgment, 101
Power to make, 121
Report of collector, 101
Special act construed, 422
2d not a bar to 3d, 121
Void ordinance, 422
When will be enjoined, 311
Specific Performance:
Of agreement to make lease against
heir, 440
Will it be decreed for chattels, 292
Statutes
When void, 311
Statute of U. S., revision of, 476
Statutory Conveyances, 312
Statutes of Illinois of 1872
Criticisms upon, 312, 424, 442, 454, 466,
476
State
Court power over persons held by IT.
8. authority, 249
Courts jurisdiction over water erafts,
251
Cannot sue in U. 8. Circuit courts, 405
Land, forfeiture of, 263
Power to tax, 129
Removal of cause to the LT. 8. court,
325,344
When law provides that action shall
be brought in its courts only, 181
Stamps
On deeds, 37
Streets
Court-yards not to be taken for, 298
Power of Legislature over, 27
Stock Companies
Internal revenue on dividends, 325
Stephens on Pleading, 124
Strikes and Contracts, 13
Subscription
To railroad stock, 34
Subrogation
Insured may use name of assured
against common carrier, 268

I N D E X. Continued.
Summons
Service of, 75, 212
Service of on corporation, 124
Service of may be contested, 212
Service of may be amended, 217
Supreme Court of United States
Record of proceedings in, from p 125
to 237
Supreme Court of Illinois
Docket of, 477
List of opinions filed, 29, 117, 125, 213,
312, 313
Loaning Records, 52
Rules of, 13. 204, 225
Time of filing records, 466
Supervisors
Power to erect county buildings, 2
Surety
Release of extention of time, 228
T.
Tanney, late Chief Justice, 312
Taxes
Assessments under city ordinances, 49,
57
Deed as color of title, though judg
ment void, 357
Equality and uniformity of, 227
Excise taxes, 129
Exclusive power of State to levy, 129
For town hall, 422
Municipal coporation power to levy,
227
Notice mistake in description, 465
Omitted property, 221
On National Bank shares
Paid under protest, 17
Power to levy in aid of railroads, 182
Power to exempt from, 77
Power of U. 8. and State to levy, 129
Re-assessment, 311, 464
Return of officer, 49
Removal of cloud by owner in posses
sion, 124
Sale suspended under constitution of
1870, 116
Sale after payment, 465
Sale for after the completion ofthe bar,
357
Tax deed, 77, 124, 357, 465
Tax title ; how it must be supported,
245, 357
Unauthorized a cloud, 77
Under constitution of 1848
Tenants in Common
May sue jointly or severally, 393
Test Oath, 289
Territories
No U. 8. Circuit or District Courts in,
250
Process of summoning jurors in, 250
Territorial Courts
Criminal information in, 105
The People
Can they choose whom they will, 424
Title to act, 310, 407
Titles

Action to quiet, 83
Conflicting, 83
Tonage Tax
By State, 197
Townshend on slander and libel, 174
Township organization, 52
Town.
People of, not liable in trespass, 423
Torts
Liability of Infants for, 233
Trade fixtures, 272
Tree, Hon Lambert, 28
Trover
Identity of property, 157
When it lies. 58, 156
TResPASS
Continuing, 236
People of a town not liable in, 423
Trust Deed
Sale notice in St Louis Law Record
good, 92
Sale under notice to"debtor, 245
Trustees Sale
Trustee purchasing at, 46
Trusts
By parol, 377
Construction of, 25
Express, how proved, 26
What written evidence sufficient, 25
Will as evidence of, 25
Voluntary conveyance, 251
When proved by parol, 25
U
United States Laws.
Offences under, and under State, 113
Legal News selected to publish, 186
United States
Power to tax, 129
United States Coubts '
Circuit State cannot sue in, 405
Law Regulating Practice in, 284
Suit in, for death of intestate when
State law says shall only apply to
State court, 181
Of Supreme, on error, or appeal, 289
Removal from State courts, 325
When administrator may sue and be
sued in, 161, 181
When will not review judgment of
State court 289
United States Digest, 212
U S Jurist, 20, 328
Usury, 21
Purchase of securities, 205
USUAOE
How far contract controlled by, 245
Utah matters, 250
V
Venue
Change not discretionary, 115
In personal actions, 81
When no transcript filed, 301
Vermont Reports, 43d vol., 489.
Voluntary Conveyance, 251, 345
On eve of entering trade, 376

W.
War
Contracts during, 453
Courts take judicial notice of, 453, 456
Effect of on contracts for interest, 6
Warehouse Receipts
Cancellation of, 13
Negotiability of, 236
Rights of holder of, 74
Transfer of, 74
ARHANT
Must be literally followed, 262
Water Courses
Ownership of riparion proprietors, 101
Wharf
Iniury to not a marine tort, 153
Wharton's International Law, 140
Weston, Nathan, obituary of, 300
Whaley, Minnie, as clerk, 424
Whitman's Patent Laws and Practice,
117
Widow
Of deceased as witness, 5
Wife whipping, 476
Williams, Hon. E. S., to Gov. Palmer, 92
WlLLi
As evidence of a trust, 25
Discretionary trust in, 440
Disposing capacity of married women,
155, 161
Mutual or joint, 133
Of foreigner, 6
Signature of testator to, 38
Unsoundness of mind, 115
Undue influence, 115
Wilson, Hon. John M., to the lawyers,
etc., 12
Wilder, N. P., obituary of, 197
Withrow's Corporation Cases, 244
Women:
As record writers, 376
In Virginia in 1776, 377
Not entitled to be registered, 97
Not entitled to vote, 97
Woman Suffrage, 44, 51, 97, 328
Women :
Right to be admitted to the bar, see
Hon. Matt H. Carpenter's argument,
108
As clerks, 424
Writ of Error:
Amended return to, 253
Jurisdiction of U. S. Supreme in, 289
Will not lie to county court, 165
To territorial court, how signed, 253
To State court, where more than one
judge must be signed by C. J.
Y
Young Brigham :
Indictment against, 10
( The figures in the index refer to the paget,
and embrace the entire contents. The main
points determined in the head notes may be
found by consulting the index.)

QHIC AGO JeGAL^EWS

Entered according to Act of Congress, in tlie year I871, by the Chicago Legal Nkws Company, in the office of the Librarian 01 Congress, at Washington,
Vol. IV. No. i.

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1871.

property and subject first to the payment debts. He would receive no legal consid
of the partnership debts, became the pri eration in such case, and such conveyance
vate property of Gleason, and that there would be in fraud of the law, and equity
upon her judgment became a lien upon would at once set it aside. It is only
We are indebted to the law firm of that real estate, and should be paid before when parties act fairly lor the purpose of
Tenney, McClellan & Tenney, of this city, ] the partnership debts: that at the time of dissolution and winding up the affairs of
the filing petition in bankruptcy, there the firm that creditors will be bound by a
for a copy of the following opinion :
was no partnership property, it had, by change of the partnership property to the
U. S. DISTRICT COURT W. D. Of\ the dissolution of the firm and the separate estate of one of the partners;
transfer of Cook to Gleason, become the Hine et al. v. Lawrence et al., Sup., 558;
WISCONSIN.
property of Gleason. It was Story on Partnership, Sec. 97, Note 2.
In re Ooor & Guasos, Bankrupts. In Bankruptcy. J individual
further argued that, by the transfer, what Take this case as an illustration. Before
Petition of Clara C. DavU fur the payment of an was before partnership property had the sale this was partnership property
individual judgment.
i become private property, and was, under and liable, in case of" bankruptcy, first to
POWER OF INSOLVENT PARTNER TO HELL , the provisions of Section 36 of the Bank the payment of all firm debts. Cook sells
COPARTNER-INDIVIDUAL DEBTS.
rupt Act, to be applied first to the pay his share to Gleason in consideration of a
1. Transfer by Insolvent Partner.Hold that ment of the private debts of Gleason, and nominal sum and the agreement that
when partners are in fact insolvent, they should the surplus remaining after the payment Gleason would pay the firm debts. Gleason
be considered in equity as holding the partner
ship effects in trust for the benefit of the firm ; in full of all Glea:.on's private debts was don't pay, and the next day after the
creditors, and thai they cannot by a transfer of only applicable to the payment of the transfer and notice proceedings in bank
the interest of one to the other defeat this trust. partnership debts of Cook tSc Gleason.
ruptcy are commenced, and the property,
2. That a sale, by one partner to his co-partner, '
when the tirm is insolvent and on the eve of bank- \ If it did become private property by instead of being applied to the payment
ruptcy, which if upheld would operate to apply the that transfer, such is undoubtedly the rule of Cook's debts, or the firm's debts for
property of the retiring partner to the payment
law. The Bankrupt Act. under which which he was liable, are applied first to
of the individual debts of the partner purchasing, of
is presumptively fraudulent as to the firm credit the assignee took and sold it. provides the payment of debts for which he is
ors, and the Court* should set it aside and distri that the net proceeds of all the joint stock in no way liable. Can it be possible that
bute the property as firm property to the payment . shall be appropriated to pay the creditors such a transaction, causing such injustice
of the firm debts.
3. Transfkr whkn Voir>.That if the legal effect , of the copartnership, and the net proceeds towards the firm creditors, can be sus
of such transfer would be to change the order of of the separate estate of each partner shall tained? If he had assigned his interest in
payment and prefer certain creditors, the private be appropriated to pay his separate cred the firm assets to pay Gleason's private
creditors over the firm creditors, it would be void
as (treating a preference contrary to the provisions ( itors, and the balance only of the separ debts, instead of his own or the firm debts,
of Sec. 3f. of trie Bankrupt law.Er>. LgfiAL Nkws. ate estate, after payment of the separate would . ot the Court have set it aside as
debts, is to be applied to the payment of being without consideration and a fraud
Opinion of the Court by Hopkins, J.
The questions raised in this case are of the joint debts. And the balance only of upon his own creditors? And such being
far more than ordinary importance to the the partnership property, after the pay the legal consequences of the transfer as
whole mercantile community. The bank- ; ment of all partnership debts, to be applied claimed by the counsel of Davis, can there
rupts entered into a mercantile and lumber- i to the payment of the separate debts. In be any other or different decision in this
ing partnership in the year 186S, Cook i Cush. Howe et al. v. Lawrence et al., 553, case than there would be in that? It
agreeing to put in one-third of the capital, it is said the effect of such transfer, as be seems to me not. The transaction, in its
and Gleason two-thirds. Cook, it is 1 tween the partners, is to vest the legal legal effects, is the same, and Courts must
claimed, did not put in his share, and j title to the property in the individual pronounce the same judgment upon it
what he did put in he drew out. princi partner with a right to use and dispose of as if the transfer had expressed that pur
pally before the ist ofJanuary, 1S71. The it as his separate property. The Court pose upon its face. To sustain this trans
firm, in December, 1870, were threatened say further that it would seem to follow as action, and give it to the effect claimed by
.*ith..b.-vr)ltruptv .proceedings, O'litwi jpe-t .''.nexesvoux rorisjiquejvMi^LuU tht\ creditors, flrtivis counsel, would be -to sfinction, in
largely insolvent. About the first of Jan of the firm, after such conveyance, would the most direct manner, the right of insol
uary, 1S71. the firm dissolved, and Cook have no right to look to the property vent partners to create preferences conagreed to transfer all his interest in the transferred as joint property upon which trifrv to the express terms of the Bankrupt
Act. I find this question has indirectly
firm to Gleason for five hundred dollars, j they had any special claim or lien.
This, they say, is the effect when the been before some of the District Courts in
which he was to receive in claims, $300
being against himself, and Gleason agree- | property is sold in good faith and without Bankruptcy (1 B. K.. in re Byrne, 122; 2
ing to pay the partnership debts; but this | any intent to defraud the creditors of the B. R. in re Crocket et al., R. S. 75), and,
transfer was not in fact made until the firm. In that case they hold, however, although not directly passed upon, 1 think
18th day of January, 1871, when the papers that, although the partnership was insol the reasoning in these cases in harmony
were executed and notice of the dissolu- , vent, the sale was good to place the legal with the views herein expressed by me.
tion published. During the year 1870, the \ title in the individual partner, and to give I think here are three good answers to
parties, with the joint funds, built a store j the*individual creditors of the pattner buy the claim of Davis, the private creditor of
for their partnership business on a lot they I ing a preference over the partnership Gleason :
owned in Eau Claire.
1 creditors. They say, however, that there First. When partners, as in this case,
That said store and lot, at the time ofj was no proof to show that the partners are in fact insolvent, they should be con
the dissolution, was a part of the assets of knew they were insolvent. It was claimed, sidered in equity as holding the partner
the firm, and was transferred to Gleason on the argument, that the case went so far j ship effects in trust for the benefit of the
bv Cook as a part of the firm property. 1 as to hold that knowledge, even of their firm creditors, and that they cannot, by a
The firm was then insolvent, and so were insolvency, would not change the rule; transfer of the interest of one to the other,
the partners individually; but as to but I don't think the decision goes so far. I defeat this trust, as stated in Bird v. Mor
whether they, or either of them, knew it, | That case lays down the rule correctly as rison, 12 Wis., 153: "If the partnership
the evidence is insufficient to determine, applicable to solvent partnership, I have property, is subject to an implied trust in
although the probabilities are that they no doubt; Ladd v. Griswold, 4 Gilman, favor ot the partnership debts."
did, for Cook had withdrawn and used 25; but, in cases where the firm is insol
Second. That a sale by one partner to
up all his capital, and they were being vent, I am not satisfied with the reason his co-partner when the firm is insolvent
strongly pressed by their creditors, and ing or conclusions, and I think I am and upon the eve of bankruptcy, as in this
even threatened with bankruptcy pro sustained in my view by the case of case, which, if upheld, would operate to
Ketchum v. Derkee. 1 Barb. Chan. R., I apply the property of the retiring partner
ceedings.
The debts were principally firm debts, 480, and Story on Partnership, Sec. 358. to the payment of' the individual debts of
and there is no evidence before me that el seg., etc.
the partner purchasing, is presumptively
either owed any individual debts, except
I think where a firm is insolvent the fraudulent as to the firm creditors, and the
the debt of the petitioner against Gleason. partners should be considered rather in Courts would set aside such sale and dis
One of the firm creditors filed a petition in the light of trustees of the firm property tribute the property as firm property to
bankruptcy on the 19th day of January, for the benefit of the firm creditors, and the payment of the firm debts.
1S71, the day after the exepution of the should not be allowed to sell to each other Third. If the legal effect of such trans
transfer papers from Cook to Gleason and thus defeat the equitable priority of fer would be to change the order of pay
upon which they were adjudged bank the firm creditors.
ment and prefer certain creditors, the pri
But if such transfer operates to make I vate creditors over the firm creditors, it
rupts.
This store was taken possession of by what was before company property pri- j would be void as creating a preference
the assignees in bankruptcy, and was sold ] vate property and applicable first to the contrary to the provisions of the Bankrupt
by order of the Court free and clear of all payment of the private debts of the part Act, Section 35 ; Crabbe, 482, ex parte
encumbrances, except a certain mortgage, I ner purchasing, which would be the neces Shoun. Sections 35 and 39.
and the money ordered brought into sary result in cases of insolvency and
I do therefore order and adjudge that
Court, and the claims of all creditors bankruptcy, that such transfer would be I the sale of Cook to Gleason was fraudulent
a
fraud
upon
the
joint
creditors,
it
would
which were a legal lien upon the property
and void as to firm creditors, and direct
to stand as against the fund from the sale. ! be sanctioning the right of one partner to , that the partnership property and assets
Clara M. Davis now petitions the Court allow his share of the firm property to be of the firm of Cook& Gleason be distribu
for the payment of a judgment which she applied to the payment of a debt for I ted as partnership effects and to the pay
obtained against the bankrupt, Charles which neither he nor his property was lia- 1 ment of the firm debts as provided by law.
R. Gleason, on the 22d day of January, ble at law or in equity; 3 Barb. Chan'v | I do further order and adjudge that the
1870, for $1,562.97, and interest since its j R.. Kirby v. Schoonmaker, 46. In other store and lot for the purpose of distribu
recovery, out of the fund derived from words, it would be authorizing the partner tion are to be treated as a part of the firm
such*a1e. In her behalf it is argued that | selling to assign his property to pay the assets, and that the judgment of the peti
by the transfer of Cook to Gleason the debts of a person for which he was in no tioner was not and did not become a lien
property that before was partnership way liable, instead of paying his own thereon by the sale of Cook to Gleason,

Whole No. 159.

and that the petitioner Davis has no lien
or claim upon said fund by virtue thereof,
and that her judgment is not payable out
of the firm effects of Cook & Gleason until
after the payment of all the debts of said
firm.
And the petition and motion of said
Davis is denied.
W. P. Bartlktt for petitioner.
H. W. Tenney for Assignee and Firm
Creditors.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.
HON. A. 0. DOWNEY, CUIEr JUSEICE.
ABSTRACTS OK DECISIONS.
Adam Maxwell v. John Boyne. Appeal
from Rush C. C. Buskirk, J. Suit by A
against B to recover damages for the erec
tion and maintenance of a private nuis
ance, and to cause the same to be abated.
The complaint alleges that in 1S39, the
plaintiff by deed authorized and permitted
one C, and his assigns, to erect and main
tain a mill-dam of a certain height across
a certain stream ; that subsequently the
plaintiff became the owner of the mill and
land on which the same was situated, and
afterwards sold the same, subject to the
water and mill privileges previously grant
ed by him as they then existed ; that the
defendant had become the owner in fee of
the said land, mill and privileges, and
that he, and others through whom he
claimed title, had, without the consent
and over the objection of plaintiff, made
the dam fourteen inches higher than it was "
when he conveyed the same, and by reason
thereof the back-water from the dam had
overflowed his lands, etc. The jury found
a general verdict for the defendant. On
the trial the court admitted evidence as to
the height and condition of the dam at
the tinuMof tht-triiU, xavi submitted the
following interrogatories : "1. What was
the height of the dam at the time A sold
the property?" ''2. What was the height
of the dam at the time of bringing this
suit?" "3. What is the height of the dam
now?" "4. Is the dam higher now than
when A sold the mill property? and if so,
how much ?"
To the first interrogatory the jury an
swered, "Evidence is not sufficient to es
tablish the height ;" to the second, "8 ft.
1-5 in. j" to the third, "79 inches;" to the
fourth, "Evidence is not sufficient to
show."
Held, That the Court committed no
error in admitting the evidence, or in
submitting to the jury interrogatories 3
and 4.
Held, also, That the answers to the first
and fourth interrogatories were not full
and responsive, and that the Court erred
in receiving the verdict and discharging
the jury.
The Court instructed the jury that If
they could not determine from the evi
dence either in the affirmative or negative
in answering the interrogatories presented
to them, they could answer, "The evi
dence is not sufficient to determine."
Held, That this was error.
Judgment reversed.
The State of Indiana ex rel. John T.
Powell vs. Horace P. Biddle, Judge, etc.
Downey, C. J.
The power of this Court to award a writ
of mandate is confined to those cases
where it is necessary in the appropriate
discharge of its duties as an appellate
court, and it has no power to award such
writ in an independent and original pro
ceeding.
Petition dismissed.
Judge Miller, of Wisconsin.A very
determined effort is being made to place
Judge Miller, of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wiscon
sin, on the retired list. His enemies allege
that he is a one-sided judge; his friends,
that he is one of the most faithful and im
partial of judges. We hope justice may
be done.

CHICAGO

LEGAL NEWS-

chase of the block, they, the defendants,

would purchase it for the purpose of erect
ing thereon a Court House and other
buildings, and complainants being inter
ested in property in the neighborhood of
this block, and anxious for the erection of
County buildings upon it, by which the
of their property would be enhanced,
1 value
acceded to the proposition of the defend
Volume IV.There has always been a ants, and, through one Hiram Baldwin,
great demand for back numbers of the thereupon executed a prommissory note to>
Mary W. Collins for the sum of seven
Legal News, and, as all our files of num hundred
and fifty dollars at ten per cent.,
bers 1 and 2 of this volume, not required payable thirty days after date, of which
TO OUR LEGAL EXCHANGES. to furnish our subscribers, have been seven hundred and ten dollars had been
paid at the time of filing the bill of com
We had a very good set of back files of burnt, we have made this issue Number 1 plaint.
our legal exchanges which we prized vhry of Volume IV.. so as to make the volume
It is then alleged that the defendants
much. These have all been destroyed with complete in fifty numbers. Our office, for had caused the Clerk of the County Court
our office. We shall be exceedingly obliged the time being, is Room 7, Lind's Block. of Warren County to publish an advertise
ment in the County newspapers, that the
to our brethren of the legal press who will, We are glad to be able to say that, not- j County would receive sealed bids to be
so far as possible furnish us with the back withstanding the fire, we have not missed opened at the meeting of the Board on
second Monday of September. 1868,
numbers of their papers.
an issue of the News or failed to appear | the
for the sale of this block or for one or
more lots thereof, by which the erection
LEGAL MATTERS IN CHICAGO. on time.
of a Court House and other County build
The members of the bar are most of Judge Bradwell, who had one of the ings would be prevented. And the bill
them ruined. Not a single law office re best probate libraries in America, lost further charges that said sale is proposed
to be made purposely to avoid the erection
mains, either in the North or South Di every volume in the fire, as well as the of
such buildings is fraud of the rights of
visions of the city. The law offices on manuscript of his work on Probate Law complainants and to their irreparable
the West side, which number some five or and opinions for two volumes of probate injury. It is further charged that com
six, are still left, but their libraries are reports, which had been prepared for plainants were especially invited and re
quested by the legal agents of the County
very small. We believe several gentlemen publication.
to contribute this money toward the pur
chase of this block to be purchased and
on theJSouth Side, who had libraries at their
used
by the County for the purpose of
homes as well as their offices, have suc
We are indebted to Wm. Marshall, of erecting
upon it County buildings. And
ceeded in saving them. A large number the Monmouth bar, for a copy of the fol it is further charged that the defendants
of the members of the bar are without lowing opinion :
do not possess the statutatorv power to
officeswithout bookswithout money SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. sell and convey this block or any portion
of it, nor do they, by the terms of the
without business, and with no immediate
grant to them, possess such power, but if
OPINION FILED SEI'T. 2$, 1871.
prospect of any. Most of the insurance
such a colorable sale should be made the
companies in which they insured their Boakd of Supervisor* of Warren Co. vs. Aero Pat erection of public buildings, thereon would
terson. Appeal from Warren,
be prevented, and complainants defrauded
houses, libraries and other property are I
POWERS OF HOARDS OF 8UPERVIS0RS- of their money. An injunction was prayed
bankrupt, and the hope they entertained
ERECTION OF COURT -HOrsESCONDI for to restrain the sale, which was granted.
TION TO ERECT COUNTY BUILDINGS IN
The defendants, in their answer, deny
of being able to support themselves and
DEED.
any proposition to complainants of the
families by the money derived from their 1. Powers of Supervisors. That the Hoards of kind
and nature set up in their hill, and
in counties having adopted township allege if any note was executed for seven
insurance, in case they should suffer from Supervisors,
organization, are tlw legal successors to the coun hundred
and fifty dollars to Mrs. Collins
the hand of the fire king, has vanished, ty commissioners' court, and the powers of the
and Supervisors to erect county it was not in pursuance of any agreement
and they find they have been leaning on Commissioners
buildings and hind the county by their agree between the makers of the note and the
in relation to such buildings discussed.
a broken reed. Truly, the attorneys of ments
2. Agreement to erect County Hcildi.xos. That defendants, and they distinctly deny Chat
Chicago deserve not only the sympathy when the following clause was in on agreement any agreement was ever made between
for the sale of land to a county, ''for Colli'*, house these parties touching the purchase by
of their brethren throughout the natiftn. and
other county buildings." it was held that this the defendants of this block of ground ;
did
prevent the proper county authorities
but such aid as can be rendered them. Iromnot
selling the land, and its use for other pur and without making an exhibit of the
poses.
The records of the courts, State and Fed
:s. Co-,mnoN in Deed as to Vse, Ac. That, if A deed from Collins and wife, they say that
eral, have been consumed] as well as buys a lot of ground of li. and it is declared in the the deed is a deed conveying the premises
deed that he purchased it as a site lor a mill or to the County in fee simple absolute, and
the records and deeds. So far as we i other
operative establishment, the fee being eonto him. he has t.h^ undoubted right to dis not upon any confidence, trust or condi
were able to see from personal inspec I veyed
pose of it ; but if a grant be made by A to H on tion whatsoever.
The answer admits advertising for bids
tion, the only records saved are thoe of condition B erects on the land granted a certain
structure, and he fails so to do, the land might lor the purchase of this block, and denying
the office of City Tax Commissioner. revert, etc.Ed. Leqau News.
all combination and fraud, and thereupon
We are not now able to say whether
Opinion by BreESE, J.
entered a motion to dissolve the injunc
This
was
a
bill
in
equity
in
the
WaVren
tion.
Mr. C. N. Holden, the Commission
Circuit Court, exhibited by Azro Patter
This motion was denied, and thereupon
er, is entitled to the credit of preserv son
and others against the Board of Su the complainants filed their replication,
ing these records or not. It was owing pervisors of that County, the scope and and the cause was heard on bill, answer,
to their being placed in a well-constructed object of which was to enjoin defendants replication, depositions and exhibits,
from selling or disposing of block sixteen when, on the second day of February,
vault, instead of being left in large rooms in
the city of Monmouth, on the allegation 1S70, the following decree was entered:
as the county records were. Every vol that the block in question was purchased 'This day this cause comes on to be
ume of the library of the Chicago Law as a site for a Court House and other heard upon the bill, answer, proofs and
buildings, and to which complain exhibits in the cause on consideration, of
Institute, which was the pride of the bar county
ants had contributed the sum of seven all of which the Court do find the equity
of the West, was destroyed.
hundred and fifty dollars, part of the pur of the cause to be with the complainants,
chase price thereof.
and that they are entitled to be repaid by
It appears this block of ground was the the defendants the moneys advanced by
TO LAW BOOK PUBLISHERS.
More law books will be bought in property of Mary W. Collins, and that the them toward the purchase of said block
Board of Supervisors in September, 1S57, number sixteen. But is hereby ordered,
Chicago within the next twelve months were
negotiating with her and her hus adjudged and decreed that the injunction
than in any city in the world. At least band, John W. Collins, for its purchase, heretofore issued in this cause be. and the
three hundred lawyers will commence to and that the price demanded by Collins same is. hereby, so far modified that upon
six thousand two hundred and fifty the payment by the defendants to the
renew their libraries. There is no other was
dollars. This the Board declined to give, Master in Chancery of this Court, for the
medium through which law book pub but were willing to pay five thousand five useof the complainant, the sum of$7io.oo,
and interest from the time it was so paid
lishers can reach the members of the pro hundred dollars for the block.
The complainants, feeling a deep inter by complainants, said injunction shall
fession better than the Legal News.
est in this matter, agreed among them from thenceforth be wholly and totally
if the Board would buy the prop dissolved, and that the defendants pay the
THE MEETING OF THE LEGIS selves,
erty, they would make up the difference costs to be taxed."
LATURE.
between the price asked and that offered,
To reverse this decree the defendants
Governor Palmer called together the being seven hundred and fifty dollars. appeal.
block was purchased and conveyed to
The first question to be considered is,
Legislature on yesterday to aid our city so The
the County for the supposed consideration were appellants a party to any agreement
far as they constitutionally can to recover of five thousand five hundred dollars.
such as is set forth in the bill of com
In the agreement for the sale, which plaints. We have examined the record
from its present distress. Some action
bears
date
September
11,
1S67,
there
is
will have to be taken in regard to our lost this clause : The party of the first part carefully and can find no evidence that
appellants, or any authorized committee
records. Would it not be well for the "agree to sell to the said party of the sec of their body, made any proposition to
ond
part,
block
number
sixteen
in
the
appellees to advance the difference for this
State to buy one of the set of abstract
city of Monmouth in the said County of block between the price appellants were
books that have been saved, and pass a Warren
with appurtenances thereunto be willing to pay, and the owners to take.
law that they and copies of them, duly longing for Court House and other County
The fair inference from all the testimony
certified by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, ' buildings."
is, that, at the meeting at Baldwin's Hotel,
It
is
alleged
in
the
bill
of
complaint
shall be received as prima facie evidence that a proposition was made by the de at which a committee of the Board of Su
was present, that such was the
in all the courts ? A'law should be passed, fendants that if complainants would fur pervisors
anxiety of the complainants to have coun
if it can be done under our constitution, nish the amount in difference on the pur ty buildings erected on that particular

been received two days previous to the

Chicago Legal ]SJ"ews. fire, the receipts were made out and
signed, but remained in the office, but,
CHICAGO, OCTOBER 14, 1871.
fortunately, the entry was made upon the
Subscription Book ; consequently any one
POULISHED EVERY SATURDAY HY
who does not receive his receipt, and
The Chicago Legal News Co. j informs us of the fact, will be supplied at
AT ROOM 7 nidi's BLOCK.
i once. We would ask our subscribers to
remember us by sending in their subscrip
MYRA BHADWELL, EDITOR tion in this our trial hour.
Two Dollars per annum, in advance : Single Copies,
Ten Cents.
Rates of Advertising :
1 Square - (one insertion; - One Dollar.
(Ten lines of Nonpareil solid make a square.)
TO OUR READERS.
In the late terrible destruction of our
beautiful city, the office of the Legal
News was consumed with its entire con
tents, including a library of near two
thousand volumes. All were destroyed
with the exception of our Subscription
Book and Ledger. It was near midnight
when the fiery fiend took possession of the
block in which we were. Our little daugh
ter Bessie, twelve years of age, rushed
into the office, grasped the Subscription
Book and the portraits of a brother and
sister who are in the spirit world, and
went out into the wild night, and, crowd
ed through the surging mass of humanity
until finding her burden too great, she
was prevailed upon to resign her pictures
into the hands of an acquaintance, and
pressed forward. She continued to walk
the streets until three o'clock the next
dayfirst going to the North Side, then
back to the South Side and, when found,
was near Western Avenuethe extreme
western portion of the city. In making
our escape from the burning district, we
rushed down Washington Street to the
Base-ball Grounds and there buried the
few articles which alone remained of
household goods and wearing apparel, not
exceeding one hundred dollars in value.
We were driven by the flames to the lake,
and there, amid smoke and falling cinders,
and a heat that was almost stifling, remain
ed until two o'clock the next day, when we
made our escape to the West Side, being
obliged to go by the way of Twelfth
Street, rushing by falling walls and through
clouds of smoke. Yet we do not feel
like uttering one word of complaint when
we compare our hardships with hundreds
of others; when we take into considera
tion the thousands who are to-day under
going all that mortals can and live, mourn
ing the death of loved ones whose ashes
they may not be permitted to gather,
orphan children wandering helpless and
homeless. The Good Father only knows
how they are to he provided for the com
ing winter.
But every train comes laden with relief
for the sufferers, and we trust they will be
cared for.
We assure our readers that the Legal
News will be continued. This number
has been issued under many difficulties.
We would ask our subscribers to over
look the decrease in size of the News.
We will soon right up and go for
ward again with the usual amount of
reading-matter, and try to merit the sup
port of the legal profession, which has
heretofore been so generously extended to
us. We regret exceedingly the loss to
our subscribers of so many volumes which
had been sent us for binding. A large
number had been sent to the bindery,
which was burned, and there were some
four hundred files remaining in the office.
A large number of subscriptions had

relieving the sufferers by this fire from the

immediate payment of their debts. We
have no doubt the members \\;ill be will
ing to do all in their power to relieve
the city, for it has been the pride and
glorv of the whole State.

Chicago Legal News.

3
block, that they voluntarily assumed the devote it as expressed in the deed, but that
NARSH & MAYO,
BONNET. FAY & GRIGGS,
payment of this difference, they themselves Ibrmed no pait of the consideration, nor Attorneys, 150 Washington St. Attorney, 143 Clark St. Koom 22.
professing that on the purchase being ef was it the inducement to the grant.
/chancery notice.- state op illinois,
THE
LIMITED
the matter ( KHtid
Bradlej-.
State PARTof 1115- 1! 1^ UK,k County, sti. Circuit Court of Cook
fected, their object would be accomplished,
Subsequent events may have admon tn Tiorship
of Rhode
county.
October
Term. 1S71. Chancery,
Harriot E. freeand they thereby derive, as individuals, ished those authorities that the financial
unty of Cook, **.
. .. i man r. Klnm
C. Kneman.In
the iindersiKiicd. Charles P. Rhodes, unviu Affidavit of the non-residence of Klani *. Fremore or less advantage.
condition of the county did not justify an c. Wh illey
and Alfred H. Houtrh.do herny certiiy m defendant above named, having been filed
No promise or contract was made to expenditure such as contemplated when
e have entered into partnership, pursuant to , jn the offlce f)f the ,,u,rk of Slli(| circ,lit ,.ourt of
or with them that County buildings the purchase was made, and that the best that
acts of the legislature of Illinois, approved Fet Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said
2*1, 1847. and February lsth. tsi;7. under the Elam C. Freeman that the complainant filed her
should be erected on the block, nor had interests af the county required a sale of ruary
name and style of Rhodes and Ilradley, for the bill
complaint in said court, on the chancery
the Committee appointed by the Hoard to the property.
purpose
of dealing in coal, pig iron nnd iron ones, sideofthereof,
on the 14th day of September, 1*71,
make the purchase any power so to bind
We fail to see anything in the transac that Charles D. Rhodes and Oavid 0. Bradley, both and
that
a summons thereupon issued out of said
of
Chicago.
Illinois,
are
the
general
partners,
and
their constituents or the County.
tion to take from them the power express
court
aarainst
said defendant, returnable on the
Alfred R. Hough, of Cleveland. Ohio, ia the third Monday of
The main allegation of the bill, that such ly conferred upon them by statute, to sell that
Oetolier next (1*71), as ia by law
special
partner
;
and
that
said
Alfred
H.
Hough
required.
a proposition was made by the committee the land. There is no covenant in the has contributed to the capital stock of said part
Now,
unless
you.
the said Elam C. Freeman,
nership
the
sum
of
thirty
thousand
dollars:
that
of appellants, is not established by tha deed that the land should be devoted to a
shall personally be and appear before said Circuit
said partnership shall commence on the first day court
proof; and if it was, it is very clear the particular purpose, but by its terms the of
sf
Cook
county,
on the first day of the next
A. I>. before
1871. and
until , lerm ''^."A 'hlb? .'.'"'A1""
riot terminate
theshall
first continue
day of March,
atf ,Vhic.ft,,0',in, Sfti?
committee had no authority to make it. county became possessed of an absolute ndSeptember.
A.
D.
1S74.
units,
by
mutual
consent.
1
T,n,,}j?.!!iL'e.!h,,.ri?.1.?<l'X
1.^<-,toheJ"l !MT^ and
That appellee understood the block was to estate in fee simple to the land, uncon
plead
answer
or
demur
to
the
complainant's
In case of the death of either of said partners, bill of complaint, the some, andsaid
be used for the purpose of erecting upon it trolled by any condition, restriction, lim whether
the matters and
general or special, before the end of said thiugs therein charged and stated,
county buildings, is quite probable, but we itation or reservation whatever.
be taken
term, said partnership shall not thereby be dis as confessed, and a decree enteredwillagainst
you
fail to see, no agreement having been . If A buys a lot of ground of B. and it is solved, but the said general partners, or the sur according
to
the
praver
of
said
bill.
of them, shall continue said business to the
made to that effect, how they can profit In declared in the deed that he purchases it vivor
NORMAN
T.
GASSETT,
Clerk.
of said term; and after such death the heirs Marsh & Mayo, Compl'ts Sol'rs.
it. The presumption is, they were willing ! as a site for a mill or other operative es end
52-3
and legal representatives of such deceased part
to risk their money, the proportion of each tablishment, the fee being conveyed to ner or partners shall stand in the same relation
/ CHANCERY NOTICE. -STATE OF ILLINOIS,
being small, on the chance, which seemed him, he has the undoubted right to dispose to said partnership as the said special par.ner.
Witness our hands, at Chicago, Illinois, this \J Cook County, ss.. Superior Court of Cook
a flattering one. that after the block was | of it without carrying out his intention. thirty-first
county, December Term, 1871. Hiram B. Hipp
day
of
August,
A.
D.
1871.
purchased, the erection of buildings " of But if a grant be made by A to B on con
vs. Axa M. Hipp.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residenee of Axa M.Hipp,
CHAS. D. RHODES,
KKAL.
magnificent proportions and fine architec dition B erects on the land grafted a cer
defendant above named, having been filed in the
tural beauty," by which the value of their tain structure, and he fails so to do, the : .'-cent :
office
of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook
property would be increased, would follow land might revert to the grantor.
jl*. S. Rev.! DAVID C.1BRADLEY, : seal. county, notice is hereby given to the said Axa M.
Hipp
that the complainant heretofore tiled his
:
Stamp,
i
as a matter of course.
But it is needless further to argue the
certain bill of complaint in said court, on tlio
The only question in the case is, as to case. Here was an unqualified sale of the
chancery
side thereof, and that a summons there
ALFRED
II.
HOUGH,
SKA
I..
the power of the proper constituted author fee in this blockit became vested in the
upon issued out of said court against said defend
ities of a county to sell land which may- county, and appellants as their lawful I State of Illinois. County of Cook, City of Chi- ant, returnable on the first Monday of December
ss. , Anson B. Miner, a notary public in next flsTl k as is by law required.
have been purchased for the purpose of! agents, have full right and authority to cago.
and fur th city of Chicago, in the county and How, unless you. the said Axn M. Hipp, .shall
erecting thereon county buildings. For sell it, and should not have been enjoined , state
afore iid, do hereby'certify that Charles I.). personally be and appear befute said Superior
this, ample power is given by chapter 27 from so doing.
Rhodes and David < Bradley, who are personally Court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
to mc to b< the same persons describ- thereof, to be ho!den"at Chicago, In said county,
R. H., 1845. Section 36 of that act pro
In case a sale shall be made of the prem I1 known
ed
in and who execute " the foregoing certificate, on the fit at Monday of December, 1871, and plead,
vides, that the county commissioners' | ises by appellants, whatever claim appel j appeared
before mc th
in person, and sev- answer or demur tothe said complainant1* hill of
court in each county shall have power to lees may have to a portion of the grounds dally acknowledged
t at they executed tin
complaint, the same, and the matters and tilings
contract for, and provide for the use of can be adjusted in an action which they certificate, freely and aluntarily, for the pur- then in charged and stated, will be taken as con
poses
therein
mentioned.
fessed, and a decree entered against you accord
their respective counties, whenever it shall may institute for such purpose, but as to Given under my hand and notarial seal this ing
to the prayer of said bill.
become necessary, anv lot or lots of hind their right we express no opinion.
sixth day of September, A. D. 1871.
* AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
whereon to erect such county buildings,
Niwxll Pbaet. Compl't's Sol'r.
52-3
The right of sale being invested in the notarial :
ANSON
B.
MINER.
and obtain deeds of conveyance to such appellants, the injunction should have |
seal.
:
Notarv
Public.
Tenney. McCl?llan & Tenney,
counties, and to sell and convev the same j been dissolved on the coming in of the ,
* when it shall become necessary, to any answer and the proofs. To refuse it was \ State of Ohio. Cuyahoga County, City of Cleve Attorneys, 120 Washington St.
land,
ss.
I.
Conway
W.
Noble,
a
notary
public
in
purchaser or purchasers, in the manner error, and for the error the decree must be and for said city of Cleveland, in the county and cchancery noticestate of illinois,
provided by law. iicates' Comp., 302.
reversed, and the cause remanded.
state aforesaid,"do hereby certify that Alfred B. } COOK County, ss. Superior Court of Cook
Section 35 of the same act, makes it the Wm. Marshall and Frost & Tunni- Hough, who is personally known to me to be the county. October Term. ls7l. Albert Meyer and
same person described in, and who executed the Mathil'le Meyer vs. Charles Liehenstein, Fredduty of the commissioners to cause to be CLIFF for Appellants.
foregoing certificate, appeared before me this day erica Liebenstcin, Joseph Ullman. Josewh Liehen
erected, when in the opinion of the court John J. Glenn for Appellees.
in person and acknowledged that he executed the stein. and parties unknown. In Chancery.
the means of the county are such as to jus
said certificate, freely and voluntarily, for ttic Affidavit that Joseph Ullman. one of" the de; fendants above named, has gone out of the State
purposes
therein mentioned.
tify it, a suitable court house in each of EXECUTORS AND ADM/NIS- Given under
mv hand and notarial seal, this 31st of Illinois, so that process cannot be served upon
their respective counties. Ib.
TRA TORS.
him, having been filed in the office of the Clerk
day
of
August,
A.
D.
1871.
Section 15 of the same act provides, that
of snid Superior Court of Cook county, notice is
Testator in his will appointed three
hereby given to the said Joseph Ullman that the
NOTARIAL
the county commissioners' court, by an
CONWAY W. NOBLE.
SEAL. Notary Public in and for suid County. , complainants heretofore filed their cer ain hill of
order entered on their minutes, may ap executors, one of whom died in testator's
complaint
in said court, on the chancery side
point a commissioner to sell and dispose lifetime, and a second refused adminis
State of Illinois, County of Cook. City of Chi 1 thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued
of any real estate of their county, upon tration. On application to make a resi- cago, ss. In the matter of the limited" partner out of said com 1 :iguint said defend nt. return
ship of Rhodes and Bradley. Charles D. Rhodes, able on the first Monday ot uctober next;lS71),
deed duly acknowledged and recorded,
of said city, county and state, being first duly ! a* is by law required.
shall convey to the purchaser all the right, duray legatee administrator with the will sworn,
on his oath pays, that he is one of the gen- Now, unless you, the said Joseph Ullman, shal
title and estate of the county in the prem annexed, held, that administration could I aral partners referred to in the foregoing eei tifi- , personally be and appear before said Superior
' cate. and that the sum of thirty thousand dollars, 1 Court of Cook county, on the firl day of a term
ises so conveyed. Ib.. 299.
in the said certificate, as having been thereof, to beholden at Chicago, in said county,
These courts of county commissioners not be granted on appearance and con specified
contributed to the common stock of said partner on the first Monday of October. Ih7l. and plead,
were established by the constitution of sent of the remaining executor; he must ship,
has actually and in good faith been contrib 1 answer or demur to the said complainants' bill
to the same in money, and short , of complaint, the same, and the matter-' and
1S1S. and by law. were vested with plenary- either renounce probate or withdraw his uted and applied
paper, equivalent to and 'received as j things therein charged and stated. Mill be taken
powers over all the concerns, fiscal and appearance. Garrard v. Garrard, L. commercial
cash.
CHAS. D. RHODES. as confessed, and a decree entered against you
otherwise, of the several counties to whom
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this sixth , according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JAC0BS'>N. Cork.
day'of September. A. D*1871have succeeded Boards of Supervisors, in R. 2 P. & D. 238.
, Tenney, McCi.em.an A T*.nxi:t, Compl't's Sol'is o'2-Z
those counties which have adopted town
NOTARIAL
:
ANSON
B.
MINER,
ship organization under the ennstitution
We hope all our subscribers who
.-E\L.
Notary Public,
D. L. CARMICHAEL,
of 1848. and by county courts in those
Bonxey, Fay A Grioos, Att'ys.
counties which have not adopted that or have not already done so, will imme
50-3 j Attorney, Room 12 IIonorb B'k.
ganization.
HANCERY NOTICE. TATE OF ILLINOIS,
diately, upon receiving Ihis, send us;
" ~samujex~ STRAUS^
ierior Court of Cook
This is not now an open question in this
C1
the
required
two
dollars
to
renew
Attorney,
Room
o
Larm
on
Block.
county.
October Term, 1S7L Elizabeth Cutler vs.
court, it having 'been decided after full .......
Albert
R.
Cutler
In
Chancery.
I
A
DMINISTRATOR'S
SALE
OF
REAL
ESTATE
consideration, that Hoards of Supervisors their subscriptions.
1 A By virtue of a decretal order of sale, made Affidavit of the non-residence ofAlbert R. Cutlor,
af the several counties adopting township
above named, having been filed in the
by the County Court of Cook county. Illinois, at : defendant
office of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook
organization, are the legal successors to TESTATE OF THOMAS. OTHERWISE CALLED. the August term, A. L>. 1871, of said court, to-wit: II county,
notice
given to the said Albert
September
1.
1,
Margaretha
Burkhartsnieier.as
ad
the county commissioners' court. Green Ajj Anthony Kines or Kins, deceased.Public ministratrix of the estate of Jacob Volmer, de R. Cutler that isthehereby
complainant heretofore tiled
tt al. vs. "Ward-well et til.. 17 111.. 278. It notice is hereby given to all persons having ceased, shall, on Tuesday, the (24th) twenty- her certain bill of complaint in said court, on the
claims jmd demands against the estate of fourth day ot October. A. D. 1871, at the north chancery side thereof, and that a summons there
follows, therefore, that, as the county com Thomas,
otherwise called Anthony Kmes, or Kins, door of the court house, in the city of Chicago, upon issued out of said court against said de
missioners' court had power to use and deceased,
to present the sume for adjudication
returnable on the fir^t Monday of Oc
of Cook, in the State of Illinois, between fendant,
convey any ground that may have been and settlement at a regular term of the County county
next (18."0> as is by law required.
hour of ten o'clock a. m. and the hour of five tober
Court
of
Cook
county, to be holden at the court the
Now, unless you, the snid Albert R. Cutler, stoall
selected for the public buildings, the same house, in the city
o'clock
p.
m..
to-wit
:
at
the
hour
of
1
1
o'clock
in
the
on the first Mon
appear before said Superior
of that day, sell at public vendue lot I personally lie and
power exists in the Board of Supervisors. day of l>ecember, A.oi Chiearo,
L>. 1871, being the fourth forenoon
county, on the first day of a term
forty-four (44) in the subdivision of the south ! Court of toCook
Its exercise must of necessity be a matter dav t hereof.
be holden in Chicngo, in snid county,
half of block twenty-two ('J'^i in the canal trus ;, thereof,
of discretion, for the proper exercise of SARAH KINES. otherwise KINS, Executrix. tees subdivision of the west half (except the on the first Monday of October, 1871, and plead,
September 1. 1871.
southeast quarter of the northwest quarter and answer or demur to'the said complainant's bill of
which those functionaries are responsible Chicago.
M. A. R'RKE A Son, Att'ys.
1-G the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter) complaint, the same, and the matters and things
only to their constituents.
charged and stated, will be taken as conof section five (5), in township thirty-nine (3f)j therein, and
The only remaining question is as tothe
a decree entered against you accord
SAMUEL GHER.
~ north, of range fourteen (14) east, of the third (3) l fessed
ing
to
the
prayer ot said bill.
principal
meridian,
with
a
one-story
frame
cot
effect of the clause in the contract to con
Attorney, 114 Dearborn St.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
tage house thereon, known as number 108 Cornell
vey the block, and which it is not denied, instate
4i!-3p
samuel yeates, deceased. street, in the city of Chicago, in Cook county, D. L. Carmichael. Compl't's SoVr.
is also contained in the deed executed by- j Public of
notice is hereby given tt) all persona Illinois, subject to an incumbrance thereon by
Collins. The deed conveys the absolute having claims and demands against the estate of trust deed, dated Oetober 16. Isr.H, securing the TESTATE OF MARIA GERKE, DECFASED.
to present the same for payment of 400 and interest thereon at ten per Jn> Public notice is hereby given to all persons
fee, without any conditions or restrictions Samuel Yeates,anddeceased,
settlement at a regular term of per cent, per annum, from October 10, A. D. 1808. having claims nnd demands against the estate
whatsoever. The power of alienation is adjudication
the County Court of Cook county, to be holden at The terms of sale to be cash in hand on the day of Maria Gerke, deceased, to present the same
the court house, in the city of Chicngo. on the of sale.
for adjudication and settlement at a regular term
not limited or confined in any way.
Monday of November, A. D. 1871, being the Dated at Chicago. September 8, 1871.
of the* County Court of Cook county, to be holden
Had the grantors in the deed imposed, first
sixth
day
thereof.
at
the court house, in the city of Chicago, on the
MARGARETHA
HIRKHARTSMEIER,
as a condition of the sale, that the block
HANNAH M. YEATES, Executrix, As Administratrix of the estate of Jacob Voll- first Monday of December, A. D. 1871, being the
should be used for county buildings, and Chicago. September 8, 1871.
fourth day tnereof.
mer, deceased.
50-3a Samuel Straus, Att'y.
ALBERT GROSSMAN, Administrator.
50-3
for no other purpose, they perhaps might Samuel Gkhr, Att'y.
Chicago, September 23, 1871.
invoke the power of a court of chancery to
i-r,
M. A. Rorke & Son, Att'ys.
P.
M
HUGH,
H.
STICKNEY,
restrain a threatened sale of it; bnt the
CHARLES 0R0MLEY, DEfacts show the grantors received the price j Attorney, 48 South Clark St. Attorney, Room 12, Swing's Block INSTATE CP
OF PATRICK TREACY, DECEASED. "TESTATE OF HENRY WOLFRAM, Jb., deceased. 'j ceased.- Public notice is hereby given to all
demanded for the property, abating noth INSTATE
Vj Public notice is hereby given to all persons LJj Public notice is hereby given to all persons persons having claims and demands against the
ing on the ground that the purchase was having
claims and demands against the estate of having claims and demands against the estate of estate of Charles Cromley, deceased, to present
made for the purpose of erecting upon it Patrick Treacy, deceased, to present the same for Henry Wolfram, Jr., deceased, to present the same the same for adjudication nnd settlement at ft
adjudication and settlement at a regular term of for adjudication and settlement, at a regular term regular term of the County Court of Cook county,
county buildings, and it was quite imma |j the
Court, of Cook county, to he holden of the county court of Cook County, to ne holden to be holden at the court house, in the city of
terial to them to what purpose the block ; at theCounty
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the at the court hquse in the city of Chicago, on the Chicago, on the first Monday ol December, 1871,
would be devoted, they having received first Monday of October, A. D. T871, being the first Monday of November," A. D. 1871, being the being the fourth dav thereof.
ANDREW M. RORKE,
i *-econd dav thereof.
sixth day thereof.
full price for it.
Administrator, with the will annexed.
HELENA WOLFRAM, Administratrix.
FRANK KELLY
and i\ ^editors.
WILLIAM
DENVER,
It no doubt was the intention of the ap
Chicago,
September
22, 1871.
Chicago, September 1^, 1871.
1-6
pellants, when the purchase was made, to ! Chicago, August 9, 1871.
51-4a M. A. Rorkb, Att'y.
46-6 W. H. Siicknev, Atty.

4
ADOLPH MOSES,
Attorney, 4 Commercial Building.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, Cook
County, ss. Superior Court of Cook County,
November Term, 1871. Johann Schmidt vs. Bar
bara SchmidtIn Chancery.
Affidavit of the non residence of Barbara
Schmidt, defendant above named, having been
filed in the office of the clerk of said Superior
Court of Cook County, notice is hereby given to
the said Barbara Schmidt that the complainant
ALEDO (XLJj.) ATTORNEYS.
heretofore filed his certain bill of complaint in
said court, on the chancery side theroof, and that
PEPPER ft
Room No. '2, Bank building (up stairs). 47* !h summons thereupon issued out ol said Court
'against said defendant, returnable on the first
Monday ot November next, (1*71,) as is by law re
SPRINGFIELD, IEE.
quired.
Now, unless you, the said Barbara Schmidt, shall
HKRNDON * ORENDORFF,
be and appear before said Superior
27 personally
Office west side square.
Court of Cook County, on the first day of a term
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said County,
on the first Monday of November, 1871, and plead,
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill of
.1ITH 4 ORDWAY,
complaint,
the same, and the matters and things
No 11 Centre Block, Nicollet St.
51-11* therein charged
and stated, will be tiken as con
fessed, and a decree entered against you accord
ing
to
the
prayer
of said bill.
ATTORNEYS.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Adolph
Mosxs,
Compl't's
Sol'r.
l-4p
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
J. S. GRINNEIX,
No. 79 i)efou>or street, Leavenworth,'Kansas.
Attorney, 143 S. Clakk St.
"PUBLICATION NOTICE.State of Illinois,
X Cook County, ss. Cook Count v Circuit Court,
Law Department
September Term, A. D. 1871. HenrvSayrs, Edward
W. Thompson and Franklin Gilmore, vs. F W
Of THE
Hull and Barton C. Tillett.
Public notice is hereby given to the said F. W.
UNIVEESITY OF MICHIGAN Hull
and Barton C. Tillett, that a writ of attach
ment issued out of the office of the Clerk of Cook
County Circuit Court, dated the 27th day of Sep
The Faculty of this Department consists of
tember, A. D. 1871, at the suit of the said Henry
JAMES P. ANGELL. LL. D., President of the Sayre,
Edward W. Thompson, and Franklin Gilmore, and against the estate of the said F. W.
University,
Hull
and
C. Tillett, for the sum of one hun
Hon. JAMES V. CAMPBELL, Lecturer on Equity dred and Barton
thirty-one 27-1 no dollars, directed to the
and Equitable Remedies, Criminal Law, United Sheriff of Cook County, which said writ has been
returned executed.
States Jurisprudence, and International Law.
therefore, unless you, the said F. W. Hull
Hon. CHARLES L WALKER, Lecturer on Con andNow,
Barton C. Tillett, shall personally be and ap
pear before the said Cook County Circuit Court,
tracts. Billsand Notes, Partnership, and the Law on
or before the first day of the next term thereof,
of Corporations and Agencies.
to be holdenat the Court House in the city of Chi
Hon. THOMAS M. COOLEY, Lecturer on Consti cago, on the third Monday of October. A. D. 1871,
special bail, and plead to the said plaintiffs'
tutional Law, Estates in Real Property, the Do give
action, judgment will be entered against vou, anil
mestic Relations, Wills, etc., and Uses and in favor of the said Henry Sayrs, Edward W.
Thompson and Franklin Gilmore, and so much of
Trusts.
property attached as may be sufficient to sat
CHARLES A. KENT, Eso,., Lecturer on Pleading, the
isfy the said judgment and costs, will be sold to
and Practice, Evidence. Personal Property, satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Easements, and Bailments.
J. 8. Grinnell, Pl'tbV Attv.
1-4
The Course consists of two terms of six months
each, commencing on the first day of October in Runynn, Avery, Loomia & Com stock.
each year, and continuing until the Law Com Attorneys, 12 Metropolitan B1k.
mencement in the la^t week of March. The fees
notice.state of illinois.
charged to Don-residents of the State are $25.00 chancery
Cook County, ss. Superior Court of Cook
matriculation fee, and $lo 00 term foe, mak County, December Term, 1871. George Stephen
vs. Sarah J. Stephenson.In Chancery.
ing for the whole two-years course, $45.Of). These sonAftidatit
the non-residence of Sarah J.
fees entitl estudents to the use of the general Stephenson,ofdefendant
jiboxe named, having been
filed in the office of the Clerk of said Superior
library of the University and to all the inciden Court
of
Cook
coumy,
notice Is hereby given to
tal benefits of the institution.
the said Sarah J. Stephenson that the complain
For catalogues and further information, apply to ant heretofore filed his bill of complaint in said
court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
H, D. BENNETT, S*ward,
summons thereupon issued out of said court
Ann Arbor, Mich. against said defendant, returnable on the first
M _>nday of December next (1871), as i* by law re
quired.
GEORGE H. LEONARD,
Now, unlesB you, the said Sarah J. Stephenson,
Attorney, 72 LaSalle St., Room 7. shall personally be and appear before said Su
Court of Cook county, on the first day of &
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, Opok perior
to bo holden at Chicago, in said
County, as. Superior Court of Cook County, term thereof,
on the first Monday of December, 1871, and
October Term, 1871. Margaret Monahan and John county,
plead,
answer
or
to the said complainant's
Monahan, her husband, vs. Timothy Hurley and bill of complaini,demur
the same, and the matters and
David Cole. In Chancery.
things
therein
charged
and stated, will be taken
Affidavit that Timothy Hurley, one of the de
confessed, and a decreo entered against you
fendants above named, has gone out of the State as
according
to
the
praver
of
said bill.
of Illinois, so that process cannot be served on
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
him, having been filed in the office of the Clerk of Rtjnyan, Avery,Looms
<fc
Comstock,Compl't's
Sol'rs.
sa'd Superior Court of Cook County, notice is 52-3
hereby given to the said Timothy Hurley, that the
complainants heretofore filed their certain bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side
JOHN LYLE KING,
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out
of said court against said defendant, returnable on
Attorney', 76 Dearborn St.
me first Monday of October next, (1871,) as is by 'TESTATE OF PATRICK GILLIGAN, deceased.
law required.
notice is hereby given to al! persons
Now, unless you, the said Timothy Hurley, shall , JAJ Public
claims and demands against the estate of
personally be and appear before said Superior ,\ having
Patrick
Gilligan,
to present the same for
Court of Cook County, on the first day of a term adjudication and deceased,
settlemont, at a regular term of
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said County, the county court of
Cook
County,
to be holden at
on the first Monday of October, 1871, and plead, the Court House In the city of Chicago,
on the
answer or demur to the suid complainant's bill of first
Monday
of
December,
A.
D.
1871,
oeing the
complaint, the same, and the mutters and things
therein charged and stated, will be taken as con fourth day thereof.MATHILDA GILLIGAN,
fessed, and a decree entered against you accord
Administratrix, with the will annexed.
ing to the prayor of said bill.
Chicago, September 27, 1871.
l-7a
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
George H. Leonard, Compl't's Sol'r.
1-4
WAITE & CLARK,
SAMUEL STRAUS,
ATTORNEY'S, 1 00 WASHINGTON St.
Attorney, Room 5, Larmon Block. TESTATE OF JEROME MYERS, DECEASED.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois. Cook JjJ
notice is hereby given to all per
County, sa. Superior Court of Cook County, sons Public
having claims and demands against the
December Term, 1871. Herman Loewenthai vs. estate
of
Jerome
Myers, deceased, to present the
Hannah Loewenthal.In Ohancery.
same for adjudication and settlement at a reg
Affidavit that Hannah Loewenthal, defendant ular
term
of
the
County
of Cook county,
above named, resides out of the said State of Illi to be holden at the courtCourt
in the city of
nois, on due inquiry cannot be found, so that pro Chicago, on the first Mondayhouse,
of
November,
A. D-,
cess cannot be served upon her, having been filed 1871, being tha sixth day thereof.
in the office of the clerk of said Superior Court of
GOEL
M.
GLOYD,
Executor.
Cook County, notice is hereby given to the said Chicago, September 22, 1871.
Hannah Loewenthal. that the complainant hereto
.r>2-6a
fore filed his certain bill of complaint in said court, Waite A Clark. Att'ys.
on the chancery side thereof, and that a summons
thereupon issued out of said court against said
SNOWHOOK & GRAY,
defendant, returnable on the first Monday of De
Attorneys, 77 Dearborn St.
cember next, (1871,) us is by Iww required.
Now, unless you, the said Hannah Loewenthal, estate of jeremiah o'connor, deceased. Public notice is herebv given to all
shall personally bennd appear before saidSuperior
Court of Cook County, on the first day of a term persons having claims and demands against the
thereof, to be holden in Chicago, in said county, estate of Jeremiah O'Connor, deceased, to pre
on the first Monday of December, 1871, and plead, sent the same for adjudication and settlement at
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill of regular term of the County Court of Cook
complaint, the same, and the matters and things county, to be holdenat the court house, in the
therein charged and stated, will be taken as con city <of Chi
Iiicago, on the first Monday of November,
fessed, and a decree entered against you accord A. D. 1871, being
the sixth day 'thereof.
b
ing to the prayer of said bill.
EUGENE O'SULLIVAN, Executor.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Chicago, September 22, 1871.
Samuil Straus, Compl't's Sol'r.
1-4 Snowuooe & Grat, Att'ys.
62-fia
OTTAWA (II.t.> ATTORNEYS.
LANCHAKD, SILVER 4 CORWIN.
B
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
SANFORD, E. Spsoial attention given to Ool
lections nd Real Estate.
14,

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
JAMES ENNIS,
Attorney, 115 Madison St.
. WtRDEX DEANR.
EDWARD OAOILI.
f chancery notice.state of illinois,
DEANE & CAHILL,
\J Cook county, as. Superior Court of Cook
COUNSELORS AT LAW,
county, December term,.1871. Alvina Kerstan vs.
Gustav Kerstau.In Chiicery.
Room 7, Lind Block, Chicago, III.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Gustav Kers
tan, defendant above named, having been filed in
Notary Public and Commissioner of Deeds.
the office of the Clerk of said Superior Court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said
Gustav Kerstan that the complainant heretofore
Law Department
filed her certain bill of complaint in said court,
on the chancery side thereof, and that a sum
0P THE
mons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
December next (1871), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Gustav Kerstan, shall
AT IOWA CITY,
personally be and appear before said Superior
Court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
raculv :
thereof, to be holdenat Chicago, in said county, Rev. GEORGE TIIACHER.
President q/ tho Uni
on the first Monday of December, 1871, and plead,
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill of versity.
complaint, the same, and the matters and things
therein charged and stated, will be tnken as con Hon. WILLIAM G. HAMMOND. LL. D., Chancel
lor of the Department and University Professor
fessed, and a decree entered against you accord
ing to the praver of said bill.
of Law.
" AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk. How.
CHESTER C. COLE, LL. D., (one o/ Oi Jus
Jahes Ennts, Compl't's Sol'tr.
1-4
tices of the Supreme Court of Ioica), Professor of
BROWN & RICKETTS,
Commercial Law and the Right of Persona.
Attorneys, 8 Metropolitan B'k. ' Hoh. william e. miller, (one of a* Justice* of
CHANCERY NOTICE.STATE OF ILLINOIS, the ^preme Court of Iowa), Professor of Crim
Cook eounty, ss. Superior Court of Cook inal Law, Pleading and Practice.
county, December term, 1871. Judson G. Clark
The course is completed in a single year
vs. Ellen A. Clark.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Ellen A. divided into three terms. Graduates receive the
Clark, defendant above named, having been filed degree of LL. B., and are admitted to praotice im
in the office of the Clerk of said Superior Court all the courts of the State.
of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the
said Ellen A. Clark that the complainant hereto- I The next term commences Sept. 14, 1871.
fore fiied his bill of complaint in said court, on | Tuition, Twenty Dollars per term, or Fifty Dol
the chancery side thereof, and that a summons j
thereupon issued out of said court against said lars for the entire course. No charge for matriodefendant, returnable on the first Monday of De- I ulation, incidental expenses, or graduation.
cember next (1871), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the "aid Ellen A. CLtrk, shall For further information, address
personally be and appear before said Superior
WILLIAM G. HAMMOND,
Court of Cook county, on the first day of a term 4.V3
Chancellor of the Department, Iowa City.
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
on the first Monday of December, 1871, and plead,
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill of Tf-STATE OK JOHN MACALISTER, deceased.
complaint, the same, and the matters arid things Jjj Public Notice is hereby given to all persons
therein charged and stated, will be taken as con having claims and demands against the estate of
fessed, and a decreo entered against you accord John Macalister, deceased, to present the same
ing to the prayer of said bill.
for adjudication and settlement, at a regular term
AUGUSTUS JACOBSOK, Clerk. of the county court of Cook County, to bo holden
Brown & Rickktts. Compl't's Sol'rs.
1-4 ut the Court'House in the city of Chicago, on the
first Monday of November, A. D. 1871, Deing the
sixth day thereof.
DUNNING & EASTON,
ABBIE MACALISTER, Administratrix.
Attorneys, 161 Washington St. Chicago,
September 5, 1871.
50aB
chancery noticestate of illinois,
ARNOLD TRIPP,
Cook County, sr. Superior Court of Cook
Countv, October Term. 1871. Anna J. Becker vs. Attorney, 100 Washington St.,
John F. Becker.^In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of John F. TESTATE OF MATHIAS HAGEMAN, deceased.
Becker, defendant above named, having been _Oj Public notire is hereby given to all persons
filed In the office of the Clerk of said Superior having claims and demands against the estate of
Court of Cook county, notice is hereby given to Mathias Hageman, deceased, to present tho same
the said John F. Becker that the complainant for adjudication and settlement, at a regular term
herWoforo filed her certain bill of comp'aint in of the County court of Cook County, to be holden
siiid court, on the chancery side thereof, and that at the court nouse in the city of Chicago, on the
a summons thereupon issued out of mud court first Monday of December, A. D. 1871, being the
against said defendant, returnable on the first fourth day thereof,
Monday of October next (lxTlj, as is by law re
ELIZABETH HAGEMANN, Administratrix.
quired."
Chicago, September 29, 1871.
l-6a
Now, unless you, the said John F. Becker, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior
DENT & BLACK,
Court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
thereof, to be holden in Clucagr, in said county,
Attorneys, i2X LaSalle St.
on the first Monday of October. 1871. and pie all,
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill PUBLICATION
ublication NOTICE, state c F ILLIof complaint, the same, and the matters and
nois, Cook County,
Superior Court of
things therein charged and stated, will be taken Cook county, Deci
r Term. 1871.
J.
as confessed, and a decree entered against you Colby and J. Walla..- Tillson vs. Henry Uriah
A. Jone
according to the praver <>f said bill.
who is trading under the firm name of Blake -V
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk. Jones.Attachment.
Dunxisg k Easton, Compl't's Sol'rs.
1-4 Public notice is hereby given to tho said Henry
A. Jones that a writ of attachment issued out of
the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of
IRA W. BUELX,
Cook county, dated the 7th day of August, A. D.
Attorney, 166 Washington St. 1871, at the suit of the said Uriah J. Colby and J.
chancery noticestate of illinois, Wallace Tillson, and against tho estate of the
Cook County, ss. Superior Court of Cook said Henry A. Jones, for the sum of six hundred
county, October Term, 1871. William J. Stewart and filly-eight dollars and twenty-five cents, di
rected te the Sheriff of Cook county, which said
vs. Ellen M. Stewart.In Chancery
Affidavit of the non residence of Ellen M. writ has been returned executed.
Stewart, defendant above named, having been Now, therefore, unless you, the said Henry A.
filed in the rfflce of the Clerk of said Superior Jones, shall personally be and appear before the
Court of Cook county, notice is hereby given to Baid Superior Court of Cook county, on or before
the said Ellen M. Stewart that the complainant the first day of the term thereof, to be holden at
heretofore filed his bill of complaint in said the court house, in the city of Chicago, on the
court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a first Monday of December, A. D. 1871, give special
summons thereupon issued out of said court bail, and plead to the said plaintiffs' action, judg
against said defendant, returnable on the first ment will be entered against you, and in favor of
Monday of October next (1871), as is by law re the said Uriah J. Colby and J. Wallace Tillson,
and so much of the property attached as may be
quired.
Now, unless you, the said Ellen M. Stewart, sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and costs,
shall personally be and appear before said Su will be sold to satisfy the same.
perior Court of Cook county, on the first day of a
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
62-3
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said Dent A BlaCX, PfflV Att'ys.
county, on the first Monday of October, 1871, and
plead, answer or demur to the said complainant's
UARDIAN'S SALE.STATE OF ILLINOIS,
bill of complaint, the same, and the matters and JT Cook County, ss. Circuit Court of Cook
things therein charged and stated, will be taken County, Illinois. In the matter of the applica
as confessed, and a decree entered against you tion of William Francis Whitlock, guardian of
according to the praver of said bill.
Paul M. Thompson, a minor, to sell real estate.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, ClerkPublic notice is hereby given, that in pursuance
Ira W. Bdell, Compl't's Sol'r.
1-4 of a decree of said court, entered in said cause
on the 19th day of September, A. D. 1871, I shall,
on Saturday, the twenty-first day of October, A.
M. A. RORKE & SON,
1871, at the hour of eleven o'clock a. m. of said
Attorneys, 155 Washington St. D.
day, at the north door of the court house, in the
Estate of Patrick furlong,deceased. city of Chicago, in the said county and State, sell
Public notice is hereby given to all persons at public auction, to the highest bidder for cash,
having claims and demands against the estate of all the right, title and interest of said minor in of
Patrick Furlong, deceased, to present the same for ; to the following described real estate, situate in
at a regular term of 1 the county of Cook and State of Illinois, to-wit:
adjudication
.and settlement
the Oonnty Court
of Cook county, to be holden the same being an undivided one-third of the
at the court house, in the city of Chicago, on the following lot, piece or parcel of land, commenc
first Monday of December, A. D. 1871. being the ing at the northwest corner of block thirty-five
(35), in the village of Evanston, and running south
fourth day thereof.
ANN FURLONG, Administratrix. on the cast line of Forest avenue two hundred
Chicago, September 23, 1871.
1-G and fiity and one-half (260 J^) feet ; thence running
east parallel with the south line of Greenwood
INSTATE OF JAMES BIRD, DECEASED.Pub- avenue one hundred ond thirty-seven (137) feet;
JP> lie notice is hereby givcu to all persons hav thence running north parallel with said east line
Forest avenue two hundred and fifty and oneing claims and demands against the estate of Jas. of
Bird, deceased, to present the same for adjudi half (2,V,I2j feet to the south line of Greenwood
avenue,
and thence running west on the south
cation and settlement at a regular term of the
Countv Court of Cook county, to be holden at the line of Greopwood avenue one hundred and
thirty-seven
(137) feet to the place of beginning.
court house, in the v\ry of Chicago, on the first
Monday of December, A. D. 1871, being the fourth Chicago, September 19. 1871W1LLIAM
FRANCIS WHITLOCK,
day thereof. JANE C. BIRD, Administratrix.
Guardian of Paul M. Thomson.
Chicago, September 2:1, 1S71.
Bradwell
A
Brvsrxdge,
Att'ys for Pet'r.
62-8
M. A. Rorkb & Sow, Att'ys.
1-6

Qhic ago Teg al^ews

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian ot Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 2.

We are under many obligations to Win.

H. Snyder, of the Belleville bar, for the
following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Wm. Kekves, Jr.. vs. Martin Here, Executor of the
Will of Adam "err, deceased.
HUSBAND AND WIFE AS WITNESSESSTATUTE OF LIMITATIONSOPEN
ACCOUNTS.
1. Widow of Deceased as Witness. The widow
of & deceased person was culled as a witness upon
the presentation of a claim against her husband's
estate, to prove a conversation which took place
between her husband and the claimantheld,
that she was not a competent witness. The court
very carefully and fully discusses the statute in
regard to ihe testimon- y of husband and wife.
2. Statute of LimitationsOpen Account.That
where ail the items of an open unliquidated ac
count are on one side, the last item which haj>
pens to be within five years will not draw after it
those that are of Ioniser standing, so as to pro
tect them from the operation ol the statute of
limitations.Ed. Leuai. News.
The opinion of the court was delivered
by Sheldon, J.
The principal question in the case is
whether the testimony of Catharine
Herr, the widow of Adam Heir, was
rightfully admitted.
It is a well settled general rule that a
husband and wile, while that relation ex
ists, cannot testify for or against each
other. And it is no doubt fully estab
lished by the authorities that, even after
the dissolution ol" the marriage contract,
the husband and wife. are not in general
admissible to testify against each other as
to any matter which occurred during the
existence of that relation. Morrow, v.
Twisclton: Parke's Add. Ca. 219; Daker
v. llasler, Ky. and Mo., 198; Greenlf Ev.
S. 337 i Stein v. Bowman, 13 Pet. 210;
Babcock v. Booth, 1 Hill 1S2 ; N'ewbrecht
v. Sankineyer et. al., 50, 111. ; O'Connor
v. Mayor Banks, Miss, and Gro., 435.
And it is contended that in such case the
wife is only excluded as a witness when
she is called against her husband or his
representative and asked to disclose any
fact imparted to her by her husband in
the trust and confidence ol" that relation,
and that the present case, the widow hav
ing been called for. her husband's repre
sentative does not fall within the rule.
In the cases of RadcIifF v. Wales, 1 Hill.
63. and Dickerman v. Graves, 6 Cush,
308, being actions brought by a husband
for criminal connection with his wife, it
was held that the latter, after a divorce
from the bond-, of matrimony, was a
competent witness for the husband to
prove the charge laid.
In both cases the general rule was ad
mitted, that the husband and wile are not
competent to testify against each other as
to what occurred during the marriage re
lation, even alter the marriage contract
was at an end. and the cases were held
not to come within the rule, as the wife
was not called to testify against, but in
favor, of the husband, and there was
no violation of confidence reposed in her
by the husband, for he himself called her
to testify, and the fact she was offered to
prove did not come to her kuowledge in
consequence of the marriage relation.
These authorities favor appellee's po
sition so far as they lay stress upon the
fact that the wife was not called against
the husband. It is laid down in the text
book that this rule of exclusion of hus
band and wife as witnesses for or against
each other is adhered to after the marriage
tie has been dissolved by the death of one
of the parties, or by divorce for adultery.
And the rule is so laid down generally,
without restricting it to the case where
they are called to testify against each
other. 2 Stark, Ev. 706; 1 Greenl. Ev.
S.,337; 1 Phill., Ev.. 75. Tyler on Inf.
and Cov., 323. The exclusion of the tes
timony of husband or wife for each other
is now frequently put upon the ground of
unity of interest, and if that were the
only ground the position of the appellee
would be more tenable; but we conceive
this rule of exclusion does not rest solely

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1871.

Whole No. 160.

upon that ground, but on considerations tify concerning it against the representa- U. S. DISTRICT COURT, DIS
; live of her husband, nor should she be
of public policy as well.
TRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
It has been resolved, says Lord Coke, I admitted to testifiy in his favor.
BANKRUPTCYINJUNCTION
AGAINST LEVY
that a wife cannot be produced either As the adverse party [in this case sues
UPON
IIOMKSTEAD.
against or for her husband quia sunt dua ' as the executor of a deceased person, the
anima in canu una, and it might be a defendant, under the second section of In the Matter of Charles Hunt, a Bankrupt.
cause of implacable discord and dissen the statute, was not allowed to testify in Hoffman, J., September 30, 1871.
This was an application by the bank sion between the husband and the wife, his own behalf.
If the witness, Mrs. Herr, had a direct rupt for an order to the assignee requiring
and a means of great inconvenience. 1
interest
in
the
event
of
the
suit,
then,
him to set apart certain real estate as the
Co. Litt. 7 a. In 2 Kent Comm. 176 it
is laid down that. ''The husband and wife under the third specified case, in the sec homestead of the bankrupt, and for an in
ond
section,
the
defendant
would
be
per
junction restraining a creditor who
cannot be witnesses for or against each
other. This is a settled principle of law. mitted to testify as to the same admission had recovered a judgment against the
or
conversation
she
testified
to.
But,
as
bankrupt, and issued an execution thereon
and it is founded as well on the interest
of the parties, being the same as on pub it does not appear whether she had any prior to the bankruptcy, f.om the proceed
such
direct
interest
or
not.
the
defendant
ing to sell the property. .
lic policy. See als. 1 Greenlf Ev., S. 351;
The Register has reported that in his
J'yler Inf. and Cov., 320; Stein v. Bow would not be allowed to testify under the
man 13, Pet. 222. Our statute abolishing statute, because of the death of Adam opinion the property in question has been
the incompetency of witnesses on the Herr, and the inability to have his testi duly declaied a homestead and is exempt
ground of interest, after enacting in the mony offered and considered with that from forced sale.
first section that no person shall be dis : of the defendant.
| In this opinion I am inclined to concur,
But the wife of Adam Herr was so iden but I see no reason for making the order
qualified as a witness in any civil action
suit or proceeding, except as hereinafter tified with him that they essentially con and issuing the injunction prayed for. If
stated, by reason of his or her interest in stituted but one party, and. so far as the the property be the legally declared home
the event thereof, as a party or otherwise, interests of the defendant are concerned, stead of" the bankrupt, no title to it pass
etc., declares in the fifth section, no hus it would seem to matter little whether the ed to the assignee, and it was wholly un-
band or wife shall, by virtue of section testimony of the one or that of the other affected by the assignment. The setting
one of this act. be rendered competent to was introduced against him. If, then, on it apart by the assignee could therefore
testify for or against each other, as to any the death of Adam Herr. his widow should convey no additional title. It would only
transaction or conversation occurring dur be received to testify for his representa amount, when approved by the court, to a
ing the marriage, whether called as a wit tive, as the defendant could not meet her declaration that this court, as a court of
ness during the existence of marriage or testimony with his own, it would seem to bankruptcy, has no concern with it.
after its dissolution, except in certain be unfair towards him, and in violation of The provisions of General Orders in
specified cases, of which this is not one. 1 the spirit of the statute, which seems to bankruptcy. No. XIX., requiring the as
But if the policy of the law, as con intend that there should be a mutuality signee to report to the court the " articles
tended, excludes the wife as ' a witness and equality ol" opportunity in parties tes set off to the bankrupt under the Four-
only when called against her husband or tifying the one against the other. When teenth Secticm of the act, with the esti
his representative, and to prevent a vio the statute had provided that in a suit mated value of" each article," evidently re
lation of any confidence reposed in her brought by the executor of a deceased fer to the ' necessary household and
by the husband, why. alter the law has re person the defendant should not be kitchen furniture and other articles and
moved all objection to the competency of allowed to testify, and that no husband or necessaries not exceeding $500 in value."
a witness on the ground of Interest, wife should, by virtue of" section one of which the assignee is, by that section, re
should not the husband himself in his life the act (which abolishes the disqualifica quired to "designate and set apart." and
time be permitted to call his wife as a tion of a witness by reason of interest), not to real estate held as a homestead, tbe
be rendered competent to testify for or title to which, as the act expressly de
witness for him ?
Why does the statute, after providing against each other as to any transaction clares, does not pass to[the assignee and is
that interest shall be no objection to the or conversation occurring during the mar not " impaired or affected by any of the
competency of a witness, declare that, riage, whether called as a witness during provisions of the act."
notwithstanding by virtue of that, the the existence of the marriage or after its Undoubtedly if the assignee were pro
wife shall not be rendered competent to dissolution, could it have been intended ceeding to sell or treat as assets property
that after the husband's death his widow- exempted from forced sale, tbe court, on
testify for her husband?
This must be because interest is not the might be admitted to testify as to such the application of the bankrupt would re
only ground of objection to husband or transaction or conversation? Had such strain him. But in this case the assignee
wife testifying ,for each other, but that been the intent of the statute, would it makes no such attempt, nor has he aii3' in
sound policy having respect to the preser not have provided that in such case the terest in the question ; for the property, if
vation of family peace and happiness, ex defendant also should be allowed to testify not a homestead, is subject to the judg
! at least as to the same transaction or con ment lien of a creditor for an amount
cludes the testimony.
which would absorb its proceeds. The
And this enactment would seem to be versation ?
We are of the opinion the witness was real contest is between the bankrupt and
a recognition and affirmance of this rule
1 not admissible within the fair intent and the judgment creditor, and the application
of public policy.
It cannot be said here, as in the cases ; meaning of this statute, as well-as on the is an attempt to procure from the Bank
cited, that there could be no violation of ground of public policy. The question ruptcy Court a decision of a question
any confidence reposed in the wife by the I argued as to the admissibility of the wit which properly belongs to the tribunals of
husband because he himself called her to ness from necessity to prove the book of the State, under whose laws the home
testify. This witness was called by the ' accounts does not arise on the record, as stead rights were acquired.
executor, and although the representative the book does not appear to have been
I think it clear that no such use can, or
of the husband as to his personal estate, offered in evidence, and the husband him ought to be made of this court. A home
self
appears
to
have
made
the
entries.
he was not his representative to determine
stead is not a " necesaary article " to be
the fitness of calling upon the widow for Tbe greater part of the account was set oft' by the assignee.
apparently
barred
by
the
statute
of
limita disclosure of matters occurring during
The provision of the XIX Rule are.
tions. The items within five years before therefore, inapplicable. The assignee
the marriage.
suit
brought
would
not,
as
supposed,
take
Although called for the executor, the
makes no claim to the property, and if it
witness might have been subjected to a the items beyond that time out of the be a homestead, the title to it is unaffect
statute.
There
were
no
mutual
accounts
ed by the bankrupt act.
cross-examination, and in this manner be
brought into conflict with the interest of herethe account was all on one side.
If it be not a homestead, the creditor
Where
all
the
items
of
an
open
unliqui
who
has a lien to its full value, is theonlv
the estate.
dated
account
are
on
one
side,
the
fast
What was sought to be proved by the
person interested to establish the fact. If
witness here was a conversation between item which happens to be within five it has wrongfully been seized in execu
the defendant and husband before and in years will not draw after it those that are tion, the bankrupt has the same right be
the presence of the witness, his wife, of longer standing, so as to protect them fore the State tribunals, as any person
which is claimed to have amounted to an from the operation of the statute of limit whom it is sought to deprive of a lawful
admission by the defendant of the amount ations. Kimball v. Brown, 7 Wend, 322. homestead.
The application is, therefore, refused,
sued upon and a promise on his part, Thompson v. Reed, 4S 111., 119. The tes
within the period fixed by the statute of timony of Catharine Herr, being all that nd the temporary injunction Jdissolved.
was offered on the part of the plaintiff, the Pacific Law Re/porter.
limitations to pay it.
We do not find from the authorities that judgment of the Court below is reversed
this rule of exclusion is confined to sub and the cause remanded.
THE TAXATION OF NATIONAL
Judgment reversed.
jects which are confidential in their na
BANKS.
Snyder & Dill, Attorneys for Appel
ture, and we think it should apply when
1. The capital stock of National Banks
ever the wife is called upon to disclose lant.
is liable to taxation for county purposes.
John Hinchliffe, Atty. for Appellee.
any matter which came to her knowledge
2. The exemption of mortgages, judg
in consequence of the marriage relation.
ments, and other modes of moneyed in
The conversation in question, though
Insurance.Where insured goods are vestments in particular counties, they
not between the witness or her husband, removed from a building apparently in being taxable throughout the State gener
but between him and the defendant, yet imminent dangerof being destroyed by ally, does not relieve national bank stock
as it occurred between them in the pres fire, the insurers are liable for the reas from county taxation.
ence and hearing of the wife, we must onable damage and expense of removal,
3. It is liable to assessment at its actual
regard that she came to the knowledge of although the building is not in fact burn or current value. Everett v. Steele et al ;
it by means of her situation as wife; that ed. White v.Republic Fire Ins. Co.; Com. PI., II Jud. Dist., Pn.Ltg- Gaz.
she could not properly be admitted to tes Sup. Ct. Maine, 2 Am. Rep. 22.
Sept. 29.

Chicago Legal News6

CHICAGO T EGAL T^JEWS. LEGAL BUSINESS IN CHICAGO. I thai, who has been the Librarian for sev" account, be afterwards barred from bring
The great question with the members of j eral -veilr*' has done much to make the ing a cross action in respect of so much of
the profession here is, how is legal busi library what it was, and, like Nehemiah, his claim as was not litigated in the former
CHICAGO, OCTOBER 21. 1871.
ness going to be the coming year : can we is now doing all he can to restore it to its proceedings. 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 155.
Administration to GuardianPrac
support ourselves and families? While no former greatness. He deserves, as he
PtTIUJBHRD KVERT SATURDAY HT
positive conclusion can be arrived at, we will receive, the thanks of the bar. His tice. Lord.Penzance held, in the Goods
The Chicago Legal News Co. can but think legal business will be better judgment in the selection of books has of Molineux, that, where it is desired a
AT 115 MADISON STREET.
and more of it transacted the coming year been excellent. It is to be hoped that the third party shall take a grant of adminis
than was ever done in Chicago in any one profession and law book publishers tration on behalf of minors, the regular
year
before. Every prudent man who throughout the country will do all in their course is for the mother to renounce her
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR
right to the guardianship, and for the
owns a lot or pieie ot land in the County, power to restore this library.
children to nominate the third parly as
whether in the burnt district or out of it,
Bissell's Reports.We are glad to their guardian, to take the grant of ad
Terms :
even if he has preserved his deeds, will file
Two Dollars per annum, in advance ; Single Copies. a bill in Chancery, or petition to preserve announce that Mr. Bissell saved from the ministration. 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 163.
Ten Cents.
the evidence of his title and show the fire all the manuscript opinions which had The above is evidently the correct prac
Ratrs or Advertising :
been entrusted to him for the purpose of tice, and has been followed, for many
] Square - (one insertion) - One Dollar. intermediate conveyances from the Gov publication in his series of reports.
years, in the County Court of this county.
(Ten lines of Nonpareil solid make a square.) ernment to his grantor. The Courts are
Will of a ForeignerLaw of Oominow open; several bills have been filed
Judge Caton's Park.It is known to
and
injunctions
granted.
TO OUR CITY SUBSCRIBERS.
many of our readers that Hon. J. D. cil at Time of Death. In dealing with
Caton,
ex-Chief Justice of the Supreme the succession to deceased foreigners, the
Our city subscribers who have been MEETING OF THE CHICAGO
Court of this State, has a beautiful park, court is bound by the law of domicil at the
compelled to remove their offices on ac
BAR.
time of death; and in the case of Fran
count of the late fire, in order to insure the
On Monday last, at the High School in which he keeps a large number of deer. cisco Solans Lopez, late President of Para
delivery of their papers, should send their Building, there was one of the largest This park is a great addition to that por guay, a domiciled resident of that coun
present address to this office. We have meetings of the Chicago Bar ever held. tion of the country, and we should suppose try, who made a will disposing of his
mailed the News regularly on every Sat- William A. Porter, Judge of the Superior everything in it would be regarded as personal property in England, and after
urday to all our subscribers, and if it has Court, was chosen chairman, and T sacred, but such is not the case; certain his death the government of his country
not been received on time it is not our Leddy secretary. The members all seem evil-dispojed persons kill the animals passed a decree confiscating all his proper
fault. We shall be very thankful to any ed to be in dead earnest, and determined which are kept to beautify the grounds. ty, Lord Penzance held that the govern
one who will send us a copy of our issue to do all in their power to restore the city Judge Caton says that within the last ment had no locus standi to oppose the
of Saturday, the 7th of this month.
to its former greatness, and place them year about forty deer have been stolen I grant of probate. 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 164
selves in a position as soon as possible to from his grounds, and unless these depre
NaturalizationCommon Law Jur
dations can be stopped he must abandon
We are now on the fourth year of the earn a living for themselves and families
isdiction. A court having original jurhis
cherished
object
of
keeping
them,
and
Legal Xews, and although we have at by the practice of their profession The
[ isdiction of some actions cognizable by
times had many difficulties to overcome, subject of discussion was to determine offers $250.00 for every conviction for j the courts of law, under what is known as
have never failed to issue it regularly what legislation was necessary in order stealing them from his grounds. We the common law of England has
upon each Saturday. Those having no to settle titles when the records had been hope the rascals may be caught and pun j "common law jurisdiction," within the
experience in publishing cannot realize burnt. The following resolutions were ished.
meaning of the third section of the act
the difficulties to be surmounted in getting passed unanimously :
We have been imprisoned for the last of Congress of April 14, 1802, relative
out a paper, when the office from which Resolved, That the Judges of the courts of Cook twelve days, as it were, entirely cut oft' to the naturalization of foreigners. In
county, and the Judges of the United, Circuit
it was issued has been destroyed, together and
District courts, be appointed a standing com from the legal world and our exchanges. I the matter ot Martin Connor (col.), 427.
to consider of and devise such legis
with the type, rules and heading with mittee
lation as may be necessary to restore lost pa The first of our exchanges that made its We consider the law as laid down in the
pers
and
of all courts, public offices, set appearance was the Albany Law Journal,
which it was printed. Until the excite tle titles torecords
above opinion contrary to the weight of
realty, nnd all kindred subjects,
ment consequent upon the fire passed off Rmotred, That said committee appoint any sub on Wednesday of this week, followed by
authorities.
committee
they
ma/
deem
desirable
from
the
bar,
we did not realize how much we once had. to consider any designated matter, and report to the London Law Times, the Pittsburgh
Covenant to BuildIn the Califor
committee. And the members of tuo bar
and how little we now possess. The the
each pledges himself to do any such sub-com Legal Journal and the Pacific Law- nia case of Cowell v. Lumlev reported,
Legal News Library contained an ex. mittee work required of him.
Jiaolved, That said standing committee do Reporter, and right glad were we to see 2 American Reports, 430, it is held that
cellent collection of text books, as well as whatever
they may deem desirable for the pur
pose of having schemes of legislation prepared our old friends and welcome them to our a covenant to erect a building on the
bound volumes of legal journals, among to
be submitted to the Legislature, State and seven by nine Sanctum.
leased premises does not by implica
which were complete files of the Ameri Federal, at the proper time.
tion impose upon him an obligation to
can Law Review, American Law Regis
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
rebuild in case of the destruction of the
ter, Bankruptcy Register, Internal Rev IRON SAFES VS. BRICK VAULTS
Libelous Passage.In re the Goods building by fire during the term of the
enue Record, Western Jurist. American
There is, perhaps, no class of men more
of
Honywood. Searle, on behalf of the j lease ; nor does the destruction of the
interested
than
attorneys
in
knowing
the
Lav) Times, United States Jurist, Legal
executors,
moved that a certain paragraph building and the refusal of the lessor to
Gazette, Pacific Lav.' Reporter, Lancas best way of preserving papers and other
j
be
omitted
from the probate of the will of j rebuild relieve the lessee from the agreeter Bar, Legal Opinion, Bench and Bar, valuables from destruction by fire. We
and files for many years of the Pittsburgh have just passed through an experience the deceased testator, and cited Curtis v. j ment to pay rent.
.
Legal Journal, Legal Intelligencer of unequalled in the history of the world, j Curtis, 3, Add. 33; In the Goods of G. 1
Philadelphia, London Law Times, So- and wc feel compelled to say to our read- I Wartnaby, 4 Notes of Cases, 476; Marsh The Albany Law Journal says there
licitor's Journal, Albany Law Jonrifal, ers, put not your trust in iron safes. v. Marsh, 1 S. & T. 52S; 1 L. T. Rep. N. is but one copy of the first census of the
Canada Law Journal, and others. Brick raults are undoubtedly the safest S. 523. Lord Penzance held" that the United States (1790) in existence, so far
Court would not exercise its power to as known, and that is now in the Con
These are in ashes, and our library now protection, all things considered, against
j
strike
out of the probate of a will a libel gressional Library at Washington.
consists of one volume of Kent's Com fire yet known. In very few instances,
mentaries. At this writing we have no where brick vaults were properly con ous passage merely because it is offensive,
Reports, no text books, no dictionary, no structed, even in our late terrible fire did and which is not calculated to injure those The London Law Times, of September
glossary, no statute. We must build they fail to protect the treasures commit against whom it is leveled. 25 London 30th, reprints the opinion of Judge Drumagain. When the Legal News was in ted to their charge. Vaults should be Law Times, Rep. N. S. 164.
mond, delivered at Springfield, in the
Custody of Children. The Rolls case of the Missionary v. The Virginia,
corporated three years ago we placed upon constructed upon the ground, and not
its seal the motto Lex Vincct, and adopt upon stilts, as were some that came un Court held, in Hamilton v. Hestor, that a involving several important questions of
ed it as our watch-word, and in faith tit der our notice. Stone is too liable to contract by which a father deprives him salvage law, where one vessel was lost in
tering these words, will triumph over all ] crack and crumble with the heat, to be self of his parental control over his child saving another.
ren is contrary to the policy of the law;
obstacles. We regret that this issue is 1 used with safety for vaults,
and it is only in cases where the control of WarEffect of on Contracts for
only four pages, instead of eight, but it
was impossible for us to avoid it. Per THE CHICAGO LAW INSTI the father is injurious to the child that the Interest. On the 14th of August, i860,
court will enforce specific performance of ; the plaintiff loaned the defendant,^ citi
TUTE.
haps our next will be no larger in size
zen of Minnesota, the sum of $17,000
than this number. New type and furni
A meeting of the members of the Law such a contract. 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 146. upon a bond and mortgage on lands in
Work Done Defectively Counter that State, conditioned for the payment of
ture have been ordered, and jut as soon Institute was held at the High'School
the principal in five years, with interest,
as it arrives we shall again appear with building on Monday, with Judge Booth in Claim. The Court of Queen's Bench, in payable
semi-annually. The plaintiff was
Davis
v.
Hedges
et
al.,
held
that
a
defend
eight, instead of four, pages. We promise the chair. All the property of the In
at the time a resident of North Carolina,
our subscribers that the fourth volume ot stitute was consumed by fire, and its ant, when sued for the price of work which and so continued to the date of the ac
and not there nor elsewhere engag
the Legal news shall be more than only capital is what it may receive has been defectively done, might give tion,
ed in the service of the United States,
equal to any that has preceded it. Our from the insurance policies which it evidence of the breach of contract by the but dnring the whole period he had an
Subscribers who have not renewed their holds and the unpaid dues from its defective performance of the work, in agent in the State of Minnesota. In ac
subscriptions would aid us greatly, and { members. The institute has been very reduction of the amount then sought to tion brought to foreclose the mortgage,
that the plaintiff was entitled to re
help to relieve us from the effects of the j popular not only with the members of the be recovered ; but he might also reserve held,
cover the interest accruing on the bond
terrible calamity, if they would do so im profession in Chicago, but with the bar his counter claim, or any part thereof, and during the rebellion and before maturity.
throughout the Northwest. Julius Rosen- if he chose so to do, he would not, on that Lash v. Lambert (Minn.). 142.
mediately.

7
A NOVEL RECORD.
V. S. CIRCUIT COURT E. D. PENN nor does there seem any likelihood that:
appellant's interest will be interfered with 1 We are indebted to the law firm of Mc
SYLVANIA.
in any way.
| Cue & Ziegler, of Independence, Kansas,
IN ECjUITY.]
The order of the Circuit Court dismiss- for the following certified transcript of a
CONSTITUTK >NAL LAWDEDICATION-LEG ng the appeal is affirmed.Mich. Nisi record of proceedings before Justice D.
H. Thompson, of that State, in the case
ISLATIVE POWER.
Prius Reports.
of the State of Kansas vs. Heinsly &
leokk v. hick.
SUPREME
COURT
OF MICIII- Henes :
Motion for injunction against the Com
GAN.
Now this cause coming on for trial, this
missioners tor the construction of public
13th day of December, A. D. 1S70, the
MILLER VS. SWKITZEH.
buildings in Philadelphia.
A and B assaulted and beat C. A was arrested prisoner was arraigned, and on the charge
Cadwalader, J., September 2S, 1871.
triedB not arrested. On the trial the prose being read to him, or them, he, or they,
Constitutional power, and especially and
cution offered evidence as to a certain wound indict plead
guilty, or . not, guilty.
A. trial of the
legislative power may be greatly abused, ed upon
C by B.alone,
Objection
that asthat
A |i cause was
and as itwasdidmade
not appear
then had. and, -after hearing
the
where it is neither usurped nor exceeded. thereprosecuted
was
any
concert
of
action
between
A
and
15
in
produced by the State of Kan
In such a case the only remedy is legisla 1 making tfie assault, the evidence was inadmissible. testimony
and, also, on the part of the defense,
tive appeal. Judicial redress cannot be Held. That the proposed evidence should go to the sas,
and the argument of counsel, it is ad
| juryinvoked.
judged
by the court that the said defend
The constitutionality of the act of the Error to Wayne Circuit.
ant is (guilty or not guilty) of the offense
Legislature is disputed on the grounds Opinion by Graves, J.
charged in said information, and order
that,
This was an action on the case by that the said defendants be (held to bail)
1. It is a violation of the constitutional
their appearance at the next term of
amendment of 1864, which prohibits the Sweitzer against Miller to recover dam for
the District Court, or that they be dis
enactment of a law containing more than ages alleged to have been occasioned by charged
; or that they be fined in the sum
one subject, and requires that that subject j an assault and battery. Loss of business of $6,000.00,
or imprisoned, or both, and
i and the expenditure of money for medical
be clearly expressed in the title.
2. It violates the provisions of the Con ; purposes were charged. Plaintift offered that the costs be taxed to county.
D. H. THOMPSON,
stitution of the United States prohibiting ' evidence tending to show that he called at
Justice of the Peace.
State legislation impairing the obligation the grocery of Miller on business, when
of contracts, and the provision of the Con I an altercation occurred between himself State of Kansas, Howard county. I.
Miller's wife respecting payment for | Dan Carr, Clerk of the District Court,
stitution of the State in nearly the same and
some beer which she claimed he had pur- i Eleventh Judicial District, in and for
words.
chased on a previous occasion. Sweitzer j Howard county, Kansas, hereby certify
The provision for what was to have on
the stand testified that on his refusal to that the foregoing is a true and correct
been done if Washington Square had I1 pay
Mrs. Miller she took his hat and ' copy of transcript from the docket of D.
been selected by a majority of votes for the threatened
to take his watch; that he 1 H. Thompson, an acting Justice of the
location of the buildings, was, in effect, a sought to regain
his hat, whereupon Mrs.
Peace in and for said county
delegation of legislative power.
> of 1 loward.
First. On the first point it suffices to Miller threw him down, held him, and
DAN CARR,
observe, that the subject was a compound called to her husband to come and kill
District Clerk
one involving alternatives mutually de him if he did not give up his watch or pay
September 28, 1S71.
pendent or consequential. The title speci I for the beer. The defendant then seized
him about the neck and struck him sevfies all the purposes of the act except one, II eral
blows, while Mrs. Miller struck him
Married Women's Property Law.
which is directly consequential. If such a
law is unconstitutional, the question is not i several times on the head with a hatchet... A novel point under the act (33 and 34
last evidence was objected to as hav- I Victoria, cap, 93) to amend the law reso clear that it should be decided by a sin The
mg nothing to do with Sweitzer. Dr. lating to the property of married women
gle Judge at an interlocutory hearing.
Second. The argument under the sec Granger was asked if he could tell how came before Mr. Justice Brett, at cham
ond head is that Penn Square having been the wounds on the head were caused, but bers, a few days ago, and illustrated the
dedicated by Mr. Penn. the former pro an objection was taken on the ground that working of the law. A female was sued
prietary, to general public use. the Legis there was no evidence going to show that for debt contracted before her marriage,
Sweitzer struck the blows on the head. and judgment was obtained, and an exe
lature could not constitutionally modify The
objection was overruled, and the wit cution being levied, the husband claimed
the grant. The proprietary certainly
could not have resumed, abrogated, or ness stated that the wound must have the furniture,, by virtue of his mar
modified it. Under the frame of govern been made with a blunt instrument, some riage, a part being his own before mar
ment of 1701 all powers of legislation thing harder than the fist. The questions riage. The holder of the bill of sale giv
in the case arose on the refusals of the en after the marriage claimed the furni
were vested in the Provincial Assembly. Court
the objections to the ad ture. The Sheriff of Middlesex, for
That body could, I think, have modified missionto ofsustain
testimony.
whom Mr. Mavnard appeared, took out a
the beneficial use by such an act as that
error took the ground that j interpleader summons, and the only ques
ingestion. The argument is. that under as PlaintifV.in
he was prosecuted alone, and it did tion was whether the judgment creditor
the Constitution the Legislature of the
appear that there was any concert of would take an issue againsMhe holder of
State could not do.so. I am of a different not
action between himself and his wife, or the bill of sale. It was pointed out that by
opinion. The dedication to public use that
his acts naturally and ordinarily pro the new act the earnings of married wo
did not preclude such legislation. What
ever may have been decided in one or two duced the blows given by his wife! tne ev men were protected as well as deposits in
idence respecting her assaults were inad saving banks, &c, and also as to personal
other States, neither the decisions of the missible.
Court, however held that property after her marriage as next'of
Supreme Court of the United States, nor the husbandThe
and wife were clearly, accord kin, fee, to the amount of 200; but
those of the Supreme Court of Pennsylva
ing to the testimony, engaged in the nothing was 6aid about furniture. His
nia support the argument.
togethei, and that the whole evi- ' lordship gave the creditor time to conThird. As the contingency of the selec assault
tion of Washington Square did not become dence should go to the jury, who were ; sider whether he would try an issue to be
" facts.
'
raised under the peculiar circumstances
absolute, the argument that it was insep the judges of' the
The judgment of the Circuit Court is of the case and the matter was adjourned.
arably connected with the legislative pro
affirmed
with
costs.
Mid.
Nisi
Prius.
The
execution creditor subsequently de
visions which took effect is a very refined
one. perhaps too refined. I am, however, S UPREME COURT OF PENNS YL- clined the expense of an issue, and would
withdraw from possession. Orders ac
of the opinion that the question of the
VANIA.
cordingly.
allotment of Penn Square to the purposes
VS. WATTS AND PAKKEU.
In another case, "Martin v. Lambert,"
contingently specified in the act was not LegalHEPBURN
tender notes are as applicable to the ex Mr. Herrick, the sheriff's officer, had
unconstitutionally left to a local vote. tinguishment of contracts made before the seized
under an execution for a debt con
passage of the act of Congress 1802 as to those
Pacific La-.v Reporter.
tracted by the husband of the wife in
made after.
Error to the Common Pleas of Cum England, and she claimed the property
SUPREME COURT OF MICHI berland county.
according to the law of France on a sepa
GAN.
Opinion of the court by Thompson, C. ration. The question was whether the
goods should belong to the execution
ij., at Pittsburgh, Oct. 9th, 1S71.
LADAR VS. M1CO0LS.
j creditor or the wife. Mr. Justice Brett,
I
When
the
judgment
in
this
case
was
To entitle a person to appeal from tho allow
took time to consider his decision,
ance of an Administrator's account, he must given below, the law. as it then stood who
allow that he has been aggrieved by such allow upon the decision of the Supreme Court held that the contract made in France,
ance.
of the United States, fully authorized it, both being foreigners, was to be carried
Error to Kalamazoo Circuit.
, both in form and substance. Hepburn vs. out in England according to English law,
Opinion by Campbell. C. J.
I Griswell, 8 Wall, 603. As it stands now and therefore the wife had a right to the
The Circuit Court dismissed an appeal in that court it was erroneously entered. property. The sheriff would withdraw.
from the allowance of an administration Legal tender cases (Knox vs. Lee; Par Victoria Magazine.
account on the ground that the appellant ker vs. Davis), 11 Wall, 682. We are
IRA W. BUELL,
was not a personage aggrieved by the or j bound in this court by the decision of the Attorney,
100 Washington St.
der appealed from. The appellant was Supreme Court of the United States, as chancery noticestate
of illinois,
the son of decedent, who died testate, and the case arises on an act of Congress, and
Cook County, ss. Superior Court of Cook
county,
October
Term,
1871.
William
J. Stewart
I
we
must
follow
whither
it
leads.
The
had bequeathed him $10 out of a con
Ellen M. Stewart.In Chancery
siderable estate, all of which was willed I legal tender cases, supra, decide that the vs.Affidavit
of
the
non
residence
of
Ellen M.
to specific and residuary legatees and dev rule announced in Hepburn vs. Griswell Stewart, defendant above named, having
been
filed
in
the
efflce
of
the
Clerk
of
said
Superior
!
is
not
the
true
interpretation
of
the
act
of
isees. The will was probated and estab
the legal tender I Court
!',0"r' of Cook
?,OK county,
c,uni,y' notice
no,";K is hereby given to
lished in 1S59. The account in question Congress of 1S62 ; that L^1_x__

I the said Ellen M. Stewart that the complainant

was settled in 1S69, and the order of set notes are as applicable to the extinguish
heretofore filed his bill of complaint "in said
tlement directed this legacy to appellant ment of contracts made before its passage court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
thereupon issued out of sai-l court
to be paid, and a large snrplus was shown as to those made after. The mortgage on summons
said defendant, returnable on the first
which the judgment below is entered was, against
and ordered to be distributed.
Monday of October next (1871), as is by law re
The appellant had no interest in the therefore, extinguishable by legal tender quired.
Now, unless you, the said Ellen M. Stewart,
case save as to his legacy of $10 and as to notes, and the judgment entered was er shall
be and appear before said Su
the question whether he might be held roneous in requiring its payment in gold perior personally
Court of Cook county, on the first day of a
liable so far as his legacy went for some and silver coins. We, therefore, reverse term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said
on the first Monday of October, 1871, and
contingent and unaccrued claims which the same, and send it back to be entered county,
answer or demur to the said complainant's
might be discovered. The statute re without the clause for payment in coin. plead,
bill of complaint, the same, and the matters and
quires that the person appealing must be Of course the incrementation of interest things therein charged and slated, will be taken
as confessed, and a decree entered against you
" aggrieved," and his interest must be is to be added.
prayer of said bill.
present and existing. No claim has yet Judgment reversed and a procedendo according to the AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON. Clerkoccurred after the lapse of many years, is awarded. Pittsburgh Legal jfour/ial.
Ira W. Busix, Compl't's SoPr.
1-4

GEORGE H. LEONARD,
Attorney, 72 LaSalle St., Room 1.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, Cook
County, ss. Superior Court of Cook County,
October Term, 1871. Margaret Monahanund John
Monahan, her husband, vs. Timothy Hurley and
David Cole.In Chancery.
Affidavit that Timothy Hurley, one of the de
fendants above named, has gone out of the State
of Illinois, so that process cannot be served on
him, having been filed in tho office of the Clerk of
sa;d Superior Court of Cook County, notice is
hereby given to the said Timothy Hurley, that the
complainaats heretofore filed their certain bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out
of said court against said defendant, returnable on
the first Monday of October next, (1871,) as is by
law required.
Now, unless you. the said Timothy Hurley, shall
personally be and appear before snid Superior
Court of Cook County, on the first day of a term
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said County,
on the first Monday of October, 1871, and plead,
answer or demur to the fluid complainant's bill of
complaint, the same, and the matters and things
therein charged and stated, will be taken as con
fessed, and a decree entered against you accord
ing to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Giokoi H. Lkosakd, Compl't's Sol'r.
1-4
SAMUEL STRAUS,
Attorney, Room 5, Larmon Block.
/"iHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois. Cook
Vj County, ss. Superior Court of Cook County,
December Term, 1871. Herman Loewenthal vs.
Hannah Loewenthal.In Chancery.
Affidavit that Hannah Loewenthal, defendant
above named, resides out of the said State of Illi
nois, on due inquiry cannot be found, so that pro
cess cannot be served upon her, having been hied
in the office of the clerk of said Superior Court of
Cook County, notice is hereby given to the said
Hannah Loewenthal. that the complainant hereto
fore filed his certain bill of complaint in said court,
on the chancery sieethereof, and that a summons
thereupon issued out of said court against said
defendant, returnable on the first Monday of De
cember next, (1871,) as is by luw required.
Now, unless you, the said Hannah Loewenthal,
shall personally be and appear liefore said Superior
Court of Cook County, on the first day of a term
thereof, to be hotden in Chicago, in said county,
on tfie first Monday of December, 1871. and plead,
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill of
complaint, the same, and the matters and things
therein charged and stated, will lie taken as con
fessed, and a decree entered against you accord
ing to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUS fUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Sahuil Straps, Compl't's Sol'r.
1-4
DUNNING & EASTON,
Attorneys, 101 Washington St.
chancery noticestate ok illinois,
Cook County, ss, Superior Court of Cook
County, October Term, 1871. Anna J. Becker vs.
John V. Becker..In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of John F.
Beaker, defendant above named, having been
filed In the othee of the Clerk of said Superior
Court of Cook county, notice is hereby given to
the said John F. Becker that the complainant
heretofore filed her certain bill of complaint in
said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on tile first
Monday of October next (1S71), as is by law re
quired.
Now, unless you, the said John F. Becker, shall
personally be and appenr bofore said Superior
Court of Cook county, on the first tiny of a term
thereof, to be holden in Chicagr, in said county,
on the first Monday of October, 1871, and plead,
answer or demur to the said complainant a bill
of complaint, the same, and the matters and
things t herein charged and stated, will be taken
as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to tlie praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Duxxixa A Eastom, Compl't's Sol'rs.
1-4
W. H. STICKNEY,
Attorney, Room 12, Ewing's Block
TESTATE OF HENRY WOLFRAM, Jr., deceased.
Ijj Public notice is hereby given to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate of
Henrv Wolfram, Jr.,deceased, to present the same
for adjudication -and settlement, at a regular term
of the county court of Cook County, to be holden
at the court house in the city of Chicago, on the
first Monday of November, A. D. 1871, being the
sixth dav thereof.
HELENA WOLFRAM, Administratrix.
Chicago, September 12, 1871.
W. H. BnciNiT, Atty.
51-4a
SNOWHOOK & GRAY,
Attorneys, 77 Dearborn St.
estate of jeremiah o'connor, deeeased. Public notice is hereby given to all
peisnus having claims anil demands against the
estate of Jeremiah O'Connor, deceased, to pre
sent the same for adjudication and settlement at
a regular term of tfie County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at tho court house, in the
citv of Chicago, on the first Monday of November,
A. D. 1871, being the sixth dav thereof.
EUiENE O'SULLIVAN, Executor.
Chicago, September 22, 1871.
Skowiiook A Grat, Att'ys.
52-oa
-WAITE & CLARK,
Attorneys, 100 Washington St.
testate of jerome myers, deceased.
Xjj Public notice is hereby given to all per
sons having claims and demands against the
estate of Jerome Myers, deceased, to present the
same for adjudication and settlement at a reg
ular term of the County Court of Cook county,
to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of November, A. D.,
1871, being tha sixth dav thereof.
GO EL M. GLOYD, Executor.
Chicago, September 22, 1871.
Waits 4 Clark. Att'ys.
52-6a

Chicago Legal News.

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS. .
ARTIN A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D.,
Allen, E. F., No. 6 Yates' Building.
664 Wabash Arenue. Adams,
M
E. F., 14:1 West Madison street.
KING A WILLARD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW. Anderson, H. H., Nixon's Building, corner La
178 West Madison St., late of 117 S. Clark St Salle and Monroe streets.
WF. WHITEHOUSK. 188 W. Madison Street, Abbott, A. B., residence 283 West Adams street.
late Tribune Building.
24
Ashton, Samuel, 89 East Washington street.
BRADWELL, J. B., 116 West Madison street.
OTTAWA (IliL.) ATTORNEYS.
Burke, Newton, office 12 South Canal street.
DLANCHARD, SILVER a CORWIN.
Bissell, J. H., 473 Wabash avenue.
Buel, Ira W., 603 Wabash avenue.
Burgess, Wm. T., 101 Sixteenth street.
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
Beckwith, Ayer A Kales, 79r> Wabash avenue.
SANFORD, E. Special attention given to Col Bennett & Sherburne. 121 South Sangamon St.
lections and Real Estate.
14,
Bacon & Norton, 537 Wabash avenue.
SPRINGFIELD, ILL.
Barker & Waite, 46 Harrison street.
Bates & Hodges, 113 W Madison street.
HKRNDON * ORENDORFF,
.,-t Bass, Perkins, 497 Wabash avenue.
Office west side square.
Bishee & Marsh, 204 W. Madison street.
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.
Bonney, Fay 4 Griggs, Bonney, 421 Fulton, Fay,
145 Park avenue, Griggs, 350 W. Adams street.
'MITH & ORIJWAY,
> No 11 Centre Block, Nicollet St.
81-11* Brackett, Wm., corner Third avenue and Taylor
street.
ATTORNEYS.
Binmore, Henry, 312 West Lake street.
Booth, Henry, Judge, 50.r, W. Lake street.
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
| , Butler, Walfer. High School Building.
Brousc, O. it. residence 01 Langley street.
Ko- 79 Delaware ttreet, Leavenworth,' Kansas.
_ 62* Crocker, I). J., 18 South Canal street.
Cooper A Packard, 1C3 W. Washington street.
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
Cowper,
Win. E., 110 Throop street.
ATTORNEY AT LAW.
Cowan,
D.
Masonic Temple, Room 11.
Kb. 113 West Madison Street, Chicago.
Carter, Becker & Dale, 515 Cuual street
Special Attention yiven to J'robate Matters. Cram,
J. A., 34 South Clinton street.
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
Crane, J. B., 98 W. Randolph street.
ESTATES SETTLED.
Driseoll ,t Pfirshing. office 47 Peck street.
"Set thine hou**1 in order; for thou shult die. Denison,
Frank, 204 W. Madison street.
and not live."-l Ktxos. xx. 1.
Dent & Black, 740 Wabash avenue.
Dow. S. K., -^7 Park avenue.

SIMEON W. KING,
Dunne, G., 596 W. Adams street.
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER,
Dunning & Easton, CG5 Wabash avenue.
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Davis, S. M., 182 West Monroe street.
NOTARY PUBLIC,
Dimock, John H., 1,100 Indiana avenue,
AND
COMMISSIONER OF DEEDS FOR ALL THE Ela A Parker, 154 Randolph street.
STATES AND TERRITORIES.
Eldridge & Tourtellotte, 118 W. Madison street.
Office. 17s West Madison Street, Chicago.
Ellis, B. W., 115 W. Madison street.
Enoe, W. E., South Dosplaines street.
y MAX EBERHARDT,
Felkor, Wm. S.. 371 liate street.
JUSTICE OF THE (PEACE Frake, K. James, 113 W. Madisan street.
Furness A Abbott, 30 South Clinton street.
Countn^JTnrtirnsrirljtrr,
Furness, Wm. Eliah, 30 South Clinton street.
Southwest Corner ofLake and Canal Sts., Fry.
George C, 54 W. Randolph.
CHICAGO.
R. H., 171 W. Adams street.
Residence: Ko. 80 North Sattrtamon Strict. 24 Forrester,
Garrison, Andrew, residenco 200 Park avenue.
, Garnett, Gwynn, 171 W. Madison street.
Law Department
Goodrich, A.. rill W. Monroe street.
or THE
Gross, Samuel E 303 Randolph street.
D. J., Nixon's Building, corner LaSalle
UNIVERSITY _0F MICHIGAN. andGoodwin,
Monroe streets.
The Faculty of this Department consists of
Goodwin ,t Rockwell, Nixon's Building, corner
JAMES P. ANGELL, LL. D., President of the LaSalle and Monroe streets.
University.
Gary, Elbert H.. 59 W. Madison street.
Hoir. JAMES V. CAMPBELL, Lecturer on Equity Goudy & Chandler. .'I'll Wabash avenue.
and Equitable Remedies. Criminal Law, United Grant, Wm, C. 15 HubBard Court
States Jurisprudence, and International Law.
Grinnell, J. S., 1,174 Prarie avenue.
Hon. CHARLES I. WALKER, Lecturer on Con
HIbbard, Rich 4 Noble, 35 and 37 Canal street
tracts. Hills and Notes, Partnership, and the Law Hervey. Anthony & Gait, 14 S. Clinton street.
of Corporations and Agencies.
Hitchcock. Dupec & Evarts, corner Wells and
Hon. THOMAS M. COOLEY, Lecturer on Consti Monroe streets.
tutional Law, Estates in Real Property, the Do
Hillis A Christian, 489 Michigan avenue.
mestic Relations, Wills, etc., and Uses and Herbert 4 Quick, 529 State street.
Trusts!
Howland, W. M.. 79 W. Madison street.
CHARLES A. KENT, Esq., Lecturer on Pleading, Hunter, J. A., 135 W. Monroe street
and Practice. Evidence, Personal Property, Hammer A Smith, 279 State street.
Easements, and Bailments.
Hig^ins, Swett & Quigg, 379 Wabash avenue.
The Course consists of two terms of six months Hirst, Wm. L., Jr., 11 to 17.Cnnal street,
each, commencing on the first day of October in Howe & Russell, 1,229 Wabash Avenue.
each year, and continuing until the Law Com
Hoyne, Horton 4 Hoyne, 207 Michigan avenue.
mencement in the last week of March. The fees Hutchinson'4
381 Wabash avenue.
charged to non-residents of the State are S'ifi.oo Hopkins, Wm..Luff,
40
Harrison
street
matriculation fee, and $10 00 term fee, mak
ing for the whole two-years course, $4.f.00. These Isham, 554 Wabash avenue.
Johnson, Wm.M., 14 S. Clinton street.
fees entitl estudents to the use of the general Jameson, E.,821 State street.
library of the University and to all the inciden
Johnson A Rogers, 124 W. Madison street.
tal benefits of the institution.
Knox, George W.. 123 S. Sangamon street.
For catalogues and further information, apply to Knickerbocker,
J. C. 4 J. J., 163 W. Washington
H, D. BENNETT, Steward,
Ann Arbor, Mich. street.
Kreamer, J. W., 151 W. Madison street.
TESTATE OF CHARLES CROMLEY, DE- King, Simeon W., 178 W. Madison street.
X2J ceased.Public notice is hereby given to all King. Seott A Payson, 037 Wabash avenue.
persons having claims and demands against the
estate of Charles Cromley, deceased, to present King A Willard. 178 W. Madison street.
the same for adjudication and settlement at a Lyman A Jackson, 79 W. Madison street.
regular term of the County Court of Cook countv,
to be holden at the court house, in the city of Linane, P. W., 189 W. Tyler street.
Chicago, on the first Monday ol December, 1871, Learning A Thompson, 109 W. Randolph street.
being the fourth day Hereof.
Monroe, Henry S., 503 Wabash avenue.
ANDPEW M. RORKE,
Moran A English, 102 W. Randolph street.
Administrator. ith the will annexed.
Chicago, September 22 871.
A Oleson, 105 W. Randolph street.
M. A. Rokke, Att'y.
l-<: Mngce
Mosos, A. Masonic Building, corner Halstead
INSTATE OF JAMES BIRD, DECEASED.Pub- and Randolph streets.
li lie notice is hereby given to all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Jas. McClelland, Thomas S., 435 Michigan avenue.
Bird, deceased, to present the same for adjudi McHugh. P.. 18 South Ann street.
cation and settlement at a regular term of the O'Brennan, Martin A., LL.D., 604 Wabash ave.
County Court of Cook county, to be hokten at the
court "house, in the viry of Chicago, on the first Olney, John, 185 W. Madison.
Monday of December, A. D. 1H71, being the fourth Otis, E. A., 543 Wabash avenue.
day thereof. JANE C. BIRD, Administratrix.
Owen, J. A., 13.1}^ W. Madison street.
Chicago, September 23, 1871.
M. A. Roku A Son, Att'y*.
1-C Oleson, Ingwel, 105 W. Randolph street

Osborne, H S. 4. F. S., 133 W. Madison street

Page, Joel S.. Evanston, 111.
Plum, Wm. R., Lombard. 111.
Proudfoot, Lawrence, 14 S. Clinton street.
Plummer, George W., 154 W. Rando.ph street
Paul, C. D., 231 W. Madison street.
Pence, A. M., Masonic Building,coruer Halstead
and Randolph streets.
Perkins. N. C, 34 S. Clinton streets.
Perry * Sturges, 480 State street.
Reynolds A Richberg, Room 6 Lind's Block.
Richmond, Frank J.. 602 Burntide street.
Romayne, J. A., 00 Pierce streetRussell, F. G, 138 W. Madison street,
Roberts, H. IS., 395 State street.
Rosenthal, Julius, Masonic Building.
Reynolds W.'C,, 1,0(9 Indiana avenue.
Robinson, J. C, 310 Twenty-second street.
Runyan, Avery, Loomls 4 Comstock, 141 W.
Washington street.
.
Rorke, M. A. A Son, 154 Halstead street.
Scatcs, Walter B., 185 W. Madison.
Snowhook A Gray. 85 W. Monroe street
Sherman, E. B., 214 Sangamon street.
Scoville, George. 30 Clinton street.
Smith, George W., 475 Wabash avenuo,
Stark, James L. 9 and It N. Canal street.
Story & King, 1 W Randolph street.
Sawin 4 Wells, 59 W. Madison street.
Seybold. F. J., 497 Wabash avenue.
Shorey, D. L., 1,180 Wabash avenue.
Shufieldt 4 Ball. 219 W. Madison street.
Swift, W. H., 45 Hubbard Court.
Smith H, P. (Smith A Upton,), 135 W, Monroe
street.
Sandercock, Geo. 8., 143 S. Sangamon street
Spafford, McDaid A Wilson. 77 W. Madson St.
Thompson. George W. 39 Twenty-second stree*.
Tenney. MeClellan A Tenncy, 45 Hubbard Court.
Upton, C. W. [Smith A Upton), 135 W. Monroe
street.
Van Bnien, E. A A., 104 W. Madison street.
Watern an , A. N.. 135 W. Monroe street.
Willett, Consider II.. 171 Twenty-second street.
Wood A Carter. 202 W. Madison street.
Waite. C. B., 97 Sixteenth street.
Wait A Clark, 3.1 and 34 Congress street.
Wakeman. Manlv A- WaUcman. 45 S. Canal St.
Wells. C. B.. 59 W. Madison street.
Wilder, D. P.. w.ihor Third avenue and Taylor
street.
Williams A Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
Woodbridge. John, High School Building.
Whitney, Charles. cornerCanalandRandnlj.il
streets.
Willard, S. S., 178 W. Madison street.
BROWN & RICKETTS,
Attorneys, 8 Metropolitan B'k.
chancery not1ce.-state of illinois,
Cook county, ss. Superior Court of Cook
county, Deet-.mb'er term, 1871. Judson G. Clark
vs. Ellen A. Clark. In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Ellen A.
Clark, defendant above named, having been filed
in the office of the Clerk of said Superior Court
of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the
said Ellen A. Clark that, the eomplainnnt hereto
fore fiied his bill of complaint in said court, on
the chancery side thereof, and that a summons
thereupon issued out of said court against said
| defendant, returnable on the first Monday of De
cember next (1871). as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Ellen A. Clark, shall
personally ho and appear before said Superior
Court of Cook county, on the first day of ;i term
thereof, to he holden at Chicago, in said county,
on the first Monday of December, 1871, and nlead.
answer or demur to the said complainant's hill of
complaint, the same, and the matters and things
therein charged and stated, will he taken as con
fessed, and a decref entered against you accord
ing to the pruver of said hill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Brown A Ricketts, Compl't's Sol'rs.
1-4
M. A. RORKE & SON,
Attorneys, 155 Washington St.
testate of patrick fureong.deceased.
Hi Public notice is hereby given to all persons
having; claims and demands against the estate of
Patrick Furlong, deceased, to present the same fur
adjudication and settlement at a regular term of
the Oounty Court of Cook county, to be holden
at the court house, in the city of Chicago, on the
first Monday of December, A. D. 1871. being the
fourth day thereof.
ANN FURLONG, Administratrix.
Chicago, September 2;t, 1871.
1-6
ARNOLD TRIPP,
Attorney, 100 Washington St.
TESTATE OF MATHIAS HAGEMAN, doceased.
Jjj Public notice is hereby given to all persons
having elaims and demands against the estate of
MathUs Hageman, deceased, to present the same
for adjudication and settlement, nt a regular term
of the Countv Court of Cook County, to bo holden
at the eourt house in the eity of Chicago, on the
first Monday of December, A. D. 1871, being the
fourth day thereof.
ELIZABETH HAGEMANN, Administratrix.
Chicago, September 20, 1871.
1-fia
TESTATE OF MARIA GERKE, DECEASED.
t-J Public notice is hereby given to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate
of Maria Gerke, deceased, to present the same
for adjudication and settlement at a regular term
of the County Court of Cook county, to be holden
at the court house, in the city of Chicsgo, on the
first Monday of December, A. D. 1871, being the
fourth dav thereof.
ALBERT GROSSMAN, Administrator.
Chicago, September 1871.
M. A. Rorkk & Son, Att'ys.
t-fl

ADOLPH MOSES,
Attorney, 4 Commercial Building.
CrHANCERY NOTICE.StRte of Illinois, Cook
J County, 89. Superior Court of Cook County,
November Term, 1871. Johann Schmidt vs. Bar
bara SchmidtIn Chancery.
Affidavit of the non residence of Barbara
Schmidt, defendant above named, having been
filed in the office of the elerk of said Superior
Court of Cook County, notice is hereby given tothe aaid Barbara Schmidt that the complainant
heretofore filed his certain bill of complaint in
aaid court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
a summons thereupon issued out ol said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the first
Monday ot November next, (1871,) as is by law re
quired.
Now, unless you. the said Barbara Schmidt, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior
Court of Cook County, on the first day of a term
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said County,
on the first Monday nf November, 1871, and plead,
answer or demur to the said complainant's hill of
complaint, the snme. and the matters and things
therein charged and stated, will be taken as con
fessed, and a decree entered against you accord
ing to the prayer of snid bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Adolph Moses, Compl't's Sol'r,
l-4p
J. S. GRINNEIX,
Attorney, 143 S. Clark St..
"PUBLICATION NOTICE.State of Illinois,
_L Cook County, ss. Cook County Circuit Court,
September Term, A. D. 1871. Henry Sayra, Edward
W. Thompson and Franklin ' Gilniore. vs. F. YY.
Hull and Barton C. Tillett.
Public notiee is herehv given to the said F. W.
Hull and Barton C. Tillett, that a writ of attnchment issued out of the office of the Clerk of Cook
County Circuit Court, dated the 27th dny of Sep
tember, A. D. 1871, at the suit of the said Henrv
Sayrs, Edward W. Thompson, and Franklin Gilmore, and against the' estate of the said F. W.
Hull and Barton C. Tillett. for the sum of one h un
bred and thirty-one 27-lou dollars, directed to the
Shoritl'of Conk County, which said writ has been
returned oxeeuted.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said F. W. Hull'
and Barton C. Tillett, MiaTI personally be and ap
pear before the said Cook County Circuit Court,
on orbefor the find dny of the next term thereof,
to be holden at the Court House in the city of Chi
cago, on the third Monday of October. A." D. 1871.
give special bail, and plead to the said plaintiffs'
action, judgment will be entered against you, and
in favor of the said Henry Sayrs, Edward W.
Thompson and Franklin Gilmore,and so much of
the property nttaebed as maybe suffieient to sat
isfy the said judgment and costs, will be sold to
satisfv the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
J. S. Grixnell, Pl'fiV Atty.
1-4
ESTATE OF THOMAS. OTHERWISE CALLED
J Anthony Kinesor Kins, deceased.Public
1 notk-o is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the rstate ol
Thomas, otherwise called Anthony Kmes, or K ins,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication
I and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook county, to be holder, at the court
house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
day of December, A. 1>. 1871, being the fourth
dav thereof.
SARAH KINES. otherwise KINS. Executrix.
Chicago. September '/St. 1871.
M. A. II^rke A Sox, Att'ys.
1-0
P. M HUGH,
Attorney, 48 South Clark St.
|?STATE OF PATRICK TREACY. DECEASED.
Wj Public notice is hereby given to all personshaving claims and demands jigainst the estate of
Patrick Treacy, deeensed, to present t lie same for
adjudication and settlement at a regular term of
the County Court, of Cook countv, to be holdenat the court house, in the city of Chicago, on the
first Monday of October, A. D. 1871, being the
second day thereof.
FRANK KELLY and "
WILLIAM DENVER, Executors,
" Chicago, August 9, 1871.
Hi-fi
JOHN LYLE KING,
Attorney, 76 Dearborn St.
TESTATE OF PATRICK GILLIGAN, deceased.
JTj Public notice is hereby given to al! persons
having claims and demands against the estate of
Patrick
Gilligan,
to present
the same
.adjudication
anddeceased,
settlemont,
at a regular
termfor
of
the county conn of Cook County, to be holden at
the Court House in the city of Chicago, on the
first Monday of December, A. D. 1871, being the
fourth day thereof.
MATHILDA GILLIGAN,
Administratrix, with the will annexed.
Chicago, September 27, 1871.
JAMES ENNIS,
Attorkey. 1 15 Madison St.
/chancery notice.state of illinois.
V_y Cook county, ss. Superior Court of Cook
county, December term, 1871. Alvina Kerstan vs.
Gustav
Kerstan.In
Chancery. of Gustav Kers
Affidavit
of the non-reside"nce
tan, defendant above named, having been filed in
the office of the Clerk of said Superior Court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said
Gustav Kerstan that the complainant heretofore
filed her certain bill of complaint in said court,
on the chancery side thereof, and that a sum
mons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday or '
December
nextyou,
(1871the
1. assaid
is by
law required.
Now, unless
Gustav
Kerstan, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior
Court of Cook county, on the first day of a terffl
thereof, to be holden'at Chicago, in said countv,
on the first Monday of December, 1871, and P^rtd:
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill ol
complaint, the same, and the matters and things
therein charged and stated, will be taken as con
fessed, and a decree entered against you accordIng to the prayerAUGUSTUS
of said bill. JACOBSON, Clcrk.^
Jauks Ehnis, Compl't's Sol'tr.

QHIC AGO TeGAL^EWS.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year I871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian 01 Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 3.

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT,

D. OF MINNESOTA, 1871.
-Chaelh Mat et al vs. Herri Chaffes it al. In
Equity.
PATENT RIGHTS OF JOINT OWNERS
W.IBrtB PURCHASER MAY USE PATENTED
ARTICLE.
1. Riqbts op Joint Owners.That one of two
joint o wners of a patent can legally grant, assign,
license or sell his own share or right in the patent.
2. Assignment hi owners.That an owner of a
patent may ma^e an assignment in regard to it
the same as he may make in regard to any other
species of personal property.
3. Rights of Purchaser to Use Machines.That
where a patentee granted the right to manufacture
and sell his machines in the city of Chicago the
purchaser of a m ichine from such manufacturer
in Chicago has the right to use it in Chicago or
wherevor he pleases uutil it is worn out.En.
Legal News.
Opinion by Nelson, J.
The complainants filed their bill in equity
in this Court, claiming that they are the
owners of the exclusive right to use, and to
sell to others to use, within the county of
Kite, and other counties in the State of Min
nesota, a new and useful improvement in
stave machines, for which letters patent were
issued Sept. 24th, 1861, to William Sisson,
of Fulton, New York, and that since they
became the owners as aforesaid, the defend
ants have used, and are still using, in the
county of Rice, the said improvement, in
disregard of their rights, and without lawful
nuthority. They ask for an account and an
injunction against the use of the machine.
Two defenses are set up in the answer of the
defendants :
1. That Sisson was not the first and
original inventor.
2. That Fuller & Ford of the city of
Chicago and State of Illinois, obtained a li
cense from the owners of the patent to man
ufacture and sell in the city of Chicago, but
not elsewhere, the patented machines, and a
gale by them to the defendants, at Chicago,
of a machine which they are using in Rice
county.
The first defonse is abandoned, and the
defendants rely upon the license of Fuller &
Ford for their authority to use the machine.
A Btatemeat of the facts, us appears by
the pleadings and testimony, is as follows :
Defendant's title:
William Sisson, of Fulton, New York,
obtained, on Sept. 24th. 1861, letters patent
/or a new and useful improvement in stave
machines, for the term of seventeen years,
giving him the exclusive right and liberty
of making, constructing, using, and vending
to others to be used, the said improvement.
Sisson on December 12th, 1861, conveyed
deed, an undivided half of the said let
ters patent, and invention, to Clinton H.
Sage, of Fulton, New Vork, reserving cer
tain interests and rights relating to cer
tain places in the State of New York, and
not elsewhere, to be held and enjoyed for
the full residue of said term for which letters
patent were granted.
Sisson & Sage, by deed of assignment
properly executed, on March 15th, 1862,
gold to A. A. Jones, of Pulton, New York,
the exclusive right under the patent for cer
tain oounties in the State of Michigan ; and
on August 17th, 1864, A. A. Jones joins
Sisson & Sage in appointing, by a proper
instrument in writing, F. . Jones, of Chi
cago, Illinois, attorney and agent to use, and
sell and dispose of the right to " use and
sell " the paterxwd improvement, and also
the right " to sell any territory which has
not heretofore been disposed of, in any place
or places whatever, and also the right to use
the said invention, as to said F. E. Jones
shall seoin expedient, giving and granting
unto said attorney full power and authority
to do and perform all and every act and
thing requisite and necess try to be done in
and about the premises, &c."
By virtue of the authority conferred by
this instrument, F. E.Jones, as attorney for
Sisson & Sage, granted the sole and exclu
sive right to Willard M. Fuller and David
M. Ford to manufacture and sell the patent
stave machines in Chicago, Illinois, and the
machine now in use in Faribmlt, Rice
county, Minnesota, was purchased of Fuller
& Ford, in the city of Chicago.

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1871.

Complainant's title:
A power of attorney from Sisson & Sage
executed on June 22d, 1865, to G. W. Clason, of Milwaukee, to sell rights to use the
patented machines in the State of Wiscon
sin. A sale by G. W. Clason, as attorney
of Sisson & Sage, to the complainants, of
the exclusive right to use, and to sell to oth
ers to use, the invention in certain
counties in the State of Minnesota, including
the county of Rice. A ratification and con
firmation in writing of this sale by Sisson
& Sage, dated July 7th, 1868.
The whole controversy turns upon the
construction and extent of the grunt to Ful
ler and Ford, executed by Jones as attorney
of Sisson & f>age.
Before considering this instrument with ref
erence to its language, and the rights con
ferred by it, we will notice an objection
made by the complainants' counsel to the
power of attorney to F. E. Jones, to wit :
that A. A. Jones, who it is alleged was an
assignee of a portion of the patent and in
vention, did not execute the grant to Fuller
& Ford.
It is claimed that A. A. Jones, having
signed the instrument, in connection with
Sisson & Sage, creating F. E. Jones attor
ney of all the parties for certain purposes
therein expressed, F. E. Jones could not
execute an instrument conferring any rights
under that power with reference to the
patent, without signing the name of A. A.
Jones to it. In other words, Fuller & Ford's
license cannot properly be received in evi
dence, because it is not executed pursuant to
the power of attorney to t. E. Jones, in that
it is only the net of Sisson & sage, not of
the three persons executing the power. UpOD
what principle this objection is urged, does
not appear, except as stated in the objection.
The power of attorney recites the separate
interest in the pa ent of the parties who exe
cuted it, and conferred upon F. f. Jones the
authority to act for each of them, jointly or
severally.
In my opinion, then, a sufficient answer to
this objection is, that A. A. Jones is, at the
most, a grantee of an exclusive sectional in
terest, and one or two joiut owners can le
gally grant, assign, license or sell their own
share or right in the patent. 3 Blatch. R.
206.
The power of attorney signed by Jones,
Sisson & Sage, gave F. . Jones full power
and authority to control any disposition of
territorial rights under the patent, and to
use the invention us to him might seem ex
pedient. He had the authority from all the
parties in interest, and inasmuch as A. A.
Jones had no interest in the patent outside
of the State of Michigan, he could grant
nothing to Fuller & Ford, nnd it was not
necessary for him to execute the assignment
to them
This grant to Fuller & Ford is in the fol
lowing words : "* * * Now thiB in
denture witnesses that for avalu.ble con
sideration, viz: five hundred (500) dollars
to us in band paid, the receipt of which is
hemby acknowledged, we, William Sisson
and Clinton H. Sage, aforesaid, have as
signed, sold and set over, and by these
presents do assign, sell and set over unto
the said Willard M. Fuller and David M.
Ford, the sole and exclusive right to manu
facture and sell machines of the said
invention as secured to us by the said letters
patent and assignment, in the city of
Chicago, county of Cook, State of Illiuois,
and in no other place, or places, the same to
be held and enjoyed b> the said Willard M.
Fuller and David M. Ford for their own use
and behoof, and cheir legil representatives,
to the full end of the term for which such
letters patent h ive been granted, as fully
and entirely as the same would have been
held and enjoyed by us had this assignment
and sale not been made."
Now the patentee before the execution of
this grant would, without doubt, by the un
restricted sale of a single machine in Chicago
confer by implication upon the purchaser
the right to use it until worn out wherever
he pleased. 22 Howard, 223. The sale
would have transferred the machine outside
of the limits of the monopoly. The right to
any exclusive privilege under the pateot to
the machine thus sold would have been gone,
and the purchaser by the tradition of the

Whole No. 161.

vendor would obtain the absolute ownership defendants' counsel in his objections to tes
of it, and it would become his private timony. A decree will be entered dismiss
ing the bill. Dillon, Circuit Judge, conproperty.
The complainants insist that this may be Oars.
Messrs. Brisbin & Palmer, Complainants'
true bo far as the patentee is concerned, but
no such power is given Fuller & Ford by the Counsel.
Gordon E. Cole for Defendants.
assignment, and no legal authority to use
the monopoly could be conferred upon a
purchaser from them, at least to use outside
Our thanks are due the law firm of Lyman
the city of Chicago. The language of the & Jaokson, of this city, for the following
grant to them, it seems to us, already gives
such authortty. The contract entered into opinion:
by Jones, the attorney, and Fuller & Ford,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
operated as an assignment of an exclusive
OPINION PILEP SEPT. 28, 1871.
right secured by the letters patent to manu
facture and sell, limiting them, so far as the PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI A SI. LODIS E. E. 00. VI. HENET
monopoly was concerned, to the city ofj
E, Thompson. Appeal from Cook Co.
Chicago ; the assignment was absolute, so DUTY OF COMPANY TO PROVIDE SAFE CARS,
far as the specified locality, of the exclusive
MACHINERY, ice.
right to manufacture and sell : no restriction
1. Held that the instruction In requiring the Com
of those rights were intended ; on the con pany
do all that human vigilance and foresight con
trary, Fuller & Ford and their representa Go in toproviding
safe coaches, machinery, trucks and
tives, were to hold and enjoy them, " as roadway would require the Company to adopt all
possible
precautions
without reference to the extrava
fully and entirely as the same would have gance of the expenditure,
and in default of doing
been held and enjoyed by Sisson & Sage this the Company weuld become
Insurers for their
had this assignment not been made "
passengers, except as against the act of God aud the
public
enemy;
and
in
this
strict
sense
the Instruction
It Beems to us that language could not
to onjoction.
have been used which would more certainly is 2.openThe
True Rule. That the true rule is as stated
have given the authority
in Fuller vs. Talbott, 28 III., 357. that the carrier
Alihougn the subject matter of this ton- shall do all that human care, vigilance and foresight
can reasonably do, consistently with the mode of
tract between Sisson & Sage and Fulter & conveyance
and the practical operation of the road.
Ford was a patent, the rule of construction 3. Requirements
That a company
of contracts generally is not thereby altered. cannot be required, forottheCompany.
sake or making travel up
An owner of a patent can make an assign on Its road abi-jlutely free from peril, to incur a de
ment in regard to it the same as he may gree of expense which would render the operation of
Impracticable.
make in regard to any other species of per its4.roadErroneous
Instruction. That the Court cannot
sonal property. Says the Court in Morse reverse for an erroneous instruction when the same
vs. O'Reilly, 6 Penn. Law Journal, page instruction has been asked by the adverse party, and
501, "' While the exclusive rights of a given at his suggestion.En. Legal News.
patentee are specially guarded from in
Opinion of the Court by Lawrence, C. J.
trusion, the contracts which he makes to
Whether the road-bed was in a safe condi
share them with third parties, are inter tion at the time the accident ocourred winch
preted ana enforced in the same manner as led to the injury of the plaintiff in the pres
other legal engagements."
ent case is a question about which the evi
Applying the usual rules of interpreta dence is far too contradictory to permit us to
tion to this contract, there can be no doubt set aside the verdict because unsustained by
uboui the ichts of Fuller & Ford under the the evidence in that particui r. Indeed the
patens They not only had the right to impiession produced
a our minds by the
establish a manufactory of machines in record inclines us to think,
as the jury have
Chicago, but they had the exclusive right to found, that the road was not in as complete
sell the machines to uny and every one who repair as it should huve been. It is suffi
might choose to purchase the same, the cient, however, on this point to say the evi
vendee taking all of the rights appertaining dence is very contradictory, and the verdict
to their title as vendors.
plainly against its weight. So, too, as
If there were any doubts about this view is not
the question whether the cars were precipi
or construction of the instrument, the con to
tated
from the track in consequence of the
dition in which we find it dispels them. defective
road-bed, admitting it to have been
The originai grant to Fuller & Ford is full
or by reason of the inexplicable
ol interlineations and erasures, and in defective
breaking of an axle apparently sound, we can
order to arrive at the true intent of the only
the jury have lound, and we cannot
parties to this grant, these acts of the decidesaythey
erroneously.
parties are to be considered. " Wordsstruck It ie the found
theory of appellant's counsel
out of an instrument may be looked at to that the cars were
from the track by
ascertain the intention ot the parties to it." the breaking of an thrown
axle which was, so fur as
3 Metcalf, 93 3 Walton, 689.
could be discovered, sound. On the other
Parol testimony to show all of the circum hand counsel for appellee contend that the
stances is also admissible when the language axle was broken after the train was thrown
may be susceptible of more than one mean from the track, orif broken before, that itwas
ing, such as their knowledge of the subject in consequence of the roughness and im
matter of the contract, and all other facts proper condition of the road. The jury
that would throw light upon the intention of adopted one of the latter theories, and al
the parties. 1 Woolworth, R., p 212.
though the question is incapable of precise
In the testimony of Jones and Ford, we determination, there is at least this in favor
find that the right to use the machine in of their conclusion, that one theory furnishes
Chicago was of no particular value. Jones a cause for the breaking of the axle while the
had to abandon the only machines that were other does not. Axles may sometimes break
in use, then, because they did not pay, when the track is in good condition and the
Fuller & Ford had already manufactured iron without any discernable flaw, as stated
machines for Jones, and persons outside, by some of the witnesses; but we cannot con
from other states, were applying to them for demn the action of a jury because it has
machines. In the light of these circum found its verdict upon a theory which fur
stances, it could not have been the intention nishes an explanation of the breaking, rather
of the parties to confer only the exclusive than upon one which does not. When the
right to manufacture machines, and to sell plaintiff showed the injury was caused by
them for use in Chicago, which all parties the overturning of the car without fault upon
agree was of no value. Now, there being no his own part he made out ngaiust the Com
restriction in the grant upon the rights pany a prima facie case of negligence, and
thereby conferred, it must be construed in plnced upon it the burden of rebutting that
its terms favorable to the grantee and against presumption by proving that the accident re
sulted from a cause for whioh it should not
the grantor.
The grant carried with it by implication be held responsible. The chief ground re
everything necessary and incident to its due lied upon, however, for a reversal of the
enjoyment, and the defendants when they judgment seems to be the alleged error in the
purchased the machine from Fuller & Ford 4th instruction given for the plaintiff. This
had the right to use it without reference to was as follows :
Fourth. "The jury are instructed as a
locality, except so far as F. E. Jones was
restricted in authority under the power of matter of law, that it is the duty of a rail
way company, employed in transporting pas
attorney to him.
In arriving at this conclusion, we have sengers, to do all that human care, vigilance
sustained the complainants' counsel in all of and foresight can do, both in providing safe
their objections, exoept to the admissibility ooaches, maohinery, track and roadway, and
of the record evidence, and overruled the to keep the same in repair; and if, from the.

\
CHICAGO LEGAL ftfEWS.

10
evidence in this case the jury believe that the
plaintiff, while a passenger in the oars of the
defendant, received an injury resulting from
the negligence of the defendant in either of
the above particulars, they will find for the
plaintiff and assesB his damages."
It is urged that this instruction, in requir
ing a company to do all that human care,
vigilance and foresight can do in providing
safe coaches, machinery, tracks and roadway,
imposes upon them an obligation of unrea
sonable strictness and impossible of perform
ance without subjecting all the railway com
panies in the country to bankruptcy. It would
for example require them to lay steel rails
instead of iron, and to adopt all other possi
ble precautions without reference to the ex
travagance of the expenditure.
In default of doing this they would become
insurers for their passengers except as
against the acts of God and the public enemy.
The instruction in its strict sense is open
to this objection, the true rule being as
said in this Court, in Fuller v. Talbott, 23
111., 857, that the oarrier shall do all that hu
man care, vigilance and foresight can rea
sonably do consistently with the mode of
conveyance and the practical operation of the
road. A company oan not be required for the
sake of making travel upon its road abso
lutely free from peril, to incur a degree of
expense which would render the operation of
the road impracticable. It would be unrea
sonable for example to hold that a road-bed
should be laid with ties of irou or cut stone,
because in that way the danger arising from
wooden ties subject to decay would be avoided,
but on the other hand it is by no means un
reasonable to hold that although a railway
company may use ties of wod,uch ties hall
be absolutely sound and roadworthy. Still
although this instruction was in its literal
sense erroneous, it is no ground for reversing
the judgment in the present case. The de
fendant asked and the Couit gave the follow
ing instruction, which embodies substantially,
in another form of words, the same principle
announced in the plaintiff's fourth instruc
tion.
Third. "The defendant was bound to use
the utmost care and diligence in providing a
safe, sufficient and suitable means of convey
ance for the plaintiff, in everything apper, taining to the mode of conveyance adopted,
in order to prevent those injuries which hu
man care and foresight could guard against ;
and if, in the absence of such care and pru
dence, and by reason thereof, the plaintiff
sustained injury, the defendent is liable to the
extent of such injury.
On the other hand, if the injury comof was occasioned by an internal or
P lained
h idden defect in the axle of the ear in which
the plaintiff was at the time riding, which a
thorough and careful examination would not
disolose, and which could not be guarded
against by the exercise of a sound judgment
and the most vigilant oversight, then the de
fendant is not liable for the injury, if any,
sustained by the plaintiff."
There is no substantial difference between
this and the plaintiff's fourth instruction as
to the degree of care required from a rnilway company, and we can not reverse for an
erroneous instruction when the same instruc
tion has been asked for by the adverse party
and given at his suggestion. It is evident,
indeed, from the whole record taken in con
nection with this instruction asked by the
defendant, that the case was tried on the
question whether the accident was oau>d by
an internal defeot of the axle whioh could
not be guarded against by the most vigilant
foresight, or was attributable to decayed ties
and battered rails and an uneven road-bed
defects whioh can be guarded against by that
reasonable degree of care for which it is ad
mitted a railway company must be held re
sponsible. The fifth instruction asked by
the defendant was properly refused because
one clause in it makes the obligation of the
company to provide the safest pattern of rail
depend merely upon whether a change of rail
could 'be made without any additional ex
pense.
The eighth instruction asked by defendant
directing the jury to deduct from the dam
ages any BUEB paid to the plaintiff by any ac
cident insurance company was properly
refused. If such sum was paid it was notpro
tanto a discharge of the railway company.
The primary liability was on this company.
The only remaining question is as to the
quantum of damages. The jury found five
thousand dollars. It is claimed the verdict
is unreasonably large. The proof is con
flicting as to whether the plaintiff was in
jured in the membranous oovering of the
spine, or merely in the muscular ligaments
connected with it. He was confined from
two to three weeks to his bed, but did not,
when quiet, suffer greatly from pain. After
that period l.e began to walk about, though
with great difficulty, but did not resume
business in his office for three months.
At the time of the trial, thirteen months

rights ? It is agreed by counsel on both band and wife; usually or often applied
sides that at common law the court might to persons not legally married." The, of
either grant or refuse this motion in the fense charged in each count could not be
exercise of a sound discretion. Many au predicated of any one moment or instant
thorities were cited on the argument sus of time. To commit such an offense a
taining this proposition. One of the continuous and somewhat protracted per
counsel for the defendant sought to ac iod of time is necessary. There is noth
count for the fact that there seems to be a ing in this obfection.
preponderance of authority against the The learned counsel for the defendant
granting of such a motion to quash, by need not be assured that any motion
conjecturing that when such motions are which they may make in behalf of their
granted they are not often reported. He cliant shall be patiently heard and care
also urged that this court is not bound to fully considered. Nor does the court in
respect any decisions rendered outside of tend to restrict them in their arguments,
this Territory, unless they be rendered except upon questions already adjudicated.
by the Supreme Court of the United But let the counsel on both sides, and the
court also, keep constantly in mind the
States,
Without pausing now to consider these uncommon character of this case. The
arguments, let us proceed to inquire what Supreme Court of California has welt
are the interests of the public and the said: "Courts are bound to take notice
rights of the defendant, as involved in of the political and social condition of the
this motion? It is unquestionably to the country which they judicially rule." It i
interest of the public that a man indicted therefore proper to say, that while the
for crime, if guilty, should be convicted ; case at bar is called The People vsif innocent, acquitted; and that, too, with Brigham Young, its other and real title is
Authority vs. Polygamic Theoc
THIRD DISTRICT COURT, TER as little delay as may be consistent with Federal
racy. The Government of the United
the
rights
of
the
accused,
and
with
those
RITORY OF UTAH.
safeguards which experience has approv States, founded upon a written constitu
ed. But will it promote the interests and tion, finds within its jurisdiction another
SEPTEMBER TERM, 1871.
rights, either of the public or of an ac government claiming to come from God
OPINION OF JUDGE M'KEAN ON THE MO cused
in imperiowhose policy and*
citizen, to have many indictments imperium
practice are, in grave particulars, at var
TION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT and many
trials
for
offenses
of
the
same
AGAINST BRIGHAM YOUNG.
class, rather than one indictment and one iance with its own. The one government
The People of the United States in the Territory trial covering the whole? The court is arrests the other in person of its chief,,
of Utah vs. Briqham Young. Sr.
arraigns it at this bar. A system is.
bound to presume that the evidence be andtrial
in the person of Brigham Young..
STATEMENT.
fore the grand jury authorized, nay. re on
Let all concerned keep this fact steadily
The defendant is indicted for lewd and quired the sixteen charges contained in in
view; and let that government rule
lacivious association and cohabitation this indictment. If, now, the court should
a rival which shall prove to be in
with sixteen women, not being married to grant the motion of the defendant, and without
right. If the learned counsel for the
them. The indictment is under the fol- quash the indictment because it contains the
will adduce authorities or prin
these sixteen counts, the grand jury,which defendant
ing statute :
from the whole range of jurispru
" If any man or woman, not being mar is not yet discharged, would be in duty ciples
dence,
or
from mental, moral, or social
ried to each other, lewdly and laciviously bound to find sixteen new indictments. science, proving
the polygamic prac
Or, if the court should compel the prose tices charged in that
associate and cohabit together
indictment are not
"every such person so offending shall be cution to elect to go to trial on some one crimes, this court the
will at once quash this,
punished by imprisonment not exceeding count only, striking out the others, then indictment and charge
the grand jury to
ten years and not less than six months, the grand jury would be in dutv bound
no more of the kind.
and fined not more than one thousand to find fifteen new indictments. Thus, in find
The pending motion to qua6h is over
dollars, and not less than one hundred either event, the defendant would be sub
dollars, or both, at the discretion of the jected to sixteen indictments and sixteen ruled.
court." [Laws of Utah, p. 53., sec. 32.] trials. How this could promote the in
Wi are undor obligations to Frank J.
The indictment contains sixteen counts terests and rights either of the public or
and charges as many offenses, extending of the defendant, it is not easy to perceive ; Crawford, of the Ottawa bar for the follow
from the year 1854 to the present time, nay, it is difficult to imagine anything ing opinion:
there being no statute of limitations. The more harrassing and vexatious to the de
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
defendant moves to quash the indictment fendant. Indeed, the learned counsel for
the defendant failed to show wherein this PLEADING}PLEA OF ANOTHER ACTION DE
on the following grounds :
"1st. That in said indictment, as ap would be any favor to their client. Had PENDING FOR SAME CAUSEDEMURRER.
pears upon the face thereof, this defend sixteen indictments been found in the first JOBlf S. BUCIIES T. SaXUEL HaELAK ion USE, ETC.
ant is charged with sixteen distinct and instance, instead of one, could not the
from Henry Circuit.
different felonies alleged to have been defendant's counsel urge, with irresistible 1. A pleaAppeal
that another action is depending fo r
committed at sixteen different times and arguments, that they should be consolida the same cause
is not obnoxious to a demurrer
places, with sixteen different persons ; the ted?
for commencing with a prayer of Judgment of the
But is there not some legislation bear writ and declaration, and concluding with a prayer
same not being different parts of one of
of judgment of the writ only. The praytr. in the
fense, nor different statements of the same ing upon this question? By act of Con commencement,
is mere surplusage, and surplus
offense, or such alleged felonies being in gress approved February 26, A. D. 1853, age does not vitiate any pleading,
it is provided that " Whenever there are 2. Pleas in abatement, being usually of a dila
anywise connected with each other."
tory character, are not lavored; yet the injustice
" 2d. That each and every count of or shall be several charges against any of
entertaining two suits againat the same party,
said indictment, as appears upon the face person or persons for the same act or at the same time, for the same cause, is so gluring.
thereof, is vague, uncertain and insuf transaction, or for two or more acts or aa to give pleas, setting up such facts, a more fa
position in courts. Such pleas, however,
ficient in the allegation as to time when transactions connected together, or for vorable
must not, in their frame, omit any essential re
said offenses, or any of them, were com two or more acts or transactions of the quirements
of the law. [Ed. Leqal News.]
same class of crimes or offenses -which may The following is the brief and points of
mitted."
be
properlyjoined,
instead
of
having
sev
R. N. Baskin, U, S. Attorney, and G.
as filed in the Supreme Court:
eral indictments, the whole may be joined appellant,
R. Maxwell for the people.
The Court below erred in sustaining de
in
one
indictment
in
separate
counts
;
and
Fitch & Mann, Hempstead & Kirkpatmurrer of appellee to the plea in abatement of
ric, Snow & Hoge, A. Miner, Legrand if two or more indictments shall be found appellant.
in
such
cases,
the
court
may
order
them
Young, and Hosea Stout for the defend
This was an action of assumpsit upon a
consolidated." 10 Statutes at Large, p. promissory
ant.
note. The appellantdefendant
162:
1
Brightly's
Digest,
p.
223,
sec.
117.
McKean, C. J.Although the question
belowpleaded in abatement in this action
What
is
the
just
construction
of
this
of selecting, summoning and impannelthat prior to its commencement the appellee.
ing the grand jury which presented this statute? Notwithstanding the ingenious plaintiff belowhad impleaded him in a
indictment is not involved in the motion efforts of one of the counsel to induce the like form for the same cause of action in.
before the court, one of the counsel for court to disregard the views, reasonings said Circuit Court of Henry County, and
the defendant saw fit, in his remarks, and opinions of other courts, still it may that said prior action was pending in said
to denounce the jury as having been se be prudent first to listen to those courts court at the time of the filing of his plealected and impanneled in a manner un and see if their decisions be reasonable. The demurrer to the plea was special, as
precedented either in Europe or America. In The United States vs. Bickford, 4 signing as cause "that the said plea in abate
Had the counsel first investigated this Blatchford's Circuit Court Rep., 337, the ment begins with a prayer of judgment of
question he would have found that when indictment contained one hundred counts, the writ and declaration, and concludos with,
Brigham Young was Governor of this each one being for a distinct felony, but a prayer of judgment of the writ, and that
Territory, and his selected friend, Judge of the same class. On motion to quash the same may be quashed, wherefore and
Snow, now one of his counsel, sat both the court refused, holding that the joinder for the above want of correspondence plain
upon the District and the Supreme Bench of the distinct felonies was warranted by tiff prays judgment, &c." Although, as a
of the Territory, grand jurors were for the statute cited above. In The United general rule, dilatory pleas are not favored,
years selected, summoned and impannel States vs. O'Callahan, 5 McLean's Circuit an exception is made by the authorities in
ed precisely as they now are. And the Court Rep., 596, the same doctrine is held. favor of pleas in abatement of a prior action
counsel would also have found that in re Those decisions are entitled to great re pending in the same court, between the same
ported cases, United States Judges, even spect, having been rendered by eminent parties, for the same thing. Such a plea has
within the States, have sometimes found Judges of the Supreme Court of the merit, and is entitled to favor. "The law
the State statutes inapplicable, and have United States and their Associate District abhors multiplicity of actions ; and therefore
ordered juries to be procured substantially Judges. Indeed, so obviously reasonable whenever it appears on record that the plain
and just are they, that were the question a tiff has sued out two writs against the same
as they are procured in this Territory.
But all this has nothing to do with the new one, I do not see how I could reach defendant for the same thing, the second writ
shall abate, otherwise the defendant might
motion before the court. The motion to a different conclusion.
quash assails the indictmentnot the In considering the second ground of suffer t'n infinitum." Bacon Abridg. Tit.
grand jury that found it. Let us return, motion to quash, the meaning of two Abatement M. p. 28 The maxim ".V,o
words, "associate" and " cohabit," must debet bis vexari ti constet curiae quod tit prty
therefore, to the record.
One of the counsel for the defendant be carefully kept in mind. Webster de una et eadem causa," applies. Broom's Leg.
has rightly said that the court should fines " associate " thns : "to join iu com Max. 1 Law Lib. p. 135. Sparry's Case, 3.
Coke's R, 123. Yelverton v. Conant, 18 N
render such a decision upon this motion pany as a companion, partner, or confed H
124. But the plea in the case at bar is not
as shall subserve the interests of the pub erate." * * "it conveys the idea of obnoxious
demurrer. It conforms tolic and the rights of the defendant. intimate union." He thns defines "co all intents toto the
the precedent given by Mr.
What are those interests ? What are those habit :" 'to dwell or live together as hus

after the aocident, he wvs still feeling some

pains and inconvenience. If this temporary
confinement and pains were the only oonsequences of the injury, we should not hesitate
to pronounce the damages excessive. But
the physician who attended the plaintiff testi
fied that, in his opinion, the plaintiff would
never entirely recover, and that in the future
any imprudenoe or unusual exposure, which
would not affect a person in sound condition,
might lead to very serious and even fatal re
sults Two other physieians called by
plaintiff concurred in this view, while two
called by the defendant thought the injury
was only to the muscles and not to the spine
or its coverings, and that the recovery was
already substantially complete. In the
former view the damages cannot be consid
ered excessive, and we have no right to say
the jury erred in adopting it rather than that
of the physicians called by defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
E. Walker for Appellant.
Ltmah & Jackson for Appellee.

CHICAGO

LEGAL

Chitty, and follows precisely that furnished the same cause, pending in the Bame court.
by Judge Puterbiugh upon the authority of The plea begins by praying judgment of the
the form in Chitty as adapted to ourpraotioe. writ and declaration, and ends with a prayer
3 Chitty PL 903. Puterbaugh 111. PI. & of judgment of the writ only, and that the
Prac. (2 Ed.) 128 No. 4. If the prayer "of same may be quashed.
judgment of the writ and that the same may The Court sustained a special demurrer
be quashed" in the conclusion of the plea is to this plea and gave judgment against the
good the words "and declaration" in the defendant for the amount of the note and in
commencement are surplusage and do not terest.
vitiate. We will discuss the sufficiency of To reverse this judgment the defendant
the prayer of "judgment of the writ and that appeals.
the same may be quashed" in the conclusion The objection taken to the plea in abate
of the plea. The plea in abatement of an ment is that there is no " correspondence "
other action pending for the same cause is between the commencement of the plea and
called a "pita to the writ" by the authorities. its conclusion; that while in the commence
4 'So it may be pleaded to the writ that there ment 'judgment is prayed of the writ and
is another action pending for the same declaration, in the conclusion it is prayed of
cause." 1 Com. Dig. Tit. Abatement H. 27, the writ only.
p. 11S. A plea in abatement for nonjoinder Though pleas in abatement being usually
which prays judgment of the declaration is of a dilatory character are therefore not fa
informal, the plea in abatement should pray vored, the one in question is not precisely of
judgment of the writ. The declaration is a that character. The injustice of entertain
mere enlargement of the writ: _in other ing two suits against the same party at the
words, it explains and narrows the operation same time for the same cause of action in so
of the writ. If the writ be quashed the dec glaring as to give to pleas setting up such
laration falls with it. Davies T. Thompson, facts a more favorable position in courts
14 M. & W., 159. The prayer of judgment than one merely dilatory ; still such a plea
of the writ only is sufficient, unless it is in must not in its frame omit any of the
tended to plead in abatement only of a part essential requirements of the law.
of the writ, and the cause of abatement It is not questioned that the concluding
arises only on tome of the counts of the dec prayer of the plea that the writ be quashed
laration. 1 Chit. PI. 461. 3 id. 901, noted. is proper and in conformity with the rules,
2 Saunders R. 210 note c. Southard v . Hill, and with established precedents. The dec44 Maine 92. But in the case at bar the plea claration being but an expansion of the
goes to the whole of the action. 1 Com. writ, should the latter fall the declaration
Dig. 113.
would also fall. In this view we cannot see
Had the Court belowas we contend it how the prayer in the commencement of the
should haveoverruled the demurrer, what plea, of judgment of the declaration, should
would have been the j udgment ? That the vitiate. It is mere surplusage, and surplus
writ be quashed. Eddy vs. Brady 16 111. 306. age does not vitiate any pleading.
Cushman vs. Savage 29 id. 330. And that We think the prayer for judgment of the
judgment would exactly have answered the writ in the conclusion of the plea was all
prayer of the plea. The proper prayer of that was necessary. Quashing the writ was
the pica being "judgment of the writ and all that was sought by the plea, and that
that the same may be quashed," the words would have followed had the plea been
"and declaration" in the commencement are Adjudged good.
unnecessary and surplusage. But surplus
The judgment of the Court sustaining the
age in a plea in abatement does not vitiate, demurrer must be reversed and the cause
( 1 Chit. PI. 458.) The judgment "that the remanded.
writ be quashed" would include the declara
tion: it stands upon the writ and must fall
with it. The expression "want of corre KIND WORDS AND MATERIAL
spondence" charged in the special demurrer
AID.
Against the plea, is novel and obscure. If
In
our
struggle
to regain a standing po
intended to mean that the commencement
should omit the words "and declaration," or sition since the whirlwind of flame swept
the prayer in the conclusion include the
same, the objection is already answered. over our beautiful city our heart has
The matter set up in the plea is not dehors been gladdened by the receipt of a large
the record. The averment is that the prior number of letters, among which are the
action yet remains depending and undeter
mined in the same Court in which the present following :
action is brought. It is referred to by the From C. C. Bonney, author of Bonney
prout patet per reeordum, and would appear on Railway Carriers and a Treatise on
to the Court upon inspection of their own
proceedings, as where the plea was of privi Insurance:
lege as an attorney of the same Court, by an To the Editor of the Legal News :
examination of their own record the Court I congratulate you on the fact that even
might ascertain the truth of the plea. 1 the overwhelming calamity of the Great
Chit. PI. 463. And we say, then, that conld Fire did not suspend the publication of
any of the technical distinctions in relation your admirable paper. The destruction
to pleas in abatement for matters dehors be of almost every law library in Chicago
considered applicable to a plea of another will
make the Legal News doubly val
action pending in a different Court (and upon uable, and its weekly report of import
this we find no adjudged case) yet for the ant cases indispensable to the profession
Teason given no such technicality can be here. And I should be very glad if your
urged here where the plea is of a prior patronage could be so much increased as
Action for the same cause pending in the to warrant not only the continued publi
-same Court. The demurrer is special Mo cation, but an early enlargement of the
other objections as to form than those spe News. I regard it as the most useful
cially pointed out by the demurrer will be legal periodical with which I am acquaint
considered by the Court. We have already ed.
CHARLES C. BONNEY.
shown those to be untenable.
Chicago, October 26, 1871.
II.
Neosho, Mo., Oct. 17, 1871.
The motion of appellant to dismiss the suit Mrs. BradwellMadam : To-day
for want of security for costs on his affidavit the number of the News for October 14
that plaintiff was a non-resident, was errone came to hand, and I am quite gratified to
see that you have got on to your feet again
ously stricken from the files and overruled.
The ground for striking from the files and after the great fire. Your account in it
overruling the said motion as set forth in of your narrow escape from the fire quite
appellee's cross motion was "that the said interested me, and I am much pleased to
motion is waived by the plea in abatement, now see you are so soon able to resume.
Very truly,
on file in said cause."
The motion was made at the first term.
D. J. M. LOOP.
The appellant had not answered to the mer
Atchison,
Kan.,
Oct. 16, 1871.
its. Undoubtedly, had he pleaded in bar,
the motion being dilatory would have been Mrs.Myra BradwellDear Madam :
waived. But this is the extent to which the Enclosed find $3.00, the amount I had in
Authorities have gone. Trustees v. Walters tended to forward to you for volume IV, C.
et al. 12 111. 154. Miller v. Metzger, 16 111. L. N., but supposing you had been among
390, and cases cited. Such, however, was the sufferers in the dire calamity that
not the state of the record, nor the objec visited your city, please accept the
tion. We find no adjudged case that a plea amonnt as a contribution, and as my
in abatement waives a motion to dismiss. " mite " toward the relief of the Chicago
The contrary, however, was held in Stod sufferers. If you are not among the suf
dard v. Miller et al. 29 111. 291. The judg ferers, please supply some little one with
ment of the Court below ought to be re some necessary article of clothing with
the enclosed.
Very respectfully,
versed.
Crawford and Beck, with Buckles and
B. F, HARRISON.
Wells, for appellant.
FROM
THONAS
H.
DODGE,
ADVOCATE IN
Opinion of the Court by Bbkese, J.
This was an action of assempsit in the PATENT CASES, AND SOLICITOR OF
Henry Circuit Court by Samuel Harlan for PATENTS.
the use of Martin R. Harlan against John S.
Worcester, Mass., Oct. 21, 1871.
Buckles on a promissory not*. The defend
My Dear Mrs. Bradwell, Editor
ant pleaded in abatement another action for of Chicago Legal NewsEnclosed here

^EWS.

with please find ten dollars, five of which

you will please pass to my credit on ac
count of future subscription to the Chi
cago Legal News, and with the balance
please purchase some acceptable article
for your brave little heroine, "Bessie,"
as a reminder that I am not, even though
a stranger, insensible to the noble part
which she acted during the late confla
gration, which has so devasted your once
beautiful city. You have my warmest
sympathy in this hour of misfortune.
Verv truly vours,
THOS. H. DODGE.
Bushnell, 111., Oct. 19, 1871.
Myra BradwellDear Madam :
Enclosed I send money order for two dol
larsone year's subscription for the Le
gal News. Your energy under the dis
astrous circumstances deserves increased
patronage, and I certainly hope you will
have it. Yours respectfully,
MOSES A. LUCE.
FROM JUDGE MOFFAT.
Hudson, Wis., Oct. 19, 1871.
Chicago Legal News : Herewith en
closed I hand you $3.25 for subscription
to close of volume IV, and return you re
ceipt for signature. Please receipt and
return. I deeply sympathize with you
in your overwhelming loss, and hope you
may be soon re-established on a better
footing than before.
Truly yours,
J. S. MOFFAT.
Aledo, 111., Oct. 17, 1871.
Myra BradwellMadam : We were
surprised to find the Legal News in our
postoffice box last evening, beaiing date
October 14, 1871. We very much deplore
the loss of your library and office. The
burning of Chicago is a sore affliction to
the people of the Northwest, who all felt
so proud of her and her enterprise, If
every loser meets his loss as you have
done, all will be well again.
Yours truly,
BASSETT & CONNELL.
Belvidere, 111., Oct. 19, 1871.
Mrs. Myra BradwellMadam :
Please find enclosed $2.00 for my sub
scription to the Chicago Legal News for
the curentyear,. I sympathize earnestly
with your heavy losses. I am glad that
you are able and have the courage to go
on with your paper, and hope you may
meet with success and prosperity in the
future.
Very respectfully,
W. R. DODGE.
Centralia, 111., Oct. 31, 1871.
Madame : We are gratified to learn
that the publication of the Legal News
is to be continued. You have our sym
pathy in your recent great loss. Enclosed
we hand you $2.00subscription due on
our paper. We are, very respectfully,
your obedient servants,
CASEY & DWIGHT.
Greenville, 111., Oct. 9, 1871.
Mrs. Myra Bradwell, Editor Legal
News : Herewith please find $2.60 for
your paper for the present year. I am
greatly pleased with your paper ; the nec
essity for such an one has been felt by
the profession for years.
Truly yours, &c,
WM. A. DAWEY.
Marshall, 111., Oct. 19, 1871.
Mrs. Myra BradwbllMadam : I
supposed you would, in consequence of
the late fire in your city, be compelled
to suspend the publication of the Legal
News, but this morning I received a copy
of your paper, which exhibits as much
pluck as my wife has, and she is boss of
my shop, and -will prevail or die. Please
find $2 enclosed for the ensuing year. I
suggest that your energy and pluck will
carry you through.
Respectfully your friend,
W. C. WHITLOCK.
FROM JAMES SCRIBNER, EDITOR OF THE
U. S. JURIST.
Mr. Scribner writes : I shall order a
set of the, Jurist to be made up and sent
you at once, and any other assistance we
can render in the interest of your Law
Journal will be most cheerfully given.
We trust and believe that vou will soon
repair the losses sustained in the late ter
rible calamity which visited your city.
Milwaukee, Wis., Oot. 18, 1871.
Mas. Myra BradwellDear Madame:
Enclosed please find $2.00, being subscrip
tion for Vol. Ill, Chicago Legal News. I
have been saving it for you until after the fire.
Yours, &o.,
E. MARINER.

11
MOLINE, 111., Oct. l8, 1871.
Mrs. Myra Bradwell, Editor Legal
News; I am glad to see that vou are
not disheartened. We cannot but ad
mire the sublime courage with which
Chicago faces her awful calamity, and
feel that, though fire may crumble her edi
fices of stone and brick, and destroy her
property, it cannot destroy the city.
Yours truly,
EUGENE LEWIS.
FROM HON. W. M. TAYLOR, CLERK OF THE
SUPREME COURT AT OTTAWA.
Ottawa, Oct. 17, 1871.
Mrs. Myra Bradwell : I enclose you
copies of the orders and rules of the
court, which will be of interest to the bar.
Your promptness in getting out the last
number of the Legal News is deserving
of much credit, and will be appreciated
by the bar no doubt.
Yours, sympathetically,
W. M. TAYLOR.
FROM RICHARD H. DANA, Jr., BOSTON.
This Sage of the law concludes a letter
as follows :
" I enclose two dollars. I found your
numbers so valuable to give me the de
cisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States earlier than I could get
them elsewhere, and of the Circuit and
District courts of the United States.which
I could often find nowhere else, that I
kept all the numbers of volume III., ex
cept the first eight."
FROM T. W. & JNO. S. WOOLSON, ATT'YS.
Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, Oct 17, 1871.
Mrs. Myra Bradwell, Editor Le
gal NewsDear Madam : Your new
No. 1, volume IV, is received. Such ener
gy as is displayed by you in this deserves,
as it must achieve, success, and proves
again what has been so often proved, that
woman is equal to any emergency requir
ing intelligent courage to which man is
competent. Enclosed find two dollars for
our subscriptibn for the new volume now
commenced. Respectfully,
J. W. & JNO. S. WOOLSON.
FROM LITTLE, BROWN & CO.
Boston, Oct. 20, 1871.
Mrs. Myra BradwellDear Madam:
On the eve of sending you our sincere
and cordial sympathy we are arrested by
your letter of the 16th inst., and we has
ten to offer you our heartiest congratula
tions and our list of publications for an
advertisement in the Legal News. The
writer, believing that his own book forms
a nucleus of a library, takes the liberty of
sending a copy to your address.
Respectfully yours,
LITTLE, BROWN & CO.
John Bartlett.
from henry baldwin, patent att'y.
Philadelphia, Oct. 20, 1871.
Dear Little Bessie Bradwell : My
daughter Mamie, who is just six and a
half years old, wonders, with wide open
eyes, how you could have saved the book
and the portraits out of the dreadful fire.
And as she thinks you must have lost all
of your own little personal treasures, she
begs that you will buy something to re
place one of them with the enclosed mon
ey and keep it as a present from a friend.
Yours sincerely,
MAMIE'S PAPA.
FROM HENRY K. HERMAN, AUTHOR OF HER
MAN ON ESTOPPEL.
Leavenworth, Kan., Oct. 11, 1871.
Mas Myra Bradwell: Madam:I sup
pose you were among the unfortunates by
the fire If so. please accept my heartfelt
sympathy. I have a file of the Legal News
at your service. Should you want them,
will send them to you at onoe. Any assist
ance I on be of, please let me know.
Respectfully yours, H. M HERMAN.
FROM HILL & ELLSWORTH, SOLICITORS Of
AMERICAN AND FOREIGN PATENTS, AND
COUN8BLOR8 IN PATENT OASES.
Washinotoh, D. C, Oot. 20, 1871.
Mrs. Myra Bradwell: Dear Madam:
We regret your misfortunes, but admire
the " pluok" with which you go to work to
retrive your losses. Enclosed please find
postal money order for two years' and a half
subscription for the News, in advance. We
had reoeived your bill a few days before the
fire, and send it for receipt. Please return
with it a receipt for the other year and a
half, whioh carries our subscription, we be
lieve, up' to some time in March, 1874.
Trusting you will come out all right, we re
main, yours truly,
HILL & ELLSWORTH.

12

Chicago Legal News.

United States and Great Britain in behalf

Chicago Legal News. issue. So far as we have been advised the of this eminent jurist are entitled to and of
the Chicago bar. I suggest that the
law book publisherf of the United States are will receive the careful coaBideration of the response
to this appeal be made in law
members
of
the
bar
in
our
sister
cities
and
doing all they can to refit the libraries of
books.
In order to avoid the inconvenience of
our unfortunate Chicago Attorneys at rea in Europe.
contributions, and that the
sonable rates. Little, Brown & Company,
We would suggest that a meeting of the miscellaneous
books contributed may be memorials of
of
Boston,
as
will
be
seen
from
their
fxbar
and
of
the
Chicago
Law
Institute
be
CHICAGO, OCTOBER 28, 1871.
the generosity and sympathy of the con
tensive list found in other columns, are called, and that arrangements be made to tributors, I suggest that the bar of every
prepared to furnish the working tools of an provide a room for a library; and to permit State capital inaugurate an association, to
PUBLISHED EVERT SATURDAY BT
all the legal profession of such
attorney to an almost unlimited extent. all members of the profession in Chicago to include
State that may desire to join it, the ob
The Chicago Legal News Co. Diossy & Company, of New York, say they
eDjoy its privileges upon paying their pro ject of which shall be to procure and for
AT 115 KADUOH STREET.
ward, as a donation to the Chicago Law
will furnish attorneys of Chicago who have portion of the current expenses.
Institute all the legal literature of such
suffered by the late fire (and who has not?)
The Hon. Norman L. Freeman soon after State, including the statutes and reports
law
bookB
at
cost
for
six
months.
Wm.
and treatises on legal subjects by citizens
MYRA BEADWELL, EDITOR
Gould & Sons, of Albany, also call the the fire sent us head-notes to cases to appear of such State. That the association be
attention of attorneys to their stock of law in the 63d volume of Illinois Reports, but designated " Asssociation of the Mem
bers of the Legal Profession of the State
Tan:
books. One of the junior members of this owing to the confusion in the mails they of
, for the Relief of the Legal Profes
Two Dollars per annum, in advance ; Single Copies, enterprising firm was seen soon after the have failed to reach us.
sion of Chicago."
Ten Cents.
That
associations be formed by the bar
fire among the ruins taking the present ad
Rates of Advkktisixo :
We regret to note the departure from our of each county, to act in concert with the
dress of attorneys from the signs of removal
I Square - (one insertion) - One Dollar.
city of Mr. C. Elliott Vrooman, for Missouri. bar at the capital of the State. That, in
(Ten lines of Nonpareil solid make a square.) posted over the places where their offices Mr. Vrooman is a young lawyer of promise each county or bar, legal caps be prepared
with proper heading, and signed by all
once stood. The Gross Brothers still continue
and we wish him abundant success in his contributors, with place of residence.
to
supply
their
valuable
statutes
at
the
The Office of the LEGAL
That each page contain ten signatures.
usual rates. E, B. Myers, who lost his new field of operation.
That these be preserved, and forwarded,
NEWS i* at 115 West Madison entire Btock of law books by the fire, is now
Illegal Fees.In the Court of Com with the books, to be kept by the Insti
Street.
using his parlors as a salesroom. Sumner mon Pleas at Philadelphia, last week, tute as a memorial not only of an unpre
Wm. Coon, a deputy sheriff, was dismiss cedented calamits, but especially of the
W have had many difficulties to over Whitney, law book publisher of San Fran ed from office by Judge Allison for ex liberality and generous sympathy of the
come in order to present to our readers this cisco, has, in consideration of Mr. MyerB' torting illegal fees. Wm. Irwin was con legal profession.
The Chicago Law Institute is a corpor
week the Legal News with its usual num loss, presented him with choice law books victed of conspiracy to extort illegal fees ation,
including in its membership nearly
as
a
deputy
sheriff,
fined
fifty
dollars
and
valued
at
more
than
Ave
hundred
dollars.
ber of eight pages. Notwithstanding the
6ent to prison for two months. The Judge all the lawyers in the city. Its library and
help of kind friends, it has not been done
was very severe on public officers for their fixtures, before the fire, exceeded $50,000
We notice from the advertisement in extortions, and said that to such an ex in value.
without a struggle. We shall continue to
Should this appeal be responded to, I
is this system carried on that at the
issue it as before the tire. We again this issue of Messrs. Callagban & Cockcroft tent
am assured by prominent members of the
present
day
offices
which
require
neither
call upon all our subscribers who are that they have resumed business at 121 West learning nor previous course of study, nor Institute that the by-laws will be modified
as to make it tree for all members of
owing for their subscriptions to help us. Randolph street, and are ready as before the even any considerable amount of personal so
attention, have become so lucrative that the legal profession in the United States
If every one of our subscribers would pro fire to fill all orders for law books We have their
emoluments in some instances far and Great Britain, and the members of
cure us one additional subscriber, which suffered by the fire, and know how hard it is exceed the salary of the President of the the Institute only assessable to an amount
sufficient to keep up the library and pay
could easily be done, we should be relieved to resume business after everything has been United States.
current expenses.
from our embarrassment. Words cannot ex destroyed. We hope the profession will do We hear much complaint from the pro
I would also suggest that the banks of
all
thaycan
to
rebuild
the
law
book
houses
fession in this State in regard to various London, Edinburgh, Dublin, and other
press our gratitude to those kind friends who
in Great Britain, correspond and
have lent us a helping hand in our distress. of our city, which before our late terrible officers taking illegal fees. No person cities
act in concert in procuring English,
Our friends can aid us and at the same time calamity extended their trade throughout has a right to complain of any officer for Scotch, and Irish reports and legal publi
taking his legal fees, no matter how high cations, and that they adopt a plan sim
help themselves by fending us their adver the nation.
they may be ; neither has any officer the ilar to that proposed for the United States,
tisements, for we do know that there is no
a better one, as circumstances and su
LEOAL MATTERS IN CHICAGO. right to take illegal fees, no matter how or
better medium for reaching the legal profes
perior wisdom may suggest.
low
the
law
may
fix
his
fees.
We
have
The
Chicago
Bar
is
now
in
the
position
of
JOHN M. WILSON,
sion in * the Northwest, than the Legal
Nbws. If an attorney wishes to purchase a an army that has been cut into two parts noticed some officers, when their fees Ex. Chief-Justice of the Superior Court of
Chicago.
law library or a set of books, he can reach with the enemy between the severed portions. have been questioned by members of the
One
portion
is
located
from
one
to
two
miles
profession,
fly
into
a
passion
and
talk
as
all the law book houses in the Union by an
advertisement in the Legal News. We do south of the old Court House, the other from if they were about to be robbed. This is SUPERIOR COURT COOK COUNTY.
not wish to boast, but we do take satisfaction one to two miles west. The United States all wrong. It is a kindness to any honest
The Judges of the Superior Court have
in saying that of all the daily and weekly Courts are on the South Side, and the State officer to show him that he is taking more agreed upon the following order to be
Courts
in
the
High
School
Building
on
the
than the law allows, for it enables him to entered of record Mondiiy, Nov. 6th, 1871 :
papers published in Chicago the Legal
West Side. This compels law firms to open reform his practice. We commend the
On the first Monday of November. 1871,
Nbws was the only one that never missed an
offices on the South and West Sides, or con- words of Judge Allison to all officers who the Clerk of this Court will commence a
issue and appeared in its usual dress.
of all cssea pending and undeterline their practice to either the State or are in the habit of robbing the people by I| docket
mined on the law side thereof, wherein
Federal courts. His next to impossible for taking more fees than the law allows.
parties
or
their attorneys shall, by leave of
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
the Court, file copies of papers destroyed,
an attorney who has no partner to practice
We call attention to the following opinions in these courts, which are located between
which cases will be numbered in the order
LAWYERS AND LAW BOOKS. in which they are prepared for said docket,
reported at length in this issue :
three and four miles apart. It is to bo re
from No. 1 A, and upwards, the making of
R. R. Co. to Provide Safe Cabs, Ac. gretted that the interest of the Bar in the
which docket will be continued only until
The opinion of the Supreme Court of tnis location of these courts was not more fully APPEAL TO THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL the last day of the January term, 1872, at
PROFESSION IN THE UNITED STATES which time, unless otherwise ordered, all
State delivered by Lawrence, C. J., stating considered. They should have been within AND
GREAT BRITAIN IN BEHALF OF other pending and undetermined suits on the
what precautions a railroad company are re a reasonable distance of each other. Small THE LEGAL PROFESSION OF CHICAGO.
law Bide of said Court shall be dismissed at
quired to adopt in order to provide safe cars, brick buildings, ten or twelve feet high, No class suffered more in the fiery the costs of the plaintiffs, except that in ap
deal through which Chicago has passed peal suits, the appeal should be dismissed at
machinery, 4c.
could have been erected on the vacant por than
the legal profession. They number the costs of the appellants with procedendo,
Patint ArticleRights or Purchaser. tions of the old Court House Square in three ed about five hundred. Most of them are and in suits which have been tried and stand
upon motion for a new trial, or in arrest of
The opinion of the United States Circuit weeks' time in which the State Courts could young men with small means devoting judgment,
such motions shall be overruled
Court for the District of Minnesota, delivered have been held until the Court House should from year to year their surplus earnings and judgment entered upon the verdict or
for
the
purchase
of
law
books,
A
large
finding.
This
docket will be called for trial
by Nelson, J., holding that one of two joint be rebuilt, at less than one-tenth of the number of libraries thus collected were
owners of a patent may sell his interest amount it will cost the bar in extra rent, worth from $10,000 to $20,000. The value on the first Monday of December next.
therein the same as in any other personal etc., to say nothing of the valuable time of of law books destroyed in the Law Insti.
tute and private libraries exceeds $400,The Springfield Journal says :
property, and that where a patentee had five hundred lawyers spent in going from 000.
Many of the lawyers, in easy cir
The Supreme Court of this State have de
granted the right to manufacture and sell his district to district. We are not able to say cumstances, lost not only their libraries,
cided the case wherein E. M. Haines applied
machines in Chicago the purchaser of a ma how long this state of things will continue. but their homes and all their personal for
a decision as to whether the members of
property
of
every
description,excepting
the
chine from such a garantee would have the We hope not long. The authorities should clothing they wore in their flight from the Legislature are entitled to draw pay
right to use it wherever he pleased until it lose no time, but take steps at once, work the fire-fiend that pursued them from during the adjournment. The decisioa has
not been filed, however, nor made known
with a will, and have the courts back in house to house. No words can adequately yet,
was worn out.
but probably will be in a few days.
describe
the
horrors
of
that
night,
when
Brioham Yopng and the Indictments Court House Square in a few weeks.
the
heavens
were
literally
on
fire,
and
the
We would oall the especial attention of atmosphere itself burning with an intens
Against Him. The opinion of the Federal
Judge Gallagher, of the Twenty-fourth
Court in Utah Territory, delivered by Mc- our readers to the letter of Hon. John M. ity compared with which the combustion Judicial
Circuit, has decided the new law
of
ordinary
fuel
seemed
harmless.
Wilson,
late
Chief
Justice
of
the
Superior
Kean. C. J., refusing to quash the indict
increasing the jurisdiction of justices of
Having
been
associated
with
the
legal
Court of Chicago, printed in this issue, in profession, at the bar and on the bench, for the peace to 200 unconstitutional, inasmuch
ments against Brigham Voung.
regard to a law library in this city. Judge forty years, and having escaped the calam as it has not been pnsasd in accordance with
Wilson is one of the sages of the profession; ity that has overtaken most of my brethren constitutional forms.
LAV BOOKS.
he
has retired from the bench and the bar, in this devoted city, and being, at the What can the 23d Illinois be furnished
We would call the attention of attorneys
present time, in no way, judicially or by
needing law books to the ndvertisemtnts of and has no interest in either, except that in practice, connected with the legal profes for? Address I. Wilson, care Legal News
several of our most distinguished and enter terest which a loving father has for an affec sion, I assume the responsibility of ap
prising law book publishers printed in this tionate and dutiful child. The suggestions pealing to the legal profession of the office.

Chicago Legal News.

*3
INCREASED JURISDICTION OF shall have pursued a regular course of law aforesaid, being the principal expended newsd to him and his associate Robert Ful
studies in the office of some lawyer in and the interest thereon ; which said sum ton in eighteen hundred and three, nnd
JUSTICES.
practice for at least two years, of is hereby refunded to said city, and when again five years later for a term of twenty
The Springfield Journal of a recent general
which fact he shall satisfy the court, by paid, said city shall execute and deliver to years. This grant possesses a scientific and
date says :
the certificate of such lawyer and his own the State of Illinois a proper release of historical as well as legal interest. It affords
Information was received in this city affidavit. Provided further, tbat the said lien to the satisfaction of the Gov an eloquent illustration of the infancy and
yesterday that a case involving the valid time employed at any law school as a law ernor; and the Auditor of State, under progress of steam navigation, with which
ity of the act increasing the jurisdiction student shall be considered as part of the the direction of the Governor, is hereby Fulton was so intimatoly identifieda pro
of justices of the peace to $200, came up two years, of which the court shall be satis directed to draw his warrants for said gress that has attained a mean speed of
before Hon. Joseph Gillespie, Judge of the fied in the manner above specified.
sum of money and interest, payable twenty miles an hour upon the Hudson, and
24th Judicial Circuit, a few days since,
Ordered, That Thursday and Ffiday of only wul
out of
ui any moneys in the
Liie treasury transformed a boat of twenty tons Into a
and that his Honor decided that the act the first week of each term shall be the belonging to the fund hereafter provided, steamship of more thousands. This firewas without effect, inasmuch as it had not days on which such examination shall be to be known as the " Canal Redemption steam navigation proved a commercial suc
cess, which excited the envy of losing com
been passed in accordance with constitu had.
_____ _
Fund."
petitors, whose infringement necessitated a
tional forms. The question in relation to
That
for
the
purpose
of
providing
said
the validity of the act has occasioned LA WS OF ILLINOIS PASSED fund, any funds that are now or may be chancery suitnot an uncommon result in
much discussion among all classes, par
hereafter in the State treasury, paid in on later timesthat at once impoverished the
OCTOBER, 1871.
ticularly among those most interested,
the settlement of the Canal Commission plaintiffs and established the concurrent but
The
following
are
the
two
bills
that
viz: the magistrates and the members of
ers
with the Trustees of the Illinois and subordinate jurisdiction of the States in
the legal profession, and the decision of were passed by the General Assembly at its Michigan Canal, as well as from the rev- patent legislation. The Court of Errors, of
Judge Gillsspie is the first which has been second special session for the relief of our nue of the canal, also all funds that are which Chancellor Kent, the American Blackannounced since the passage of the act. city.
now or may hereafter be paid into the stone, was then a justice, decided unani
It is to be hoped that the Legislature at CANCELLATION OF WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS. State treasury, known as the " Illinois mously in favor of the local grant. The
their next session will put the bill on a
Central Railroad Fund," shall be trans judges adopted, without reserve, the doctrine
sure foundation, and thereby save expense A bill for an l'Act to amend an act en ferred by the State Treasurer, upon the \ of state sovereignty, which now finds little
titled 1 Ah act to regulate public -ware Auditor's warrant drawn for that purpose, favor with American legislators, though the
not only to cities and towns, but to the
houses and the warehousing of grain, to said redemption fund; that a tax of amended Constitution expressly declares that
county.
and to give effect to article thirteen of one and a half mills on each dollar of the the powers not delegated to the nation are
We have frequently staled in the News
the Constitution of this State,' approv assessed value of all the taxable property reserved to the States or to the people.
The first Congress, recognizing the justice
that this bill was never constitutionally ed April 25th, 1871."
of the State be levied as a special tax for
realizing the policy of an efficient patent
passed, and cautioned justices of the peace Whereas, In the great conflagration the year6 1871 and 1872, and to meet any and
system,
pissed an act to promote the prog
deficet
in
said
revenues,
to
meet
said
ap
from acting under it, but have always con in the city of Chicago large numbers of
ress of the useful arts, which wf.s super
propriation,
the
Governor,
Auditor
and
sidered it a very necessary law, and one the receipts for grain, issued by ware Treasurer are hereby authorized to issue seded three years later by a similar statute,
houses of class A, in said city, have been
and a repealing act was passed in eighteen
that would be found very convenient. destroyed; and whereas, section twenty- bonds of the State of Illinois, to the hundred
and thirty-six, which in turn was
amount
of
two
hundred
and
fifty
thou
We join with the Journal in requesting five of the act to regulate warehouses and
superseded by the general statute of eight
sand
dollars
;
said
bonds
to
bear
interest
the
warehousing
of
grain,
imposes
a
pen
een hundred and seventy. Several minor
the Legislature to take this subject up at
alty upon such warehousemen for deliver at the rate of six per cent, per annum, acts intervened, and notably the one in
an early day, and pass a law giving to ing grain, except upon presentation of the payable semi-annually in the city of New creasing
the original term of a patent to
York, and shall be paid at pleasure of the seventeen years, and equalizing the fees to
justices jurisdiction at least to the extent receipts given therefor; therefore,
State
at
any
time
after
three
years
after
Section
i.
Be
it
enacted
by
the
people
native and foreign inventors. Through all
of $200, and adding to the penalty of the
the State of Illinois, represented in the the date thereof, and shall be of such de these changes the law-mnkers have never
bonds to be given by them and constables of
General Assembly, That so much of sec nominations as the Governor may deem questioned the equitable rights of invention,
to meet the requirements of the increased tion twenty-five of an act entitled "An advisable, and be known as the " Reve or the wisdom of satisfying these rights by
act to regulate public warehouses, and the nue Deficit Bonds," and shall be deliv exclusive privileges for a term of years.
jurisdiction.
warehousing and inspection of grain, and ered to the city authorities of the city of The Colonies and States, imitating the prac
to give effect to article thirteen of the con Chicago, at par, as a part payment on tice of the Mother Country, had more often
NEW RULES OF THE SUPREME stitution of this State," as is embraced in above appropriations : Provided, how granted patent privileges to importers than
the following words, to-wit: " Or who ever, that not less than one-fifth, nor to inventorsa pernicious practice, that has
COURT.
shall remove any property from store, ex to exceed one-third, of said sum so found no recognition in the national legisla
The following rules in relation to the cept to preserve it from fire or other sud appropriated shall be received by said tion. Though the Common Law, that re
Chicago term, and the admission of at den danger, without the return and can city, and be applied in reconstructing gards alike the importer and the inventor,
bridges and the public buildings was the prevailing law of the Statesa fact
torneys, were entered by the Supreme cellation of any and all outstanding re the
\ well known to the authors of the Constitu
ceipts that may have been issued to repre and structures destroyed by fire,
Court of Illinois at Ottawa during the sent such property, shall not be held to the original sites thereof, as alreadyupon
pro- 1 tionand,
--, subordinate to
~ the statutes,
ownuica, was
present term :
apply to warehouse receipts issued by any vided by the common council; and the i formally adopted by Congress, the American
warehouse of class A, dated prior to Oc remainder thereof to be applied to the I courts n!lTe never held that first importers
THE CHICAGO TERM.
Jt- payment of the interest on the bonded I are true inventors The right to grant
8, 1S71. " Provided, that this sec
OrderedThat the recent order of this tober
tion shall only apply to the removal of debt of Sl'ch city, and the maintenance of j Patents of importation is still vested in the
court, appointing a term in the city of such grain as is covered by warehouse re- the fire and police deparment thereof.
I 'a , as fne B.oure of political power.
Chicago on the 31st day of October, be, ceipts issued prior to October 8, 1871, and Whereas, by reason of a great confla- j ite uPe.ral legislation of Congress, which,
and the same is hereby rescinded, on ac which have been destroyed by fire on Oc- j gration in the city of Chicago, the pub- | recognmng the universal brotherhood of
count of the burning of the court rooms tober Sth or 9thproof of which destruc- !'c buildings, bridges and other public genius, offers princely rewards to inventors
and the library appropriated for the use tion, by fire, shall be made under oath, to improvements have been totally destroy- without distinction and virtually without
of the court.
the satisfaction of warehousemen issuing ed> and the business
-' the
" courts
- - is sus price, has made America the home of inven
of
COOK COUNTY CASES.
said receipt."
pended, whereby an emergency exists as tionsthe paradise of patentees. Sixty
a reason why this act shall take effect be thousand original patents have been granted
OrderedThat in all cases brought by
LIEN OF CHICAGO UPON THE CANAL.
in sixty months, and half as many applica
appeal or writ of error from Cook county A billfor an act to relieve the. lien of the fore the first day of July next ; therefore, tions
rejectedon strict investigation of
Be
it
further
enacted,
That
this
act
entitled to be heard at this term, and not
City of Chicago upon the Illinois and shall take effect and be in force from and noveltystill the rate of issue continues,
now in readiness for decision, the appel
infusing new life into every branch of in
Michigan Canal and revenues by re after its passage.
ant or plaintiff in error shall have until
dustry.The money-value of these patents
funding to said city the amount expend
the tenth day of December next in which
is counted by millionstheir industrial value
ed by it in making the improvement con
to file abstracts and briefs, the appellee or
templated by " An act to provide for AMERICAN PA TENT LEGISLA TION exceeds the national indebtedness.Modern
defendant in errror until the 20th to file
the completion of the Illinois and Mich
Extract from the address delivered, at a inventions constitute a vast wealth of the
briefs, and the appellant or plaintiff in
Union, whose marvellous progress is less
igan
Canal,
upon
the
plan
adopted
by
error until the 30th of the same month in
Quarterly meeting of London Patent Solic attributable
to the richness of its mountains
the
State
in
1836,"
approved
February
which to reply.
itors, on the 4th inst.. by George Haseltine, or the fertility of its plains, than to the
16,
1865,
together
-with
the
interest
In all cases from said county wherein
reBtless genius of its people.The demand
thereon, as authorized by section five of M A , LL.B., the Chairman :
opinions have been filed at this term,
act, and to provide for issuing American legislation on patents for inven for new inventions is insatiable, enterprises
either party may have until the 15th of said
are impatient, and the State that incited the
tions is based on the first article of the Con ingenuity
November next in which to give notice,of bonds therefor.
of a Fulton to design a twenty-ton
application for rehearing, and until the Whereas, the city of Chicago has ex stitution. The eighth section declares that steamboat for the Hudson River, has re
25th of December next to file the peti pended a large amount of money, to-wit; Congress should have power to promote the cently offered a prize of twenty thousand
the sum of two and a half millions of dol progress of science and the useful arts by pounds to the pioneers of steam navigation
tion.
Counsel residing in the city of Chicago lars, to secure the completion of the Sum securing authors and inventors the exclusive on the Erie Canal.Inventors are honouied
having been heretofore employed incases mit division of the Illinois and Michigan right to their respeotive writings and discov as publio benefactors, and the nation has
not brought from Cook county, may be Canal, under and pursuant to the provis eries.
erected to its hundred thousand patentees
The Colonial and State authorities had the
entitled to the benefit of this order upon ions of said act, so approved February
leaders of its grand army of industrial
16th, A. D. 1865, and act supplementary exercised to a limited extent the prerogative progressa marble temple of art, the
special application.
of awarding inventors exclusive privileges, noblest structure ever dedicated to the genius
This order shall apply to the present thereto ; and whereas the said city has a but
the Confederation which preceded the
vested lien upon the said canal, with its
term of this court only.
National Dnion was not empowered to grant of invention.
revenues,
subject
to
any
canal
debt
exist
EXAMINATION IN OPEN COURTADMISSION ing at the time of the passage of said protection to the productions of inventive
TO THE BAR.
STRIKES AND CONTRACTS.
acts ; and whereas said then existing debt or literary genius. The Constitution has not
, paid
r: ,! u
prohibited
proniDitea
the States1
States'
granting
patents
OrderedThat rule 76 of this court, due by
' the State has been ---fully
wns the evi(Jent
intention
of itspatents,
framersbut
to Every one deplores the constantly recur
from and after the entry of this order be and cancelled; and whereas the canal | confine this class of legislation to Congress ring warfare between capital and labor.
rescinded.
Every effort to put an end to strkes has sig
trustees have delivered to the State of
Ordered further, That rule 69. hereto Illinois possession and control of said ca an intention respected by local legislators nally failed. Acts of Parliament, courts of
fore rescinded, be, and the same is here nal; and whereas it is provided by sec who have enacted no general patent laws, conciliation, plans of arbitration have not
by, revived in the following form : Here tion five of said act, as follows: "The and inventors have been so well content with been of the slightest service. It ocours to
after every applicant for license to prac State of Illinois may. at any time, relieve the liberal character and efficient adminis us that the root of the evil is the misap
tice law in the courts of this State will be this lien upon the canal and revenues, by tration of the national system, that, they have prehension of the nature of free labor, and
required to appear before the Supreme refunding to the city of Chicago the rarely sought other protection or additional of the principles of the law of contract.
Court at one of its regular terms in any amount expended in making the contem rewards. The Legislature of the Empire Physical labor is the only commodity which
of the Grand Divisions, and then and plated improvement, and the interest State in seventeen hundred and ninety-eight is not paid for according to the quantity de
passed a special act, granting Robert R. livered to the purchaser. Physicians, law
there, in open court, be examined by the thereon. Now, therefore,
Livingston the exclusive right of construct yers, public writerB, and all mental laborers
court touching his qualifications as an at
Section i. Be it enacted by the peo ing
and navigating every species of boats, are paid for work done, not for their time.
torney and counselor at law, and shall ple of the State of Illinois, representei
also then and there present to the court a in the General Assembly, That the sum propelled by the fore of fire or steam, within Our wages system is a relic of the slave la
certificate from some court of record of of two million nine hundred and fifty-five its jurisdiction, for the term of twenty years, bor system. The bondsman was fed.clothed,
provided he should, before the expiration of housed and provided for in sickness and in
the county in which such applicant resides thousand three hundred and forty ($2,- twelve
months, construct a boat of twenty old age. His working hours were his mas
of good, moral character. Provided. 955.340) with interest thereon, until paid, tons
oapacity, with a mean speed upon the ter's, for which the master paid in provis
however, that it shall be a requisite an be and the same is hereby appropriated, Hudson
of four miles an hour. The ions, clothing, lodging, eto. Our free labor
such examination that such applicant for the purpose of relieving*the lien as patentee River
forfeited the grant, which was re- ers
have most unfortunately continued the

CHICAGO LEGAL NEWS.

14
GEORGE H. LEONARD,
Law Department
Attorney, 72 LaSallk St., Room 7.
or THI
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Opok
County, ss. Superior Court of Cook County,
Term, 1871. Margaret Monahan and John
UKIVEBSITY _0F MICHIGAN. October
Monahan, her husband, vs. Timothy Hurley and
The Faculty of thia Department consists of
David
Cole.In
Affidavit
that Chancery.
Timothy Hurley, one of the de
JAMES P. ANGELL, LL. D., President of the fendants
above named, has gone out of the State
of Illinois, so that process cannot be served on
University.
having been filed in the office of the Clerk of
Hon. JAMES V. CAMPBELL, Lecturer on Equity him,
said Superior Court of Cook County, notice is
and Equitable Remedies, Criminal Law, United hereby given to the safd Timothy Hurley, that the
heretofore filed their certain bill of
States Jurisprudence, and International Law. complainants
complaint in said court, on the chancery side
Hoit. CHARLES I. WALKER, Lecturer on Con thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out
tracts, Bills and Notes, Partnership, and the Law of said court against said defendant, returnable on
the first Monday of October next, (1871,) as is by
of Corporations and Agencies.
required.
Hon. THOMAS M. COOLEY, Lecturer on Consti lawNow,
unless you, the said Timothy Hurley, shall
be and appear before said Superior
tutional Law, Estates in Real Property, the Do personally
Court
of
County, on the first day of a term
mestic Relations, Wills, etc., and Uses and thereof, toCook
be holden at Chicago, in said County,
on tho first Monday of October, 1871, and plead,
Trusts.
or demur to the suid complainant's bill of
CHARLES A. KENT, Esq., Lecturer on Pleading, answer
complaint, the same, and the matters and things
and Practice, Evidence, Personal Property, therein charged and stated, will be taken as con
fessed, and a decree entered against you accord
Easements, and Bailments.
of said bill.JACOBSON, Clerk.
FROM ERASTUS I. BROWN, ATTORNEY AMD The Course consists of two terms of six months ing to the prayerAUGUSTUS
each, commencing on the first day of October in Gtoaos H. Lionabd , Compl't's Sol'r.
14
COUNSELOR, AND NOTARY PDBLIO.
each year, and continuing until the Law Com
New York, Oot. 18, 1871. mencement in the last week of March. The fees
SAMUEL STRAITS,
Mbs. Myra Bradwell Dear Madam : eharged
to non-residents of the State are $25.00 Attorney, Room 6, Larmon Block.
I weloome the appearance of tho Chicago matriculation
fee, and $10 00 term fee, mak CHANCERY NOTICE.8tate of Illinois, Cook
Legal News, after the destruction produoed
County, as. Superior Court of Cook County,
by the dire calamity which has befallen your ing for the whole two-years course, $46.00. These December
Term, 1871. Herman Loewenthal vs.
city. We, in New York, deeply sympathize fees entitl estudents to the use of the general Hannah Loewenthal.In
CUORTSAND JURIES.
with you, and our merchants, bankers, and library of the University and to all the inciden Affidavit that Hannah Chancery.
Loewenthal, defendant
above named, resides out of the said State of Illi
the people in our churches have given and tal benefits of the institution.
COURT PROCEEDINGS IN ROME.
nois, on due inquiry cannot be found, so that pro
will
still
oontinue
te
give,
to
aid
the
sufferers.
For
catalogues
and
further
information,
apply
to
Trial by jury has found its way to Rome
cess cannot be served upon her. having been hied
H, D. BENNETT,
Ann Arbor,
Stbward,
Mich.
in the office of the clerk of saia Superior Court of
at a time when at least one organ in the Enclosed please find subscription for volume
Cook County, notice is hereby given to the said
4
of
the
News.
Respectfully,
English press considers that it ought to be
Hannah Loewenthal. that the complainant hereto
ERASTUS F. BROWN.
abolished in this country, and with it seems
fore filed his certain bill of complaint in said court,
BROWN te. RICKETTS,
on the chancery side thereof, and that a summons
to have been inaugurated oertain improve Broadwell, Logan Co., 111., Oet. 20, 71.
thereupon issued out of said court against said
ments. One of the most tiresome processes
Attorneys, 8 Metropolitan B'k. defendant,
returnable on the first Monday of De
Mrs.
Myra
RradwellMadam
.-Please
connected with our trial for felonies is the
notice.state of illinois, cember next, (1871,) as is by lsw required.
swearing of jurors. We do not know what oontinue the Legal News to my address. chancery
Now,
unless
you, the said Hannah Loewenthal,
Cook
county,
ss.
Superior
Court
of
Cook
personally be and appear before said Superior
the Italians do with their jurors, but we ob Enclosed you will pleasefind two dollars to ounty, Beoember term, 1871. Judson G. Clark hall
Court of Cook County, on the first day of a term
Ellen A. Clark.In
Chancery.
serve that they swear their witnesses in a renew my subscription. Wishing you the vs.Affidavit
of the non-residence of Ellen A. thereof, to be holden in Chicago, in said county,
batch. This must save a great deal of time, success which your enterprise and noble Clark, defendant
above named, having been filed on the first Monday of December, 1871, and plead,
and would have a very advantageous opera courage deserve, I remain,
in
the
office
of the Clerk of said Superior Court answer or demur to the said complainant's bill of
Respectfully,
OSCAR ALLEN. of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the complaint, the same, and the matters and things
tion if applied to the Tiohborne case. The
said Ellen A. Clark that the complainant hereto therein charged and stated, will be taken as con
claimant is said to have about 120 witnesses
fore
flied
his
bill
of complaint in said court, on fessed, and a decree entered against you accord
To swear them all at once would not take
the chancery side thereof, and that a summons ing to the prayer of aaid bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
many moments. To swear them individual DIGEST OF RECENT AUSTRAL thereupon issued out of said court against said
defendant, returnable on the first Monday of De Sahoil Steads, Compl't's Sol'r.
1-4
ly must occupy at least, in the aggregate,
IAN DECISIONS.
cember
next
(1871),
as
is
by
law
required.
an hour and a half, but double that time
Now, unless you, the said Ellen A. Clark, shall
[From
the
Albany
Law
Journal.]
W. H. STICKNEY,
would probably be nearer the mark. The
personally be and appear before said Superior
Court of Cook county, on the first day of a term Attorney, Room 12, Ewing's Block
Italians dispense with a witness box, and
MARRIAGE.
thereof,
to
be
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
bring the witness on to the dais before the Breach of fromise of: married man: on the first Monday of December, 1871, and plead, ESTATE OF H ENRY WOLFRAM,Ja., deceased .
whole court, where every movement can be
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill of
notice is hereby given to all persons
ofdamages. The defendant was a complaint,
the same, and the matters and things havingPublic
observed. We do not know whether this is measure
claims and demands against the estate of
married
man
at
the
time
of
the
promise.
therein
charged
and
stated,
will
be
taken
as
con
Henry
Wolfram,
Jr., deceased, to present the same
any great gain, but the Italians seem to like
defendant moved for a new trial, the fessed, and a decree entered against you accord I for adjudication and settlement, at a regular term
itwhen they are not witnesses. Further, The
of
the
county
court
of Cook County, to be holden
ing
to
the
prayer
of
aaid
bill.
it appears that the Judges at Rome do not damages being excessive, on the ground that
AUGUSTUS JACOBSOH, Clerk. at the court house in the city of Chicago, on the
1-4 first Monday of November, A. D. 1871, being the
prohibit applause. We in England allow the position of wife to the defendant, not Blows ft Ricxitts. Compl't's Sol'rs.
jokes and any amount of laughter but rob an being possible to the plaintiff, she could not
sixth dayHELENA
thereof. WOLFRAM, Administratrix.
OF MARIA GERKE, DECEASED.
advocate of his well earned applause. The be said to have lost that position, and it TESTATE
Chicago,
September
Ill
Public
notice
is
hereby
given
to
all
persons
outbursts of the Italian audience, on the oth could not therefore be the measure of dam. having claims and demands against the estate W. H. BuciNsr,
Atty.12, 1871.
514a
er hand, occasionally interrupt his oratory, ages. The court refused a rule. Humph of Maria Gerke, deceased, to present the same
for adjudication and settlement at a regular term
and the replies of a witness are not free rey v. Kelley, 1 A. J. K. 170.
ARNOLD TRIPP,
of the County Court of Cook county, toT holden
from their audible criticism. This is, of
at
the court house, in the city of Chicago, on the Attorney, 100 Washington St.
MURDER.
eourse, going too far, and when we learn fur
first
Monday
of
December,
A.
D.
1871,
being
the
ther that the judge's summing up'is scarcely Accident : pursuit of felonious object. fourth day thereof.
ESTATE OF MATHIAS HAGEMAN, deceased.
ALBERT GROSSMAN, Administrator.
Public notice is hereby given to all persons
heard by reason of the talking going on, we Where A., with a loaded pistol, went in
having claims and demands against the estate of
Chicago,
September
23,
1871.
feel what a wholesome effect would be pro pursuit of B-, to kill him, and while in such M. A. Rous A Bon, Att'ys.
Mathiaa
Hageman, deceased, to present the same
14
duced were Mr. Justice Blackburn to pre pursuit with that intent was intercepted by
for adjudication and settlement, at a regular term
of the County Court of Cook County, to be holden
side in the Roman court for a few days. The C., and in a struggle between A. and O. the
OF CHARLES CROMLEY, DE- at the conrt house in the city of Chicago, on the
new procedure is, on the whole, considered pistol went off accidentally and killed C-, INSTATE
li ceased.Public notice is hereby given to all first Monday of December, A. D. 1871, being the
successful, and a lady swindler and political held, that A. was guilty of the murder of C. personB
having claims and demands against the fourth day thereof.
intriguante has been found guilty, notwith Reg. v. Supple. 1 A. J. R. 129; 1 W., a'B. estate of Charles Cromley, deceased, to present
ELIZABETH HAGEMANN, Administratrix.
the same for adjudication and settlement at a Chicago, September 29, 1871.
l-6a
standing her young counsel appealed and & W., L
regular term of the County Court of Cook county,
entreated for two hours and a half "till his
to be holden at the court house, in the city of
mouth was white with foam, and he sank
NEGLIGENCE.
M. A. RORKE & SON,
Chicago, on the first Monday of December, 1871,
down exh austei on his chair." Talking Disregarding warning.PlaintiffB., a car being the fourth day tLereof.
Attorneys,
155 Washington St.
ANDREW
M.
RORKE,
of chairs, the Italian jurymen are provided rier, was engaged to carry goods for
de
with the will annexed.
with comfortable armchairs covered with fendant. While loading Backs of wheat at Chicago,Administrator,
e8tate of patrick furlong.deceased
September 22 871.
leather. We certainly might take the hint M.'s mill, he gave notice to M-'s servant M. A. Roaxs, Att'y.
W
Public notice is hereby given to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate of
end give our jurymen a little better accom not to send any more down shoot; but this
Patrick
Furlong, deceased, to present the same for
modation than the wretched wooden boxes in was disregarded, and B. injured by sack sent ESTATE OF JAMES BIRD, DECEASED.Pub adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of
lic notice is hereby given to all persons hav the Oounty Court
which they are accustomed to sit cheek by down
county, to be holden
afterward. On rule nisi for nonsuit, ing claims and demands against the estate of Jas. at the court house,ofin Cook
the city of Chicago, on the
jowl six in a row London Law Times.
Bird,
deseased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudi
on grounds of no evidence of negligence on cation and settlement at a regular term of the first Monday of December,
A. D. 1871. Doing the
part of defendant or his servants ; and that County Court of Cook county, to be holden at the fourth day thereof.
Waterloo, Ind., Oot. 19, 1871. plaintiff
ANN
FURLONG,
men causing injury were in court house, iu the airy of Chicago, on the first Chicago, September 23, 1871 . Administratrix.1-c
Mrs. Mtba Bra ii well: Madam:The service ofand
Monday of December, A. D. 1871, being the fourth
defendant,Held,
that there was day
Legal News for this week is at hand. You
thereof. JANE C. BIRD, Administratrix.
have my earnest sympathies in your misfor distinct evidence of negligence, if men told Chicago, September 23, 1871.
OF THOMAS OTHERWISE CALLED
1-6 ESTATE
tunes, while your indomitable bravery and not to send any more sacks down shoot, and M. aTrobxs * Son, Att'ys.
Anthony Kines or Kins, deceased.Publio
notice is hereby given to all persons having
pluck command my highest respect and ad as to common employment, that the con
claims and demands against the estate of
JAMES ENNIS,
miration. I wish you, as you deserve, every tracts were distinct. Bellis v. Maxfield, 1
Thomas, otherwise called Anthony Kines, or Kins,
success. God bless little Bessie's brave A. J. R. 35.
deceased, to present the same for adjudication
Attorney, 145 Madison St.
settlement at a regular term of the County
heart. May her future bring her no more
chancery notice.state of illinois, and
PARTNERSHIP.
of Cook county, to be holden at the court
such trials. I believe my snbscription is
Cook county, ss. Superior Court of Cook Court
house,
in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
not yet out, but you will please find here
1. Contract* between partners.There is no ounty. December term, 1871. Alvma Keritan vs. day of December, A. D. 1871, being the fourth
Kerstan.In Chancery.
with postal money order for $5 00, for two contract, either express or implied, that co- GtiBtav
day
thereof.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Gustav Kers
SARAH KINES, otherwise KINS, Executrix.
and a half years in advance, which please adventurers in a contemplated purchase, to tan,
defendant above named, having been filed in
September 23. U7L
place to my oredit. Very respectfully,
office of the Clerk of said Superior Conrt of Chicago.
be completed within a given time, shall not the
M.
A. Roaxi a Sow, Att'ys.
l-
R. W. MoBride. deal singly with the vendor for a bargain, to Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said
Gustav Kerstan that the complainant heretofore
Come
into
operation
after
the
original
bar
filed her certain bill of complaint in said court,
Shelbyville, 111., Oct. 24, 1871.
P. M HUGH,
the chancery side thereof, and that a sum
Mrs. Myra Bradwell :Enclosed find gain has expired by effluxion of time. Po- on
mons thereupon issued out of said eourt against
korney
v.
Ditchburne,
6
W.,
W.
&
a'B.,
E.
two dollars for the fourth volume of the
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Attorney, 48 South Clark St.
December next (1871), as is by law required.
Legal News- Your energy in this emer 284.
Now, unless you, the said Gustav Kerstan, shall
gency is the general admiration, and we hope 2. Old and new firm.A deed of partner personally
be and appear before said Superior
ship
between
A.
and
M.
contained
a
promise
the mythical Phoenix will become a histori
Court of Cook county, on the first day of a term naving claims auu aem&nuH Hgtuust uje enutbe ui
to be holden at Chicago, in said county, Patrick Treacy, deceased, to present the same for
cal reality in Chicago. I cannot omit to that the firm should take over the assets, and thereof,
the first Mondav of December, 1871, and plead, adjudication and settlement at a regular term of
congratulate you as the mother of your become responsible for the debts of an old on
answer or demur to the said complainant's Dill of tV. r ... r>AI1w, Af SV,/il n,.n.,tr 1r. k- hr.Man
Caasabianca of a girland some poet ought firm of M. and N. Held, that under this complaint, the same, and the matters and things
charged and stated, will be taken as con
to commemorate her in song. With great clause the new partnership were not entitled therein
toseparate bank shares deposited by M. and N. fessed, and a decree entered against you accord second day thereof.
respect, I am truly yours,
FRANK KELLY
and J> ,,,_,.
ing
to
the
prayer of said bill.
WILLIAM
DENVER,
"cutorto secure a joint debt to a bank. Agnew v.
GEO. D. CHAFES,
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
M-l
Jaw Einns, Compl't's Sol'tr.
M Chicago, August 8, 1871.
Of Moultom & Chafes. McGregor, 1 A. J. R., 133.

time system, instead of selling their labor

by the measure ef the produce thereof. We
are persuaded that if the capitalists and the
laborers will conduct their business on the
principles of the law of contract, there will
be fewer strikes. In that case there would
be no dispute about the hours of labor.
The laborers would agree to deliver so much
work, and if they decided that they would
not labor more than eight or nine hours
daily, they would have to contract for a
quantity of work that they could turn out in
that time. A demand for an increase of
wages would not be complicated by a nine
hours' or any other movement. Then both
the employers and the employed should make
oontractsjthat would protect both sides against
the effects of any sudden quarrel. It is ab
surd to hear capitalists complain that they
are afraid to undertake work lest the
men should leave them in the midst of the
work. They contract to deliver the ship to
the shipowner, and why should they not con
tract with the man to deliver the amount of
labor requisite to build the ship ? As noth
ing else has succeeded, perhaps it would be
worth while to try what can be done by a
proper use of the law of oontract.London
Law Joarnal

THOU CHIEF JUSTICE HOWE.

Kiwanee, HI, Oct. 21, 1871.
Mbs. Mvsa BradwellMadam:You
have sent me a copy of the Legal News
for a year or more gratuitously (by courtesy
I suppose), for which I am greatly obliged
to you. In view of your recent misfortunes,
I do not feel at liberty to receive and enjoy
the benefit of your valuable paper longer
without at least paying you therefor the reg
ular price of subscription, which I herein
enclose. I have resigned the office of Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court Wyoming
Territory, to take effect Oct. 31st, and shall
at once resume the practice of law at this,
my old home. My address therefore will be
Kewanee, Henry county, Illinois. With
best wishes for your most abundant success
in the future, I am verytruly yours,
J. H. HOWE.

CHICAGO

LEGAL JJEWS.

15

J. S. GRINNELL,
Nissen A Barnnm, 130 West Randolph (late 376
CHICAGO ATTORNBTS.
State street.)
Allen, E. F., No. 6 Yates' Building.
Attorney, 143 S. Clakk St.
O'Brennan, Martin A., LL.D., 554 Wabash ave. PUBLICATION NOTICE.State of nilnoli,
Adams, E. F., 143 West Madison street.
Cook County, ss. Cook County Circuit Court
Anderson, H. H., Nixon's Building, corner La Olney, John, 185 W. Madison.
September Term, A. D. 1871. Henry Sayrs, Edward
Otis, E. A., 543 Wabash avenue.
Salle and Monroe streets.
W.
Thompson
and Franklin Gilmore, vs. F. W.
Abbott, A. B., residence 283 West Adams*street Owen, J. A., 133% W. Madison Btreet.
Hull
and notice
BartonIsC.hereby
Tillett.given to the said F. W.
The undersigned beg leave to in
Public
Oleson,
Ingwel,
106
W.
Randolph
street
Ashton, Samuel, 89 East Washington street.
Hull and Barton C. Tillett; that a writ of attach
form their friends and patrons that BRADWELL, J. B 115 West Madison street.
Osborne, H 8. A. F. 8., 133 W. Madison street. ment
issued out of the office of the Clerk of Cook
Page, Joel 8., Evanston, 111.
County Circuit Court dated the 27th day of Sep
they have on the way to them a full Burke, Newton, office 12 South Canal street.
tember,
A. D. 1871, at the suit of the said Henry
Plum, Wm. R., Lombard, 111.
Bissell, J. H., 173 Wabash avenue.
Sayrs, Edward W. Thompson, and Franklin Gilassortment of text books, reports, and Buel, Ira W., 503 Wabash avenue.
Proudfoot,
Lawrence,
14
S.
Clinton
street.
more,
and
against the estate of the said F. W.
s George W., 154 W. Randolph street Hull and Barton
C. Tillett for the sum of one hun
Plummer,
digests, and are prepared to receive Burgess, Wm. T., 101 Sixteenth street.
dred
and
thirty-one
27-100 dollars, directed to the
Paul, C. D 231 W. Madison street
Beckwith, Ayer A Kales, 795 Wabash avenue.
Sheriff of Cook County, which said writ has been
orders as before the fire. As they Bennett A Sherburne. 121 South Sangamon St. Pence, A. M., Masonic Building.corner Halstead returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said F. W. Hull
and Randolph streets.
and Barton C. Tillett shall personally be and ap
feel confident that their prices will be Bacon A Norton, 637 Wabash avenue.
pear before the said Cook County Circuit Court
Perkins. N. C, 34 S. Clinton streets.
Barker A Waite, 40 Harrison Btreet.
on or before the first day of the next term thereof,
found as low as those of any Eastern Bates A Hodges, 113 W Madison street.
Perry A Sturges, 486 State street.
to be holden at the Court House In the city of Chi
Reynolds
A
Richberg,
Room
5
Lind's
Blook.
Bass,
Perkins,
497
Wabash
avenue.
cago,
on the third Monday of October. A. D> 1871,
house, they ask their friends to call Bisbee & Marsh, 204 W. Madison street.
give special bail, and plead to the said plaintiffs'
Richmond, Frank J.. 602 Burnside street.
action,
Judgment will be entered against you, and
Bonney, Fay Griggs, Bonney, 424 Fulton, Fay, Romayne, J. A., 66 Pierce street.
before ordering.
in favor of the said Henry Sayrs, Edward W.
146 Park avenue, Griggs, 350 W. Adams street.
Thompson and Franklin Gilmore, and so much of
Russell, F. C, 138 W. Madison street.
the property attached as may be sufficient to sat
Brackett, Wm., corner Third avenue and Taylor Roberts, R. B 395 8tate street.
isfy the said judgment and costs, will be sold to
Rosenthal, Julius, Masonic Building.
CALLAGHAN & COCKCBOFT, street.
satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Binmore, Henry, 312 West Lake street.
Reynolds W.'C,, 1,089 Indiana avenue.
J. 8. Gxikxiijl, PI W Atty.
1-4
Booth, Henry, Judge, 506 W. Lake Btreet.
Robinson, J. C, 316 Twenty-second street
121 West Randolph street.
| [Butter, Walter, High School Building.
Runyan, Avery, Loomis A ComBtock, 141 W.
SNOWHOOK St GRAY,
Brouse, O. ft. residence 61 Langley street.
Washington street.
CHICAGO.
Crocker, D. J., 48 South Canal street.
Rorke, M. A. A Son, 154 Halstead street
Attorneys, 77 Dearborn- St.
Cooper A Packard, 163 W. Washington street.
estate of jeremiah o'connor, deScales, Walter B., 185 W. Madison.
ceased. Public notice is hereby given to all
CHICAGO LAW-BOOK HOUSE.
Condon, Wm. H., 34 Canal street, corner Wash Snowhook A Gray, 85 W. Monroe street
persons
having claims and demands against the
Sherman, E. B-, 214 Sangamon street.
estate of Jeremiah O'Connor, deceased, to pre
Established in I860.
Burned out Oct, 8, 1871. ington.
sent
the
same for adjudication aud settlement at
Cowper,
Wm.
E.,
110
Throop
street.
Scoville, George. 30 Sonth Clinton street.
Re-established Oct. 11, 1871.
a regular term of the County Court of Cook
Cowan, D. Masonic Temple, Room 11.
Smith, George W-, 475 Wabash avenue,
county, to be holden at the court house, in the
Carter, Becker & Dale, 50 Canal street.
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of November,
Stark, James L. 9 and 11 N. Canal street.
E. B. MYERS,
A. D. 1871, being the sixth day thereof.
Cram, J. A., 34 South Clinton street.
Story ft King, 1 W Randolph street.
EUGENE O'SULLIVAN, Executor.
Crane, J. B., 98 W. Randolph street.
Sawin A Wells, 69 W. Madison street
Chicago, September 22, 1871.
Showhook A Gray, Att'ys.
Driscoll A Pfirshing, office 47 Peck street.
Seybold. F. J., 497 Wabash avenue.
Denison, Frank, 204 W. Madison street.
Shorey, D. L., 1,186 Wabash avenue.
Law
Bookseller Dent
A Black, 740 Wabash avenue.
ADOLPH
Shufieldt A Ball, 219 W. Madison street.
Dow,
S.
K.,
27
Park
avenue.
And Publisher,
Attorney, 4 Commercial Building.
Swift, W. H., 45 Hubbard Court.
Dunne, G., 096 W. Adams street.
Smith H, P. (Smith A Upton,), 135 W, Monroe CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, Cook
street.
Dunning A Easton, 066 Wabash avenue.
County, ss. Superior Court of Cook County,
1022 WABASH AVE.,
November Term, 1871. Johann Schmidt vs. Bar
Fandercock, Geo. 8., 143 8. Sangamon street.
Davis, S. M., 182 West Monroe street.
bara
SchmidtIn Chancery.
Near 23d St. Dimock, John H., 1,106 Indiana avenue.
Spafford, McDaid A Wilson, 77 W. Madson St. Affidavit
Chicago,
of the non-residence of Barbara
Schmidt, defendant above named, having been
Thompson,
George
W.
39
Twenty-seoond
street.
Ela
A
Parker,
154
Randolph
street.
I have a few sets of Illinois Report*. Vols. 2 to Eldridge 4 Tourtellotte, 118 W. Madison street.
filed in the office of the clerk of said Superior
18 inclusive, also a few subsequent volumes, which
Tenney, McClellan A Tenney, 45 'Hubbard Court. Court of Cook County, notice is hereby given to
were in my Eastern bindery,to arrive in a few Ellis, B. W., 116 W. Madison street
the said Barbara Schmidt that the complainant
Upton, C. W. [Smith A Upton), 136 W. Monroe heretofore
days, Vole. 2 to 18. I will sell at
filed his certain bill of complaint in
Enos, A. W., 270 South Desplaines street.
street.
said
court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
$0.OOTer Volume.
Van Buren, E. A A., 194 W. Madison street.
Felker, Wm. 8., 371 Tiate street.
a summons thereupon issued out oi said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the first
Frake, E. James, 113 W. Madison street.
Waterman, A. N., 135 W. Monroe street.
Monday ot November next, (1871.) as is by law re
Furness
A
Abbott,
30
South
Clinton
street.
Willett,
Consider
H..
171
Twenty-second
street.
quired.
SPECIAL TO LAWYERS I
Now, unless you, the said Barbara Schmidt shall
Furness, Wm. Eliah, 30 South Clinton street.
Wood A Carter. 202 W. Madison street.
personally be and appear before said Superior
Waite, C. B., 97 Sixteenth street.
Fry, George C, 64 W. Randolph.
Court of Cook County, on the first day of a term
Wait A Clark, 33 and 34 Congress street.
Forrester, R. H., 171 W. Adams street.
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said County,
on the first Monday of November, 1871, and plead,
Andrew, residence 290 Park avenue. Wakeman, Manly A Wakeman. 45 S. Canal St.
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill of
Chicago awym desiring to Purchase Garrison,
Garnett, Gwynn, 171 W. Madison street.
Walker, Dexter <f 8mlth, 792 Wabash avenue. complaint, the same, and the matters and things
therein charged and stated, will be ttken as con
LAW BOOKS, will be supplied by ut AT Goodrich, A., 311 W. Monroe street.
Wells, C. B., 59 W. Madison street
fessed, and a decree entered against you accord
Gross,
Samuel
E
303
Randolph
street.
of said bill.
Wilder, D. P., corner Third avenue and'Taylor ing to the prayerAUGUSTUS
COST, during the next Six Months.
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Goodwin, D. J., Nixon's Building, corner LaSalls street.
Adolph
Mohks,
Compl't's
Sol'r.
l-4p
and Monroe streets.
Williams A Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
Goodwin A Rockwell, Nixon's Building, corner Woodbridge, John, High School Building.
IRA W. BTJELL,
DIOSSY & CO.,
LaSalle and Monroe streets.
Whitney, Charles, corner Canal and Randolph
Attorney, 166 Washington St.
Gary, Elbert H., 59 W. Madison street.
streets.
Goudy A Chandler, 391 Wabash avenue.
chancery notice state of illinois,
Willard. 8. 8., 178 W. Madison street.
Law Booksellers and Publishers,
Cook County, ss. Superior Court of Cook
Grant, Wm, C, 45 Hubbard Court
county,
October Term, 1871. William J. Stewart
Grinnell,
J.
8.,
1,174
Prarie
avenue.
vs.
Ellen
M. Stewart.In Chancery.
86 Nassau street, New York.
Affidavit of the non- residence of Ellen M.
Hibbard, Rich A Noble. 35 and 37 Canal street
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
Stewart,
defendant above named, having been
Hervey, Anthony A Gait, 14 S. Clinton street.
in the effice of the Clerk of said Superior
Attorney, 113 W. Madison St. filed
Court
of
Cook county, notice Is hereby given to
Hitchcock,
Dupee
A
Evarts,
corner
Wells
and
WWe publish Abbotts United l*taUt Practice, Monroe streets.
said Ellen M. Stewart that the complainant
TESTATE OF SUSAN A. LOYD. DECEASED. the
heretofore
filed his bill of complaint in said
Abbott's National Digest, and will soon have ready Hillis A Christian, 489 Michigan avenue.
Pi Public notice is hereby given to all persons court, on the
chancery side thereof, and that a
having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
summons
thereupon
out of said court
a new consolidated (not condensed) edition of the Herbert A Quick, 529 State street.
Susan A. Loyd. deceased, to present the same for against said defendantissued
returnable on the first
Howland,
W.
M.,
79
W.Madison
street
adjudication
and
settlement
at
a
regular
term
of
Monday
of
October
next
(1871),
as is by law re
Sew York Court of Appeals Reports.
Countv Court of Cook conntv. to be holden
Hoyne, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michi the
at the *ourt house, in the city of Chicago, on the quired.
Now, unless you, the said Ellen M. Stewart,
first Mondav of January, A. D. 1872, being the shall personally be and appear before said Su
gan and Wabash avenue.
Send for circular.
fourth dav thereof.
perior Court of Cook county, on the first day of a
Hunter, J. A., 135 W. Monroe street
ALEXANDER T. LOYD, Administrator. term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said
Hammer A Smith, 279 State street.
Jamis B. Butnu, Att'y for estate.
county, on the first Monday of October, 1871, and
Chioage, Oct. 26, 1871.
Elead, answer or demur to the said complainant's
Higgins, Swett A Quigg, 379 Wabash avenue.
ill of complaint, the same, and the matters and
Hirst, Wm. L., Jr., 11 to n.Canal street,
NOTICE !
things therein oharged and stated, will be taken
Howe A Russell, 1,229 Wabash Avenue.
as confessed, and a decree entered against you
JOHN LTLE KING,
according to the prayer of said bill.
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS. Hoyne, Horton A Hoyne, 267 Michigan avenue.
AUGU8TU8 JACOBSON, ClerkAYOUNG ATTORNEY, WHO HAS HADTHREE Hutchinson^A Luff, 381 Wabash avenue.
Ia W. Buiu, Compl't's Sol'r.
1-4
Attobney,
76
Dearborn
St.
years' practice in the different courts of Hopkins, Wm., 46 Harrison street.
Hlinois, desires to form a partnership for the Ingersoll, O. P., 92 8outh Green street.
T71STATE OF PATRICK GILLIGAN. deceased
practice of law in Chicago with some experienc
DUNNING & EASTON,
Pi Public notice is hereby given to all persons
ed and reoutable member of the Chicago bar, Isham, 554 Wabash avenue.
havintr claims and demands against the estate of
who has been made destitute of means by the Johnson, Wm. M., 14 8. Clinton street.
Attorneys,
161 Washington St.
Patrick
Gilligsn.
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
late great fire. Will furnish $1,000 in books and Jameson, JL, 821 State street.
adjudication and ettlemont. at a regular term of
money. For further particulars, inquire at office
chancery
notice-state
of illinois,
the
countv
court
of
Cook
Countv.
to
be
holden
at
of Legal Niwb, or address Box No. 16, Vienna, Johnson A Rogers, 124 W. Madison street.
Cook County, ss. Superior Court of Cook
the Court House in the city of Chicago, on the
Illinois.
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
County,
October
Term,
1871.
Anna
J. Becker vs.
first Mondav of December, A. D. 1871, being the
John F. Bccker.^In Chancery.
fourth day thereof.
Knox, George W., 123 8. Sangamon street.
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of John F.
LAW BOOKS WANTED.
MATHILDA GILLIGAN,
with the will annexed. Beeker, defendant above named, having been
I have lost my library in the late fire, and want Knickerbocker, J. C. A J. J., 163 W. Washington Chicago,Administratrix,
filed
In
the
office
of
the
Clerk
of
said
September 27, 1871.
l-7a Court of Cook county, notice is hereby Superior
to bay the latest editions of the following books : street.
given to
Taylor's Landlord and Tenant, Parsons on Con
the said John F. Becker that the complainant
Kreamer,
J.
W.,
161
W.
Madison
street.
tracts, Washburn on RealProperty, Grenleeaf on
heretofore
filed
ber
certain
bill
of
complaint
in
Evidence, Story's Equity Jurisprudence, Drake King, Simeon W., 178 W. Madison street.
said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
8c CLARK,
on Attachment, Redneld on Wills, Sedgwick on King, Soott A Payson, 637 Wabash avenue.
a
summons
thereupon
issued
out
of
said
court
Damages, Tidd's Practice, Angell and Ames on King A Willard, 178 W. Madison street.
said defendant returnable on the; first
Corporations, PhilliDS on Insurance. What can
Attorneys, 100 Washington St. against
Monday of October next (1871), as is by law re
they be furnished for, C. O. D., at Chicago, the Lyman A Jackson, 79 W. Madison street.
quired.
expressage to be paid by the seller? Address. Linane, P. W., 189 W. Tyler street.
T718TATE OF JEROME MYERS, DECFA8ED. Now, unless you, the said John F. Becker, shall
F. E., care Lioai News.
Pj Public notice is hereby given to all per personally be and appear before said Superior
Learning A Thompson, 109 W. Randolph street. sons
having claims and demands against the Court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
Monroe,
Henry
8.,
503
Wabash
avenue.
estate
of Jerome Mvers. deceased, to present the thereof, to be holden in Chicagr, in said county,
DISSOLUTION.
same for adiudieation and settlement at a reg on the first Monday of October, 1871, and plead,
Moran A English, 102 W. Randolph street.
ular
term
of the County Court of Cook county, answer or demur to the said complainant's bill
THE PARTNERSHIP FORMERLY EXISTING Magee A Oleson, 105 W. Randolph street.
be holden at the court house, in the city of of complaint the same, and the matters and
between George H. Sisson and Olin R. Moses, A. Masonic Building, corner Halstead to
Chicaeo.
on
the first Monday of November, A.'D., things therein charged and stated, will be taken
Brouse, under the name and Btyle of Geo, H.
as confessed, and a decree entered against you
1871. being tha sixth day thereof.
Sisson A Co., Real Estate Dealers, has been dis and Randolph streeti.
prayer of said
bill.
OOEL M. GLOYD, Executor. according to theAUGUSTUS
solved hy mutual consent.
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
McClelland, Thomas S., 455 Michigan avenue.
Chicago, September 22, 1871.
GEO, H. SISSON.
Dttninica
A
Eabtos,
Compl't's
Sol'rs.
1-4
Waits
A
Cuax,
Att'ys.
52-6a
McHugh, P., 18 South Ann street.
O. R, BROUSE:

CHICAGO LEGAL NEWSi6

ATTORNEYS.
Ray (Isaac).The Medical Jurisprudence of
Curtis (Judge B. R ).Digest of the decisions of Insanity.
Fifth edition, much enlarged. 8vo.
chicago ATTORNEYS.
the Supreme Court of the United States from the Cloth,
H.
M. HERMAN,
$ii.00;
sheep,
$r,.50.Practical Treatise on the
origin of the Court to the close of the December Rcdjietd
(Isaac
F.)A
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
MABTIN A. O'BRENNAN,664LL.D.,
Term,
1851.
8vo.
$G.50.
Law
of
Railways
;
embracing
Corporations,
Emi.
Wabash Avenue. Curtis (George T.).The American Conveyancer. nent Domain, Contracts, Common Curriers of
No. 79 Delaware street, LeavenworthfKansas.
edition, revised, corrected, and enlarged
52*
and Passengers, Investments, Ac, &c,
KING & WILLARD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW Second
Mark H. Durgin. Crown. 8vo. Sheep, $2.26. Goods
Fourth
edition,
enlarged.
2
vols.
8vo.
$15.00.
178 Went Madison St., late of U7 8. Clark St byCashing
(Luther S.).An introduotion to the ReAfield's Lcad>ng American Railway Cases.
GEORGE C, FRY,
of the Roman Law. 12mo. Cloth, $1.25.
Leading Cases and Opiaions upon most of the
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
fTwHITEHOUSE, 1M W. Madison Street, Study
Cushing (Luther 8.).Law and Practice of Legis important
questions involved in the Law of Rail
Street, formerly 86 La Balls
, late Tribune Building.
2* lative Assemblies in the United States of America. ways,
arranged according to subjects, with ex 54 West RandolphStreet,
Chicago.
edition.Mississippi
8vo. $7-50.
tensive Notes and References to the late
rTTHOMAS S. MCCLELLAND. Attorney and Third
Cushman's
Reports.'Vols.
23-29.
7
Decisions. By Isaac F. Redfield, LL. D. 8vo.
_L Counselor at Law, 172 West Washington St. vols. 8vo. $38.50.
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
Danielt (Edmund R.).Pleading and Practice of $7.50.
on the Law of Wills. Vol. 1. Third
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
High Court of Chancery. To which are added Redjield Embracing
also the Jurisprudence of
OTTAWA (ILI) ATTORNEYS. the
several entirely new chapters, and copious notes, edition.
No.
113
West Matiison Street, Chicago.
Insanity,
the
Effect
of
Extrinsic
Evidence,
the
by Hon. J. C. Perkins, adapting tho work to Creation and Construction of Trusts; with Forms Special Attention
J^LANCHARD, SILVER 4 CORWIN.
given to Probate Matter*.
American
Practice
in
Chancery.
Fourth
edition.
4
and Instructions for Preparing Wills. Vols. II.
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
8 vols.
8vo.
$J2.50.
and
III,
Embracing
Devises,
Legacies,
Charitable
Drake (Charles D.).Treatise on the Law oj Trusts, and the Duties of Executors, Adminis
ESTATES SETTLED.
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORTIEYS.
suits by Attachment In the United States. Third trators,
aud Testamentary Trustees, Law of "Set thine house in order; for thou Bhalt die,
8vo.
$7.50.
SANFORD, E. Special attention given to Col edition.
Trusts,
Ac.
3
vols.
8vo.
$22.50.
English Chancery Reports.To be published by Redjield (Isaac F.) and Blgelow (Melfille M.) and not live."2 Kings, xx, 1.
leeiions and Real Estate.
U subscription
in monthly volumes, viz:
Leading and Select American Cases in the Law of
S1MLON W. KING,
MacNaughten
andGorden
3 vols. 15,00 Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes, and Checks.
SPRINGFIELD, ILL.
De Gex, Macnaughten and Gordon.. 8 vols,
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER,
8vo.
$7.50. James).The Law of the Domestic
(Schouler
De
Gex
and
Jones
4
vols.
HKRNDON * ORENDORFF,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Relations: embracing Husband and Wife; Guar
Gex, Fisher and Jones,
4 vols.
27* De
Office west side sauare.
dian and Ward; Parent and Child ; Infancy; and
De Gex, Jones and Smith
3 vols.
NOTARY PUBLIC,
Master
anil
Servant.
8vo.
87.50.
(In preparation.)
AND
Smith (W. L.)Probate Law and Practice; de
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.
English Law Reports.The " Law Reports " are signed
for the Use of Executors and Others COMMISSIONER OF DEEDS FOR ALL THH
pubiished
in
three
series:
STATES
AND
TERRITORIES.
having
Business
in
the
Probate
Court.
Second
SMITH ft ORDWAY,
I. The Apphllatk Series.This comprises thede- edition. 12mo. Cloth, $2.00; sheep, $2.50.
61-11* cisions
No 11 Centre Block, Nicollet 8t
Office, 178 West Madison Street, Chicago.
of the House of Lords and the Privy Coun
Story (Joseph).Commentaries on the Law of
cil.II. The Equity Sebies.This comprises the de Agency. Seventh edition, revised and enlarged
MAX EBERHARDT,
List of Law Books
cisions oftheCturt of Appeal in Chancery, Lu by Hon. i. F. Renfield and W. A. Herrick. 8vo.
$7.50.
nacy,
and
Bankruptcy,
and
also
those
of
the
JUSTICE
OF THE'PEACE
Stori/
(Joseph).Commentaries
on
the
Law
of
Published by
Master of the Rolls aud three Vice-Chancellors.
Bailments. Eighth edition, revised and enlarged
CounhnjTnrtifnBTirfitrr,
III. The Common Law Series.This comprises byE..
Bennett. 8vo. $7-50. on the Law of Southwest Corner ofLake and Canal Sts.,
the decisions of the Queen's Bench. Common StoryH.(Joseph).Commentaries
LITTLE, BROWN & CO. Bench, and Exchequer, including Writs of Error Bills
of Exchange, Foreign and Inland, as ad
and Appeals to the Exchequer Chamber ; also the ministered
in England and America. Fourth Residence ; No. 80 CHICAGO.
decisions of the Courts of Probate, Divorce, and edition, revised
North Sangamon Street. 24
and enlarged by E. H.Bennett.
BOSTON.
Matrimonial Causes; the Admiralty and the
8vo.
$7.50.
Court
of
Criminal
Appeal.
Story
{Joseph).Commentaries
on
the
Conflict
Addison's Law of Torts.Prepared for use in the The completed set, to 1870. 38 vols. 8vo. Half of Laws. Seventh edition, revised and enlarged
LawBcbool of Harvard University. 12mo. Cloth lawEnglish
calf, $224.75.
E.H. Bennett. (In Press.)
Statutcs(l&GG to 1870). 5 vols. Half law byStory
$3;American
sheep, $3.5U.
(Joseph).Commentaries on the Constitu LAWBOOKS! LAWBOOKS!
Law Review.Vols. I. to V. Bound In calf,
$-i8.75.
of the United States. Third edition, revised
Law sheep, per vul.,
(Published quarterly ; English Law Reports (Digest). 8vo. Half calf, tion
by E. H. Bennett. 2 vols. 8vo. $10.0".
subscription price $5 per annum, payable in ad |10.00.
Story (Joseph).Commentary on Equity Juris
English Reports (Digest).A Digest of the de prudence.
vance; single numbers, $1.25.)
Tenth edition, carefully revised, with
cisions Ul
of the
Courts of
England, contained in extensive additions,
Angeli {Joseph K.).A Treatise on the Law con the
ClSIUUf*
IIH.T
uumvo
wa
-""(5
by Hon. I. F. Redfield. 2
Law and Equity Reports, from the
cerning the Liabilities and Rights of common first English
Wm. Gould & Sons,
vols.
8vo,,
$15.00.
volume to the thirty-first inclusive. By Story (Joscjth).Commentaries on Equity Plead
carriers: fourth edition. 8vo; S7.50.
Angeli, (Joseph K.).~A Treatise on the Limita Chauncey Smith, Esq. Second edition. 8vo. ings. Eighth edition, revised and enlarged by I.
tions of Actions at Lw and Suits in Equity and $5.50.
Redfield.
8vo., $7.50.
English Railway and Canal Cases, argued and F.Story
Admiralty, with an Appendix containing the adjudged
(Joseph.).Commentaries
on tho Law of LAW
BOOKSELLERS!
in the Courts of Law and Equity, from
American and English Statutes of Limitations,
Sixth edition, revised and enlarged
to 1852. From the London edition. Edited Partnership.
and embracing the latest Acts on the subject; 1835
by
J.
C.
Gray,
Jr,
8vo.,
$7.50.
AND
fifth edition. Revised by J. W. May, Esq. 8vo; by Chauncey Smith and Samuel W. Bates, Esqs. Story (Joseph).Commentaries on the Law of
0 vols. 8VO., $30.00.
Promissary Notes, and Guaranties of Notes and
$7.60.
Angeli {Joseph A*.).A Treatise on the Law of Orcenleaf (Simon).Treatise on the Law of Evi Checks
on
Banks
and
Bankers.
Sixth
edition
tnCCKH
IMiiiMi mm i..ult. i ..
PUBLISHERS.
3 vols. 8 vo. Twelfth edition, $22.50.
Water-courses; sixth edition, revised and very dence.
enlarged by J. W. Perry. 8vo., $7.60,
HeyCs Commercial D;gest.Digest of the United revisedand
much enlarged by Hon. J. C. Perkins. 8vo; $H.
Story (WilttamW.)-A Treatise on the Law of
statutas relating to Revenue, Commerce, Sales
Angeli (Joseph A'.), and Ames (Samuel).A Treat States
of Personal Property, with illustrations
08 STATS STREET, ALBANY, IT. T.,
and tho Currency. Embracing all the
ise on the I-aw ol Private Corporations Aggregate ; Navigation,
the Foreign Law. Fourth edition, care
statutes now in force, chronologically arranged. from
ninth edition, revised and corrected by John Prepared
fully
revised
and
corrected
by
E.H.
Bennett.
undr the sanction and auspiceB of tho
call the attention of the Legal Pro"
Lathrop.
8vo; $7.50.
$7.60((John N.) -A Treatise on the American Respectfully
Angeli (Joseph
A'.), and Durfer (Thomas).A Treasury Department. By Lewis Heyl. Royal 8vo.,
lession to their Lrcrge Slock of
Taylor
Treatise on the Law of Highways; second edi 8VO.,
$10.00.
Law
of
Landlord
and
Tenant;
embracing
Ihe
Milliard (Francis).A Treatise on the Law of Statutory Provisions and Judicial Deci-ions of
tion, with notes and refereuces b> G. F. Choate. Mortgage
of Rtyd and Personal Property, being tho several United States in reference thereto, Rare and Valuable Works '
8vo;
$o. and LTobbs.~The Bankrupt Act of 18(17; a General View
of the English and American Law
Avery
a selection of precedents. Fifth edition.
compared with the Act of 1841, the English Bank upon that subject. (Fourth edition in preparation.) with
$7.60.States Digest to 1S09.Digest of tho de IN EVERY DEPARTMENT OP THE LAW,
rupt Law, and the Insolvent Law of Massachu Uittiard (Francis).'-A Treatise on Torts, being a 8vo
Unitca
setts, with a digest of the ^Decisions of the Courts cornprehensivo summary of the law relating to cisions of the Courts of Common Law and Ad
of the United States, the several States, and of
volumes, embracing
committed upon Real and Personal Prop miralty in the United States. 29 vols. Royal Comprising manythethousand
England, with Forms of Proceeding. By Edward Wrongs
most
valuable
8vo.,
$193,60.
erty,
upon
the
person,
character,
and
all
absolute
Avery and George M. Hobbs. svu; $L5u.
United States Equity XHgcst., by J. P. Putnam;
Bennett and Heard.Leading Criminal cases. and relative rights. Third edition. 2 vols. 8vo., completing
the above, 2 vols. Royal 8vo., $13.00.
By E. H. Bennett and F. V. Heard, Esqrs. L* vois. $15.00.
Uaited
States (statutes at La ge.Laws of the TEXT BOOKS,
Milliard (Francis). On the Law of Remedies j United States
8vo. Second edition; 15.
of America, from the organization
for
torts
or
Private
Wrongs,
fivo.,
$7.50.
Bishop (Joel i*.).Commentaries on the Crimi
the Government in 1789 to the present time.
IliUiard (Francit<).Treatise on the Law of Von- : of
nal Law. Fourth edition, enlarged. 2 vols. 8vo; ders
Edited
by
Richard
Peters, George Minot, and
and Purchasers of Real Property. Second George P. Sanger. Published
TREATISES,
by direction, and
$15.Bishop (Joel /*)Commentaries on the law of edition.
Hvo..
$7.50.
under
the
patruiiage.
of Congress. Complete to
Hovck (Louis).A Treatise on the Law of Nav 1870, including Synoptical
Marriage and Divorce. S vols. 8vo. Fourth edi
Index.
17
vols.
Royal
igable Rivers. 8vo., C.)-Reports
3.50.
tion,
enlarged
$15.
DIGESTS, ETC.,
577.00.( Timothy),Introduction to American
of cases argued 8vo.,
Bishop
(Joel ; 1*.)Commentaries
on Criminal andIloward(Bemjamin
Walker
adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United Law;
Procedure, or the Law of Pleading, Evidence, and States.
designed
as
a
FirstBook
for
Students.
Fifth
Vols.
IV.
to
XI.
inclusive.
8vo.
Per
Practice in criminal cases. 2 vols. 8vo. [Second
THE BEST ENGLISH AND
8vo.,(Emory).A
$7.50.
$0,50.of Lords Cases on Appeals and Writs of edition.
Washburn
Treatise on tho Law of BY
edition
press.]
AMERICAN AUTHORS.
House
Bishopin{Joel
Pi)-The First Book of the Law; . vol.,
Real
Property,
'third
edition.
Enlarged
to
3
explaining the ISature, Sources, Books, and Prac Error, Claims of Peerage, and Divorce. 1S47-W. vols. 8vo $22.60.
VOlS. (James).Commentaries
8VO.,$ti0.0O.
ALSO A LAEGE COLLECTION OF
tical Applications of Legal Science, and methods 11 Kent
Washburn (Emory).A Treatise on the Ameri
on American
of Studv and Practice. 8vo; $'>.
Law of Easements and Servitudes. Second
BtackwcUiR. S.).A Pructieal Treatise on the Law. Eleventh edition, edited and revised by can
edition. 8vo.,(Em
$7-50.
C. F. Comstock. 4 vols. 8vo., $20.00.
Power to sell Land for the Non-payment of Taxes Hon.
or//).Lectures on the Study United States, State and English
A'err on Injunctions.A Treatise on the Law and andWashburn
assessed thereon. Third edition, enlarged. 8vo; Practice
Practice of the Law. Crown 8vo. Cloth
of
Injunctions
in
Kquity.
By
W.
W.
$7.60.
Browne (Causten).A Treatise on the Construc Kerr. With extensive notes and additions frum $2-00,
REPORTS,
For Sale by E. B. MYERS, and CALAGHAN A
tion of the Statute of Frauds, as in force in Eng American cases by W. A. Herrick. 8vo., $7.60.
land and the United States; with an Appendix Massachusetts Reports. Reports of cases in the COCKCROFT.
3-4,
Which we offer at lowest prices for cash or ap
containing the existing English and American Supreme Judicial Court ol Massachusetts- 00
proved credit. Lawyers of Chicago who have lost
Statutes. Third edition. 8vo. $7.50.
vols. 8vo., 401.00. Comprising
their Libraries by the recent fire, will do well to
Oirev.it Court Reports.First Circuit. 19 vols.
LAVT BOOKS.
correspond with us before purchasing elsewhere8vo.
Comprising
. 2 vols. 8vo.
$ i;w.oo
59.00
Massachusetts Reports, 17 vols 8vo
Catalogues furnished on application. Address
*
Gallison
Reports.
Statutes
of
Illinois,
1871.Complete
to
date,
in
24
vols.
Pickering's
Mason's Reports. 5 vols. 8vo. Vol. I. out of Metcalfs
7 I -60 cluding the Constitution of 1870, the General
18 vols. "
Acts
oT
the
First
and
Second
Sessions
of
1871,
print.
Vol.
II.
to
V.,
8*4.
6(1.00
12 vols. "
Cushiug's
Sumner's Reports. 3 vols. 8vo.
16 vols. "
all into1 Laws,
vol; $10.Public awl Private.Including WILLIAM GOULD & SONS,
Gray's
Story's Reports. 3 vols. 8vo.
Index
44 .00 and
8 vols. "
Allen's
Woo'dbury and Minut's Report. 3 vols. 8vo. Massachusetts Digest Being
every
act
not
printed in the statutes, and there
a Digest of the
Law Publishers,
a supplement
thereto; $3. and cheap edition ,
$18.Curtis'B Reports. 2 vols. 8vo. $12.
decisions of the Suprem Judicial Court of Mas foreTownship
Organization
Ry E. H. Bennett and F. F. Heard. containing also the Law ofNew
Cliifoid's Reports. Vol. I. and II. 8vo. Per sachusetts.
Elections,
Kstrays
and
2 vols. (Vol. Ill, in press.) Royal Svo., $l/">.oo.
Complete to date, including acts of 1871. 68 STATE ST., - - ALBANY, N. Y.
Vol.,
$6.
Mm/ (John W.)On the Law ol Insurance as ap Roads.
Connecticut
Digest.A Digest of all the reported plicable
Well
bound
boards; 75reprint,
cts. in full, of all the
to
Fire,
Life,
Accident,
and
other
risks
cases decided in the Superior Court aud Su not maritime. (In press).
Statutes atmLarge.A
preme Court of Errors of the State of Connecti
early laws of Illinois. Carefully annotated,
FOR SALE.
Morse
on
Banks
and
Banking.A
Treatise
on
the
cut, and in the United Sta es Courts lor the Dis Law of Banks ani Banking, with an appendix, showing the connection and dependence of the
trict of Connecticut. By Simeon E. Buldwin, of containing the National Ranking Act, with de sit'-cessive acts. Beginningwitli 1787. Vol. 1 in
the New Haven County Bar. 8vo. Sheep, $10.
Ac. By John T. Morse, .Jr. 8vo.. $ti.00. press, Laws and Revisions.A complete set of
Coo'ey { Thomas //.).A Treatise on the Constitu cisions,
Farsuns (Theophilus.)The Law of Contracts. allSession
tional Limitations upon Legislative Power in the Fifth
the Public Laws of Illinois from 1819; original Consisting of 135 volumes. R*^ pia?
edition, carefully revised and considerably State
several States of the American Union. Second enlarged.
revisions and special sessions in given, on good eocunly. Apply soon to ^
3 vols. 8vo., $22.50. on the Law of cluded.editions,
edition, with considerable additions, giving the I*atsons (Theophilus].Treatise
Three vols, in paper; the rest in the best UOTT, (Juincy, 111.
of
original
bindings.
If desired, the compila
results of the recent cases. 8vo. $7.50.
Second edition. 8vo., $7.50.
Crocker*' Notes on the General Statutes of Massa Partnership.
of Oale, Purple, Scates, Gross, 1868 and
Scale or Advertising Bates(TlvophV us).The Elements of Mercan tions
chusetts.By Uriel H. Crocker and George G. tileParsons
1
71,
and
Purple's
Real
Law. Second edition, carefully revised and furnished. Te\t perfect. Estate Statutes, also
Crocker.
8vo. $G.T.).Equity Precedents. Sup considerably
lw. 2 '. 1 3 w. 1 m. 3m. I m.j Ji.
enlarged,
avo.,
$7.50.
Bfacb.
Curtis (George
Attorneys''
Docket-Cheapest
and
best
issued,
Parmns (Thct>philu6).A Treatise on the Law of 200 pages, $i; larger sizes in proportion, With
plementary to Story's Equity Pleading. Fourth Shipping
82.50 83725
Sl.OU1.75
and Admiralty. 2 vols. 8vo. $15.00.
30^0
files1871First
or envelops
toSecond
match. Sessions, paper, 1i sq
edition.
8vo. $7.50.
Parsons ( Theophilus).The Laws of Business for handy
sq
4.75 ~o7oo
3.50
"
2.00
Curt s (George
T.).Treatffie on the Law of Pa Business
Acts
of
and
Men in all the States of the Union. Svo.
23.001 "44.00
tents for Useful Inventions in the United States
T6T>
6.50
8.00
~2780
75
cts
3
q
$3.00;(Theophilus).A
sheep, $X50. Treatise on Maritime Criminal Code.A Digest of Statutes and De
of America, and Remedies for their infi ingement. Cloth,
~M TSTcio -37ToT>! 3l'|.
Parsons
Third edition, with many additions. 8vo. $7.50. Law,
with numerous forms ; law sheep, $1.50. yK col... ~3J5 ~776o
including therein the Law of Shipping, the cisions,
17.25 22.00
Tuio
Curtis (Judge B. U.).United States Circuit Law of
7.011
H
CO'7"
Organic
Laws
of
Illinois.Paper,
-J5
cte.
Insurance, and the Law and Practice of *#*Where the remittance aecompanien the op
Court Reports. First Circuit; 1831-50. >> vols. 8vo. Admiralty.
10.00 22.00 31.00 42.00,,TowK)Ui-tK,l
1 col
2
vols.
8vo.
$15.00.
der,
we
wili
send
any
of
thi
above,
CHARGES
Ten
lines
of
Nonpareil,
solid, maKe a ^dvftnce.
$12.Curtis (Judge B. i?.).United States Supreme Perry (J. W).A Treatise on Trusts and PAID, to any express oftice in Illinois.
Advurtiaemeuta must be pnid ir . ^ addeo8vo.
(In
Press.)
Court decision* ; comprising the 68 volumes of Trustees.
K.
UA
W.
L,
GROSS,
Springfield.
and
when
not
so
paid,
50
w
( William Hcn y).A Practical Treatise on For sale by Callaghan & Crockcroft, Chicago ; Legal Notices not includedperincent,
cases reported by Dallas, Cranch.Wheaton, Peters, theRatele
the aoo'
Law of Covenants fur Title. Fourth edition. Soule,
and Howard. With not^s and a Digest. Fifth
Thomas
St
Wiusor,
St.
Louis.
(In preparation.)
edition. 22 vols. 8vo. $110.

QhicagoJegalMews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year IS71, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian ot Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 4.

SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.

OPINION PILED HPT. 28, 1871.
JLISHA W. WILLARD etal, VS. GEO. B0U03. Error to SU'
perior Court of Chicago.
MORTGAGEE'S SALEABSENCE OF MORT
GAGOR IN THE REBELLION.
1. Held, whore the assignee of a mortgagee, in
pursuance of a power of sate contained in the
mortgage, authorizing the mortgagees or their
assignees, in default of payment, to sell the mortgaged premises alter publishing u notice in a
newspaper, etc., did sell aud convoy the premises,
the lact that the mortgagor was, by his own vol
untary act in another state in reDellion against
the government, al_tne time the last note fell due,
and at tile tune tne uotice was puolished and sale
made, where he was cut Off from all means of ac
cess to his.creditors to pay the debt, and shut out
from the receipt oi any newspaper notice of the
sale; that this was not a suthcient reason lor set
ting
the orsale.
1. aside
A&SINOM
dependent in Rebel Lines. The
Court cites and a^ain approves the doctrine
Jaid down in the opinions delivered in
Mixer et at- vs. Sibley et al., reported 1
Cbioaoo Legal News p. 2!)7 ULid :ld iu., p.
82, wherein tile Court held that proceed
fngs against the estate of a defendant by attach
ment under publication notice, while sucu defend
ant was absent in the rebel lme9, were not void,
ant refused to set aside a sale on that ground, but
held that the etrlux of time as to redemption was
-suspended during the continuance of Hostilities.
Ed. Lbgal News.
Opinion of the Court by Sheldon, J.
On the 25th of September, 1857, James
.Boggs, George Boggs and Redmond
Cotter, then residents oi" Chicago,
-executed a mortgage to Julius Crone
and William P. Apthrop, of certain
premises situated in Cook county,
to secure the payment of lour promissory
notes of even date each for $1,400 due in
one, two, three and four years. Cotter af
terwards conveyed to the two Boggs, and
they became the sole owners of the equity
of redemption. The last note having fal
len due Sept. 25th, 1861, and it, and a
portion of the third note remaining un
paid, to satisfy the payment of the bame
on the 5th day of .November, 1861, VV i 1liard Williard, the assignee of the notes
and mortgage, sold and conveyed the
mortgaged premises to George Smith for
$300, in pursuance of a power of sale con
tained in the mortgage, authorizing the
mortgagees or their assignees in default of
payment of the notes or either of them, to
sell the premises for their payment after
publishing a notice in a newspaper in
Chicago tor thirty days. July 14th, 1862,
Smith sold and conveyed the property to
Williard for $334.
George Boggs left Chicago in May, 1S60,
and went to New Orleans, where he re
mained until June, 1S62, when the city was
occupied by the Federal forces. He soon
after returned to Chicago, via New York.
After the sale, Williard took possession of
the land, and has held it ever since and
paid all taxes. James Boggs has acqui
esced in the sale, and makes no question
as to Williard's title. But George Boggs
commenced this suit in chancery on the
26th day of October, 1868, to declare the
sale void as to him, and to permit him to
redeem an undivided half of the property.
The Court below rendered a pro forma
decree as prayed in the complainant's
bill. To reverse the decree, the defend
ants bring the record here, assigning this
decree as error. There is no pretense that
the sale and conveyance of the mortgaged
premises in this case by Williard to Smith
were not in entire conformity with the
power of sale contained in the mortgage;
but the ground of the claim to relief is,
that at the time of such sale and of the
maturity of the last note, George Boggs
was within the territory then occupied by
the Confederate forces in the late rebellion.
That while the war and the complainant's
residence within" the Confederate lines
continued the contract of indebtedness
was suspended, that it was unlawful for the
cpmplainant to pay and for Williard to re
ceive payment, and that the power of sale
was suspended ; that these effects resulted
from the laws of war, and the proclama
tion of the President prohibiting all com
mercial intercourse between the rebellious
and the loyal States, issued Aug. i6th,

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1871.

Whole No. 162.

1861, in pursuanceof the act of Congress debt, after its maturity, and the publication j sessed upon certain shares in the capital
of July 12th, 1861, empowering him to do of thirty days' notice of the sale in a news stock of the Second National Bank ot"
so. In consequence of which, it is claimed paper printed in Chicago, when Williard, Freeport. The taxes were assessed for the
that the sale to Smith was void, and that in execution of" the power of sale, offered years 1865 and 1866. If any recovery can
the equity of redemption still exists in the mortgaged premises for sale. Smith be had it is upon the count for money had
George Boggs. The decision of this court saw that botn the conditions required for and received. The principle governing in
in the case of Mixer vs. Sibley, 53 Ill's., the exercise of the power existed, he had such cases is that the posssesion of money
63, is adverse to the claim here set up. It no notice of anything to effect the proper has been obtained which cannot con
was held in that case that proceedings by exercise of the power, and he was entitled scientiously be withheld. Such an action
attachment in 1862 for the collection of a to act on tne faith of the power is designed tor the advancement ofjustice ;
debt on the part of a creditor living in given by Boggs, and to lay out his and it is applicable where a person re
this Slate against a defendant who resided money in the purchase of the prop ceives money which, in equity and good
in Alabama, a State then in rebellion erty, in confidence that he was ac conscience, ne ought to reiund.
against the United States, where notice of quiring all the interest of Boggs in it. The The defense to the claim, as well as the
the pendency of the suit was given by same reason of public policy exists for claim itself, is governed by the same prin
publication in a newspaper, which re giving security to titles derived under such ciples. In speaking of this action, L,ord
sulted in a judgment by default, and sale sales, as under judicial sales. Were they Mansfield, in Moses vs. MacFarland, 2
of the property attached, were not void liable to be invalidated on any sucn Burr, 1,010, said: "It is the most favor
and were not suspended by the state of grounds as are s'et up in this case, it would able way in which he can be sued; he
war. It is there said, "no authority has tend to discourage purchasers at such sales can be liable no further than the money
been, or can he shown, that the right to and might lead to tne sacrifice of property he has received ; and against that may go
the writ was taken away by the rebellion, so exposed lor sale. Certainly, no greater into every equitable defense upon the gen
or by act of" Congress, or by the President's effect should be given to tins supposed eral
issue; ne may claim every equitable
proclamation consequent thereupon.
suspension of the power of sale, claimed allowance, etc. ; in short, he may defend
"Such was not the object of either, nei to have been caused by the fact set lorth, himself by everything which shows that
ther was designed to deprive creditors in than would be given to an actual revoca the plaintiff ex aequo tt bono is not en
the adhering States of the use of all such tion of a power by a principle. Had the titled to the whole of his demand or any
remedies for the collection of their debts, power of sale in tnis case been a revocable part of it. Apply these principles to the
as the laws of those States gave them." one, and Boggs had actually revoked it, a facts in this case and there can ue but one
As in that case the remedy for the collec subsequent sale of the property to a conclusion. Appellee was the owner of
tion of the debt by, writ of at third person, in pursuance of the power, certain shares of stock in the Second Na
tachment was not taken away, so who purchased 011 the face of it, witnout tional Bank of Freeport. This was prop
here the remedy for the collection of any notice of the revocation, would bind erty, witnin the meaning ol" the law. Ac
this mortgage debt, by the exer the principal, Boggs. (Story on Agency, cording to our constitution and revenue
cise of the power of sale given in the 470^. If the complainant has suffered laws, every person or corporation must
mortgage wa6 not taken away. It may be by tne sale of his property, it has only pay a tax in proportion to tne value of his
said, as it was there that the question is been in consequence ol wnat he himself or its property. Tnere was the highest
not whether the sale might nut have been expressed, contracted and authorized to be obligation upon Appellee to pay the taxes
stayed until the termination of the war; done, the defendant, Smith, has parted 1 assessed upon his shares ot stock. The
but whether, not having been stayed, and with his money lor the property, in reliance ! law did not, and could not exempt him
the power of sale having been actually upon tlie express written authority to sell from his obligation. He was then bound
exercised by the sale of the premises to a it, given out by the complainant, without to pay the taxes on his property. This he
third person, is that sale void? The court notice of any reason, why the power might did do; and even, though the assessment
went so far only in that case, as to hold not properly have been exercised requiring was informal and irregular, and not strict
that the efflux of time as to redemption I an apparently perfect title by the record. ly in conformity to the statute, the money
from the sale under execution was sus I On comparison 01 the equities between cannot be recovered back. It was not
pended during the continuance of hostili the parties, he can perceive no just claim money which, in equity and good con
ties, and to allow the judgment debtor, af on tne part of tne complainant which en- science, ought to Have been refunded.
ter the expiration of the time for redemp titles him to take from the defendant a j Appellant had an equitable right to the
tion, to redeem from the judgment credit title acquired under the circumstances of ; taxes paid, and for the promotion of justor such land as he had purchased under the present case. We/think the bill should ice should retain the money. The People
the execution sale and as remained in his have been dismissed.
Bradley, 39 111., 131. fhe People vs.
hands, but denied that, or any relief The decree pro forma is reversed and vs.
against purchasers from the judgment the cause remanded for further proceedings Smith, 13, Wendell, 489.
creditor, holding their equities to be equal in conformity with this opinion. Decree It is contended that the act of February
14th, 1S57, entitled "An Act to amend an
to those of the complainant. It is ad reversed.
act to establish a general system of bank
mitted by the counsel for the appellee,
ing,
passed February 15th, 1851," requires
that the sale to Smith, and the re-convey
the capital stock to be taxed, instead of
ance by Smith to Williard were bona fide,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
the shares, in banking corporations; that
and for actual consideration paid, as was
sworn to in the answer of Williard called THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Or STEPHENSON COUNTY VS. property cannot be held liable to double
PELLS 1IAKNX.
taxation, and that our statute, authorizing
for under oath, or at least it is admitted
that the contrary is not proved. Under ACTION TO RECOVER MONEY PAID FOR the taxation of stocks in banks, does not
conform to the limitation of the act of
TAX Ed UiNLVER fRULEST.
the principle of the above decision had
Congress ofJune 3d, 1864, creating nation
this sale been under a decree of foreclo
1. A party Is under obligations to pay the taxes al
banks.
sure, in a suit in court with notice by pub upon his property, and whore he paysmem under
protest, even tnou^h the assessment is informal
lication, it would have been sustained, we and
There
is no proof, in the record, that
irregular aud not strictly in conloruuty to tne
think the sale under the power in the statute,
the bank has ever paid taxes upon the
lie eunuut recover the money buck.
mortgage must be entitled to equal force. J. 'TAXATION ON llli. SHAKES OP NATIONAL JjANES. capital stock, and in the language of this
In the one case, it would have been in The court discusses the mode of taxing the Court, in the case of The People vs. Bradpursuance of the law, in the other it was in shares of .National Lank stock.Ed. Legal News. ly, Supra, " the shares represent the capi
pursuance of the contract between the A suit was commenced by Pells Manny tal stock, and the capital stock represent,
parties which was as a law between them in November, 1869, in the Circuit Court of the shares. If listed by the shareholders
selves. The sale here was under the Stephenson county against the Bjard of he would pay the tax directly ; if listed by
precise conditions Boggs by his deed, au Supervisors of that county to recover back the bank he would pay the same amount
thorized it to be made. But he claims the taxes paid by him upon fifty shares of indirectly." The payment of the tax is
that the power of sale was suspended by stock in the Second National Bank of made, and thus the same result is reached
an event which had occurred aliunde, to- Freeport, for the years 1865 and 1S66. It by different means. A similar valuation,
wit: his being, by his own voluntary appeared upon the trial that Mr. Manny and a like burden are imposed in the one
act, in another State at the time the last having declined to pay the tax on his case, as in the other. There is no wrong
note fell due, and the publication of bank shares for 1865, such tax was re perpetrated, and no injustice done.
notice and sale were made, when he was turned as delinquent and added to the The question whether our statute con
cut off from all means of access to his Collector's warrant for 1866. Under this
to the act of Congress, or not, does
creditor to pay the debt, and shut out warrant a levy was made upon property of forms
not arise in this case. It can make no
from the receipt of any newspaper notice Mr. Manny for the taxes of both years, difference
the rights of the parties, if
of the sale. But neither Williard or whereupon Mr. Manny paid said taxes un our statuteto does
not prescribe the exact
Smith appear to have had any knowledge der protest. The suit was tried before mode of" assessment
required by the act of
of the whereabouts of Boggs, and no duty Judge Sheldon, a jury being waived, and Congress. These questions
might possi
was imposed upon them to ascertain it. upon the trial the Court disallowed all the bly arise in case of an attempt
to en
Boggs was tree to annex his own condi taxes except the "County Tax" and the force the collection of" a tax irregularly
tions to the power of" sale, and he might "Volunteer Bounty Tax" levied by the assessed. This is not such a case, and
have provided, it should not be exercised county, and rendered a judgment in favor we therefore forbear any discussion of
in such a contingency as here occurred, in of Manny for those taxes, amounting to such questions. Appellee was under a le
which case Smith would have been put $io3.oo. From this judgment the Board gal
and equitable obligation to pay the
upon inquiry by the terms of the power of of Supervisors prosecuted an appeal to the
complained of". There was fegislasale to ascertain whether it existed or not. Supreme eourt, and the following is the taxes
tion upon the subject. It may have been
Boggs, by his deed of mortgage, made a decision of that tribunal reversing the defective.
The assessment may have been
conveyance of the legal title, and saw fit judgment of the court below.
The alleged illegality in the
to give therein an irrevocable power ot Opinion ol" the Court by Thornton, J. irregular.
assessment is, however, wholly technical,
sale, to sell the equity of redemption on two An action of assumpsit was brought to and
should not be regarded in this form of
conditions only, the non-payment of the recover back moneys paid for taxes as- action.

18
Appellee has discharged an obligation,
has performed a duty resting upon him,
and has done nothing more.
His claim is not based upon any merit
or equily, and the judgment is therefor?
reversed and the cause remanded.
SheldonI took no part in the decision
of this case.
Bailsy & Neff, for Appellants ; J. A.
Crain, for Appellee.
Our friend Henry M. Herman of the
Leavenworth bar sends us the following
opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
CHRISTIAN CLRICH TS. JOHN ULB1CH.
DIVORCEJURISDICTION OF COURT IN, ON
WRIT OK ERROR.
1. The Supreme Court ha* jurisdiction of eases
for divorce when brought up on error.
2. Where the only case of error is that the de
cision of the District Court is against the evi
dence and the facts are not found, this court will
not reverse the judgment unless it appears so
clearly against the evidence as to preclude the
possibility of being mistaken about it.
Messrs. Sherry & Helm counsel for the
Plaintiff in error in their brief say :
At the conclusion of the evidence, and
without giving the Plaintiff an opportunity
to be heard by argument of counsel, the
Court proceeded to render judgment refus
ing to grant a decree of divorce, assigning
as a reason, " that the parties had not been
married long enough to entitle Plaintiff to
a decree." Notice was given, and the
Plaintiff filed her motion for a new trial,
which motion wa6 in due time argued, and
by the Court overruled. The Court again
giving as a reason "that it did not think
the parties had been married long enough
to entitle the Plaintiff to a decree," and
adding further, "that in a little over two
months after the death of the former hus
band, and before the grass had grown
green over his grave, the Plaintiff had
married again ; and that within a month
after the second marriage, she rushes into
court asking for a divorce. There seems
to have been an indecent haste on the part
of the Plaintiff, and for that reason I do
not believe that the Court in its discretion,
should grant a decree of divorce in this
case."
Opinion of the Court by Kingman, J.
This is a proceeding in error to reverse
the judgment of the Leavenworth District
Court refusing to grant a divorce to the
Plaintiff in error.
Has this Court jurisdiction of the case?
Although this question was not presented
in the argument, there having been no ap
pearance for the Defendant in error. It
has been too oiten suggested not to chal
lenge attention. That the present code
confer the jurisdiction on the Court to re
view divorce cases in the same manner
as other cases, is not questioned. The
doubt arises from the provisions of the
Constitution, Sec. 18 of Art. 2, is as fol
lows : All power to grant divorces is
vested in the District Courts subject to
regulations of law, while Sec. 3 of Art. 3,
provides that the Supreme Court shall
have such appellate jurisdiction as may be
provided by law. These parts of the
Constitution are of equal force, and on
this point should be considered in con
nection, and so examined. They give the
power to grant divorces solely to the
District Courts, subject to such appeal to
the Supreme Court as may be provided
by law.
This is the legitimate construction ot
these clauses |of the Constitution, if both
are taken together. The law having con
ferred the appellate jurisdiction on this
Court, we are constrained to hold with
much reluctance, that the Court has juris
diction of the case.
The errors alleged in this court, may
be resolved into one, and that is, that
the decision of the District Court was
contrary to the evidence. The cause al
leged for the divorce was extreme cruelty.
The second contains all the evidence and,
as it appears therein, would seem to prove
enough to entitle the Plaintiff to a divorce,
but it must be borne in mind that the Dis
trict Court had the great advantage of
hearing the witnesses, of observing their
demeanor while testifying, and all the
aids that such a position affords in the
ascertainment of truth and finds ; that
there is no cause of divorce. A decision
is adhered to on a motion of a new trial. i
To overturn that decision, this court must
say that the witnesses were entitled to
full credit ; that there was not even an
innocent exaggeration in their testimony
growing out of their temperament or the
exasperation of the moment, or from any

CHICAGO LEGAL NEWS.

other cause ; that there were no indica
tions that the evidence had been bought
and the case made up by collusion. These
and many other things must be determined
without those opportunities for knowing
their truth which the District Court pos
sessed. We do not feel authorized to re
vise the decision of the District Court
under these circumstances. If the party
desire this Court to determine whether
certain facts constituted extreme cruelty,
Sec. 290 of the code points out the mode
by which that result can be attained, and
one that would present the point freed
from the embarrassments surrounding this
case.
In the argument, great stress was laid
upon the reasons given by the Judge of the
District Court, for the decision made in
this case. Those reasons are not in the
record and cannot affect the decision of
this case.
The judgment is affirmed. Brewer J.
concurring Valentine J. dissenting.
I concur with the court in thi6 case,
that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction
of cases of divorce when the same are
brought to their court on petition in error,
but I cannot concur in the decision of
this case. From the evidence taken in the
court below and brought to this court, it
6eems to me that "extreme cruelty" was
shown beyond all doubt. If so, the court
below erred either in its conclusions ot
law as to what extreme cruelty is or in its
application of the law. I think the court
below erred in overruling the Plaintiff's
motion for a new trial. A true copy.
A. HAMMATT, Clerk.
A BILL FOR ANACT IN RELATION
TO TITLES AND THE RESTORA
TION OF LOST RECORDS.
The Jadges of the Courts of Record of this
county held a joint session on Tuesday last
at which Judge Blodgett of the U. S. District
Court, Judges Rogers, Parwell and Boo'h
of the Circuit; Judge Qary of the Superior
and Judge Wallace of the County Court were
present Judge Gary Chairman of the Sub
committee reported the following dru ft of a
bill:
A BILL for an act, to be entitled'An not to
amend Chapter 21 of the Revised Statues of
1845, to extend the jurisdiction of Courts
in Chancery, and to make provision for the
restoration of lost records,und for ad
ditional security for land titles."
Section 1. That when any bill in chancery
shall be filled, alleging that the complainant
hue any estate, interest, or right in, or
speoinc lien or encumbrance upon, any lot,
piece, or parcel of land, the evidenee whereof
is wholly or in part lost, by reason of the
loss or destruction of a y records books,
papers, m ips, or plats 0' any public office
lhe court sh ul have jurisdiction to hear and
determine the same. If the complainant
claims an estate, interest, or right of the
same nature and extent to, or a specific lien
or enoumbranoe upon, several lots, pieces,
or parcel" of land, all may be included in
one bill, though other parties may be inter
ested in some und not in all such lots, pieoes,
or parcels, and several persons having
estates, interests, or right in, or specific iens
or encumbrmces upon, the same lots, pieces,
or pnroela ot land, joint or several, may join
as oomplainants in one 1 ill
Sec 2 8uoh bill shall state the name and
residence in full of the complainant, and
describe the lot, piece, or parcel of land,
slating the section, township, and range,
where the same is situated, and in what pari
of such section, and in what county, ciiy.
town, or village, and the name of any street
on which the same abut, with the number
thereof, if any, on such street, and between
what intersecting streets, and what estate,
iuterest, or right, Hen or encumbrance is
olaimed, and what estate, interest, or right,
lien or incumbraoe, general or specific, is
olaimed therein or thereon by any other
person, and who is in possession of any part
thereof, and the names and residences in full
of all such persons, if known to the person
verifying such bill, and if not known, then
stating all facts known to such person, as to
ihe claim", possession, names and residences
of (uch persons, and pray the court to in
vestigate the mutters alleged in such bill and
by decree declare the estate, interest or
right, lien or incumbrance of the complain
ant. Such will shall be verified by the
affidavit of the complainant am.exed thereto,
stating that the affiant hus read, or hear I
read, such bill, and believes that all the
allegations thereof are trje, or, if it be Im
possible for such complainant 10 make such
affidavit,the same shall be made by un agent
of such complainant, stating therein that he

is such agent, and the cause which prevents

the same being made by suoh com
plainant.
Sec. 3 All persons named in such bill as
claiming any estate, interest or right, lien
or incumbrance, or as being in possession,
shall be made defendants and summons shall
be served upon them, if residents of this
State, not less than ten days before the re
turn day thereof, by delivering a copy to
them personally, ifthey can be found; but,
if they cannot be found, then all the facts in
elation thereto shall be shown to ihe
court, by affidavit and the court shall
make such order as shall appear proper for a
substituted servioe, taking care that the most
effectual means be adopted to give actnal uotice of the suit to such defendant ; and if any
such defendant be a non-resident of this
State, a copy of such summons shall be sent
by mail, post-pa d, adJressed lo such defend
ant, at his residence or probable residence,
not lees than fifty days before the return day
thereof, or delivered to such defendant per
sonally not less than thirty days before the
return day thereof, and the fact of such copy
being so sent, or delivered, to be proved to
the Court by affidavit.
Sec. 4. A copy of the summons shall be pub
lished once in each week for eight successive
weeks next before the return day thereof, in
some newspaper published at the oounty seat
of the oonnty in which the court is held, if
there be suoh newspaper, and, if not, then in
the newspaper published nearest thereto; but
if there be more than one newspaper pub
lished t such county seat, then the Judge or
Judges of the oourt or courts having chan
cery juri diotion in such eoun y shall reoeive
bids fr.m all suoh new-papers as shall offer
to do ihe same, and shall award the same to
the lowest bidder, so that all tuoh publica
tions in any one county shall be in the same
newspaper Any weekly publication, issued
upon the same day of every week, and circu
lating a weekly edition of not less than 600
copies to actual subscribers during the last
preceding six months, and no other, shall be
considered a newspaper, ithin the meaning
of this act. The publisher of such newspaper
shall supply weekly, free of charge. 10 each
judge and cle-k of such court or courts a copy
thereof, to be kept in court lor reference, aud
a reoital upon the records of the suit of the
fact of pu ilication of such summons shali be
evidence thereof.
Seo 5. The complainant sh ill prepare a
notioe of the suit in th- following form:
Notice of Suit to Secure Title.
aC
Name of a 0 When re Deicrlpt'n of property
court.
turnable.
(J.rcull. Id. od Monday 1
j. ma, 1 1 X S. K. a S. 16, T
N N. R. 14 K. S P.
If , In Obicsgo, Cook
county. 111
Superior 161 1st Monday
leb.. 1M, i. p.E.i 3. 16, T
39 . R 14 R. t P.
M., in Chicrtgo,Cook
mranty. HI.
and the olerk of the court in which the suit
is, and the Recorder of Deeds uf the oounty,
shall eaoh keep in their respective officep
books ruled and headed with like titles as
such notioes, in which such complainant shall
cause the cjntents of suih notioe, exoept the
titles, to bi> recorded -under the appropriate
titles, at the time of filing suoh bill, aud such
complainant shall also Cause the contents of
such notioe. except the titles, to be published
under like titles in the newspaper selected
for the publication of summons, once in each
week, for four successive weeks, next before
the return day of the summons, the evidence
of which publication shall be as before pro
vided.
Sec. 6. All persons, other than the com
plainant, claiming any estate, interest or
right in, a lien or incumbrance, specific or
general, upon any part of the premises desoribed in any such bill, whether they be
named therein or not, ehall be considered as
defend mts thereto, and may, as though they
were named as defendants therein, appear at
any time before decree and oppose any decree
affecting such claim, and if a reasonable
ground be shown to the cause to euspeot that
any such bill is filed with a fraudulent or
corrupt design to obtain a decree to which
the complainant is not entitled, the court
may permit any person to appear and oppose
the prayer of the complainant?, upon such
person giving to the complainant bond, with
sufficient tecurity, conditioned to pay all
costs which may be awarded in favor of the
oompininant against such person, and where
suoh claim is of an estate, interest, or right
in, or specification or incumbrance upon, any
part of Buoh premises, the evidence whereot
is wholly or in part lest, as speoified in the
first section of this act, such person may file
his crose-bill in said suit, in sub-tance the
same as an ongiual bill under this aot, making
all of the parties to said suit defendants, und

adding suoh other parties as may be neces

sary, if any, upon which ciof>s-bill the same
proceedings shall I e had in all respects ac are
herein provided in the case of original bills,
except that as to all parties who have ap
peared in Mich suit, a delivery of a copy of
the summons to the solicitors of such parties
shall be a sufficient service. But nothing in
this section contained shall prevent any per
son from filing an original bill in any case;
nor shall a suit pending on a bill by any
complainant prevent any other complainant
from filing and irosecuting another bill in
relation, in whole or in part, to the same
premises on all suoh subsequent bills, a"ll the
parties to all former bills pending in relation,
in whole or in part, to the same premises
shall be made defendants, or the decree t
thereon shall be. as against them only, ef no
effect; and no decree made nnder this act
shall be impeached, set aside, or in any man
ner affected by any decree thereafter made
upon any other original hill under this act,
whether filed before or after the filing of the
original bill in the suit in which such decree
was made
Seo 7. Any person claiming an estate, in
terest, or right in, or lien or incumbrance
upon, any lot, pieoe c parcel of land, and
alleging that the evidence whereof is wholly
or in part lost, by reason of the loss or de
struction of any records, books, papers, map;,
or plats of any public office, may cause to be
recorded in the office of the Recorder
of Deeds, in the oounty where suoh
premises are situated, a notioe describing
such premises stating what estate, interest, or
right in, or lien or encumbrance ui on such
premises is claimed by snch person, and
that the evidence thereof is whooly or in part
lost, as aforesaid, and the name and residenoe
in full of suoh person, and if such person be
a non-resident of this State, stating, also,
the name and residence of some person in
said oounty with whom a copy of a y sum
mons issued under this act may be left, and
all such olaimants shall be made defendants
by name in all bills filed under this act, in
relation to any premises described in any
such notice; or if such notioies be filed in
such R-oorder's office after the filling cf such
bills aud more than ten days before the re
turn day of tho original summons thereon,
such claimants shall be made defendants by
amendment to such t ills and a summons sued
out and served upon mch claimant as herein
before provided, and a copy thereof also left
with any person named in suoh noiioes, for
that purpose as aforesaid if such person can
be found in the county. No .decree made
without complying with this section shall be
valid against the claimant as to whom it is
neglected, but such notice shall have no
other effect than is in this section provided,
the only object thereof being to prevent, as
far as possible, decrees being made without
aot nal notice to all persons interested.
Seo. 8 All pleadings subsequent to the
bill shall be governed hy the rules and prac
tice of courts in cbenoery now in force; and
all provisions of law in relation to the
abatement and revival uf suits in chancery,
and the general rules and practices of courts
in chancery, not inconsistent with this aft,
shall bo applicable to suits under this act.
But no abbreviations shall be allowed in any
summons, bill, answer, decree, or other
part of the proceedings in any suit under
this act, except in the notioe of suit herein
before required; nor shall any erasure of
interlinatiun he allowed in any summons,
bill, answer or order, piper filed in any such
suit; and if by accident any erasure or interdnatio i become necessary upon any book
upon which any part of the proceedings are
recorded, the same shall be repeated upon
the margin, and signed by the Judge before
whom the proceedings arc hud. All numbers
shall be written out in words and repeated in
figures
see 9. The forms of summons, bills and
deorees shall be in substance such as are
shown by the schedule of this aot, and any
unnecessary departure from such forma shall
under the direction of the court, be correct
ed at the cost of the par y or the solicitor
making ihe same, ir the court may, in its
duoretioo, refuse to proceed with the suit,
and dismiss the same, with liberty to the
complainant to begin anew, but no suoh de
parture ahall i ffect the validity of the pro
ceed ngs, except during the pendency of t e
suit in the same court, or in the Supreme
Court on appeal or writ of error, unless
thereby the party questioning the same was
prevented from having notioe, actual r
constructive, as provided by this act of the
pendency ofthis bill.
Sec. 10. Any decree nude nnder this aot
shall, from and after the adjournment of the
term of the court ut which the same is made,
iioh a cross bill be filed during such term
under the next section, or unless the same be
appealed from uring such term, und if so
appealed fi om, therefrom an t after the dis
position of said appeal wilhiut reversing or
modifying such decree, or if modfied, or new

CHICAGO

LEGAL fJEWS.

19

decree the
be meaine
ide byia so
themodified
Supremeo- Court
at plats of any public office, but for the loss or of law, always passes in invitum, and there- remedied the ambiguity. Held, that the
which
made, be
destruction thereof, the Court shall receive fore there is no breach of covenant. The comoany was not liable.
onolusive evidence of suoh estate, interest, as evi lenoe ot such lost or destroyed records, loss occurred while the property was under
Authority cited: Fulton va. Accidental
or right in or specific lien or incumbrance books, papers, maps, or plats such the control of the assignee, and it was de- Death Insurance Co , 17 C. B (N. 8 ) 122.
uoon the pi emises therein describe 1, as nnv notes. abstracts, minutes or copies oreed that he should recover for the benefit
English Excheqobb Chamber.
be declared by such deoree, in furor or all therefrom, or what purport, or are alleged to of the bankrupt.
Smith va. Accident Imurance Co.
persons who, coinciding in and relying upon be, as such court shall be sati-fi^d were fairly
Autho nles: Crusoe M. Bugby. 3 Wilson,
such deoree in good faith without actu il no and honestly, in the ordinary course of busi 234; Biuvier Law Diet onary, 132: Wadham
EVIDENCE.
tioe of any adverse claim, for a valuable ness, made, and such oourt shall determine va Marlowe, 2 Chitty. 600; Copeland os.Ste- Fire.The insured swore that their
consideration, acquire any estate, interest, in relation to sues estates, interests, rights, vens.l B. and Aid.,593; Mitford v.Mitford,:9 annual business amounted to about $120,000,
or right in, or specific lien or incumbrance liens an i incumbrances upon such evidence Vesey, 186, 2 Pays. Cont , 451; Bragg va. N. and that the goods on hand were worth about
upon such premise* or any pirt thereof, lim in relation thereto as prudent business men, E. Ins. Cj,. 5 Foster, 289; Smith vt. Putnam, 865,000. The oompany insisted that mer
ed upon such deoree, and accrued before and their legal advisers were acoustomed.
3 Pick, 220; Doe tu. Carter, 8 Tenn., 67; chants in the sime business never were
the filing of any cross bill under the next Sec. 15. When any petition in the nature Wilkinson va Wilkinson, Cooper's ch. cas., accustomed
to have on baud at any one
section, and before acini notice of the suing of a bill in chancery shall be filed in any 259; Hilliards Bankruytoy, 141.
time, more than one-fifth of their annual
out of any writ of error to reverse the same oourt of record, alleging that the reoord of U. S. D. C. NORTHERN DlSTRITT Of OHIO. sales. Held, that this evidence conduced to
and before the same shall hive been actually any judgment, order or decree or any of the
Starkweather va Cleveland Ina. Co.
establish the probability or improbability of.
reversed upon writ of error, or upon a writ proceedings on whioh any j udgmeut, order or
the fact in controversy,and should go to the
AGENCY.
of error of which the person acquiring such decree is founded (other than a judgment,
jury.
The comptny oould not in the nature
estate, interest, right, specific lien or incum order or decree for a tax or assessment of
Service. Removal of Agente.Where of the case, produce direct testimony as to
brance, had actual notice before the acqui such court has been lost or destroyed, the an insurance company has an agent in another the value of the goods. If the united testi
sition of suoh last mentioned estate, interest court shall have jurisdiction to hear and de State upon whom service of suit can be made mony of the class of merchants would esright, specific lien or incombrance, in any termine tne same according to the rules and as required by the law of such State, it cannot 'ablish a fact conneced with the business, to
manner affect the same; and, such decree practice of courts in chancery, and to restore revoke the authority or represent itive char wit: the uniform relation between the stock
shall also be conclusive evidence as aforesaid such judgment,order, or decree, or any of acter ot such agent (having no other such on han I and the annual sales, the inference
in all other cases until reversed or set aside such proceedings, or to render a new judg agent within the State), and thus prevent the would be that the plaintiffs were governed by
as provided in the next section or npon wric ment, order, or decree upon suoh terms as service, while it has contracts of insurance the same rule of uniformity, and the jury
of error.
maybe just, and in such manner as to re outstanding in such State.
would be justified in adopting the conclusion
Seo. 11. Any person having any estate, instate parties as nearly as may be, in the
8. C. CONN.
which it tendered to prove. A witness, how
interest, orright in, or specific lien or incum s tine position as they would have been in
Semmet va. Cit<? Fire Ina. Co.
ever can not be astfed what the course of
brance npon any premises in relation to had suoh record not been lost or destroyed, To appear in 3* Conn. Report*.
trade is in reference to this particular busi
which any decree shall have been made un to aot upon in relation thereto before such
ness. This would be opinion or hearsay.
ABANDONMENT.
der this act adverse to the estate, interest, loss or destruction.
S. O. U. S , May, 1871.
MarineAcceptance by agent The com
right, lien, or incumbrance deolared by such
Seo. 16 The rules of construction con
Home Inaurance Co. va. YVeide.
deoree, and who was not personally seived tained in chapter 90 of the Revised Statutes pany by its duly authorised agent, accepted
the vessel upon its abandonment as a total
with summons, and who did not appear in of 1845 shall be applied to this act.
EVIDENCE.
and caused her to be sold at public
the suit in whioh the same was made, may,
Seo 17. And, whereas, such loss and de loss,
FibbExpert
teatimmy. On examination
auction,
and
hid
in
for
its
benefit
in
common
during or within three vears after the ad struction of the records, books, papers, maps
journment o>' the term at which such decree and plats of any public office has already hap wi h the other underwriters,and retained her before a reference in the case of a loss, the
was called upon for his opinion of
was made, or if such person be within 21 pened in some of the counties of this State, as their propertv so far as appeared down to witness
quantity as well as the value of
years of age, or of unsound mind, then within whereby the titles of persons to estates,interest trial The exceptions having no be 'ring on the
goods destroyed. The cases in which
three years after arriving at the age of 21 and right in and liens and incumbrances upon the question of the acceptance of the abandon the
witnesses are allowed to state opinions are
are reudered insecure ment, the decision of the lower court in fa exceptions
years, or being restored to sound mind, file real estate
to the general rule, and are not to
is affirmed
in the court in whioh such deoree was made, and unmarketable, so that an emer vor of the plaintiff
be extended, except as a necessity to prevent
N. Y. Codbt or Appeals.
a cross-bill in substance the same as upon gency has arisen that this should take effeot
a failure of justice. On q<iesiious of science
Clark va ManXalien Ina. Co.
which the same
proceedings shall immediately; therefore, this act shall take
or trade, experts may give opinions; also
be had as npon an original bill, effect and be in force from and after its
upon
questions of value where the witness is
COUNTERSIGNATURE.
under this act,
exoept that no passage.
shown to he competent. The witness was a
persons shall be m\de defendants thereto, No final action was taken on the report of
LrrsAgent failing to counteraign hit own farmer, living several miles from the store,
or allowed to appear and oppose the prayer
who had for many years been a not conversant with the business or the
of the complainant therein, other than those the Committee but it was laid over until the receipttN.,
local agent of a life insurance company, manner of conducting it. Held, that the
claiming nnder such deoree or in possession next meeting of the judges
held a policy of the company on his own life, referee erred in admitting the evidence of the
of some part of such premises, and thereupon
in the name and for the benefit of his wife. witness, and that it is not permitted to give
the court shall hear and ue' ermine the mat
Renewal certificates signed by the secretary in evidence the opinion of witnesses having
ters alleged in suoh cross-hill and make such DIGEST OF DECISIONS IN INSUR of
the oompany were placed in his hands to knowledge of the subject matter, as to the
ANCE
CASES,
RENDERED
IN
THE
decree as the oase nay require It the com
be used in receiving payment of premiums damages resulting from a pecular trans
UNITED
STATES
SUPREME
AND
plainant, in such cross-bill, establish any es
CIRCUIT COURTS, AND IN THE upon policies held in his vicinity, all of which action.
tate, interest or right in, or specific lien or STATE
Authorities oited: 1 Greenl. Ev., 446; 1
SUPREME COURTS, SiyCE contained a provision that they shonld not be
incumbrance upon auy part of such premises
valid until the premium was paid, and they Phil. Ev., 290; Lincoln v. Schenectady &
JANUARY"1st, 1871,
adverse to that deolared by such former de
were
countersigned
by
the
agent.
Upon
the
S. R. R 23 Wend, 433; Brill vj Flagler, 23
Review from the Imurance.
cree, the same shall be declared by a decree
payment of the policy in question, in 1866, Wend. 8^4; Norm in v Wells. 17 Wend, 136;
upon such cross bill, if the same can be
AGENCY.
such
a
renewal
certificate
was
taken
by
N.,
Lamoure v. Caryl, 4 Deoio 370; Morehouse
done without prejudice to the rights protect
not oountersigned by him as agent. N. v< Matthews, 2 Comst, 514; Clark v. Baird,
ed by the provisions of section 10 ofthis act, Fibs.Acceptance by agentCorreapond- but
died
in
1867,
and
after
his
death
a
similar
tnce.
Plaintiff
held
a
policy
issued
under
5
and if not, then the decree shall provide for the following circumstances: He was agent receipt was found among his papers for the Seld. 1H3.
N. Y. Court or Appeals.
indemnity or compensation in lien thereof, to of the company and applied for insurance on premiums due in 1867. but was not counter
Terpenning v. Corn Ezchanye Ina., Co.
be paid by the party in whose favor such his property. The [premium charged dis signed by him. Held, bv a suit by his wid
original decree was made, his heirs, exe
him; the policy was sent back and ow, on the pol cy. that the oourt committed
JURISDICTION.
cutors and administrators, such ind mmty or satisfied
reduction made and forwarded to him. on error in charging the jury that the re
compensation to be ascertained by the court the
Shortly after its arrival the loss occurred, ceipt, under the circumstances, was prima MarineMarine inaurance a maritime con
upon the basis of values at the time such and
company refuse to pay on the ground facie evidence of the payment of the premi tractThe admiralty and maritime juris
orginal decree was made; and. if any such that the
8. C. Cosh. diction of the United eiates is not limited by
policy had not been accepted, and um.
former decree be reversed upon writ ot error that the
Norton
v
Phoenix
Mutual
Life
Ina. Co.
the statues of judicial prohibition of Eng
the
premium
had
not
been
remitted.
after the acquisition of rights protected by Held, that the contract was complete when To appear in 36 Conn. Report*.
land.
section 10 of this act, and by any deoree
As to contracta, the true criterion whether
forwarded the policy without
CONSTRUCTION.
made under this act after suoh rights are ac the company
to the time of its reception, or a Accident Private Conieyanct. The they are within the admirality and maritime
quired, any estate, interest or right, or speci reference
acceptance by the insured. The agent company by its policy, ''agreed to pay in the jurisdiction, is their nature and subject mat
fic lien or incumbrance adverse to such pro formal
ter, as whether they are m iritime contracts
was acoustomed to make his remittances at event
tected rights be declared, indemnify or com the
trom personal injury when having refereooe to maritime service, mari
end of the month. On the reception of o usedofbydeath
pensation shall be made therelor in the the policy
any accident while traveling by time transactions, or maritime casualties,
by the agent, and before the fire, puhlicor private
manner aforesaid
conveyance, provided for without regard to the place where they were
entry whs made on the agent's books the
Seo. 12. Appeals and writs of error may an
transportation
of travelers " The in
which
bound
him
to
remit
the
premium
at
be proseouted from all decrees under this the end of the current month. Held, that sured in the prosecution af her journey was made.
In view of these principles it was held that
act in the manner now provided by law, ex this was an acceptance on the part of the passing from the steamboat lauding to the the contract of m trine insurance is a
cept that no person other than those who insured and a payment aooording to the or railway st ition, in the way pursued by the maritime contract, within the admiralty and
have, under the provisions of this act, ap
majority of travelers; and while so doing, marine jurisdiction of the United States
course of business between the in slipped
peared in the court in whioh the proceedings dinary
and fell, thereby receiving an injury courts.
sured
and
the
company.
were had, or their heirs, executors, or admin
which caused her death. There was pro
Authority cited: The case of Deloviovi.
Authorities,
Ky
M.
Ins
Co.
v
Jenks,
5
istrators shall be allowed to prosecute such Ind, 96; Halleck tu. Com. Ins. Co , 2 Dutch., vided a hack by whioh the insured might Burt.
2 Gallison, 398 Affirmed.
-appeals or writs of error.
have
been
transported.
The
question
Is
8. C U S , March. 1871.
280;
Taylor
.
II
F.
Ins.
Co.,.
9
How
,
Sec. 18. Any person may require a com 390,
whether the insured was traveling by a public
New
England
Mutual Marine Int., Co vs.
plete record, at his expense, to be made of 8 C. Mo., July, 1871.
or private conveyance. Held, that the in Dunham
all the proceedings in any suit under this Lungatraae vs. The German Int. Co.
sured at the time the injury was .received,
PRACTICE.
act, in a book to be kept for that purpose by
was in the meaning of the policy, traveling
ASSIGNMENT.
the Clerk of the Court is which the deoree
Fire.Where after an order adjudging a
by a "publio or private conveyance."
was made, to be signed by the judge by whom FiebBankruptcyPolicy oontained a
Authority cited: Theobald re Railway defendant to have made default in answering,
such decree is made, and may also cause to provision that assignment without oonsent of Passengers Assurance Co., 26 Eng, Law and he asks for a stay of proceedings ( wbinh is
be recorded in the office of the Recorder ot the oompany, rendered the policy void The Eq., 432
granted.) to enable bim to move that he be
Deeds of the county a copy from suoh com insured was adjudicated a bankrupt, his
N.Y.CortET or Appeals, Jan.,1871. relieved from his default, and allowed to an
plete record, certified by the Clerk under the property passed to the assignee who sues on Northrupva Railway Aeturance Co.
swer; this is such an apiearance as waives
any defect in the service of process.
seal of the court; and in oase of the loss or the policy. The covenants on the part of the
DEATH FROM SECONDARY CAUSE.
In an aotion upon a fire insurance polioy
destruction of snoh complete record, or of assarred, are that he will not assign the poli
the original proceedings, or any part thereof, cy or in any way change the title to, or AccidentErgaipelaa cauaed by accident. commenced five months after the loss, where
if there be no copy thereof certified by the ownership, of the property insured- Assign The insured took out a policy by which several of the defendant company's agents
elerk, under the seal of the court, obtainable, ees arc of two sorts; assignees in fact and in the company was bound to pay his personal had investigated the loss before the action
a copy fro n meh record in the office of said law. To the latter class belongs the as representatives, if he should die within three was brought, and ascertained all the facts
Recorder, duly certified by him shi.il be evi signee in bankruptcy. He is like an admin monthsl"from the direct effeot"of an accident, relied on as a defence; it was not error to
dence of suoh proceedings
istrator, executor or guardian, upon whom but not, if he should die frim rheumatism, deny a motion by the company made three
See. 14. In all eootes s as to any estate, the law confers the right and power to con erysipelas, or any other disease or secondary months after the commencement of the suit,
interest or right in, or any lien of incum trol the property committed to his charge, cause. The insured while washing his feet to he r< lieved from its default and allowed to
brance upon any lot, pieces, or parcels of fie is not owner bnt trustee for the payment in an earthenware pan, acoidently cut them, answer
land, where the original evidence, in whole of the bankrupt's debts On the death of was shortly afterward attacked with The fact that the ru'es of the company re
or in part of snoh estate, interest, right, lien the insured the policy would pass to the ad- erysip las and died. The disease wts the quired the pleadings in such actions against
or incumbrance, cannot be obtained, and it ministrator The insured does not make 1 immediately consequent upon the wound it to be sent to the home office for examina^
is alleged that original or secondary evidence the assignment: that is the aot of the regis- i Where there is any ambiguity on the faoe of tion and advice, would notexcuse the default.
8. C. WrsooNsiN, June, 1871.
of the same wonld be shown in whole or in ter. The bankrupt still has an interest in the policy, the court will hold most strongly
Ina. Co. of North America vj. Swineford.
part by the records, books, papers, maps, or the property. Judgment in contemplation I against the company, who might have

20

Chicago Legal news.

Chicago Legal News. was absent in the Confederate lines, was

void. Just the reverse of what our Supreme
Court has decided in the case under consid
eration.
Judge Jameson, of the Superior Court of
our
county, and Judge Blatchford, are
CHICAGO, NOVEMBER 4, 1871.
among the Judges who have delivered able
and well-considered opinion, in favor of the
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
doctrine as laid down by the Federal Su
The Chicago Legal News Co. preme Court. The questions involved in this
class of cases are difficult, and courts in de
AT 11.1 WAI>ISOJ STREET.
ciding them, should not only shed all the
light on them in their power, but should
MYRA BPADWELL, EDITOR avail themselves of the experience ar.d opin
ions of other tribunals. We regret that our
Supreme Court, although all the recent de
Terms:
Two Dollar* per annum, in advance ; Single Copies, cisions upon this important question, includ
Ten Cents.
ing those of the Supreme Court of the United
Rates or Advertising :
States, were cited by counsel for the appel
1 Square - (one insertion) - One Dollar. lant, did not see fit to refer to or comment
(Ten lines of Nonpareil solid make a square.)
upon them, hut fell back upon the doctrine
laid down in Mixer vs. Sibley et al., without
The Office of the LEGAL citing a single authority. This opinion
WEWS In at 1 15 West Madison would have been much more satisfactory to
the members of the profession if it had
Street.
stated the reasons of the court for differing
As our readers are aware, the Legal from the doctrine laid down by the Supreme
News appeared last week with its usual Court of the United States above referred to.
number of pages, and it does the same
.VOTES TO RECENT CASES.
this week, but in order to accomplish this,
we have to make use of type, which, under Discontinuance or Divorce Cases
ordinary circumstances, we should have Allison, P J. of the Court of Common Pleas
disregarded entirely. Next week or the of Philadelphia in an opinion delivered inMurweek after, at the farthest, the News phy v. Murphy reported three Legal Gazette.
will be printed upon new type and appear 347.hMds that the discontinuance of a suit for
as clear and fresh as before the fire. To divorce must always be by express leave of
those gentlemen of the profession, who the court and that upon the filing of a second
have aided us by obtaining new subscrib libel in a divorce case without any entry on
ers, and to the law book publishers, au the reoord showine that there was a discon
thors and others who have forwarded us tinuance of proceedings on the first libel, the
books to help replace our library, we fee' court will not allow the entry of such discon
truly thankful and shall not forget their tinuance of a day anterior to the bringing of
the second suit; that the court must be satis
kindness in our distress.
fied every rule of it* own has been strictlv
We call attention to the following; opinions followed and every requirement of t' e law
has been established b7 proof before it can
reported at length in this issue:
DivorceJurisdiction op the Court decree a divorce.
in an Error. The opinion of the Su
Sheriff Receiving Illegal Fees.
preme Court of Kansas delivered by King The same judge in r.\ Wm. Coon a deputy
man J., stating when that Court will review sheriff reported three Legal Gazette, 348, held
on a writ of error, the judgment 0? the that the act of 1843 of that State, prohibiting
court below rendered in a divorce case.
deputy sheriffs from taking any fee, means to
Tax on Bank SharesPayment un forbid the taking, demanding or receiving a
der Protest. The opinion of the Supreme fee. or compensation for services which are
Court of Illinois, delivered by Thornton J., not allowed by the fee bill; and that the ta
holding where the tax upon the shares of king of such fee by a deputy sheriff being ad
stock in a national bank was paid by the mitted, the sheriff is commanded to dismiss
owner under protest that he could not recov him. The court in this case ordered that the
er it back, even though the assessment was rule granted upon the sheriff be made abso
informal and irregular, and not strictly in lute and commanded him forthwith to dismiss
from his office of deputy sheriff the said
conformity with the statute.
Mortgagee's SaleAbsence of Mort William Coon and not to re-appoint him dur
gagor in Kebel Lines. The opinion of ing the sheriff's term of office. We hope
the Supreme Court of this state, delivered our law-makers n ay pass an aot the com
by Sheldon, J., holding that the absence of a ing winter similar in its provisions to the
mortgagor in the rebel lines, while the land statute under consideration. Officers who
described in the mortgage was advertised take illegal ees should be exposed and made
and sold under a power contained in the an example of.
Commitmknt to Reform School.The
mortgage, was not a sufficient ground for
setting aside the sale. The questions de Supreme Courtof Ohio held, in Prescott v the
cided and discussed in this opinion are of State. 2 Amerioan reports, 388, that a statute
the greatest importance, and of national in authorizing the grand jury, where an infant
terest, not only from the fact that large under the age of sixteen years is charged with
sums in every state in the Union are de cri-"<> and the charge appears to be supported
pending upon their adjudication, but also by evidence sufficient to put the acoused upon
from the fact that they are decided contrary trial, instead of finding' an indictment to re
to the opinions of some of the ablest courts, turn to the court, that the accused Is a suita
State and Federal, including the Supreme ble person to be committed to the house of
Court of the nation. This opinion, so far as refuge, and direoting the oourt thereupon to
it affirms the doctrine laid down in Mixer et order the commitment without trial by jury,
al. vs. Sibley, reported, 1, Legal News 297 is constitutional.
and 3 lb., 82, is in direct conflict with the
Parol Contract for Insurance, In
decision of the Saprcme Court of the United Fish v. Cottenet, reported in the N. T.
States, in Dean vs. Nelson et al., reported 3 Daily Tramcript for Ootober 13th, the New
Leoal News 129. The Supreme Court of York Commission of Appeals decides it
the District of Columbia in Green vs. Alex is now settled in that State that a valid con
ander, et al., 3 Legal News 123, held that a tract for insurance may be made byrarol;
ale under a trust deed, while the grantor that where one who is insured as mortgage

subsequently becomes owner of the premises

no new consideration is necefsary tothe valid
ity of an agreement that the same insurance
shall be so changed as to arply to his inter
est as owner; tl at if an agreement for an
insurance is made with an agent, authorized
"to bind the company (his principal) during
the correspondence," but without any fault
er negligence of the applicant and through
the neglect of the agent, the application is
not receiv d or aoted upon by 'he company
until a loss occurs, the company is liable.
OUR LEGAL EXCHANGES.
We are under many obligations to our
legal exchanges, not only for their kindly
notices of the Legal News in its misfor
tune, but for their earnest efforts to restore
our library of legal periodicals.
The American Law Review. This
valuable Quarterly is published by Little,
Brown & Co., of Boston, and is furnished
to subscribers at $5 per annum. It has a
national circulation and reputation and
may be regarded as belonging to the heavy
artillery in the army of legal periodicals.
It is a great favorite with the profession.
We are pleased to note the conduct of its
publishers towards the two Law Book
houses of our city. When all their stock
was consumed by fire, and they were de
bating whether they would be able to re
sume, Messrs. Little, Brown & Co., not
wishing to deprive them of the profit on
their publications, advertised their exten
sive list of law books, stating that they
could be obtained of either Callaghan &
Cockcroft, or E. B. Myers.
We are grateful to this distinguished
Boston Law Book Publishing House, not
only for a full set of the bound volumes of
the American Law Review, but for other
valuable law books.
The Albany Law Journal.This is
a weekly journal published by the Law
Book House of Weed, Parsons & Co., of
Albany, and edited by Isaac G. Thomp
son, Esq., a gentleman of fine talents and
legal ability. The subscription price is $5
per annum. The Journal is a model pub
lication, always able, rich and racy, It is
theneedlegun in the army of ourexchanges
We take this occasion to thank Mr.
Thompson for a full set of the bound vol
umes of the journal and volumes I and 2
of hi's American Reports. These reports
are valuable, containing as they do, the
recent important opinions of the various
Supreme Courts of the Nation. They
should be in every well selected law
library.
The American Law Register.
The Register is a monthly publication
furnished to subscribers at $5 per
annum, and is now in the eighteenth year
of its existence. It is edited by six gen
tlemen who take high rank among the
ablest lawyers and wisest jurists in the
land. James T. Mitchell, Esq., of Phila
delphia, is resident and managing editor.
Each number usually contains a leading
article ably written upon some important le
gal subject. One of the distinctive features
ofthe Register is its carefully prepared and
copious notes to the opinions published
in its columns. Lawyers who subscribe
for the Register, very rarely discontinue
it. It is doing well and has a healthy cir
culation. Through the courtesy of Mr.
Mitchell we have received the nine bound
volumes of the new series complete.
The American Law Times, is pub
lished monthly at Washington, in connec
tion with the Law Times Reports, and
furnished to subscribers at $5 per annum.
Rowland Cox.the editor, shows good judg

ment in the selection of cases and skill in

their preparation. One portion of the
Law Times Reports is devoted exclusively
to the leading opinions of the state courts
of last resort and another to the leading
cases adjudicated in the Federal Courts.
One of the characteristics of the Times is,
that it is devoted almost exclusively to the
opinions of the courts which may be used
by the attorney as authority and not to
original articles which are but the opin
ions of the writers. We have received
from Mr. Cox, a beautifully bound set
of the back volumes.
The New York Daily Transcript.
This is the only daily legal paper in the
world. It is the official journal of the city
and county of New York, and is furnished
to subscribers at $6 per annum. In its
colnmns may be found the most important
decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States, New York Court of Appeals
and English cases. To the lawyer who
would receive the latest opinions of the
Federal Supreme Court and New York
Court of Appeals, it is invaluable. We
have always prized the Transcript highly,
and it was with feelings of delight on
yesterday,"th at we welcomed to our sanct
um fifteen neatly bound volumes of the
back numbers of this valuable publication,
the gift of the Transcript Company. It
is the most complete set in the state, anp
we shall cling to it as a miser would to his
gold.
The Legal Gazette. This is a week
ly journal of eight pages printed by King
& Baird, of Philadelphia, edited by John
H. Campbell, a gentleman of fine legal at
tainments. Subscription price $3. It is
neatly printed upon a very good quality of
book paper. The Gazette devotes con
siderable space to the opinions of the Su
preme Court of the United States and of
Pennsylvania as well as to original articles,
and is worthy the liberal patronage o
the profession. We are glad to note the
fact that we were this week presented with
a complete set of the back numbers of this
valuable publication.
The United States Jurist. This is
a monthly journal of twelve pages, pub
lished by the well-known Law Book House
of W. H. & O. H. Morrison, of Washing
ton, D. C edited with ability by James
ScJiouler. Esq. Subscription price $2.
One of the leading features of the Jurist,
is condensation. Its original articles are
usually very brief and its digests of deci
sions give the points determined by the
court in the fewest possible words. It is
very popular with its readers and deserves
well of the bar, and is in all respects well
conducted. Mr. Schouler has since the de
struction of our office, sent us a complete
file of the back numbers.
The Legal Opinion.This is a week
ly journal of four pages about to be en.
larged to eight, published at Harrisburg.
Pa., by John W. Brown, and edited by
Lyman D. Gilbert and John B. McPherson. Subscription price $3. The Opin
ion is an ably conducted and always
sprightly sheet. It combines more of the
amusing and entertaining with the dry
matters of the law, than any other of our
legal exchanges. In its issne of Oct. 21,
it tenders to us its earnest sympathy, and
trusts that our suspension will be brief.
We thank our friend for his sympathy, but
must assure him that the Legal News
during the more than three years of its
existence has never missed a number or
failed to appear on time when its regular
day of issue came around.

Chicago Legal News.

21
PROOF OF LOST PAPER.
Now that the records and papers of the
courts inthiscounty have been destroyed,
any decisions or authorities in relation to
the proper mode of proving the destruc
tion of lost papers, and the way in which
their place may be supplied by copies, are
of more than usual interest to the Chicago
bar.
The Supreme Court in this state in Beeker, et. al. vs. Qiiigg, reported 3 Legal
News p 265, where an execution had been
lost, in laying down the rules to govern in
such cases, in substance said : This court
has not gone further than to hold that a
party to a suit may make an ex parte affi
davit as to the loss of a paper, so as to per
mit secondarv evidence of the contents,
and that this arises from the necessity or
the case. As before the recent statute,
parties could not be witnesses except, etc.
That the testimony of third persons in
everv way competent witnesses to prove
the facts in regard to a lost paper, should
be taken in the ordinary mode and, the
opposite party should have an opportunity
to cross-examine, and that ex -parte affi
davits of such third parties are not com
petent.
From this decision, it would seem, be
fore any of the pleadings that have been
destroyed can be replaced by copies, the
opposite party must have notice and the
testimony of witnesses be taken, the same
as in a regular suit.

Journal company at Springfield, and we hive

Partnership Property.The Commis
JURISDICTION.
no hesitation in saying that the LII. reflects sion of Appeals in Van Brunt v. Applegate
1. Suit by a Toun for a penalty before
great credit upon that company We have reported in the Transcript of October 14th, what justices to be brought. Under the
no doubt a law book miy be printed as well deciles that a conveyance by ore partner, sixth section of article twelve of the Town
ship organization law. a suit by a town to
and much cheaper in Springfield, than it having a legal title to an undivided half of recover
a penalty for obstructing, or con
can be in Chioago.
real estate the whole of whioh, in equity, is tinuing an obstruction to a public highway,
The LII. contains 109 cases, of these, 69 partnership prepertyto a creditor of the firm, can not be brought before a justice of the
residing in the town for the benefit
were affirmed, and 40 reversed; in three the in payment of a partnership debt, vests a peace
of which the suit is prosecuted, but may
opinions were per curiam There are 52 good title to such undivided half in his gran, be brought before any justice residing in
eases from this city. The opinions delivered tee; notwithstanding it is executed without any other town in the same county, if a
have jurisdiction of the subject
by Chief Justice Breess, affirm the judg the knowledge or consent of the other part justice
matter of the suit. [Opinion by Walker, J.)
ments below in 23. and reverse them in 12' ner, the firm is insolvent and its effect is to Town of Chatham v. Mason, p.
Those delivered by Mr. Justice Lawrenoe, give a preference to the grantee.
2. Nor does the one hundred and third
section of t article seventeen, of the same
affirm them in 24, and reverse them in 11
law, giving to justices of the pence juris
cases. Those delivered by Mr. Justice
diction in suits to recover penalties and
The
London
Law
Times,
in
its
issue
of
Walker, affirm them in 18, and reverse thom
forfeitures provided for by the net, where
in 18. We give the names of the Judges Saturday, Oct. 14, says; "Among the nu the same do not exceed one hundred dol
lars, affect the rule that where a town
who tried the oases in the courts below, and merous disasters consequent upon the great sues,
a justice residing within the town
fire
at
Chicago,
we
anticipate
the
temporary
which brings the suit has no jurisdiction.
how they were disposed of in the Supreme
extinction
of
a
legal
journal
which
has
lb.
Court: Joseph E. Gary, 8 affirmed, 7 re
HIGHWAYS.
versed; William A. Porter, 7 affirmed, 1 re been successfully conducted by a lady for
1. Duty and liability of cities for safe
'
about
two
years.
Mrs.
Myra
Bradwell
versed; John A. Jameson. 3afflmed, 8 rtof their streets. The authorities of
the Chicago Legal News are well and condition
a city under whose control are its streets
versed; Superior Court ofChioago 3 affirmed , and
favorably known to most Amerioan lawyers and sidewalks, are liable in damages for in
1 reversed; E. S. Williams, 12 nffirmed, 5 re
juries occasioned by reason of the streetsversed; Wm. K. McAllister, 2 affirmed; S D. and the suspension of the News for a time and sidewalks being'out of repair. ( Opin.
will be widely felt. It is somewhat singu ion by Breese, C. J.) City of Decatur v.
Puterbaugh, 5 affirmed 1 reversed; Joslah lar that within a very short period two
McRoberts, 1 affirmed, 3 reversed; Wm. W Amerioan legal journals have fallen vic Fisher, p. 407.
MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
Heaton. 2 affirmed, 2 reversed; Benjmin R.
tims to fire, the Albany Liw Journal having
2. For negligence on the part of municipal
Sheldon. 2 nffirmed; Samuel Caldwell acting
been recently burned out of its print corporations. But it has never been the doc
judge, 1 nffirmed. 1 reversed. S Wiloox, 2 ing offices for some weeks. If the purifying trine
of this court, or of any other, that a
affirmed. 2 reversed; S. L. Richmond, 4 element were applied to the Bench instead municipal corporation shall be held liable
affirmed, 2 reversed, Arthur S. Smith, 3 of to the journals, the result would he far for more than compensatory damages, unless
there shnll be proof the injury complained
affirmed 7 reversed; fleo. W. Pie sants, 5
of wns willful, which is scarcely possible in
more satisfactory."
nffirmed, 3 reversed ; Richard G. Monloney, 2 We are glad to be able to inform our val the case of a corporation of that descrip
affirmed; Msdisnn E. Holliater. 1 affirmed: ued friend of the Law Times, that by the tion.lb.
WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE.
E. S. Leland.3 nffirmed; Charles Turner. 1 aid of Providence and kind friends we
8. Of evidence thereof. The mere non
affirmed,
1
reversed;
Joseph
flihley,
I
re
We gladly announce the appointment
were able to face the storm without even feasance of city f utboritiee in resrect to reof Geo. C. Bates. U. S. District Attorney versed. The proportion of opinions nffirmed having to submit to a "temporary extinc ] pairing a defective sidewalk, they having
no knowledge thereof, cannot be cbarged[as
of Utah. His former experience in that in this is large' than in any previous volume tion."
willful negligence.lb.
Persons
wishing
this
volume,
should
Inclose
office, ability as a lawyer, eloquence as
EXCESSIVE DAMAGES.
an advocate, eminently fit him for the a five-dollar greenback or pnstoffice order to
LIII. ILLINOIS REPORTS.
4. In nn action against a city to recover for
Hon.
Norman
L.
Freeman,
Spri'gfield
111.
place and the appointment is one of the
injuries received by the plaintiff, by reason
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman L. of
1 General Treatise on Statutes; Their
a defective sidewalk, it appeared the
very best.
Rules of Construction, and the Proper Freeman, Reporter, for the following head- plaintiff was a girl, about twenty years of
Boundaries of Legislation and of .Tudieinl notes to cases to appear in the 53d volume of age, who was employed as hired help, and,
OUR FILES COMPLETE.
Tnterpretntion. Bv Sir Fortunntus Illinois Reports:
as such, probably received one hundred dol
Dwnrris, Knt.. B. A.. Oxford, F R. S.,
lars per annum. Her injuries were not of
We are glad to be able to announce that F.
instructions.
S A. With American notes nnd addi
such character as to prevent her still earn
our files of the Legal News are now com
tions, and with notes nnd maxims of con
1. Should be based on the evidence. It is ing her living by lnhor she was qualified to
plete, and that we have one copy of every stitutional nnd of statute construction. not error to refuse an instruction which is do. A verdict of 83,000 was set aside as
Also,
A
Treatise
on
Constitutional
Limita
number issued. The last link in the broken tions unon the National and State Legisla not based on the evidence ( Opinion by excessive.Li.
Breese, C. J.) Sprague et al. vs. RazenDIVORCE.
chain was supplied by our friend, M. A. tive Power; with n chapter on Parlia winkle,p. 419.
1. For cruelty. A single act of cruelty
Rorke. of the Chicago bar, who presented mentary Law nnd Parliamentary Privi
PAYMENTS.
does not constitute sufficient ground for a
leges, by Piatt Potter, LL. TV, one of the
us on yesterday with a copy of the issue of .Instices
of the Supreme Court of the 2. Of their application. A creditor has divorce. There must be extreme and re
Saturday, Oct. 7th. which number appeared State of New York. Large octavo vol the right to appropriate payments made on peated cruelty, which must consist in physi
ume. 750 pages, published by William an account generally, where no specific di cal violence, and not merely in angry or
the day before the fire, y
Gould & Sons. Law Publishers. 68 State rections have been (riven to apply them.lb. abusive epithets, or even profane language,
3. Presumption as to their application. to authorize a divorce in this state. Mere
Street, Albany, N. Y.
RECENT PUBLICATIONS.
Where payments are made upon an open ac angry or abusive words, menaces or indigni
Dwnrris
on
Statutes
is
too
well
and
favor
Reports of Ones at Law ani in Chancery, ar
count, or there are several distinct debts ex ties, do not constitute cruelty, within the
jrned and determined in the S"Dreme Court ably known to require any words of ours to isting, and neither the debtor nor the credi meaning of our statute ( Opinion by Walker,
of Illinois. By Norman L. Freeman, Re commend it to the profession. The publish tor hns made any specific application of the J.) Embrce v. Embrre,p. 494.
porter. Volume LIL Containing a portion
payments, it would seem to be a reasonable
2. For desertion. Desertion, to be a cause
of the remaining can's deoided at the Sep ers of this edition have presented it in a presumption that the first items, or the debt for divorce, must be willful, and continue
tember Term 1869 Printed for the Re very creditable manner, and Judge Potter, first in point of time, should be first dis for two years. Nor is the case altered,
porter. Springfield. 1871.
where the bill is prematurely filed, by filing
the editor, is known throughout the Union charged.lb.
a supplemental bill, alleging two years' de
Weha-ie received the LII. Illinois, and as a ripe scholar and able jurist. We
promissory note.
sertion, when the two years includes any
are much pleased with its appearance. It is will send this volume, postage paid, to any
1. Construction, as to payment of damages portion of the time which has elapsed after
fully equal in meohsnical execution, in the address, on receipt of the price. 87.50. Ad after maturity. A promissory note was made the filing of the original bill. A hearing
payable "at the banking house of Chestnut, can only be had on the grounds which exist
learning and ability disp'ayed in the opin dress Legal News Co., 115 West Madison Blackburn
& Dubois, with twenty-four per when the suit is commenced, and subse
ions, as well as in the care and skill exercised St., Chioago.
cent, per annnm after maturity, as compen quent
grounds can not be incorporated into
sation and damages for non-payment": Held, the case
by the Reporter in their 1 reparation, to the
after the commencement of pro
this
was
a
promise
to
pay
twenty-four
per
ceedings.Lb.
reports of any of our sister States. Mr.
We are* under many obligations to A. cent, interest per annum, upon the principal
Freeman has Required a national reputation G. Riddle, Esq., ofthe Washington, D. C. sum named in the note, after its maturity, if
PLEADING.
1. Avtrment of the assignment of a note.
as a nooiel reporter. Our valuable contem Bar, for the four volumes of that very use not then paid. (Opinion by Walker, J.)
In a suit upon a promissory note by an
porary, the Albany Law Journal for Sept . 16, ful work, " Abbotts National Digest of Davis v. Rider et al., p. AW.
assignee against the maker, an averment in
USURY.
says: "Some of onr readers may renumber Statutes and Reports." Mr. Riddle made
the declaration that the holder, by a prior
2. Reserving a higher rate of interest than endorsement, "endorsed the said promissory
that a strenuous effort was made last winter one of the ablest arguments before the Ju
ten per cent, after maturity. A promissory note, by writing bis name across the back
by oertain interested parties, to have Mr diciary Committee ot the National House note wns given, for 8146.15, payable eighty thereof,
to the plaintiff," is not an averment
Freeman ousted from the reporterbhip,or else of Representatives, we have ever read, in days after date, with interest at twenty-four of a blank endorsement, but of an endorse
to render the offioe a profitless ore. We are ravor of Woman Suffrage under the Civil per cent, per annnm. after maturity, as com ment to a particular person, and is sufficient.
pensation and damages for non-payment. (Opinion by Lawrence, J.) Tolet v.
glad to believe, though, without information Rights Bill and the XIV Amendment.
Held, that rate of interest was recoverable, Montague, p. 384.
on the subject, that the attempt was a fail
to be computed from and after the maturity of
DAMAGES.
The Riohts or Colored Citizhs. The the note, if it was not then paid. Snch a
ure. He is a thoroughly good reporter, and
2. In lie svprane court on on appeal for
the laborer in mch a field is justly entitled Transcript of Ootober 10th prints the opinion note is not usurious. lb.
The statute oIIowb this court to give
3. The fact that a note of that character delay.
to all the income that he is likely to reap of the Supreme Court of North Carolina in matures
damage? only in caeeB where the appeal is
in
eighty
days,
will
not.
of
itself,
from his labors." Although we are not in the case of the People v Dunlap, holding that afford evidence that it was designed to evade not prosecuted, r.nd not because the court
may think it is prosecuted for delny. Dam
favor of high tariff, we do believe in patron on the making of an affidavit by a oolored the usury laws. Hnd it appeared, however, ages
ere not given when the record has been
that it 'was understood by the parties that it filed and
izing home institutions, when we can do it man that by reason of his color and previous wns
errors have been assigned.lb.
to run for a longer period, then it
Condition
of
servitude,
he
cannot
obtain
jus
without extra charge More than two-thirds
HOMESTEAD.
might be inferred that such was the inten
of the law books published by the book- tice in the courts of the State, entitles him to tion. Or had there been proof that it wns
1.
Of
the
cccvp
ency required. In Decem
have his onse removed into the United States so drnwn for the purpose of obtaining usury, ber, 1862. a porty,
head of a ft mily,
honses of onr city are printed in New York Courts,
provided the United States Courts that, defense could clearly have been inter purchneed a tract of the
Innd. pud in February,
Mr. Freeman has his volumes pr'nted by the shall claim jurisdiction and control thereof.
posed .
1863, went into j osEefeion. moving with bis

QHICAGO LEGAL NEWS.

22
Springfield, Illinois, Oct. 20, 1871 .
family into a house on the premises, then FROM WM. O HAMMOND, CHANCELLOR 01 THE
Mrs. Myra Bradwell Madam:En
also being occupied by his grantor. The LAW DEPARTMENT OK IOWA STATE UNIVER
closed
please find $2 subscription for vol 4 LAW BOOKS.
families occupied the house together about SITY.
a week, during which time the purchaser Professor Hammond, who is the father of of Legal News.
Accept our sympathy in this terrible ca
built a shanty on the same premises and mov
ed into it with his family, and remained there the Law Department of this University, con lamity, with the assurance that anything in
our power will be cheerfully done to as
Bourquin & Welsh,
until his grantor left the house, during the cludes a letter as follows :
sist you in continuing your invaluable pa
same month, when the purchaser moved
MothiDg since the great disaster has grati per.
Respectfully yours,
back into the house. About three days after fied me more than the energy and resolution
HERNDON & ORENDORFF.
they moved back into the house, the wife of shown in keeping up the regular issue of the
the purchaser left him, in consequence of Leu al News. 1 trust you will meet with the FROM KAY & BROTHER, LAW BOOK
Law Booksellers,
his abuse of ber, and did not return, reward you certainly deserve. No one will
SELLERS.
he remaining in the house a short tim- rejoice more sincerely in your continued suc
Philadelphia, Nov. i, 1871.
afterwards, having no other home, and in cess than
Mrs. Myra BrabwellChicago, III.
April set out an orchard, boarding at a
Your friend and servant,
Dear Madam:Your favor of the 26th
Publishers and Importers.
neighbor's while doing so. During the sum
WM. G. HAMMOND.
ult. is duly received. You have our warm
mer of 1863 the premises were occupied by
sympathy
in
the
losses
you
have
sustained.
his tenant, and in October of that year his rROM SAMUEL S. FISHER, AUTHOR OF PATENT
As an earnest, thereof, we inclose an ad
wife obtained a decree of divorce, and these
CASES.
No. 431 Walnut Street,
vertisement to make two columns in the
premises were decreed to her as alimony. It
Cincinnati, Oct. 26, 1871. next
ot" the Legal News, and will
was held, the purchaser had a homestead
Mrs. Mtra Bradwell, Chicago, 111.My send issue
you by to-morrow's Express, one copy
right in the premises, until it became trans Dtar Madam : I enclose $5.00 in payment
ferred to his wife. (Opinion by Brute, of enclosed bill. I have taken the liberty of each of Wharton's Law Dictionary,BrightPHILADELPHIA.
(C. J.,) Bonnellv. Smith, et al.,p. 375.
increasing my subscription price a little, tie- ly's Digest, Laws, of the United States, 2
4-16
2. Transfer of homestead right from the hus cause th paper is worth it, and because vols., Brightly's Digest Federal Decisions,
band t hit divorced wife. Where the wife of every dollar muBt be needed to get things in 2 vols., Cord, on Married Women, and
Bishops Law of Married Women, 1 vol.,
a party having a homestead right obtains a working order.
divorce from him, she being the meritorious
1 also send you by express Vols. I., II. and which please accept with our compliments.
cause thereof, and the custody of their child III Fisher's Patent Cases, toward renewing
Very respectfully yours &c,
Daniell's Chancery Practice.
being committed to her. she becomes the lost library.
KAY k BROTHER.
Very respectfully, your
the head of the family, and the homestead obedient servant,
Fourth Edition, 3 vols., ivo sheep, $22.50
The London Law Times of October 14,
right passes to her as such, by operation of
SAMUEL S. FISHER.
the statute.lb.
reprints the opinion of Judge Hopkins de
LITTLE, BROWN & CO.
3. Effect of abttnce of the wife prior to the FROM JOHN S. WATTS, LATE CHIEF JUSTICE. livered in the United States Circuit Court,
Have now ready
divorce. In this case the wife left her home
Santa Fb, N. M., Oct. 22, 1871. for the 9th District of Wisconsin in the case
by reason of ill treatment by her husband,
Pleading and Practice of the High
Mei.
Mtra
BradwellMadam:
Hav
between the middle of the month of Febru ing been absent on business in Et Paso, of Hall vs. Wagner upon fraudulent prefer
Court of Chancery.
ary and the middle of March, and on the Texas, we hasten, on our return, to renew ences heretofore printed in the Legal
twenty-fourth of the latter month filed her our
By E. R. Daniell.
subscription to your valuable paper. We News.
bill for divorce, the decree for divorce being acknowledge
Fourth
American
edition with Notes and Refer
our
great
delight
and
surprise
entered in the following October, she, in the
ences to American Decisions; an Appendix of
be able, so soon after your terrible fire, to
meantime, remaining away from the home to
Precedents;
and
other
additions ana improve
CHICAGO
ATTORNEYS.
the News to our legal files again.
ments adapting the work to the demands of Ame
stead, at her father's: Held,the wife did not welcomo
We hope the generosity of the legal profession BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street.
rican Practice in Chancery. By J. C. Perkins
forfeit her homestead right, as against a will
L. InL. this
D. edition over sixteen thousand cases
of such an extent as to enable you to Bates * Hodges, 113 W Madison street.
judgment creditor of the husband, by such fullybere-establish
the News, and increase it Bonnoy, Fay t Griggs, 120 W. Washington St. have
been cited and referred to; and the index
absence. She being the meritorious cause in size, interest and
usefulness. Pleaee find Bentley, Bennett, Ullmau * Ires, 376 Wabash alone contains nearly four hundred pages. 1
of the divorce, and the custody of her child $2 00 enclosed for subscription.
being committed to her, the benefit of the
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, avenue.
SNOWHOOK ft GRAY
homestead likewise enured to her. She may
Barker 4 Waite, 46 E. Harrison street.
JOHN. S. WATT8.
be said to have left it under a moral compul
Boya, C. D., 677 Wabash avenue.
Attorneys,
35 Monroe St.
sion, at least, and by decreeing it to her as
Brouse, O. R. 400 Wabash avenue.
FROM JUDGE LONOTEAB.
alimony, she was thereby rehabilitated to it.
CHANCERY NOTICEState of Illinois, Cook
Carter,
Becker
&
Dale,
56
Canal
street
Detroit, Oct. 24, 1871.
County ss. Superior Court of Cook county,
Ib.
November Term, 1871. Margaret Ward vs. Corne
Mrs. Mtra Bradwell, Editor Chicago Condon, Win. H., 34 Canal street.
4. Effect of the death of the divorced wife,
lius Ward. In Chancery.
Deane & Catiill, Room 7 Lii,d's Block.
her child turviving. The death of a wife Legal NewsMadam: 1 admire the cour
Affidavit of the non-residence of Cornelius
Ewing & Leonard, 511 Wabash avenue.
Ward, defendant above named having been filed in
after the divorce, in such case, would not age and true sp r t with which you announce Ooudy
ft
Chandler,
391
Wabash
avenue,
branch
the
office of the Clerk of said Superior Court of
your
determination
to
revive
your
valuable
operate to destroy the homestead right, her
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said
child still being alive, because the statute paper from the ashes, and wish you all suc office 64 South Halsted street.
Cornelius
Ward that the complainant heretofore
secured it to the child until he should attain | cess, and shall increase my efforts to aid yon Ellis, B. W., 115 W. Madiaon street.
filed her certain bill of complaint in said court on
in achieving it. Enclosed find $2 00 for the Felker, Wm. S., 371 State street.
the Chancery side thereof, and that a summons
the age of twenty-one years.Ib.
issued out of said Court against said
6. Of a judgment lien on a homestead current year. Very truly,
Hoyne, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michi thereupon
defendant returnable on the first Monday of No
JNO. W. LONGYEAR,
right of tale in the debtor. After the owner
vember
next,
(1871) as is bylaw required.
gan
and
Wabash
avenue.
U. 8. District Judge.
Now, unless you. the said Cornelius Ward shall
of a homestead had executed a mortgage on
Herbert & Quick, 529 State street.
personally
be
and appear before said Superior
the land, but without releasing the home
Hitchcock, Dupee & Evarts, corner Wells and Court of Cook, county,
Carltle, 111 , Oct. 23, 1871
on the first day of a term
stead right, a judgment was recovered
thereof to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
Mrs.
Mtra
Bradwell,
Chicago,
III

Monroe
streets.
against him: Held, the homestead right Dear Madam: I enolose you $2.00 for vol
on
the
first
Monday
of
November, 1871, and plead,
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill of
could be afterwards sold to and vested in ume IV Legal News. We feel the loss of Howe ft Russell, 475Wabash Avenue.
complaint,
the
same
and
the matters and things
Isham,
Edward
8.,
654
Wabash
avenue.
the mortgagee, free from any lien of the Chicago very sadly in this part of the State, I
therein charged and stated, will be taken as con
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
judgment.Ib.
fessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against you accord
assure you. In fact it is a national loss, and Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
ing to the prayer of said bill.
PARTIES.
one which will be seriously felt all over the King,
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk.
ft Payson, 637 Wabash avenue.
SnowHOOK & Grat, Cornpl'ts Sol's.
4-7
1. In suit for penalty for itsuing marriage li' United States for many years to come, as we LymanSaott
ft
Jackson,
79
W.
Madison
st.reet,room
3.
all
looked
upon
Chicago
as
the
"
pride
uf
the
cense to a minorwho may tue. The tenth
Learning
ft
Thompson,
109
W.
Madison
street.
Weet."
Yours
truly,
section of the chapter of the revised statutes
P, A. HOFFMANN, JR.
McClelland, Thomas 172 West Washington
DARIUS KINGSBURY.
entitled "Marriages," which provides that
Attorney,
168 W. Madison St.
the cJerk of the county commissioners'
Carrollton, III., Oot. 25, 1871. street.
Miller, Frost ft Lewis, 363 Michigan avenue.
Chancery noticestate of Illinois, cook
court shall forfeit to the use of the father
Mrs.
Mtra
BradwellMadam:
En
County, ss. Circuit Court of Cook County.
a penalty for wrongfully issuing a marriage closed find $2 00, subscription for Legal Moore ft Caulfield, 44 Harrison ft 133 West Madi October
Term, 1871. Henry Fuhrmann vs. Ade
license to a minor, must be construed as Mews. Let the year commence with this son streets.
line
Fuhrmann.In
Chancery. of Adeline Fuhr
giving the father a right to sue in his own date, disregarding former payments, if our Newcomb, G. W., 214 Warren avenue.
Affidavit of the non-residence
defendant above named, having been filed
name.(Opinion by Lawrence, J.) Adamt v. time was not up. We oannot do without the Niasen ft Barnum, 130 West Randolph (late 376 mann
in the office of the cierk of said Circuit Court of
Outright, p. 361.
Cook county, notice Is hereby given to the said
Leual Nbws. Truly yours.
State street.)
Adeline
Fuhrmann that the complainant filed his
PLEADING.
H. C. WITHERS.
Otis, E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
bill of complaint in Baid Court, on the chancery
2. Declaration in suit for penalty for it'
Perkins.
N.
C,
479
Wabash
avenue,
corner
Eldside
thereof,
on the 2d day ol October, 1871, ana
Galesburo, Oct. 16, 1871.
that a summons thereupon issued out of said
tuing marriage license to a minor. And in a
ridge
Court.
Mrs.
Mtra
BradwellMadam:We
court
against
said defendant, returnable on the
suit by the father to recover such penalty,
happy to acknowledge the receipt of our Palmer, L. L., 481 Wabash avenue.
third Monday of October inat., 1871, as is by law
it is sufficient if the declaration avers the are
regular oopy of the Legal News, and we Reynolds, Wm. C. 176 West Washington strset required.
license was granted without his consent. It herewith
Now, unless you, the said Adeline Fuhrmann
enolose our yearly subscription, to
Rich ft Thomas, 945 Michigan avenue.
shall personally be and appear before the said
is not necessary to aver that banns had gether with
a
few
new
subscribers
as
fol
Roberts,
R.
Biddle,
Room
11,
3#4
Wabash
Circuit
Court of Cook county, on the first day of
not been published, that the father was ca
the next term thereof, to be holdem in Chicago, in
John McFarland, Horace H. Willie, avenue.
pable of consenting to the issuance pf the lows:
aid
county,
on the third Monday of October.
F. Holcomb, G. A. Marsh, Willoughby & Rorke, M. A. ft Son, 154 Halstead street.
1871, and plead, answer or demur to the said com
license, or that the clerk omitted to swear B.
Grant,
Win.
Davis,
M.
D.
Cooke,
John
B.
plainant's
bill
of complaint, the same, and the
Scoville,
George,
30
South
Clinton
street.
the parties Ib.
matters and things therein charged and stated,
all of Galesburg.
3. But if the publication of banns would Colton,WILLIAMS,
Seybold,
F.
J.,
497
Wabash
avenue;
residence
will
be
taken
as
confessed, and a decree entered
CLARK & CALKINS.
relieve the clerk of the penalty imposed, or
against you according to the prayer of said bill.
140 South Green street.
NORMAN
T. UASJ3ETTE, Clerk.
if the father was incapable of consenting,
Davenport, Iowa, Oot 30, 1871.
Sherman, E. B., 153 West Madison and 214 San
F. A. HorFKANx, Jr., Pl'ffs Att'y.
4-7
or if the clerk was deceived by false swear
Mtra BradwellMadam:Please find gamon
ing, he should make these defenses by plea. enclosed two dollars, my subscription tor the Sleeper ft Whiton,441 Wabaash avenue.
INSTATE
OF
MARIA
GERKE,
DECEASED.
Ib.
Chicago Legal News for one year.
Snowhook ft Gray, 85 W. Monroe street, corner li Public notice is hereby given to all persona
4. It is sufficient for the plaintiff to make
Permit me to say that you are deserving
having claims and demands against the estate
of Maria Gerke, deceased, to present the same
Out a prima facie case, under the section of more than ordinary oredit for the energy Jefferson street.
Thomas,
Sidney,
95
East
Harrison
street.
for adjudication and settlement at a regular term
giving the penalty, and not necessary to you have manifested in overcoming the great
of the County Court of Cook county, to be holden
Van
Buren,
E.
ft
A.,
194
W.
Madison
street.
controvert in advance every possible de misfortune that befell you during the late
at the court house, in the city of Chicago, on the
first Monday of December, A. D. 1871, beii
fense.Ib.
terrible oalamity that nearly ruined Chica yalette, H. F., 69 West Madiaon street.
fourth day thereof.
go, notwithstanding her natural pluck, by White, Hugh A 165 West Washington street.
ALBERT GROSSMAN, Administrator.
continuing the issue of the Legal News. Williams ft Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
SYMPATUY AND AID.
Chicago, September 23, 1871.
l-a
And I trust the Bar of the great Northwest Walker, Dexter <r Smith, 792 Wabash avenue.
M. A. Rorki k Sow, Att'ys.
raOM LITTLE, BEOWN & 00.
will prove its appreciation of your worth Wilson, Perry ft Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
and courage by at least rewarding you with Wlndett, Arthur W., 562 Wabash avenue, and ESTATE OF JAMES BIRD, DECEASED.Pub
Boston, Oot. 27, 1871.
lic notice is hereby given to all persons hav
D eab Madam: In first case to Chioago we a largely increased subscription list. All Room 5 Lind's Block.
ing claims and demands against the estate of Jas.
end yen, with our respects, American Law must agree that the energy displayed by Waughop,J. W., 401 Wabaah avenne.
Bird, deceased, to present the same for adjudi
cation and settlement at a regular term of the
Review, S vols., and October number. Dan- you in that hour of trial, is not only worthy
County Court of Cook county, to be holden at the
iell's Chancery Practice. Cooley's Limit*, of admiration but of emulation. That suc
court house, in the wry or Chicago, on the first
MATTOCKS
&
MASON.
cess
may
attend
your
noble
efforts
is
the
tions. Bigelow's Leading Case", Langdell'a
Mondav of December, A. D. 1871, being the fourth
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
do., United States Digest, vol. 29, and remain earnest wish of
No. 523 Wabash Avenu*, 8. W. cor. Harmon Court. day thereof. JANE C. BIRD, Administratrix.
Your most obedient servant,
Chicago, September 23. 1871.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
Yours truly,
1-6
EDWARD O. MASON. M. A. Roskm k Son, Att'ys.
W. T. DITTOE. JOSH MATTOCKS.
LITTLE, BROWN & CO.

23
J. S. GRINNELL.
XXII. Hilyard,[F.TA Treatise on the Prin
ciples of the Law of Marine Insurance. Svo. 2.50.
Attorney, 45 S. Canal St.
XXIII. Hilliard, [P.]The Law of Injunc
Second edition, 8vo. 7.60.
PUBLICATION NOTICE.State of Illinois. LAW
BOOKS tions.
XXIV. Hilliard, [F.JThe Law of New Trials,
Cook County, ss. Cook County Circuit Court,
and
other
Rehearings. Second edition. In pre
December Term.'A. D. 1871. Henry Sayrs, Ed
paration.
W. Thompson and Franklin Gilmore vs. F.
The undersigned beg leave to in ward
XXV.
Hilliard, [P.]The Law of Contracts.
W.Hull and Barton C. Tillett.
PUBLISHED BY
2 vols. 8vo. Readv this month. 15.0O.
Public notice is hereby given to the Baid F. W.
form their friends and patrons that Hull
XXVI.
Hindma'reh,
[W. M.}Treatise on the
and Barton C. Tillett, that a writ of attach
Law relative to Patent Privileges for the sole use
issued out of the office of the Clerk of Cook
they have on the way to them a full ment
of
Inventions,
and
the
Practice of obtaining Let
County Circuit Court, dated the 23d day of Octo
ters Patent for Inventions, with Ml Appendix of
KAY & BROTHER,
ber.
A.
D.
1871,
at
the
rait
of
said
Henry
Sayrs,
Forms,
Acts
of
Congress,
Decisions of the Courts
assortment of text books, reports, and Edward W. Thompson and Franklin Gilmore, and
of the United States, etc. 8vo. 2.60.
against the estate of the said F. W. Hull and Bar
XXVII.
Kerr,
[W.
W.]A
Treatise on the Law
digests, and are prepared to receive ton C. Tillett. for the sum of one hundred and
and Practice as to Receivers by the Court of
thirty-one dollars and twenty-seven cents, di
Chancery,
with
American
Notes
by G. Tucker
orders as before the fire. As they rected to the sheriff of Cook County, which said
Esq. 8vo. In preparation.
writ has been returned executed.
LAW PUBLISHERS, Bropham,
XXVIII. Lester [ W. If.J-Deeisions of the Inte
therefore, unless you, the said F. W. Hull
feel confident that their prices will be andNow,
rior Department in the Public Land Cases and
Barton C. Tillett, shall personally be and ap
Land
Laws of the United States, together with the
pear
before
the
said
Cook
County
Circuit
Court
found as low as those of any Eastern on or before the first day of the next term thereof,
regulations of the General Land Office. 2 vols. 8
Booksellers and Importers,
vo. 12.60.
to
be
holden
at
the
Court
House
in
the
city
of
house, they ask their friends to call Chicago, on the third Monday of December, A. D.
XXIX. Maddock [H.}Reports of Cases Argued
and Determined in the Court of the Vice Chancel
1871,giveJudgment
special bail
to theagainst
said plaintiff's
lor of England. Six vols, in three, b vo. 16.00.
before ordering.
action,
willandbeplead
entered
you and
XXX. Metealf [ T.]Principles of the Law of
ln favor of the said Henry Sayrs, Edward W,
as applied by Courts of Law. 8 vo. 4.60.
Thompson and Franklin Gilmore, and so much of 17 and 19 South Sixth Street, contracts
XXXI. Morris[P. P.\A Practical Treatise on
the property attached, as may be sufficient to sat
the
Law
of
Replevin in the United States, with an
isfy
the
said
judgment
and
costs,
will
be
sold
to
CALIAGHAN & COCKCROFT,
appendix of forms and a digest of statutes. Sec
PHILADELPHIA,
satisfy the Bame.
ond
edition.
8 vo. 6.00.
NORMAN T. GA88ETTE, Clerk.
XXXI I. Pennsylvania Beoarts comprising
J. 8. GRi!niA,Plfrs Att'y.
4-7
525 Wabash Avei\ue,
Sergeant ft Rawles, 17 vols., 8 vo
$76.50
And for sale by
Pentose <t Watts, 3 vols., 8 vo
18.00
HERVEY, ANTHONY ft GALT.
CHICAGO.
Watts, 10 vols., 8 vo
60.00
Watts ,(- Sergeant. 9 vela.. 8 vo
64.00
Attorneys, No. 14 S. Clinton St.
Harris' [13-24 Penna.l 12 vols., 8 vo
84.00
Casey [26-36 Penna.] 12 vols., 8 vo
54.00
E. B. MEYERS,
PUBLICATION NOTICELstate of Illinois,
Wright
[
t7-50
Penna.l
and
Index,
16
vols.
8vo
67.00
SPECIAL TO LAWYERS!
Cook County, ss. Superior Court of Cook
8mith [61-86 Penna.] 15 vols., 8 vo
67.50
County, November Term. 1871. Ready Roofing
Brightly, 1 vol., 8 ve
6.50
Company vs. Edward D. KingAttachment.
Brewster, vols. 2 and 8, 8 vo.,
12.00
AND
Public notice is hereby given to the said Edward
D. King that a writ of attachment issued out of
XXXIII. PAUHpi [JF.JA Treatise on the Laws
the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of
of Insurance.
Chicago Lawyers desiring to Purchase Co
... e. Fffth Edition. 2 vols. 8- vo. 15 00.
ik County, dated tne twenty-fifth day of Octo
XXXIV. Pomeroy [J. A'.]. LL. P.An intro
ber
A.
D.
1871
at
the
suit
of
the
said
Ready
Roof
duction to the Constitutional Law of the United
LAW BOOKS, villi be supplied by us AT ing Compauv and againnst the estate of the said
States, especially designed forthe useof students,
Edward D. King for the sum of three thousand
and professional, 8 vo. Cloth, 4.50; law
COST, during the next Six Months.
one hundred and seventy-two dollars and thirty- CALLAGHAN&COCKCROFT general
sheep. 5.00.
nine cents ($3,172.39) directed to the Sheriff of
XXXV.
Pothier [St.]A Treatise on the Law
Cook County, which said writ has been returned
of Obligations and Contracts. Third edition.
executed. Now, therefore, unless you the said
CHICAGO.
Translated
with
notes, etc., by W. D. Evans, Esq.
Edward D. King shall personally be and appear
a vols. 8 vo. 10.00.
DIOSSY & CO.,
before the said Superior Court of Cook County on
XXXVI.
PHUhard
[W. T.]An Analytical Dior before the first day of the term thereof, to be
6est of all the Reported Cases determined by the
holden at the High School building in the City of
[igh
Court
of
Admiralty
of England, Etc. 8 vo.
Chicago, on the flr:-t Monday of November A. D. I. Allen (C.)Reports of Cases Argued and 1 2.50.
Law Booksellers and Publishers,
1871, give special bail and plead to the said plain Determinedd in
..
the
Supreme
Judicial
Court
of
XXXVII.
Rand
[P.
P.]
It. D., anil Furnas [H
tiffs action, judgment will be entered against you Massachusetts.
\rnl.
I J a P.IAn Elementsry Treatise
Vols. n9 to U14, V....I.
both 1inclusive,
on Poisons, Medi
in favor of tne said Ready Roofing Company, vols., 8 vo. dH.
80 Nassau street, New York. and
Per
vol
$5.30
cally
and
Legally
considered.
8 vo. In prepara
and so much of the property attached as may be II. Baldcin (H.)Reports of Cases Determined tion.
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
said
judgment
and
costs,
i
in
the
Circuit
Court
of
the
United
States
In
and
for
XXXVIII.
Rawle
IK.
H.\-Equity
in Pennsyl
will be sold to satisfy the same.
the Third Circuit comprising the Eastern Dis vania. A Lecture delivered before the Law Acad
Ahthony ,5 Gait. Pl'nV Att'vs.
trict
of
Pennsylvania
and
the
State
of
New
Jersey,
emy
of
Philadelphia
8
vo
Paper,
1.50; law.
19-We publish Abbott's United States Practice, Hesvit,
4-7
AUGUSTUS JACOHSON, Clerk. 8 vo. $7.50
sheep. 2 00.
Abbott's National Digest, and will soon have ready
III. Baldwin (H.)A General View of the Ori
XXXIX. Rcdfield [I. P.] LL. D.The Law of
gin and Nature of the Constitution and Govern Carriers. Telegraph, and Innkeepers. 8 vo. 6.50.
ARNOLD TRIPP,
a new consolidated (not condensed) edition of the
ment of the United btates. 8 vo. $1.75.
XL. Redfield, [I. P.)The Law of Corporations.
IV. Bull ( T.) and Beatty (P.)Reports of Cases 8vo. In preparation.
Attorney,
100
Washington
St.
JTew York Court of Appeals Reports.
Argued and Determined in the High Court of XLI. Poper. [P. S. P.}A Treatise on the Law
ESTATE OF MATHIAS HAGEMAN, deceased. Chancery of Ireland. Two vols, in one 8 vo. $5.50. of Legacies, with References to American Cases,
Public notice is hereby given to all persons V. Belt (R.h-Supplement to the Report in Second edition' 2 vols. Svo. 15.no.
Send for circular.
XLII. Sanders,{F. IF.]An Essay on Uses and
having claims and demands against the estate of Chancery of F. Vesey, Senr. 8 vo. $4.50.
Mathias Hageman, deceased, to present the same VI. Bigelow. (M. if) Reports of all the Pub Trusts, with References by a Member of the
for adjudication and settlement, at a regular term lished Life and Accident Insurance Cases Deter Philadelphia Bar. 8vo. 5.50.
of the County court of Cook County, to be holden mined in the American Courts prior to January, XLI II. Sanders. [J. S,]Law of Pleaiing and
Evidence. New edition. In preparation.
at the court house in the city of Chicago, on the 1871, with notes to English cases. 8 vo. $7 60.
JAMES B. BRADWEL.L,
first Monday of December, A. D. 1871, being the VII. Bishop (J. P.)-Commentaries on the Law XLIV Sclwyn, [If ]An abridgement of the
of Married Women, under the Statutes of the sev Law of Nisi Prius. with references to American
fourth day thereof.
Attorney, 113 W. Madison St.
ELIZABETH HAGEMANN, Administratrix. eral States and at Common Law and in Equity. Decisions. Seventh edition, by A. I Fish. Esq.,
2 vols. 8vo. 15.00.
Chicago, September 29, 1871.
l-0a Vol. 1. 8 vo. $7.60.
** Vol. 2, completing the work, in preparation. XLV. Sharswood, [O.]Popular Lectures on
THSTATEOF
SUSAN
A.
LOYD.
DECEASED.
JLij Public notice is hereby given to all persons
VIII. Blackburn (C.)--Treatise on the Effect of Commercial Law. 12mo. cloth. 1.25. Svo. Law
the Contract of Sale on the Legal Rights of Prop sheep 2.50.
having claims and demands against the estate of
m. a. rorke & son,
erty and Possession in Goods, Wares and Mer XLVI. Smith, [J. )('.]An original View of
Susan A. Loyd. deceased, to present the samefor
Executory Interest in Real and Personal Proper
adjudication and settlement at a regular term of Attorneys, 155 Washington St. chandise. 8 vo. $1.25.
IX. Brightly IF. C.)An Analytical Digest of ty, etc. 8vo. 3.So.
the County Court of Cook county, to be holden
at thecourt house, in the city of Chicago, on the ESTATE OF PATRICK FURLONG.DECEASED' the Laws of the United States from the Adoption XLVII. Sntll. [B. H. T.\The Principles of
the Constitution to the End of the FirstSession Equity, intended for the use of Students and the
first Mondav of January, A. D. 1872, being the
.Public notice is hereby given to all persons of
of the Forty-first Congress. 1789-1869. 2 vols. 8 Profession. 8vo. 7.50.
fourth dav thereof.
claims and demands against the estate of vo.
$16 60.
XLVIII. Stephen, [H. J.}A Treatise on the
ALEXANDER T. LOYD. Administrator. having
Patrick
Furlong,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
Brightly (F. C.)A Digest of the Decisions Principles ot> Pleading in Civil Actions, etc.
Junta B. RSAr.wn.1. Att'y for estate.
adjudication and settlement at a regular term of ofX.
Federal Courts; comprising the Reports of Ninth American edition by F. F. Heard, Esq.
Chicago, Oct. 2<!, 1871.
the Oounty Court of Cook countv, to be holden thethe
Supreme and District Courts, snd the Court of Svo. 4.59.
at the court house, in the city of Chicago, on the
and also including the Federal caes con
XL1X. Sugden. [E. B.[Practical Treatise of
first Monday of December, A. D. 1871. being the Claims:
tained
in the State Reports and Legal Periodicals. the Law of Venders and Purchasers of Eststes.
JOHN LYLE KING,
fourth day thereof.
2
vols.
8
vo.
$13.50.
Eighth
American edition by Hon J. C. Perkins.
ANN FURLONG, Administratrix.
XI. Brightly (P. C.)The Bankrupt Law of the 2vls. Svo. In preparation.
Attorney, 76 Dearborn St.
Chicago, September 23, 1871.
1-6 United
States, with the Rules and Forms in Bank
L. Taney, [P. P.]Reports of Cases at Law
T71STATE OF PATRICK GILLIGAN. deceased
ruptcy, and Notes of Decisions, together with an and Equity, and in Admiralty. Determined in the
JJJ Public notice is hereby given to all persons
appendix containing the Acts of 1800 and 1841. Circuit Court of the United States for the District
P. M'HUGH,
having claims and demands against the estate of
Second edition. 8 vo. Cloth. $3 00.
of Maryland. By J. Mason Campbell. 8vo. 7.50.
Patrick Gilllgan. deceased, to present the same for Attorney, 48 South Clark St. XII. Brightly (F. C.)A Collection of Leading LI. Tidd, [W.]The Practice of the Courts of
adjudication and settlemont. at a regular term of
Cases on the Law of Elections in the United the King's Bench, and Commen Pleas, in Person
the county court of Cook County, to be holden ai If STATE OF PATRICK TREACY, DECEA8ED States, with notes and references to the latest al Actions and Ejectments. Fourth American
the Court House in the city of Chicago, on the I J Public notice is hereby given to all persons authorities. 8 vo. $7.50.
edition by F. J. Tronbut, Esq., with additional
first Monday of December, A. D. 1871, being the having claims and demands against the estate of XIII. Brown (D. P.)The Forum: or Forty Notes
A. I. Fish. Esq. 2 vols. 8vo. 15.00.
fourth dav thereof.
Patrick Treacy, deceased, to present the same for Years' Full Practice at the Philadelphia Bar. 2 LII. bv'Tronbut,
[F. J.}A Treatise on the Law of
adjudication and settlement at a regular term of vols. 8 vo. Cloth. $8.00.
MATHILDA GILLIGAN,
Limited
Partnership
in the United States, with an
Administratrix, with the will annexed. the County Court, of Cook county, to be holden XIV. Browne, (A. O. Jr).Reports of Cases Appendix of Forms, etc.
Svo. 5.50.

Chicago. September 27, 1871.

l-7a at the court house, in the city of Chicago, on the Argued and determined in the Supreme Judicial LIII VanHcythensen.[F.}The
Draftsfirst Monday of October, A. D. 1871, being the Court of Massachusetts. 7 vols. 8vo. (97 to 103 mann. Being a Selection of FormsEquity
of
Pleading
Mass.), per vol. $5.50.
second day thereof.
in
Suits
in
Equity.
Revised
by
E.
Hughes.
WATTE At CLARK,
XV. Coke. (Sir P.)The first Part of the Insti Fourth edition with notes by a member of Esq.
FRANK
UAMKELLY
DENVER,
and $) Executory
_
the
tutes of England, or a Commentary upon Little Philadelohia
WILI
.
Bar. Svo. 7.50.
Attorneys, 100 Washington St. Chicago August
ton. Revised aud Corrected by F. Hargrave and LIV. Welford,
9, 1871
46-5
[P.
G.JA
Practical
Treatise
on
C. Tutler Esqrs, including the Notes of Lord Eqnity Pleadings, with Observations in the New
estate of jerome myers. deceased.
Justice Hale and Lord Chancellor Notting Orders of 1841, and an Appendix containing those
Public notice is hereby given tn all per TESTATE OF THOMAS. OTHBRWISE CALLED Chief
2 vols. 8vo. $15.00.
sons having claims and demands against the Hi Anthony Kines or Kins, deceased.Public ham.
8vo. 1.50.
XVI. Cord, ( W. H.)Treatise on the Legal and orders.
estate of Jerome Myers, deceased, to present the notice is hereby given to all persons having Equitable
LV, Wharton, [P.], LL. D.A Treatise on the
of Married Women; as well in Criminal
same for adjudication and settlement at a reg claims and demands against the estate of respect of Rights
Law of tlie United States. Sixth edition.
Property and Persons, as to their
ularterm of the County Court of Cook county,
8ve. 22.50.
otherwise called Anthony Kines, or Kins, children. their
With an Appendix of American Stat 3 vols.
to be holden at the court house, in the city of Thomas,
LVI.
Wharton,
[F.] LL. D.Precedents of In
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
and the Decisions under them. 8vo. $7.50. dictments and Pleas
Chicago, on the first Monday of November, A.'D., and settlement at a regular term of the County utes
adapted to the Use both of
XVII. Dcsausure, (H. IK.)Reports of Cases the
1871, being tha sixth day thereof.
Courts
of
the
United States and those of the
Court of Cook county, to tje holden at the court Argued
and Determined in the Court of Chan several States: together
GOEL M. GLOYD, Executor. house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon cery of South
Notes on Criminal
and in the Court of Ap Pleading and Practice. with
Chicago, September 22, 1871.
Third edition. 2 vols.
day of December, A. D. 1871, being the fourth peals in Equity.Carolina,
Second Edition. Four Vols, in 8vo.
Waits * Class. Att'ys.
52-8a day
15.00.
thereof.
8vo. 16.0o.
LVI I. Wharton, [P.1LL. D.A Treatise on the
SARAH KINES, otherwise KINS, Executrix. two.
XVIII. Dunlap, (J. P.)A Book of Forms, con Conflict
Laws, or Private International Law .
Chicago. September 23. 1871.
taining
than two thousand Forms for Prac Svo. In ofpreparation.
SNOWHOOK & GRAY,
M. A. RnxxE 4 Son, Att'ys.
u: tice in more
the Courts of Pennsylvania and of the LVI 1 1. Wharton, [J. J. S.]A Law Lexicon, or
United States, and for Conveyancing; also, for the Dictionary of Jurisprudence; explaining all the
Attorneys, 11 Dearborn St.
of Public Offices, and Men of Busines gener Technical Words and Phrases employed in the
CF CHARLES CROMLEY, DE- use
Fourth Edition. 8vo. 6.00.
e8tate of jerfmiah o'connor de- INSTATE
-J ceased. Public notice is hereby given to all ally.
several Departments of E< glish Law, etc. Second
XIX. Pden, (R.H.)Reports of Cases Argued American
ceased. Public notice is hereby given to all persons
having
claims
and
demands
against
the
edition, bv E. Hopper, Esq. Svo 7.60.
and
Determined
in
the High
Court
of
Chancery
persons having claims and demands against the estate of Chanes
.
,

*"
.*6t
wuri
oi
unaneerv
^romiey,
4eceased,
prese
IITiarfon, [P.] LL. D. and Stills. [M.]
rles
Cromley,
deceased,
to
present
estate of Jeremiah i >'Connor. deceased, to pre the same for adjudication and settlement at a from 1757 to 1766, from the Original Manuscripts M.LIX.
D.A
Treatise on Medical Jurisprudence.
Lord Chan
sent the same for adjudication and settlement at
hancellor Northingham. Two Vols, in Second Edition.
term of the County Court of Cook county of
The Medicat part revised by
one. 8vo. 6.50.
a regular term of the County Court of Cook regular
to
be
holden
at
the
court
house.
In
the
city
of
A.
Stllle,
M.
D. 8vo. 8.00.
county, to be holden at the court house, in the ?i1i',( ag,?' ,n iht 5rst Monday of December, 1871, XX. Finlanson, [W.\-A Selection of Leading LX. Williams,
fP.
V,]A Treatise on the "Law
Cases on Pleading and Parties to Actions, with of Executors and Administrators.
eitv of Chicago, on the firstMonday of November, being the fourth day tl ereof
Sixth Ame
Practical Notes. 8vo. 1.50
A. D. 1871, being the sixth dav thereof.
rican
edition.
In
preparation.
.
.
ANDFRW
M.
RORKE,
,!';XI-r,
IIale<
[SirM.]-The
History
of
the
Pleas
EUGENE O'SULLIVAN, Executor.
r-kAdministrator, -ith the will annexed.
lfi7on. [O. if.}A Digest of Parliament
Chicago, September 22, 1871.
a Hi? Crow'.with Notes by S. Emlyn. Esq., and aryLXI.
tnicago, September 22 871
Law; also the Rules of the Senate and House
additional Notes and References, by W. AStotee of
Snowhook ft Gray, Att'ys.
62-6a M.
A. Rox, Att'y.
Representatives of the Uniled States, etc.
and E. Ingersoll, Esq. 2 vols. 8vo. 15.00.
Second edition Demy. 8vo.. cloth. 2.50.

Chicago Legal NewsATTORNEYS,

Curtis (Judge B. RxDigest of the decisions of Ray (Isaac).The Medical Jurisprudence oi
the Supreme Court of the United States from the Insanity. Fifth edition, much enlarged. 8vo.
$t$.0O:
sheep,
$0.50.
H.
M. HERMAN,
origin of the Court to the close of the December Cloth.
Redjield (Isaac F.)A Practical Treatise on the
Term, 1854. 8vo. $fi.50.
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
of Railways; embracing Corporations, Emi.
(Jurtie (George T.).The American Conveyancer. Law
Contracts, Common Carriers of
Second edition, revised, corrected, and enlarged nent Domain,
No. 79 Delaware street, Leavenworth,'Kansas.
and Passengers, Investments, Ac, Ac,
by Mark U. Durgin. Crown. 8vo. Sheep, 82.25. Goods
edition, enlarged. 2 vols. Svo. $15.00.
Cashing (Luther S-).Au introduction to the Fourth
Redfield's Leading American Railway Cases.
GEORGE C. PRY,
Study oi the Roman Law. 12mo. Cloth, $1.25.
and Opinions upon most of the
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Ciuhing (Luther S.).Law and Practice of Legis Leading Cases
questions involved in the Law of Rail
lative Assemblies in the UnitedStates of America. important
Street, formerly 86 La Salle
ways, arranged according to subjects, with ex 54 West RandolphStreet,
Third edition. 8vo. $7.AU.
Chicago.
Notes and References to the late
Cushman's Mississippi Beporte.Vols. 23-29. 7 tensive
Decisions. By Isaac F. Redtield, LL. D. svo.
vols.
8vo.
$38.50.
Daniclt (Edmund B.).Pleading and Practice of $7.50.
Redjield on the Law of Wills. Vol. 1. Third
OTTAWA (ILL.) ATTORNEYS. the High Court of Chancery. To which axe added edition.
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Embracing also the Jurisprudence of
severaientirely new chapters, and copious notes, Insanity, the
No, 113 West Madison Street, Chicago.
Etiect of Extrinsic Evidence, the
by Hon. J. V. Perkins, adapting the work to Creation and Construction
LANCHARD, SILVER & COBWIN.
of Trusts ; with Forms Special Attention given to Probate Matters,
American Practice in Chancery. Fourth edition. and Instructions for Preparing
B
Wills. Vols. II.
3 vols.
8vo.
$22.5u.Z).).Treatise on the Law of and III, Embracing Devises, Legacies,
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
Charitable
Drake
(Charles
MORRIS (ILE.) ATTORNEYS.
Trusts, and the Duties of Executors, Adminis
ESTATES SETTLED.
suits by Attachment In the United States. Third trators,
and Testamentary Trustees, Law of "Set thine house in order; for thou 8halt die,
ANFORD, E. Special attention given to Col edition. 8vo. $7.50.
Ac. 3 vols. Svo. $22.50.
14* English Chancery Beporte.To be published by Trusts,
s lections and Real Estate.
and
not
live."2
Kings, xx, 1.
Redjield (Isaac F.) and Btgelow (Melville M.)
subscription in monthly volumes, viz:
Leading and. Select American Cases in the Law of
SIMEON W. KING,
SPRINGFIELD, IIX^
MacNaghten and Gorden
3 vols. 15,00 Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes, and Checks.
De Gex, Macnaghten and Gordon.. 8 vols,
8vo.
$7.50. James).The Law of the Domestic
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER,
HBRNDON A ORENDOBFF,
(Schouter
De
Gex
and
Jones
4
vols.
27* De Gex, Fisher and Jones,
Office west side square.
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Relations: embracing Husband and Wife; Guar
4 vols.
De Gex, Jones and Smith
3 vols.
dian and Ward; Parent and Child ; Infancy; and
NOTARY PUBLIC,
Master ana Servant. Svo. 7-50.
(In preparation.)
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.
ASS
Smith
(W.
L.)Probate
Law
and
Practice;
de
English Law Reports.The " Law Reports " are signed for the Use of Executors and Others COMMISSIONER OF DEEDS FOR ALL THE
MITH 4 ORDWAY,
STATES
AND
TERRITORIES.
published
in
three
series:
having
Business
in
th
Probate
Court.
Second
No 11 Centre Block, Nicollet St
I. The Appellate Series.This comprises the de
12mo. Cloth, $2.00; sheep, $J.50.
Office, 178 West Madison Street, Chicago,
cisions of the House of Lords and the Privy Coun edition.
Story (Joseph).Commentaries on the Law of
cil.II. The Equity Sieies.This comprises the de Agency. Seventh edition, revised and enlarged
EBERHARDT,
hist of Law Books
Hon. I. F. Keafield and W. A. Herrick. svo.
cisions oftheCcurt of Appeal in Chancery, Lu by
nacy, and Bankruptcy, and also those of the *7.50.
JUSTICE OF THE (PEACE
Story
(Joseph).

Commentaries
on
the
Law
of
Published by
Master of the Rolls and three Vice-Chancellors.
Eighth edition, revised and enlarged
<ounta*JTrirt)tn&rirhttr,
III. The Common Law Series.This comprises Bailments.
E.. H. Bennett, svo. *7.6u.
the decisions of the Queen's Bench. Common byStory
South-west Corner ofLake and Canal St*.,
(Joseph).Commentaries
on
the
Law
of
LITTLE. BROWN & CO. Bench, and Exchequer, including Writs of Error Bills of Exchange, Foreign and Inland, as ad
CHICAGO.
and Appeals to the Exchequer Cnamber ; also the ministered in England and America. Fourth
decisions of the Courts of Probate, Divorce, and edition, revised and enlarged by E. H. Bennett. Residence: No. 80 North Sangamon Street. 24
BOSTON.
Matrimonial Causes; the Admiralty and the 8vo.
$7.50.
Court ofcompleted
Criminal set,
Appeal.
{Joseph).Commentaries on the Conflict
to 1370. 38 vols. 8vo. Half ofStory
Laws. Seventh edition, revised and enlarged
AddieotCs Law of Torts.Prepared for use in the lawThe
calf,
82-J4.75.
by
E.
H.
Bennett. (In Press.)
LAWBOOKS! LAWBOOKS!
LawSchool of Harvard University. 12mo. Cloth
English Statutes (WW to 1870J. 6 vols. Half law Story (Jvseph).Commentaries
on the Constitu
$3;American
sheep, $3.50.
calf,
$>8.75.
tion
o(
the
United
States.
Third
edition,
revised
Law liei'iew.-Vols. I. to V. Bound in English Law Reports (Digest). Svo. Half calf, by E. H. Bennett. 2 vols. Svo. $10.0u.
Law sheep, per vol., $6. (Published quarterly ; $lo.oo.
Story (Joseph).Commentary on Equity Juris
subscription price $5 per annum, payable in ad
English Reports (Digest).A Digest of the de prudence.
Tenth edition, carefully revised, with
vance; single numbers, $1.26.)
cisions
of
the
Courts
of
England,
contained
in
extensive
by Hon. I. F. Redtield. n
Wm. Gould & Sons,
Angell (Joseph A'.).A Treatise on the Law
L codEnglish Law and Equity Reports, from the vols. BVOadditions,
$15.00.
cerning the Liabilities and Rights of ccoramoD the
first
volume
to
the
thirty-first
inclusive.
By
Story
{Josejih).Commentaries
on Equity Plead
carriers; fourth edition. 8vc; $7.50.
Chauncey
Smith,
Esq.
Second
edition.
8vo.
ings. Eighth edition, revised and enlarged by I.
Angel/, (Joseph K. ).A Treatise on the Limita
Redtield. Svo., $7.50.
BOOKSELLERS!
tions of Actions at Liw and Suits in Kquity and $5.50.
English Railway and Canal Cases, argued and F.Story
(Joseph.).Commentaries on the Law of LAW
Admiralty, with an Appendix containing the adjudged
in
the
Courts
of
Law
and
Equity,
from
Partnership.
edition, revised and enlarged
American and English Statutes of Limitations, 1835 to 1852. From the London edition. Edited by J. C. Gray, Sixth
AlND
Jr, Svo., $7.60.
and embracing the latest Acts on the subject; by Chauncey Smith and Samuel W. Bates, Esqs. Story (Joatph).Commentaries
on the Law of
fifth edition. Revised by J. W. May, Esq. 8vo; t> vols. Svo., $30.00.
Promissory
Notes,
and
Guaranties
of
Notes
and
(Simon).Treatise on the Law of Evi Checks on Banks and Bankers. Sixth edition,
PUBLISHERS.
Angcil (Jostph K.).A Treatise on the Law of Grcenleaf
3 vols. 8 vo. Twelfth edition, $22.50.
revised and enlarged by J. W. Perry. Svo., *7.50,
Water-courses; sixth edition, revised and very dence.
HeyCs
Commercial
Digest.Digest
of
the
United
Story
(\ViUtam
w.)A
Treatise
on
the
Law
of
OS STATE STHEET, ALBANY, N. X.,
much enlarged by Hon. J. C. Perkins. 8vo; $8.
relating to Revenue, Commerce,
oi Personal Property, with illustrations
Angcil (Joseph A'.), and Ames {Samuel).A Treat States statutes
and the Currency. Embracing alt the Sales
from
the
Foreign
Law.
Fourth
edition,
care
ise on the Law of Private Corporations Aggregate ; Navigation,
statutes now in force, chronologically arranged. fully revised and corrected by fcE. H. Bennett. Respectfully call the attention of the Legal Pro"
ninth
edition,
the sanction and auspices oi the
lessiou to their Lurge Stock of
$7.60(
Lathrop.
8vo; revised
$7.,r>0. and corrected by John Prepared und*'r
Department. By Lewia Heyl. Royal Svo.,
Taylor (John A'.)A Treatise on the American
Angell (Joseph K.), and Durfee ( Thomas). A Treasury
SVO.,
$10.00.
Law
of
Landlord
and
Tenant;
embracing
the
Treatise on the Law of Highways ; second edi
Hilliard (Francis).A Treatise on the Law of Statutory Provisions and Judicial Decisions of Rare and Valuable Works
tion, with notes and references by G. F. Choate. Mortgage
ul Kenl and Personal Property, being the several United Status in reference thereto,
&vo;
|6. and Hobbs.The Bankrupt Act of 1807 ; a General View of the Euglish and American Law with
a selection of precedents. Fifth edition. IN EVERY DEPARTMENT OP THE LAW,
Avery
upon
that
.subject.
(Fourth edition in preparation.) Svo., $7.50.
compared witli the Act of 1841, f he English Bank $15.00.
Unitea
Digest to 1S<39.Digest of the de
rupt Law, and the Insolvent Law of Massachu
Hilliard (Francis).A Treatise on Torts, being a cisions ofStates
the Courts of Common Law and Ad Comprising many tliousaud volumes, embracing
setts, with a digest of the Decisions of the Courts I comprehensive
summary
of
the
law
relating
to
miralty
in
the
United States. 29 vols. Royal
the most valuable
of the United States, the several States, and of Wrongs committed upon Real and Personal Prop Svo., $193.50.
England, with Forms of Proceeding. By Edward erty, upon the person, character, and all absolute Umted States Equity Digest., by J. P. Putnam;
Avery and George M. Hobbs. Svo; $4.5u.
the above, 2 vols. Royal Hvo., $13.00.
Bennett and Heard.Leading Crimioal cases. , and relative rights. Third edition. 2 vols. Svo., completing
United states statutes at La' ge.Laws of the TEXT BOOKS,
By E. K. Bennett and F. F. Heard, Esqrs. 2 vols. $15.00.
Hilliard (Francis). On the Law of Remedies United
States
of America, from the organization
Svo. Second edition; $15.
torts or Private Wrongs. 8vo., $7.50.
of the Government in 1789 to the present time.
BUhop (Joel P.).Commentaries on the Crimi forHilliard
{fr'rancis).Treatise
on
the
Law
of
Ven
Edited
by
Richard
Peters, George Minot, and
TREATISES,
nal Law. Fourth editiou, enlarged. 2 vols. 8vo; ders and Purchasers of Real Property. Second George P. Sanger. Published
by direction, and
$15.Bishop (Joel I*.).Commentaries on the law of edition. Svo.. $7.50.
under
the
patronage,
of
Congress.
Complete
to
Houck (Louis).A Treatise on the Law of Nav 1870, including Synoptical Index. 17 vols. Royal
DIGESTS, ETC.,
Marriage and Divorce. % vols. 8vo. Fourth edi igable
Rivers.
Svo., C.jReports
3.50.
Svo., $77.00.
tion,
enlarged;
$15.
Howard
(Benjamin
of
cases
argued
Walker
(
Timothy),Introduction
to
American
Bishop ({Joel
on Criminal
. Joi-' i*.).Commentaries
'"
in the Supreme Court of the United Law; designed as a First Book for Student*. Fifth BY THE BEST ENGLISH AND
Procedure, or the Law of Pleading, Evidence, and and adjudged
Vols. IV. to XL inclusive. 8vo. Per edition,
svo., $7.50.
Practice in criminal cases, ii vols. Svo. [Second States.
AMERICAN AUTHORS.
vol.,
$6,00.of Lords Cases on Appeals and Writs of Washburn (Emory).A. Treatise on the Law of
edition in press.]
House
Real
Property,
Bishop (Joel P.).The First Book of the Law; Error, Claims of Peerage, and Divorce. 184T-G. vols, svo,, $22.50. 'ihird edition. Enlarged to 3
AISO
A LAKGE COLLECTION OF
explaining the Nature, Sources, Books, and Prac 11 vols. 8VO.,$00.00.
(Emory).A Treatise on the Ameri
tical Appheatioos of Legal Science, and methods Kent (James).Commentaries on American canWashburn
Law of Easements and Servitudes. Second United States, State and English
of Studv and Practice. Svo; S^.
edition, edited and revised by edition,
svo., $7.50.
Black'tvell iR. A'.).A Practical Treatise on the Law. C.Eleventh
F. Comstock. 4 vols. 8vo.( $20.00.
Washburn
(Em ory).Lectures on the Study
Power to sell Land for the Non-payment of Taxes Hon.
Kerr
on
Injunctions.A
Treatise
on
the
Law
and
and
Practice
of the Law. Crown Svo. Cloth
assessed thereon. Third edition, enlarged. 8vo; Practice of Injunctions in Equity. By W. W. $2.00,
REPORTS,
$7.60.
Kerr.
With
extensive
notes
and
additions
from
Browne (Caueten).A Treatise on the Construc
For Sale by E. B. MYERS, and CALLAGHAN A
cases by W. A. Herrick. 8vo., $7.50.
tion of the Statute of Frauds, as in force in Eng American
Massachusetts Reports.Reports of cases in the COCKCROFT.
we offer at lowest prices for cash or ap
,
3-4, Which
land and the United States; with an Appendix upreme
proved credit. Lawyers ol Chicago who have lost
Court of Massachusetts. 90
containing the existing English and Americar vols. 8vo.,Judicial
their
Libraries
by the recent lire, will do well to
401.00.
Statutes. Third edition. 8vo. $7.50.
correspond with us beloru purchasing elsewhere.
Comprising;
Circuit Court Reports.First Circuit. 19 vols. Massachusetts Reports,
LAW BOOKS.
Catalogues
furnished
on application. Addreas
17
vols.
Svo
S
59.50
8vo.
Comprising:
Pickering's
"
24 vols. "
132.00 Statutes of Illinois, 1871.Complete to date, in
GallisonTs
Reports. 2 vols. 8vo.
Metcalfs
"
13
vols.
"
71.50
Mason's Reports. 5 vols. 8vo. Vol. I. out of Cushing's
cluding the Constitution of 1870, the General WILLIAM GOULD & SONS,
"
12 vols. "
66.00 Acts
print. Vol. II. to V.,$24.
First and Second Sessions of 1871,
Gray's
"
16 vols. "
88.00 and allofinthe1 vol;
Sumner's Reports. 3 vols. 8vo.
Allen's
"
8 vols. "
44.00 Index to Laws,$10.Public and Private.Including
Ptory's Reports. 3 vols. 8vo.
Law Publishers,
Woodbury and Minot's Report. 3 vols. 8vo. Massachusetts Digest. -Being a Digest
act not printed in the statutes, and there
of the every
J
fore
a
supplement
thereto;
$3.
$18.Curtis's Report*.

Judicial
Court
ofMasdecisions
of
the
Supreme
J
2 vols. 8vo. $12.
Townsnip Organization New and cheapedition, 68 STATE ST., - - ALBANY, N. Y.
By E. 11. Bennett and F. F. Heard containing
Clifford's Reports. Vol. I. and II. 8vo. Per sachusetts.
alse the Law of Elections, fcf-trays and
(Vol. Ill, in press.) Royal 8vo., $15.00.
Vfynnccticut DigestA Digest of all the reported 2 vols.
Roads.
Complete to date, including acts of 1871.
May (John W.)On the Law of Insurance as ap Well bound
CHARLES J. BISHOP.
in boards; 75 cts,
plicable
to
Fire,
Life,
Accident,
and
other
risks
Successor to J. Freeman bilke, Professional
cases decided in the Superior Court and Su not maritime. (In press).
Statutes at Large.A reprint, in full, of all the Accountant
and
Expert Bookkeeper, is now at
preme Court of Errors of the State of Connecti
laws of Illinois. Carefully annotated, 122 West Washington
Morse on Banks and Banking.A Treatise on the early
Street. Books opened, in
cut and in the United States Courts tor the Dis Law
the connection and dependence of the vestigated, or balanced;
of Banks and Banking, with an appendix, showing
Partnership accounts ad
trict of Connecticut. By Simeon E. Baldwin, of containing
acts. Beginning with 1787. Vol. 1 in justed, etc. Otnce established
the National Banking Act, with de successive
lour years, and
he New Haven County Bar. 8vo. Sheep, $10.
press,
Ac. By John T. Morse, Jr. 8vo.. 86.00.
Cooley (Thomas H.).A Treatise on the Constitu cisions,
can
refer
to
numerous
leading. law, and ottier
Parsons (Theophilus.)The Law of Contracts. Session Laws and Revisions.A complete set of firms. Books and papers
restored,
Abstract
tional Limitations upon Legislative Power In the Fifth
all the Public Laws of Illinois from 1819; original copied. Copying of all kinds by competent
edition, carefully revised and considerably State
as
several States of the American Union. Second
editions, revisions and special sessions in
3 vols. 8vo., $22.50.
edition, with considerable additions, giving the enlarged.
Three vols, in paper; the rest in the best sistants.
Parsons (Theophilus],Treatise on the Law of cluded.
results of the recent cases. Svo. $7.50.
of original bindings. If desired, the compila
Second edition. 8vo., $7.50.
Orockers1 Notes on the General Statutes of Massa Partnership.
of Gale, Purple, Scutes, Gross, 1808 and
(Theophilus).The Elements of Mercan tions
chusetts. By Uriel H. Crocker and George G. tile/'arson*
Scale of Advertising: Bates.
1871, and Purple's Real Estate Statutes, also
Law.
Second
edition,
carefully
revised
and
Crocker.
8vo. $6.T.).Equity Precedents.
, 4 Sup
a
furnished. Text perfect.
considerably enlarged. vo., $7.50.
Curtis (George
3 w. 1 m. 3 m.
Space, i 1 w.
Attorneys1
Docket.Cheapest
and
best
issued,
Parsons
(Theophilus).A
Treatise
on
the
Law
of
plementary to Story's Equity Pleading. Fourth Shipping and Admiralty. 2 vols. 8vo. $15.00.
200
pages,
$3;
larger
sizes
in
proportion,
With
$15 50
$2750
8JV75
S3T2T.
Si.oo
1
sq....
edition.
8vo. $7.50.
Parsons ( Theophilus).The Laws of Business for handy files or envelops to match.
Curtis (George
T.).Treatise on the Law of Pa Business
of 1871First and Second Sessions, paper, 2 aq-.-- 2Tou 3.50 ~4i75i U.OU lfl.70 30.00
Men in all the Stales of the Union. 8vo. 75Acts
tents for Useful Inventions in the United States Cloth,
cts.
23.01;
5.01) "oTio
$3.00: sheep, $3.50.
of America, and Remedies for their Infringement. Pnrsons
Criminal Code.A Digest of Statutes and De 3\jsq.^(Theophilus).A Treatise on Maritime cisions,
~9.UI)
Third edition, with many additions. 8vo. $7.50. Law, including
7.00 9.50
col.
with
numerous
forms;
law
sheep,
$1.50.
therein
the
Law
of
Shipping,
the
Curtis (Judge B. R.).Unitod States Circuit Law of Insurance, and the Law and Practice of Organic L,aws of Illinois.Paper, 35 els.
17.25
22.00
7.00
Court Report's. First Circuit; 1851-56. 2 vols. 8vo. Admiralty. 2 vols. 8vo. $15.00.
***Where the remittance accompanies the'or- 1 col I 12.00 22.0U| 31.00
210.00
$12-Curtis (Judge B. R.).United States Supreme Perry (J. W).A Treatise on Trusts and der,
we will send aoy of th-? above, CHARGES Ten lines of Nonpareil, solid,KI8.00|
make a Square.
PAID,
to any express office in Illinois.
Svo. (In Press.)
Advertisemeuts
must
he
paid
for
Court decisions ; comprising the 58 volumes of Trustees.
L. 4 W. L, GROSS, Spr'ngne'd- and when not bo paid. 60 per cent, will)n.beallvf"^r
(William Henry).A Practioal Treatise on For sale byE.Callaghan
cases reported by Dallas, Cranch.Wheaton, Peters, Rawle
& Cockcroft, Chicago ; Legal Notices not included in the above. aaaea,
Law of Covenants for Title. Fourth edition. | Soule,
and Howard. With notes and a Digest. Fifth the
Thomas
&
Winsor,
St.
Louis.
(Inpreparation.)
edition. 22 vols. 8vo. $110.

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
ARTIN A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D.,
554 Wabash Arenae.
M
KING A WILLARD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
178 West Madison 8t., late of 117 9. Clark St
F. WHTTEHOUSE, 188 W. Madison Street,
2*
w late Tribune Building.
THOMAS 8. McCLELLAND, Attorney and
Counselor at Law, 172 West Washington St.

QhicagoJegal^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year I871 , by the Chicago Legal Niws Company, in the office of the Librarian 01 Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 5.

he Courts.
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed Oootober 5, 1871.
Henry W. Kingsbury et al. v. Ambrose Burnside et al., aud Mary J. Buckner etal. v. Henry
Kingsbury et al.
Appeal from Cook County.
1. Delivery of deedAssent of grantee neces
sary.A deed executed and acknowledged In the
absence and without the knowledge or assent of
the grantee and sent by the grantors to a stranger,
not authorized to receive it, and filed by him for
record in pursuance of the direction of the grant
ors, but not otherwise placed in the possession of
the grantee, is not operative, and such acts do not
constitute a delivery of the deed. Information
by one of the grantors given to the grantee some
three months later, and a verbal assent then given
by the grantee, followed by a recognition of the
deed afterwards completed the delivery, and gave
effect to the deed from the time of such assent.
2. An express trust which must be proved by
writing.A wife joined by her husband made an
absolute deed of an undivided half of certain
real estate to her brother, who owned the other
undivided half, without the knowledge or con
sent of the grantee. Subsequently the husband
stated to the brother, " By the way, the property
of your sister has been deeded to you, and 1 want
you to look after her interests, and see that she
has her property," to which the brother replied,
" That was all right," or " very well," or words to
that effect. This created a trust In favor of the
wife by an express agreement, which must be
manifested and proved by evidence in writing,
signed by the grantee, and Is within the Statute of
Frauds. Trud may beproved by writings subsequent
to the creation of the trust. The Statute of Frauds
does not require that the trust be created or de
clared by writing, but that it be manifested and
proved by written evidence. Letters, memoranda
or other documents written after the creation of
the trust may be resorted to for proof.
3. What written evidence was sufficient.
A letter written by the grantee to his mother, in
which he says, " I spent all the morning with B
yesterday. He says, as I told you. that Simon
had made over the Chicago property that was
held in his name to me," and referring to
a power of attorney, which described the prop
erty of the wife, coupled with the fact that
only one deed had been made by Simon, and
in that the wife joined, and the deed described
the property vested in the wife as well as that in
Simon, the husband, is an admission that the
grantee held the land described in the deed in
Oust for the grantors.
4. A will signed by such grantee, although inef
fectual because of the birth of a posthumous
child, which devises certain propeKy designated
as " my property," and to the sister of the testator
certain property previously conveyed by the sister
and her husband to him, designated as " the Chi
cago property, held in my name." is evidence, con
nected with the surrounding circumstances, that
the real estate devised to the sister was held In
trust for her.
5. Recital of nominal consideration does not
ssror the grantor from proving trust.The
statement of a nominal consideration, in a deed
where a trust is alleged against a volunteer,will not
estop the grantor from proving the trust, and evi
dence that that there was no considerrtion will
be received.
6. Parol evidence admissible in certain
cases.Where there is any written evidence that
the person apparently entitled is not really so,
that will open the door for the admission of parol
proof to prove the trust, notwithstanding the
statute.
Mrs. Mary J. Buckner, nee Kingsbury,
and Henry W. Kingsbury, as the only
children of Major Julius J. B. Kingsbury,
inherited from him real estate in the
city of Chicago, now valued at $2,000,000.
On the loth day of May, 1861, Mrs. Buck
ner, joined by her husband, Gen. S. B.
Buckner, executed at Louisville, Ken
tucky, their place of residence, a deed
to her brother Henry W. Kingsbury,
conveying an undivided half of the es
tate, reciting therein a consideration of
one dollar and love and affection. The
deed was sent by Gen. Buckner to Chi
cago, where it was recorded. At the
time of this transaction the grantee was
in the army at Washington, and he nev
er heard of it until some three months
afterwards, when he was informed of the
conveyance by Gen. Buckner in Wash
ington, and requested to take care of his
sister's interest, and he promised to do
so. The deed was not made in pursu
ance of any agreement, and it was never
taken from the recorder's office.
In September, 1861, Henry had a con
versation with his mother, Mrs. Jane C.
Kingsbury, in which he stated that his
sister's property had been turned over
to him for safe keeping, and that it
would be restored to her. On the 23d
October, 1861, Henry wrote a letter to
his mother from Alexandria, Va., where
he was stationed in the army with Gen.
Ambrose E. Burnside, a friend of the

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER u, 1871.

Whole No. 163.

family and agent having control of this Mrs. Buckner and her husband, in which the grantee, yet such a contract may
property, in which she said : " I spent ' Mrs. B. claimed to be the owner of an be completed by the act and words of
all the morning with Burnside, yester i undivided half of the estate, and that the grantor alone without the assent of
day. He states, as I told you, that Simon j the deed of May 15, 1861, was a deed of j the grantee. Suppose it be one from
(Buckner) had made over all the Chica trust, and praying for a reconveyance which the grantee derives no benefit,
go property that was held in his name thereof. Henry W. Kingsbury, Eva but it subjects bind to a duty, the per
to me. A new power of attorney is there Lawrence, Albert G. Lawrence, and Jane formance of a trust ; can he be obligated
to the performance of such trust by the
fore necessary from you and myself. We C. Kingsbury, were made defendants.
made one out. I signed it. Burnside The three first-named answered and mere act of delivery and declaration of
will send it to you. 1 send you a copy denied substantially the averments of purpose by the grantor to an unauthor
for your own keeping and keep one my the bill, and set up the statute of frauds ized stranger ? I fit be said that such act
andwords may bind the grantor, though
self." The power of attornev referred to as a defense.
After the proof was taken, a decree perhaps not the grantee, then we have
was dated Oct. 22, 1861, executed by
Jane C. Kingsbury and Henry W. Kings was rendered pro forma in the circuit an instance of a contract where only one
bury to Ambrose E. Burnside, and au court, dismissing both bills without pre of the parties to it is bound, with
thorized him to transact and conduct the judice, and from this decree Henry W. out any condition to that effect contain
business of the Kingsbury estate of Chi Kingsbury took an appeal, and Mrs. ed in it, where the grantor is estopped
cago. In December, 1861, Henry mar Buckner and her husband also appealed. by deed, and the grantee not estopped.
These appeals were argued in the Su It must be that the rule under consider
ried Eva Taylor, a niece of ex-President
preme Court, and the following opinion ation can not be taken literally, but that
Taylor.
On the 25th March, 1862, Henry wrote has just been rendered.
the principle underlying it is after all as
a will with his own hand at Fortress
Goudy & Chandler represented Mrs. sent, presumptive, or actual, on the part
Monroe, Va., in which he first devised to and Gen. Buckner, and Beckwith, Ayer of the grantee; that he must take the
his mother twenty thousand dollars, or & Kales acted for Henry W. Kingsbury deed, and thus ratify the previous acts,
so much of my Chicago property as upon and Mrs. Lawrence.
or there exist circumstances or the deed
fair appraisal may be valued at that
is of such a nature that the assent will be
sum"; next, to his sister, " I leave so The opinion ofthe Court was delivered presumed in the absence of proof to the
much of the Chicago property held in my by Mc Allister J.
contrary. Suppose the stranger to whom
name as shall amount to one third of the
The first point which claims the con the delivery is made offer the deed to
Croperty in the city of Chicago, 111., left sideration of the court, is whether the the grantee," and this is his first knowl
y my father Julius J. B. Kingsbury, de deed from Buckner and wife to Hen edge ofit-has he no option ? may he not re
ceased "; next, to his cousin, " I leave ry W. Kingsbury, was ever so far legally fuse to accept it ? Would tender to the
my property in Waterbury, Conn."; and executed as to become operative. It was grantee and refusal be equivalent to ac
finally, to his wife, he left " the remain signed, sealed and acknowledged at ceptance ? But suppose the stranger
der of my property."
Kentucky, May 15th, 1861, in should not offer it, and the grantee, with
At the time of the conveyance of May Louisville,
the absence and without the knowledge out knowledge of or assent to it, should
15, 1861, the property described in it was or assent of Kingsbury, then sent to Chi diewould the property embraced go to
worth $500, and the other undivided
by Buckner to Mitchell, a stranger his heirs, charged, perhaps, with a trust?
half was worth a like sum. Neither Mrs. cago
to the transaction, not authorized by the There seem to be authorities which go
Buckner nor her brother ever owned grantee to receive it, but with the simple to this extent. Taw vs. Bury, 2 Dyer,
any other property, except some land in direction from Buckner to have it re 1676 ; Alford and Sea case, 2 Leon, 110
Waterbury, Conn., of the value of $7000. corded. It was placed on file on the 17th are of the class. Lord Coke, in Butler
The only deed ever made to Henry W. of May, and there remained until af vs. Baker (3 Coke, 261) makes an ex
Kingsbury was the one in question ; no ter the death ofKingsburyoccurring in planation of the doctrine thus : " If A
other deed to him could be found on re September, 1862. There is no evidence makes an obligation to B, and deliverstt
cord. This deed of May 15, 1861, was that Kingsbury ever had it in his pos to C to the use of B, this is the deed of
never taken from the recorder's office,
or ever saw it, but it is quite con A presently ; but if C offer it to B, then
and was never in the actual possession session
B may refuse in pais, and thereby the
clusive
the
other way.
of the grantee.
It is necessary to the validity of a obligation nfili lojse its force." (Taw's
General Ambrose E. Burnside was the deed that there be a grantee willing to case.) Kent, in speaking of Taw vs. Bury
agent of the heirs and widow, acting un accept it. It is a contract, a parting with and Alford and Sea's case, says : "It ap
der a power of attorney for several years property by the grantor and an acceptance pears difficult to sustain the law of these
before 1861, and continued so to act after thereof by the grantee." Jackson vs. cases, unless on the ground of the subse
the making of the deed, the same as be Bodle, 20 John's R, 184. In Jackson v. Dun- quent possession of the deed by the
fore that event, except that a new power lap,, 1 John's cases, 114, the court said : grantee, and its relation back. Lord
was executed in October, 1861, as men " It is essential to the legal operation of Coke, in Butler vs. Baker case (3 Coke,.
tioned in the letter of Henry.
that the grantee assents to receive 260), explains the point by admitting
The parol evidence showed conclusive ait.deed
It
cannot be imposed on him, and that B may refuse the deed in pais when
ly that the property described in the there can
be no delivery without accept offered, and then the obligation will lose
deed of May 15, 1861, was conveyed to ance." This
is expressly recognized its force." (4 Kent's Com. 455. Note 6.)
Henry in trust for his sister ; that he ad in Herbet vs. rule
Herbet,
Breese 278, where
This examination of the grounds upon
mitted the trust frequently afterwards, the court says : " It is also
held to be essen which a legal delivery rests, is made for
and on his death-bed used language im tial to the legal operation
of the deed the purpose of ascertaining when, if
plying that he was such trustee.
that the grantee assents to receive it, ever, and under what circumstances, the
Henry W. Kingsbury fell on the bat and there can be no delivery without ac deed
in question became operative.
tle-field of Antietam, September 17, 1862, ceptance." In this case the authorities
That a deed takes effect only from the
and his widow gave birth to a posthum are
quoted as establishing this general time of delivery, with a few exceptions
ous son, December 16, 1862, who is the doctrine
:
where the necessities of the case require
sole heir of his father.
" It may be delivered to the party him the application of the doctrine of rela
In September, 1865, the widow, Eva, self
to whom it is made, or to any oth tion, there can be no doubt. Was the
married Gen. Albert G. Lawrence, of er person by sufficient authority from act
of sending it to Mitchell a delivery ?
Rhode Island.
him." So far it is entirely consistent
was a stranger, and had no authority
The will was not presented for probate, with the principle of the rule above He
from the grantee to receive it. There
and remained in the control of the wid enunciated ; but it proceeds : " Or it may was
no declaration that it was delivered
ow of Henry until May, 1870, when it be delivered to a stranger, for and in be to him
for the grantee's use, nor was it
was placed in the possession of General half and to the use of him to whom it is delivered
as an escrow, but it was sent
Burnside, one of the executors, and by made without authoritybut if it be de merely to have
it filed for record.
him presented to the corporation court livered to a stranger without any such
He was, therefore, a medium through
of Alexandria, Virginia, where it was declaration, unless it be delivered as an which
it was to pass to the hands of the
admitted to probate. A copy, certified escrow, it seems that it is not a sufficient recorder.
The act was no more of a de
according to the laws of Illinois, was pre delivery."Citing Jackson vs. Phipps ; livery in the
legal sense than placing it
sented to the county court of Cook coun 12 John's, 419 ; 1 Shep., Touch, 57, 58 ; 2 in the lKissession
of the carrier to be
ty, July 11, 1870, and ordered to be re Black Com., 307 ; Viner's Ab., 27, 52. Ta conveyed from Louisville
to Chicago ;
corded.
ken literally, the latter branch of the
if Buckner had taken it himself to
On the 19th July, 1870, a bill in chan rule seems to be inconsistent with the than
recorder's office to be recorded. In
cery was filed in the name of Henry W. principle of that above enunciated, be the
vs. Herbet, supra, it was express
Kingsbury, a minor, by his next friend cause so taken it imports that where a Herbet
ly held, under the circumstances of that
Corydon Beekwith, against Ambrose E. deed is made to one without authority, case,
that the act of recording a deed can
Burnside, Mary J. Buckner, Simon B.
is delivered to a stranger for the use not amount to a delivery when there
Buckner, John J. D. Kingsbury, Jane C. and
him for whom it is so made with a de does not appear an assent or knowledge
Kingsbury, Eva Lawrence and Albert G. of
claration by the grantor to that effect, by the grantee of the act. There not
Lawrence, in the circuit court of Cook then
is a delivery which makes the only does not appear any assent or
county, praying that the proof of the deed there
operative, whether the grantee as knowledge on the part of Henry W.
will and record thereof in Cook county sent
or accept it or not. If this be so, Kingsbury, of the act of recording the
be set aside, and the complainant be de
therefore follows that, although a deed deed, but the want of both as clearly ap
clared to be the owner in fee ofthe whole it
be a contract, as was said by Spencer, pears as any fact in the case. On the
of the property.
J., in Jackson vs. Bodle, supra, 17th of May. therefore, when the deed
This bill was answered by all the de Chief
that is a parting with property by the was recorded, it was not so far legally
fendants, and a cross bill was filed by grantor,
and an acceptance thereof by j executed as to become operative. The

26
delivery of a deed is usually shown by
proving the fact of the grantee's having
had it in his possession, or by other cir
cumstances tending to the same conclu
sion. Jackson vs. Perkins, 2 Wend.,
308. In Chapel vs. Bull, 17 Mass., R.
212, the court says : " A deed delivered
at the Register's office in the absence of
the grantee, has been held with us to be
a good delivery to the grantee if he
afterwards assent and take the deed."
Harrison vs. Trustees, etc., 12 Mass. R.,
456.
" The delivery of a deed, duly execu
ted and acknowledged, to the register,
aided by a subsequent possession of the
deed by the grantee might be evidence
of a delivery to him." 2 Hil. on Real
Prop., 284 ; " citing Beers vs. Brown, 4
Conn., 247 ; Dawson vs. Dawson. Rice R.,
243. But here the delivery of it at the
Recorder's office is not aided by a sub
sequent possession of it by the grantee.
There is not only no evidence that he
ever had possession of it, or circum
stances as tending to the conclusion, but
it appears affirmatively that he never
had. The only evidence from which
assent to acceptance of the deed by the
grantee can be inferred, consists of the
conversation between him and Buckner,
in July, 1861, in Washington, and the
grantee's letter to his mother of the 23d
of October, 1861, referring to a previous
conversation between them, in August
or September, same year. Buckner re
lates the conversation thus: They (him
self and grantee) were walking on the
street near the President's house, talk
ing of the troubles in the country, when
Buckner remarked :
" By the way, the property of your
sister has been deeded to you, and I
want you to look after her interest and
see that she has her property." To
which Kingsbury replied, " that was all
right," or " very well," or words to that
effect. This was the only conversation
they ever had on the subject, and the
first time Kingsbury ever heard of the
deed. Subsequently, and in August or
September, 1861, the grantee visited his
mother in Old Lynne, Connecticut, and
she testifies that she asked him in re
gard to his sister's property, wheter it
had been turned over to him, and told
him that Simon (Buckner) had told her
so. He (grantee) replied : " that is so ;
but don't look concerned, it is only
turned over to me for safe keeping ; it
will be restored to her."
This shows that Henry W. Kingsbury
understood Buckner as meaning in and
by the remarks made in July, that his
wife's property had been deeded to the
former in trust for her use. Then, with
out any communication either by letter
or otherwise between him and his moth
er intervening, the conversation just
referred to, and the date of the letter of
the 23d of October, 1861, the grantee in
that letter, written and signed by him,
says to his mother : " I spent all the morn
ing with Burnside, yesterday. He states,
as I told you, that Simon had made over
the Chicago property that was held in his
name to me. A new power of attorney
is therefore necessary for you and my
self. We made one out. I signed it.
Burnside will send it to you. I send you
a copy for your own keeping, and keep
one for myself." The power of attorney
so referred to is as much a part of the let
ter for all legal purposes, as if it had been
copied at length into it, and tends to ex
plain what property was intended by
the statement that Simon had made over
to him the Chicago property that was
held in his name.
The power of attorney is to Ambrose
E. Burnside, appointing him attorney
" to transact and conduct the business of
the Kingsbury estate at Chicago," etc.
The deed'of the 15thof May, 1861, was the
only conveyance to Henry W. Kings
bury to which Simon B. Buckner was a
party, and was the only one to him from
any "source, and from the intrinsic facts
and circumstances in evidence, especially
the fact that there had been at the time
of writing the letter no occasion upon
which he had told his mother anything
about the property having been made or
turned over to him, except that above
referred to upon his recent visit to his
mother at Old Lynne. We must hold
that the letter points unerringly to that
conclusion ; the effect of which in an
other aspect, will be considered here
after. We are now attempting a solu
tion of the question of the delivery of
the deed.
The evidence bearing most directly

Chicago Legal news.

upon that point is the brief but direct
conversation between the grantee and
Buckner in July at Washington. The
othejr subsequent acts and declarations
of Kingsbury are viweed in this conue'ctTOTl simply as showing his under
standing of the position hehad assumed
in regard to his sister's property.
There can be no doubt that up to the
time of Buckner and the grantee meet
ing in July the deed had not become
operative. Although the grantors had
parted with the personal possession of
it, by leaving it with the Recorder, still
they could at any time have reclaimed
and canceled it with no other effect than
that, perhaps, of casting a cloud upon
their title by its being recorded. The
question to which we are directly
brought is, therefore, whether, while the
deed was so in the hands of the Re
corder, it was competent for the parties
to effectuate a delivery and make the
deed operative by mere words alone,
without any manual or personal posses
sion of the deed by the grantee or a pre
viously authorized agent ?
By the old rule delivery was said to
be either actual by doing something
and saying nothing, or else verbal by
saying something and doing nothing, or
it may be both ; but by one of these
it must be made, for otherwise, though it
may be never so well sealed and written,
yet is the deed of no force." Herbert
vs. Herbert, mpra. Bryan vs. Walsh, 2
Gil., M., 557. Bennett et al. vs. Waller et
al, 23 111., 97. If a grantor, with or with
out any previous arrangement with the
grantee, sign, seal and acknowledge a
deed, place it in the hands of the regis
ter to be recorded, notify the grantee of
the act, and he assent to receive it, by
wordsonly, this would be a good delivery,
though the grantee die before taking it
into his actual possession ; because the
assent is the principal element, and
taking the deed into possession is not
indispensable, but only evidence of as
sent and acceptance. We think, there
fore, that when Buckner notified Kings
bury, in July, of the making of the deed,
the'latter, by his reply, assented to re
ceive it ; and that this view is confirmed
by his subsequent acts and declarations.
The deed, then, for the first time became
operative. But by the very words which
made it operative, was created a trust
by contract, which, if manifested and
proved by some writing signed by the
grantee as required by the statute, of
frauds, iB valid. This conclusion dis
poses of the question of resulting trust
in this case so strenuously insisted upon
in argument. When there is an express
trust there can be no foundation for an
implied or resulting trust. Whether the
declaration of such trust was manifested
and proved by some writing signed by
the grantee, within the meaning of that
statute, is the question which now de
mands our consideration.
This statute was passed in 1827. It
was in this respect borrowed from and is
but a copy of the English statute of 20
Car. 2, which had been in force in the
mother country since 1677, and received
a construction by the courts of that coun
try long anterior to its adoption here,
from which we must presume that it was
adopted with the construction so given
it, or else the language would have been
changed. The fourth section of the Eng
lish statute, as to certain contracts, re
quired the agreement itself to be in writ
ing, signed ; Wain vs. Warlters, 5 East.
10 ; whereas the seventh section, respect
ing trusts, is worded very differently, and
only requires that all declarations or
creations of trust should be manifested
and proved by some writing signed by
the party. Upon the strength of this
peculiarity in the wording of the clause,
it was held that letters and other written
documents, though long posterior in date
to the transaction itself^ would have an
operation equivalent to that of a formal
and coeval declaration of trust. In Forster vs. Hale, decided by the Master of
the Rolls in 1798 (3 Ves. Jun. 696), and by
Lord Chancellor Loughborough in 1800
(5 Vesey, 308), the Chancellor entirelyagreed with the Master of the Rolls in
adopting the letter as a clear declaration
of trust, by which he said he meant clear
evidence in writing that there was such
a trust. It is not necessary, continued
his lordship, that it should be a declara
tion, but a writing signed by the party
maybe evidence of a trust admitted in
that writing. Nor was it necessary to
produce an instrument expressly framed
for the purpose of acknowledging the

trust ; it is fully sufficient if the recogni

tion or admission of it is incidentally
made in the course of a correspondence.
But when letters are to manifest a trust,
there must be a clear demonstration that
they relate to the subject. And it ap
pears from Forster vs. Hale, as well as
from the cases of Tawney vs. Crowther,
3 Bro. Ch. R., 161, 318, and O'Hara vs.
O'Neil, 7 Bro. P. O, 39, that if the letters
afford evidence of the existence of a
trust, the terms may be supplied aliunde.
Roberts on Frauds, 101-102.
"The principal point to be noted is
that trusts are not necessary to be de
clared in writing, but only to be 'mani
fested and proved by writing ; for, if there
be written evidence of the existence of
such a trust, the danger of parol declara
tions, against which the statute is direct
ed, is effectually removed." Lewin on
Trust*, 63, citing Forster vs. Hale, supra.
" Where there is any written evidence
showing that the person apparently en
titled is not really so, parol evidence may
be admitted to show the trust under which
he actually holds the estate." Brown on
Frauds, p. 110, sec. Ill, citing Cripps vs.
Gee, 4 Bro. Ch. R., 472 ; Hutclion vs. Lee,
1 Atk., 447. To the same effect, 2 Suj. on
Vend., 7th Am. ed., 911 ; Hill on Trus
tees, 62. A great number of cases were
cited at bar, varying in facts and circum
stances, though tending, perhaps, to es
tablish the same rules of construction, or
define the kind and degree of evidence
which will satisfy the requirements of
the statute. To cite and review them
all would be a needless task, as the gen
eral conclusions arrived atare well stated
in the elementary works referred to and
others of equal authority. Every case,
after all, must depend upon its own cir
cumstances, and we must decide this
case, not upon some particular feature
of resemblance to this or that reported
case, but upon the strength of its own
undisputed facte ; -the circumstances by
which the transactions were surrounded,
and the application of those general
principles by which courts of equity
are governed in the exercise of a jurisdic
tion which reaches to the essence of
things, regardless of forms, which probes
the conscience and compels it to respond
to the duties of every trust legally es
tablished, as from its own promptings it
would be inclined to do if left undis
turbed by those passions to which hu
man nature is unhappily too prone.
We have seen that the trust is not
necessarily to be declared in writing,
but only to be manifested and proved by
writing, and if there be written evi
dence of the existence of the trust, the
danger of parol declarations against
which the statute was directed is effect
ually removed. Lewin on Trusts, ubi
supra. Is there in this case written evi
dence of the existence of a trust ? There
are but two items of that tendencythe
letter and the will. The circumstance
that the letter was written by the gran
tee' to his mother and not to the person
claiming to be the cestui que trust is not
material. The letter is somewhat am
biguous in language, but it is clear that it
relates to the subject. The grantee says :
" I spent all the morning with Burnside,
yesterday. He states, as I told you, that
Simon had made over the Chicago prop
erty that was held in his name to me."
The words " had made over " might
mean as a donation, as a mortgage, or as
passing a nominal title for the use of the
grantor. It appears as an extrinsic fact
that at the date of the deed Buckner held
the nominal legal title for the use of the
heirs, to some seventy-five feet fronting
upon the Chicago river, which had been
thus conveyed to him by his father-inlaw, and it was claimed in argument that
the letter simply referred to that par
cel. It is conceded that the language
of the letter standing alone would
limit the reference to that parcel.
The person referred to as " Simon" un
doubtedly means Simon B. Buckner.
The words " had made over " had refer
ence to some conveyance. The writer
must, therefore, have intended by these
words the making of a deed covering
Chicago real estate, to which Buckner
was a party as grantor and himself as
grantee. As there never was any such
deed but that made by Buckner and his
wife to him of the date of May 15, 1861,
we must presume that that deed was the
one intended by the words " had made
over." That deed did in fact convey
the parcel to which Buckner held the
nominal title, but also all of Mrs. Buckner's interest in the property therein

described, which was all of her father's

estate in Chicago. The evident purpose
of this peculiar allusion to the matter in
the letter, with the reference to> some
thing which the writer had previously'
told her, was to admit the trust to her,
but in such terms as others might not
understand it. At that time Buckner
was in the military service of the socalled Confederate States, and his wife
within their military lines.
But there is another feature to the let
ter which must not be overlooked. Af
ter mentioning the fact that Burnside
had stated to him, as he had told his
mother, that Simon had made over the
Chicago property, etc., he says : "A new
power of attorney is, therefore, neces
sary for you and myself. We made one
out, and Burnside will send it to you._ I
send you a copy for your own keeping
and keep one myself." This power of
attorney was so referred to in the letter
as to incorporate it as part of the letter.
Upon examination it appears to relate
to the entire Kingsbury estate in Chi
cago. By it Burnside is appointed attor
ney to transact all of the business of the
estate, but restrained from disposing of
any part of it, except to negotiate loans
under certain restrictions, and from
making leases to extend beyond the
term of three years. Now, if we are to
assume that the letter had no reference
to any of the estate but the parcel of
land held in Buckner's name, then, from
the fact that the power of attorney gaTB
Burnside control of the entire property,
we must impute to himan old and con
fidential friend of the family, and a man
of high position and character, and to
Henry W. Kingsbury, the only brother
of Mrs. Buckner, upon the most affec
tionate and confidential terms with her
and her husbandthe wrongful and un
natural purpose of usurping control over
Mrs. Buckner's share in her father's es
tate. This we will not do ; because it is
a more reasonable construction of these
acts, and one far more just toward the
parties, to hold that reference was had
to the deed of May 15. That deed pur
ports to be a bargain and sale ; but, upon
the nominal consideration of one dol
lar. Upon the question of establishing
a trust against the title of a volunteer
which is not favored in equity, the
statement of a mere nominal pecuniary
consideration will not be allowed to af
fect the construction or operation of the
deed. Hill on Trustees, 107; top pag
ing. Young vs. Peasy, 2 Atk., 256. It
appears from the evidenceand is un
contradictedthat the grantee neither
paid nor became responsible to pay, by
any promise, express or implied, any
valuable consideration whatever for the
property conveyed.
Upon the question under considera
tion, the fact of the deed being made ex
parte, as appears was the case here, with
out communication with the donee, is a
circumstance to which much attention
will be paid. Hill on Trustees, 108. Ce
cil vs. Blucher, 2 Jac. and Walk. 573.
These facte and circumstances form legiti
mate ingredients of evidence in refer
ence to which, and the relative situation
of the parties, the letter should be con
strued. If the grantee had purchased
the property and felt the independence
of a purchaser, would he not have placed
himself in that character ? Would he
have used the unusual expression for such
a relative as that the grantor "had made
over to him" the property ? On the oth
er hand, did he regard the conveyance
as a donation to him ? Is it reasonable
to Buppose under all the relations exist
ing, that if he had received, or supposed
he had, a gift from his sister and her
husband of real estate of the known value
of half a million of dollars, he would im
mediately upon being satisfied of the
fact thus address his mother concerning
so munificent a gift without the slightest
manifestation of either surprise or grati
tude ? Such a thing is against all our
knowledge of human nature and experi
ence in the affairs of mankind. Why
should Mrs. Buckner desire or intend to
give away this vast fortune to her broth
er, who had sufficient already, and to
whom she was under no particular obli
gation, and retain for herself and her
own children only the pittance arising
from the Waterbury property, of the
value of less than $4,000 ? No explana
tion has been attempted, and none, weapprehend canhegiven. The circumstances
all conspire to show with irresistible
force that it was the intention of the par
ties at the time that Henry W. Kingsbury

Chicago

Legal News.

should take as trustee for one of the ing a trust, as required by the statute of
grantors, and not for his own benefit, frauds. In Virginia it has been decided
and the language of the letter is a fair that a letter containing a promise to
admission to that effect. It imports that make a deed of a tract of land, " accord
the writer was not the real owner of the ing to contract," is a sufficient memo
property. Then, as strengthening this randum under the statute of frauds, not
position, we refer to the only other item withstanding the terms of the contract
of written evidencethe will, and so far are not mentioned, provided the
as pertains to the present inquiry it is party claiming the conveyance can
immaterial whether that instrument was prove by the testimony of o'ne witness
valid and operative as a will or not. On the price which was agreed to be paid
the 25th of March, 1862, while Henry W. for the land. (Johnson vs. Ronalds,
Kingsbury wasat Fortress Monroe, in the Archer 4, Munf 77.)
The doctrine of this case seems to be
State of Virginia, temporarily; in a mili
tary capacity, he wrote and signed with contrary to the general rule of the Eng
his own hand a will. By the first clause lish courts. They having required, un
whereof he declared "That to my moth less under certain exceptional circum
er, Jane C. Kingsbury, I leave $20,000, or stances, that the reference be to some
SO much of my Chicago property as upon document in writing, though it has not
a fair appraisal may be valued at that been deemed indispensable that such
amount." By the second clause : " To writing be signed. Cliraen vs. Cooke, 1
my sister, Mary J. Buckner, I leave so Schr. Lef., 32; Hodges vs. Horsefall, 1
much of the Chicago property held in my Russ. and Myl., 116 ; Sanderson vs. Jack
name as shall amount to one-third of the son, 2 Bos. and Pull., 238, and the same
property in the city of Chicago left by rule as to a contract for the sale of land
my father, Julius J. B. Kingsbury, de was followed by Chancellor Kent in
ceased." By the third clause : " To my Parkhurst vs. Van Cortlandt, 1 John's,
cousin, John J. Kingsbury, I leave my | Ch. R. 274. Still it has been held that
property in Waterbury, Connecticut," > where reference has been made to
etc. By the last clause he declared : words by a will, the words may be
"The remainder of my property of every proved by parolnot for the purpose of
description I leave to my devoted wife, varying the terms of the will or adding
to its contents, but for the purpose of de
Eva," etc.
There is little doubt but the making scribing or defining what was meant,
the portion devised to his sister one third (Sanford vs. Raikes, 1 Meriville, 646),
instead of one-half, subject to his moth and in some cases of trusts imperfectly
er's right of dower, was the result of a expressed, parol evidence has been held
misapprehension arising from his youth admissible in explanation of the intent.
and inexperience and the manner in Thus, when a testator devised his es
which the income had been previously tate to his wife, " having a perfect confi
divided. But it will be perceived that dence that she will act up to those views
in the clause relating to the deviBe to his which I have communicated to her in
sister he uses the peculiar expression. the ultimate disposal of my property af
" so much of the Chicago property, held ter her decease, the wife afterward died
in my name," whereas, in the devise to intestate, and a bill was filed by his two
bis mother, " so much of my Chicago natural children for relief against his
property ;" to his cousin, " my property heirs and next of kin, and her heir and
in Waterbury," etc ; to his wife, the re administrator, alleging that the testator
at the time of making his will desired his
mainder of my property," etc
It is an undisputed fact that the only wife to give the whole of his estate after
Chicago property held in his name was her death to the plaintiffs, and that she
that conveyed by the deed of May 15th. promised to do so ; parol evidence was ad
Why this peculiararity of language if he mitted in proof of this allegation. 3
had not thereby reference to nis sister's Greenl, Evi., sec. 365, p. 370, referring
share thus conveyed ? And why say to Podmore vs. Gunning, 5 Simon R. 485,
"the Chicago property held in my name," S. C, 7 Simon, 644.
in that connection, unless in deference to
It is not necessary to this case, and we
the truth ? The expression excludes do not commit ourselves to the doctrine
every idea but that of a nominal title, of Podmore vs. Gunning, to the full ex
and is equivalent to saying : " Held by tent to which the learned author upon
me in trust." The deed ofMay 15th pur evidence has accepted it, because the
ports, as we have before said, to be a bar admission of parol evidence in that case
gain and sale. It is not clear, then, from may be consistently placed upon another
the letter and will, when viewed in the ground, viz. : that if a person obtains
light of surrounding circumstances, that property under a will upon a parol as
the agreement really made between the surance that he will dispose of it in a
parties was not that stated in the deed ? particular way, the court will regard his
We think it is, and that therefore there is attempt to keep the property, or dispose
written evidence of the existence of a of it otherwise, as a fraud, and not allow
trust a'nd the danger of parol declara him to set up the statute of frauds, when
tions, against which the statute was di a compliance with the statute would be
rected is effectually removed. " If there to give effect to the fraud which it was
is some written evidence inconsistent intended to prevent.
with the fact that the supposed purchas
From the oest investigation we have
er was the actual purchaser, further evi been able to give to the question, and
dence by parol is admissible to prove the the authorities which bear upon it, we
truth of the transaction :" 2 Sug. on Ven have arrived at the conclusion that inas
much as the written evidence clearly
dors, 7 Am. Ed., 911.
" When there is any written evidence establishes the existence of a trust, parol
that the person apparently entitled is evidence of the words referred to in the
not really so, that will open a door to the letter is admissible of discovering or de
admission of parol evidence to prove the fining what was meant by the letter, and
trust notwithstanding the statute." Hill as showing the truth of the transaction.
on Trustees, 62. The letter of the grantee To search for artificial rules, by which
makes reference to a particular parol de to exclude such evidence beyond the
claration, as there appears to have been just demands of the statutes of frauds,
but one occasion upon which he had be would be an attempted reversal of some
fore then made any declaration to his of the most favorite maxims of courts of
mother on the subject that will be re equity ; would be the exercise of astute
garded as the one intended. Ghortrud ness in the ways of defeating the plain
vs. Chick, 1 Adoleh Ellis, 57. The de intention of the parties, and aiding the
claration was made but a short time af consummation of a fraud. For when a
ter the conversation between him and trust is once established by legal evi
Buckner as to the fact and purposes of dence, equity regards every attempt of
the deed, the latter had visited his moth the trustee to appropriate the trust prop
er-in-law in Conenecticut, and had prob erty to himself, to the exclusion of the
ably told her about it. Then when rights of the cestui que trust, as a fraud
Hensy visited her, in August or Septem contemplated on the latter. The late
ber, it was natural that she would make Henry W. Kingsbury was, as this case
inquiries concerning it. She did. She shows, not only a trustee of the proper
inquired of him whether his sister's ty for his sister, but he was an honest
property had been turned over to him, trustee.
telling him that Simon had told her so. By the last act of his life, in this re
He replied, " That is so, but don't look spect, he designed to and did admit the
concerned ; it is only turned over to me existence of the trust, and endeavored
for safe keeping ; it will be restored to to execute it.
her." If there were no written evidence Immediately after his death his widow,
of the existence of a trust, and the let one of the defendants, in a letter to
ters were clear and unambiguous in their the mother of her deceased husband,
terms, we are inclined to think that un recognized and admitted the trust so far
der the doctrine of reference to words as she was concerned in the most ex
parol evidence would not be competent press terms, and seemed distressed at
for the purpose of manifesting and prov the suggestion of any obstacle to its im

27

The company took possession of 50 feet

of said Main street, made an excavation
in same about twenty feet deep and ele
vated the grade of Main street ten feet
where it intersects with Fourth street,
and opposite Capps' corner, so that the
mud and water were turned inonCapp's
premises.
The company have had exclusive pos
session of the fifty feet on Main street,
and is operating in same for railroad pur
poses. Between the railroad and the
sidewalk a public road of only about
twenty feet is left. This is difficult and
dangerous to use by teams.
Wm. Capps brought suit against the
company in an action on the case for con
sequential damages to his property and
rights by reason of said exclusive appro
priation of said street, by said company,
alleging in substance that said exclusive
use was a destruction of the street and
invasion of his right to the free use of
said street, an injury to his property abut
ting on said street, and ruinous to his
business by preventing customers and
dealers from reaching his place of busi
ness as before. That said excavation
and railroad in said street was a nuisance
and unauthorized, etc.
Moulton & Chafec of Shelbyville,
brought suit and appeared for the plain
tiff. Hon. John Schofield and Judge
Vandaston appeared for the company.
The defendant's counsel plead, among
other things, the charter of the company
with the power before referedto, and the
ordinance of the town of Vandalia grant
ing the right of way in perpetuity to
company, and that the street was taken
in pursuance of said authority.
Counsel for plaintiff demurred to this
plea npon the ground that it afforded the
company no defense.
That public streets in a town were held
in trust for the use of the public ; that
all the citizens had the right to the free
use of the same ; that property owners
on streets had a vested right in them,
and that said streets were appurtenant
to and part of their proi>erty ; and that
there was no power any where under
the constitution to deprive the citizen
and property owner of their rights in the
streets without making full compensa
tion for all damages sustained, by reason
of taking said streets.
The ground taken by the defendant
was that the legislature and a town
could fence up or destroy a street, or
lease the same to the exclusive use of a
railroad company, without said railroad
company being liable to anybody for
anv consequential damage of any kind.
The demurrer was fully discussed, the
authorities reviewed and considered.
The court sustained the demurrer, and
held the plea no protection to the com
pany, adopting substantially the views
POWER OF THE LEOISLATVRE TO presented by the plaintiff's counsel.
GRANT THE USE OF STREETS
The cause was tried by jury, and a ver
TO R. R. COMPANIES.
dict for plaintiff for $10,000 damages.
The principal grounds upon which
Can the legislature legally authorize
the exclusive use of a public street in a damages were claimed were, that by the
of the street the real estate
town or city without making just com destruction
on said street was greatly lessened in
pensation to property owners on the value, and ruined as a business place ;
street, who sustain injury by reason of that the business of the plaintiff had
been greatly injured, the obstruction
such exclusive use ?
people from trading with
A very interesting case involving this preventing
nim as before.
question, was tried at the last term, 1871
The case of Chapman et al. v. Kirby,
Fayette Circuit Court, before Judge Gal 49 111., 212, among others, was relied
lagher and a jury. A short account may upon as giving the true ground for dam
ages.
be interesting to your readers.
Our Supreme Court don't seem to have
The legislature chartered the St. Lou decided the precise question involved in
is, Vandalia and Terre Haute Railroad this case, t.e.,damages for the exclusive ap
Company, and the act, among other propriation of a street by an individual
corporation.
things, provided that cities and towns or The
Supreme Court of Indiana, in
might donate or lease public streets to said several cases, have discussed and de
company, in perpetuity, except at option cided the question in accordance with
the views of the plaintiff. 7 Ind., 38,
of the company.
479, 485 ; 9 Ind., 467; 12 Ind., 451, and
Under this authority the town of Van other cases.
dalia, by ordinance, granted said compa
The Supreme Court of Ohio have de
ny the exclusive use of fifty feet of Main cided the same way.
There is a case in 53 Barbour (N. Y.),
street in perpetuity, with right to exca The
People ex rel. Failing v. Com'rs,
vate, embank, etc., leaving in said Main etc., Town of Palatine, that involves
street thirty feet for a public road in the same principle, and is decided the
same way.
cluding sidewalk.
There "is probably but few, if any, well
Main street is one of the principal considered
cases that squarely support
streets in the town, eighty feet wide, is the principle contended for by the de
on the north side of the public square, fendant. The right to operate a railroad
and lias been used as a public street over upon a public street in common with the
fifty years.
rights of others may be conceded ; but
Ebenezer Capps owned 213 feet front this is a very different thing than the
on said street opposite the public square, right to the exclusive use of the street
and had done business there as a mer by a corporation.
chant, for more than twenty-five years.
The case goes to the 8upreme Court.

mediate execution. Though her rela

tions in life and to the cestui que trust
became afterwards changed by another
marriage, yet it is incredible that if she
had been cognizant of the efforts which
have been made to conceal the most im
portant item of evidence of her former
husband's relation to this vast property,
and to wrest it from its proper channel,
she can view them otherwise than
with feelings of sorrow and regret. Her
conduct lias been the subject of severe
criticism by counsel, but we are inclined
to believe that she, like the unconscious
infant whose name appears as plaintiff in
the original bill, is but the involuntary
instrument in the hands of designing
men who stand in no such relation to
the memory of the deceased trustee as
does Eva Lawrence.
The trust being sufficiently manifested
and proved by waitings signed by the
party who was by law enabled to declare
it, it must be executed.
This conclusion renders unnecessary
any discussion of the question made by
appellant in the cross-bill as to the suf
ficiency of the acknowledgement of the
deed by Mary J. Buckner, or of the
question made by appellant in the origi
nal bill as to the execution and probate
of the will. Because if properly execu
ted and admitted to probate, the will
would be governed by the laws of this
State, where the property is situated, and
the posthumous birth of the infant,
Henry W. Kingsbury, would, by those
laws, operate as an abatement of all de
vises of property so situated. Gross
Stat., p. 800, sec. 16 Wills. Besides, the
testator was incapable of divesting the
property held in his name for the use of
Mary J. Buckner by any devise he could
make.
The decree of the court below dis
missing both bills without prejudice
must, therefore, be reversed, and the
causes remanded, with directions to that
court to dismiss the original bill abso
lutely, and to grant the relief prayed in
the cross-bill, liy a decree establishing
the equitable title in Mary J. Buckner
to her proper share in all the real estate
described in the deed of May 15, 1861,
declaring the trust and requiring the
proper conveyance of the legal title to
her, divested of any life estate in her
husband (he having renounced the
same), and of all right of dower in Eva
Lawrence. That an account be taken
between said Mary J. Buckner and all
other parties interested in the estate of
Julius J. D. Kingsbury, deceased, accord
ing to the rules and practice of the Court
of Chancery in such cases, and it be de
creed accordingly.
Decree reversed and oauses reminded.

28

Chicago Legal News.

Chicago Legal News. to fill the vacancy occasioned by the thank God, it did. It is very evident,
election of the Hon. W. K. McAllister to from the following charge of Hon. E. S.
the Supreme bench. Judge Tree is the Williams, Chief Justice of the Circuit
youngest man upon the bench in this Court of this county, to the grand jury
county. He is a lawyer of fine attain in the Criminal Court on Thursday of
CHICAGO, NOVEMBER 11, 1871,
ments, of a high sense of honor, and this week, that he intends the commu
well-fitted
by nature to be a judge.
nication of Governor Palmer, in regard
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
to this case, shall have no influence with
The Chicago Legal News Company,
GOVERNOR PALMER vs. GENERAL the jury :
AT 115 MADISON STREET.
SHERIDAN.
Gentlemen : You are impaneled in an import
ant crisis in our affairs. The work of the lost
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
Governor Palmer in calling the Gen Grand
Jury, still incomplete, was terminated by
destroying angel who on swift wings sped
eral Assembly together in special ses that
Terms:
through our streets with fingers of flame, writing
Two Dollars per annum, in advance. Singlo cop sion, and recommending to them meas " Ichabod" upon our pride and joy. That which
sorrow to the innocent brought gladness
ies Ten Cents.
ures for the relief of our dear but un brought
to the guilty, for our prisons were unbarred, and
inmates, with but few exceptions, set at liber
fortunate city, performed his duty in a the
Nearly every case of crime which will be
The Legal News appears this week in manly, straight-forward manner, and is ty.
brought to your attention occurred at or since the
an entire new dress, printed upon its
tire.
The embers of our conflagration are yet hot.
to the thanks of our citizens, but Tottering
ruins stand all around us. Distress is
own type, in its own office. We have entitled
every
where
; though Chicago in its crisp bosom Is
we regret to say that His Excellency de
the Heaven-prompted charity of Chris
opened a printing office in which we are serves, as he is receiving, the severest receiving
tendom. Hut all are resolute though sad. Brave
prepared not only to print the Legal censure of the citizens of this city for his words are spoken and noble deeds are done by
those who suffer but will not complain. Smiles
News, but to do all kinds of book and
lighten the face while tears glisten in the eyes.
uncalled for and unwarrantable conduct Often
all is lost but manhood and its unconquera
job printing, and to give special atten
in attempting to dictate to the grand ble will. Some hearts are broken ; not a few arc
tion to the printing of lawyers' briefs, jury, and to have General Sheridan in rendered desperate by grief. Properly to discharge
your duties at such a time requires great wisdom.
abstracts, legal blanks, pamphlets, re
sentiment ought not to be shocked, nor pri
dicted for the part he took in protecting Public
vate griefs aggravated by needless aspersions of
ports and law books. To those favoring the city during our calamity. The Gov the
innocent, while the punishment of the guilty
us with their work we promise neatness, ernor does not realize our situation at should be made certain. By a cautious and wise
discharge of your duties, you will become the con
taste, accuracy and dispatch. To the the time General Sheridan came to our servators
of the interests of peace ofthe public, and
will perform a most important part in demonstrat
Chicago bar it is a sufficient guarantee relief. Twenty-six hundred acres in the ing
that true innocence shall not be unjustly ac
' that our promise will be fulfilled, to say most densely populated portion of our cused, nor guilt escape punishment. As I have
only an imperfect knowledge of the class of cases
that we have secured the services of
which will come before you, I can only charge
generally and not specifically. Many alleged
Thomas L. McIntosh, late head of the city, had been burnt over and not a sin you
will be brought to your attention. Dur
gle building left standing thereon. More larcenies
Book and Newspaper department of the than 150,000 people had been turned out ing the lire many houses and places of business
with
their
contents were abandoned by their oc
Lakeside Publishing and Printing Com of house and home, without a roof to cupants. The
opportunity was thus presented to
evil-disposed
persons to feloniously appropriate
pany, as Superintendent of our printing
property to their ownuse. Persons availing them
cover
them,
without
a
change
of
cloth
selves of such opportunities added inhumanity to
department. Orders may be left with
Property laden upon wagons, trucks and
Mr. Mcintosh at the printing office, 15 ing ; the fire department had worked for theft.
drays, to be carried to places of safety was feloni
diverted from its place of destination, and
North Jefferson street, or at the office days in trying to extinguish the flames, ously
appropriated by the bailee to his own use. Every*
so appropriating property was guilty of lar
of the Legal News, 115 West Madison and had become exhausted ; the water one
ceny. Some property, In the hurry and confusion,
works
had
burned
;
two-thirds
of
our
street.
came
by mistake into the possession of parties who
policemen had been burnt out, and were originally
did not intend to appropriate it, but af
terwards, knowing the owner, failed to inform him
looking
after
their
families,
the
remain
of such possession, or retained it as their own.
We call attention to the following
You will, in all these coses, inquire into what in
opinions, reported at length in this der had become worn out with constant tent
property was obtained or retained ; and if
watching, and were powerless to guard such the
intent was felonious, you will bring in a bill
issue :
of
indictment
against the offenders. In Home cathe city ; to add to the general confu
jroperty may have honestly come into the posDelivery ok Deed, Trusts How sion, the gas works in two-thirds of the ion
of, and been honestly retained by, parties
who, not knowing, or being unable to ascertain
Created and Proved.The opinion of city were rendered useless. Mayor Ma the
owner, have kept it subject to his order. If
the Supreme Court of this State, deliv son in his distress, with no one to exe there has been any attempted concealment of
property
belonging to another, such attempted
ered by McAllister, J., stating what is cute his commands or obey his orders, concealment
will go far to establish the felonious
of the possession. Cases of alleged arson
a sufficient delivery of a deed to give it with the Governor, the commander-in- intent
may be brought before you. Do not permit your
effect, and fully discussing the doctrine chief of the militia, asleep in Spring sense of present misfortune to cause you to rashly
the innocent with so black a crime ; neith
of expre&s and implied trusts, and stating field, more than two hundred miles charge
er let the cause of justice suffer by allowing any
person
guilty to escape. Some coses of homi
what evidence is sufficient to prove the away, called upon General Sheridan to cide youthus
will be called upon to investigate. If the
same. The property involved in this help him with the troops under his com killing was with malice aforethought, express or
implied, it was murder. If it is the unlawful kill
case is known as the " Kingsbury Es mand to preserve what little remained ing
of a person, without any mixture of delibera
tion whatever, it is manslaughter. Having deter
tate," and was worth, before the fire, at of our once-beautiful city, and protect mined
in the particular case, whether the crime
least $2,000,000. The victory won by | its homeless citizens from the thieves of murder or of manslaughter has been commit
ted,
you
ascertain who is the guilty party.
Mr. Goudy in this case is the greatest and vagabonds who were stealing the One may will
be guilty as a principal or as an accesso
ry.
"
An
accessory
he who stands by and aids,
legal victory ever achieved in the North little all they had saved from the flames abets and assists ; or,iswho
not being present, aid
west. Eminent attorneys had pro and threatening to burn the remainder ing or abetting, or assisting, hath advised and en
couraged
the
perpetration
of
the crime." " An ac
nounced the cause of his client hopeless. of the city. Ninety-nine out of every cessory after the fact, is a person
who, after full
that a crime has been committed, con
The fruits of this victory are one million hundred of the residents of Chicago knowledge
ceals it from the magistrate or harbors or protects
person charged with or found guilty of the
dollars worth of property.
thank General Sheridan from the bot the
crime." You should find no bill against any par
except upon the information of two ol your
Action to OrEN Account Stated tom of their hearts for the protection he ty
number who have a personal knowledge of the
Attorney's Fees.The opinion of the afforded them during the dark days suc fact they state, or upon the testimony of witnesses
sworn
examined in your presence.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin, settling ceeding the fire. It is an evil day when The and
Prosecuting Attorney and the courts are
your
advisers
upon questions of law, but upon
several questions of practice in actions theGovernorof a State assumes to dictate questions of fact
you are the sole and exclusive
brought to open accounts which have to a grand jury who they shall indict. judges. Neither the Prosecuting Attorney nor the
Court
have
a
right
to instruct you whom you
been stated by the parties, and also con The killing of Colonel Grosvenorwasan should indict or whom
you should not indict.
furthest in this direction that either would
struing the statutes of that State in re unfortunate affair, and we have no doubt The
have a right to go would be to advise you what
lation to the amount of attorney's fees General Sheridan deplores it as much as facts, If established by the evidence, would war
you to find a bill ; in what cases the bill
that may be taxed as costs against the Governor Palmer. It is very evident rant
might be ignored because of defect of proof. It
would
dangerous to private rights and an inva
unsuccessful party. This opinion will that it was an afterthought with Gov sion of be
your prerogatives if ever this court should
advise you whom you should indict. And if this
be of unusual interest to the Wisconsin ernor Palmer to treat General Sheridan court
may not do it, far less may any person who
as " attempting to enforce usurped and does not
bar.
sustain to you official relations. As it is
duty to banish from your mind all passion
lawless authority," or he would never your
and prejudice, so also docs it behoove you to iso
Hon. John A. Jameson.The Hon. have sent him the following telegram, late yourselves from every influence without your
body. It is also the duty of the Court to see that,
John A. Jameson, who has presided in under date of October 11, two days after to
the extent of its power, you are freed from all
external
Should any one, not of your
the Superior Court of this county for the the fire, thanking him for his prompt body, seekpressure.
to influence you by written, printed or
verbal communications to any one of you, you
past six years, was re-elected at the ness :
will inform the court of such fact, that the offend
General P. Sheridan, Chicago :
election on Tuesday last by a very large Lieutenant
be dealt with for contempt. Neither will
Please inform me of the number of troops or er may
permit yourselves to be affected by any com
majority. Judge Jameson isa law writer dered into Chicago by you on account of the Are, you
munications
printed, or to be printed in, nor any
that are now on duty in the city.
editorials written or to be written for, any paper
of ability, the* author of " Jameson on andThanksfor
your promptnem.
published
here
elsewhere. More particularly
John M. Palmer. ought I to warn or
Constitutional Conventions," one of the
you against being influenced by
certain
letters,
published
in some if not all of our
When
the
city
and
the
State
failed
to
editors of the American Law Register for
city papers, purporting to have been written by
the Executive of this State to the Attorney Gener
many years, and a diligent, hard worker. protect the lives and property of the al
and to the District Attorney of this Circuit, ad
The people could not afford to lose the citizens of Chicago, which they did, and vising the indictment of certain persons named
therein. Purporting to be the letters of the Gov
benefit of his experience and valuable left them to the mercy of thieves and ernor,
and having been extensively circulated,
cut-throats flocking in from the great your respect for our honored Chief Magistrate
services at this time.
personally,
and for his official position, might
cities of the nation, it was the duty of lead you to attach
to them great weight. But they
should
not
exert any influence upon you what
Hon. Lambert Tree.The Hon. Lam the federal government to stretch forth ever. The Prosecuting
Attorney of this court in
bert Tree has been elected Circuit Judge its strong arm and protect them, which, forms me that he knew nothing of the letter said

to be addressed to him until he saw it published"

in the city papers. If it was written by the Gov
ernor, it was only a private letter to the District
Attorney, and should hare been in bis hands be
fore it was given to the papers. It would be in
consistent with the high reputation of our Chief
Magistrate for integrity and legal learning, to sup
pose that he designed to have those letters puolished in order to influence your action as a Grand
Jury. The possibility that such would be their
effect would be enough to deter him from giving
them to the public. You ought not to assume that
the respected Chief Magistrate of this State would
do an act highly indecorous and improper in any
individual, ana, above all, in one whose duties
are not Judicial.
Again I repeat that these letters could not have
been meant to influence vou, and your conduct
ought not in any respect to be in the least affect
ed Dy them.
From my knowledge of the care which has
been token in the selection of men of the strict
est integrity oud highest personal character upon
this panel, and from my personal acquaintance
with, and great esteem for, many of you, I am
satisfied that your duties will not only be dis
charged conscientiously, but that the cause of jus
tice will suffer nothing at your hands.
AID TO THE CHICAGO BAR.
A meeting of the Bar of Lee County
was held at Dixon, October 26, for the
purpose of taking action on the question
of aiding the Chicago Bar in re-estab
lishing the Law Library in that city.
Hon. W. W. Heaton was called to the
chair.
After a consideration of the matter,
Messrs. Wm. Barge, Jas. K. Edsall ana
B. H. Trusdell were appointed a com
mittee to report a plan for the contribu
ting to aid the Bar in Chicago in re
establishing a law library.
At an adjourned meeting held Nov. 1,
the committee presented the following
report :
The committee appointed on Friday
of last week, by this Bar, to report some
plan for the relief of our brethren in
Chicago, would respectfully recommend :
That all who feel disposed to aid them
should sign the accompanying subscrip
tion, and thereon designate the amount
they are willing to give for the purpose
therein expressed ; and that such sub
scription be then placed in the hands
of a committee of one, to be selected by
this meeting. That it shall be made the
duty of such committee to correspond
witn the Hon. John M. Wilson, of Chi
cago, and with such other persons or
committees engaged in this cause, as he
mayjdeem advisable.
That it shall be his duty to collect and
receive the amount of such subscription
and see that the same shall be applied
to the object for which it is given.
B. H. Trusdell, \
Wm. Barge,
\ Com.
Jas. K. Edsall, )
The above report was adopted, and
Hon. John V. Eustace was appointed
such committee, and has prepared the
subscription list, which is now in circu
lation and is being liberally signed.
M. H. Williams, Sec.
Dixon, HI., Nov. 4, 1871.
FROM PROFESSOR DWIGHT.
Columbia College Law School,
37 La Fayette Place.
New York, Not. 6th, 1871.
Mrs. Myra Bradwell :I have just
read the appeal of Judge Wilson to the
legal profession in this country, for the
contribution of law books to repair in
some degree the severe losses sustained
by the fire. While the Judge calls for
books, I suppose that he would not ex
clude gentlemen who have no books to
spare, from rendering aid to the good
cause. Allow therefore, this class (to
which I belong) to give money.
We raised a very considerable sum for
the law library of our Bar Association by
forming companies or associations of one
hundred members, which were some
what fancifully called "Centuries." The
condition of membership was that one
hundred dollars should be subscribed.
The membership had no other value than
the satisfaction of doing a useful work.
I am rejoiced to recommend this plan
to the profession in Illinois and else
where and to have the honor to enrol
my name as the first member in such a
"Century" or to subscribe $100 towards a
money fund of $1,000. I think no serv
ice can be rendered to Chicago or to the
cause of good order and even-handed jus
tice of more value at the present moment
than furnishing the city with a good law
library. We throughout the country who
have sustained no impoverishment ought
to be eager to promote so wise an effort
as your honored Judge Wilson has projjosed.
With much respect,
Yours very truly,
Theodore W. Dwioht.

Chicago

Legal News.

29

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT.

THE CHICA GO LAW INSTITUTE. the property of the stockholders, but as upon a the said third Monday of December, 1871.
depository of law books and legal literature for On all motions to restore or reinstate
Ottawa,
111., November 8.The list of
The annual meeting of the Institute the use of the whole bench and bar in the United causes under the foregoing notice, writ
was held on Monday afternoon of this States and from everywhere. Your librarian, for ten notice must be given to the oppo opinions filed in the office of the Clerk
of this Court, October 16, 1871, is as fol
week, in the ruins ofthe old courthouse. that reason, took the liberty of informing indi site party or his attorney.
vidually several friends of our Institute in the
lows:
We are glad to note the fact that Julius East
and West, informing them of the calamity
230 of 1870 docketCutler vs. Smith. Reversed
Rosenthal, Esq., who has been librarian that has befallen us, and asking their aid in re
and remanded.
RECENT PUBLICATIONS.
362 of 1870 docketCity of Aurora vs. Reed et al.
for many years, and filled the position establishing our library for our and their use.
Affirmed.
with credit to himself and to the great The following are some of the results :
Filed November 2 :
A
Treatise
on
the
Law
and
Practice
57 of 1870 docketJameson vs. Graham. Re
From David Murphy, Esq. of St. Louis : Text
advantage of the Institute and its mem books
of Injunctions in Equity. By Wm. versed and remanded.
and Statutes.
Filed November 4 :
Williamson Kerr, of Lincoln's Inn, 200
bers, was re-elected by the unanimous From D. B. Canfield and Co.. Phila. : 8200.
of 1870 docket Kelo et al. vs. Davis. Af
From Secy, of State of Illino is : Reports, Statutes, Barrister-at-Law. Edited, with Notes firmed.
vote of the 'institute. The services of and
Digests.
and
References
to'American
Cases,
by
48
of
1870 docketTherembury vs. Morse. Af
From
Judge
Wm.
D.
Kelley,
M.
C,
Phila.
:
350
Mr. Rosenthal have been invaluable to volumes. Reports and Text-books.
William A. Herrick. Boston: Little, firmed.
91
of
1870
the Law Institute, and it must be some From David Webster, Esq. Phila. : Text-books.
and Company. 1871. Sold by Affirmed. docketSame et al., vs. Van Nortvdck.
From Gov. of State of Maine, through the aid of I Brown
E. B. Myers, Law Bookseller, 1022 200 of 1870 docket Summers vs. Waugh. Re
satisfaction to him to know that they are Hon.
Lyman Trumbull : Maine Reports, Digests
versed and remanded.
Wabash avenue, Chicago.
and Statutes.
appreciated by its members.
300 of 1870 docketBabcock et al. vs. Lick. Af
From D. Dickinson, Esq., State Librarian, Kan
firmed.
This edition of Kerr on Injunctions is Term of 1871, filed November 4, 18715. People's
The old library bore abundant evidence sas : Kansas Reports and Statutes.
From
Hon.
Gustavus
Koemcr,
Belleville
:
Re
a reprint of the English edition, with docketRainforth vs. the People. Reversed and
of the good judgment of Mr. Rosenthal ports.
From Little, Brown and Co., Boston : 92 volumes Additions and Notes by Mr. Herrick. remanded.
in the selection of books. There were Mass.
9. People's docketWright vs. The People. Re
Reports and Digests.
and remanded.
but few better libraries in the United From State of Iowa, through D. L. Shorey, Esq. : The American editor says he has pre versed
L People's docket May vs. The People, Re
Reports, Digests and Statutes.
and remanded.
States. The books of the old library had Iowa
From Supreme Court, Indiana, through Hon. S. fixed to the chapters and sections of the versed
18. People's docketSeschocke vs. The People.
author a considerably minute analysis Reversed
not ceased burning before Mr. Rosenthal B. Gookins : Indiana Reports and Digests.
and remanded.
The
thanks
of
the
Institute
are
due
to
all
these
50.
docketBestor vs. Morse. Affirmed.
took steps to replace them, and informed generouB donors. Our thanks are also due to all of the same, and made such notes and 47. Civil
Civil docketStinger vs. Swaithout. Af
the principal law book houses in Eng those gentlemen, in the city and outside, who references to American cases as he firmed.
Civil docketMoody vs. Nelson. Reversed.
land and America, by telegraph, of their have taken the trouble upon themselves to solicit thought would serve to make the work 71.
94. Civil docketSilmeyer vs. Schaffer. Re
versed
and remanded.
donations
for
our
Library.
I
would
specially
men
more acceptable to American lawyers,
destruction.
Civil docketFitch vs. Trimmer. Affirmed.
the well-known publishing houses of T. and and that the English cases which have 86.
234. Civil docketWilker vs. Martin. Afilrmed.
Officers Elected.The following are tion
W. Johnson and Co. of Philadelphia ; Little,
197. Civil docket Liebroudt et al. vs. Myron
the officers elected for the ensuing year : J.Brown
No. 1. Affirmed.
and Co, Boston ; Stevens and Haynes, been reported since the publication of Lodge
342. Civil docket Brint vs. Kimball. Reversed
Elliot Anthony, president ; J. ASleep- London, and last, not least, the Chicago Legal the English edition are added to the and
remanded.
-er, first vice president ; D. L. Shorey, sec News and the Albany Law Joirnal. Judge original notes and are not distinguished 358. Civil docketYoung et al. vs. Schorling.
ond vice president ! Julius Rosenthal, li John M. Wilson's warm appeal and zealous efforts in from them. This is a valuable and thor Affirmed.
of the restoration ofour Library deserve our
brarian ; O. H. Horton treasurer ; behalf
particular acknowledgement It should be stated oughly scientific work of 736 pages, em
KIND WORDS FROM FRIENDS.
C. H. Sturges, secretary; S. W. Ful in connection herewith, that while David Murphy, bracing the whole subject of Injunctions,
FROM
BAKER, VOORHIS AND CO., LAW BOOK
Esq.,
of
St.
Louis,
was
the
first
one
whose
books
ler, Wm. C. Goudy, B. F. Ayer, H. N.
stating when and for what an injunction
SELLERS AND PUBLISHERS,
Hibbard, Thomas Hoyne, Robert T. Lin came in, Judge John M. Wilson, of this city, was will be issued. The first chapter treats
New Yobk, Nov. 4th, 1871.
the
first
one
who
announced
to
us
his
donation
of
coln, M. W. Fuller, J. V. Le Moyne, E. most valuable set of State Trials.
Myra BradwellDear Madam,We
of the nature and the limits of the juris
received your letter, and now that the
F. Runyan, directors.
In a conversation of the undersigned with Gov diction of a court of chancery. Among smoke
of your fire has cleared away
SEPORT OF JULIUS ROSENTHAL, LIBRARIAN. ernor Palmer, of this State, concerning the inter the most useful chapters we would men somewhat, we send our adv. wrhich please
To the President and Members of the Chica ests of the Institute, he kindly gave us permission to tion Injunctions Against Executors ; insert. Send us the bill and we will re
refer to him in our correspondence with Gover
go Law Institute :
mit.
While for years past the day of the annual meet nors and Secretaries of other States in regard to Between Partners ; Against Trustees ;
We were pleased to notice that the ter
Against the Publication of Manuscripts, rible
ing of the Law Institute was a day of rejoicing and whatever we should ask for.
fire did not put out your legal light.
pleasure for your Librarian, inasmuch as he was We must not, however, depend on those dona Letters, and other Unpublished Mat Your paper is a welcome visitor at our
enabled to inform you of the sound foundation tions alone for the purpose of restoring our Library. ters ; Between Mortgagor and Mort store.
Yours truly,
upon which our library was built up, and of the We must have a full working Library within a
Baker, Voorhis and Co.
rapidly increasing number of volumes of valuable reasonable time. Our success, heretofore, was gagee ; Against the Violation of Com
from the hon. clinton rice.
and important legal literature placed on our reached mainly by the sound financial basis up mon Law Rights ; Against Waste ;
Washington, D. C, Oct. 26th, 1871.
shelves, and of the great interest taken by our on which the affairs of the Institute were carried Against Trespass ; Against Corporations ;
No. 219 Delaware Ave.
members in the prosperity of the Institute, it is on. Our purchases for years were made for cash, To Restrain the Piracy of Trade-Marks.
with unspeakable grief that I come now before and we never overstepped our income. The same The appearance of this volume is very Mbs. Myra Bradwell, Editor of the Legal News,
Chicago.
you and report to you that the terrible calamity of must be done in future. An assessment of at least
the 8th and 9th of October has totally destroyed $25 per share for the ensuing year will be the low creditable to the publishers, and after
My Dear Madam :That you and
our law library of about 7,000 volumes, our cata est with which we can get along, and that should an examination of its contents, we have yours have all my sentimental sympathy
logues and my private indices. The Increase of be promptly paid in. Our first purchases should no hesitation in recommending it to the in your great and overwhelming disas
our library during the last year was about 600 be confined to filling up our Reports and Digests,
ter you must certainly feel. No human
volumes, among which were a full set of Privy and supplying the most important Text-books. profession. It will be particularly use being outside of Chicago can exist and
Council Reports, the English Jurist, about 130 vol By and by we may extend. Books should in fu ful to our Chicago attorneys, as a large not give forth that much. There is no
umes of celebrated criminal trials, many works on ture not be witheld by any member for one min portion of the litigation here for several propriety, therefore, in dwelling a mo
the civil law once belonging to the library of ute longer than is at all necessary, as there is no years to come will be on the equity side ment on that. Practical, unstinted sym
pathy is what meets the case now, and
Chancellor Kent, with his manuscript notes and private library of any account left in the city.
will be required for some time to come.
remarks, etc. The library was freely consulted It is, In my judgment, of the utmost importance of the courts.
I know what the element of fire is, when
and used by members of the bench and bar of the that complete sets of the Chicaoo Legal News
different States, the Canadas and Great Britain. should be obtained for the use of the Institute. Reports of Cases Argued and Deter as the besom of destruction it sweeps
mined in the Supreme Court of Ju away, as with a single stroke, the greater
The Judges of our own Supreme Court expressed This publication, alwayB held in high estimation,
dicature of the State of Indiana. part of a grand and beautiful cityblot
their repeated gratification at the completeness has derived an increased value in the present exi
With Tables of Cases and Principal ting it fairly from the sight. Three times
and richness of our collection. Not only all the gency, as its files contain a large number of legal
Matters. By James B. Black, Official have i" suffered from fire myself. But
groundworks of jurisprudence like Glanvllla, notices not otherwise to be found in a provable
Reporter. Vol. XXXIII. Contain my trifling troubles are not what I want
Bracton, Britton, Fleta, Fortescue, all Reports of form. Upon the bar of Chicago and the
ing those cases decided at the May to write about. I wish first to ask you if
Supreme and Inferior and United States Courts, all State it is needless to urge the desirability of pro
Term, 1870, not published in Vol. anything can be done by me here for
the Digests and most of the Statutes, all the text curing three or more of each of the volumes of
XXXII., and some of the cases de your Legal News ? *
*
* The
books of any note, (old and latest editions, Eng the News, and I trust that this mention of the
cided at the November Term, 1870. losses of Judge BradwelFs Probate Law
lish and American,) full sets of the House of subject will result in our obtaining them.
Indianapolis : Journal Co'y, Printers. manuscript and Probate Reports are ma
Lords Reports, all the other English and Irish Re In closing this short report, I add my fervent
1871.
terial. Wno.whOj indeed can ever restore
ports in original and excellent American reprints, wish that my successor may, at the end of his
with few exceptions, and English Digests, the de term, be in a position to render unto you a more
We have received from Col. Black a them, or indemnify the loss, in any re
partment on Bankruptcy completeall works in pleasing and encouraging report than I could do copy of this volume, and are much spect ? The more I read and hear about
the calamity the more terrible does it
the English tongue on the Civil Law, a good and at this time.
Jt'uus Rosenthal,
extended selection of works upon English and
Librarian Chicago Law Institute. pleased with its appearance. The Indi become. The effects of the wiping out
ana bar may well be proud of this Re of $350,000,000 at least of solid wealth
American Constitutional Law and of political Chicago, Nov. 6, 1871.
science, valuable Parliamentary Reports, Cyclo
porter and the manner in which he pub from the capital of the country by fire
is beginning to be manifest, and ere six
pedias, most valuable works upon the Ecclesias
THE COOK CIRCUIT lishes the reports. The XXXIII. con months
have transpired, there must fol
tical Law, full set of Law Journal Reports, many PRACTICE IN COURT.
tains many interesting opinions, and low a great financial convulsion, upset
and the latest works upon Scotch Law and the
The judges of the Circuit Court of this some of national importance. On the ting all values and shaking society- and
Law of Nations, Judge John M. Wilson's munifi
cent present of the Statute Laws of Illinois under county have ordered the following rule 3d day of last January, the Hon. Robert commercial systems almost into pieces.
But it may be all for the best. It is
her territorial as well as slate government, full in relation to the reinstatement of causes C. Gregory, Charles A. Ray, John T.
consoling to so phijosophize at any rate,
department of law periodicals, important Con to be entered of record :
Elliot, and James S. Frazer, who pre and five years may not pass ere your
gressional publications, were part of our library,
A trial calendar will be made of all sided over this court for so long, retired city, Phoenix-like, will rise from her
but also the complete works of Heineccius, Pothier, Touillier, Pardessus. Merlin's Repertoire, a cases wherein parties or their attorneys from the bench, and were succeeded by ashes and her incalculable losses and
present ruin, more beautiful, prouder
rare and valuable edition of the Corpus Juris and shall, by leave of the court, restore the
treatises of Bluntshll and Mohl and a good com files destroyed by the fire of the 8th and Hon. John Pettit, Hon. Alexander C. and securer than before.
As I have written, command my hum
mencement of legal Bibliography and Biography, 9th of October, 1871, either by copies of Downey, Hon. James L. Worden, and
etc., etc., were on hand, and all used by practi the ones originally on file," or where Hon. Samuel H. Buskirk. We hope the ble services here in any direction in
tioners, students and jurists. The number of books that cannot be done, by pleadings de judges composing the new court will which I may best aid you. I will do my
in the hands of members at the time of the fire novo, and of cases brought since the 8th perform their official duties as faithfully best.
I am, dear Madam, yours in sym
was very small, most of them burned with the day of October, 1871 , which cases will
private libraries of the lawyers. Probably from be numbered in said calendar under the as their predecessors, and at the expira pathy, both sentimental and practical,
Clinton Rice.
twenty to thirty volumes, however, have been existing rule of this court. The calling tion of their terms retire with the same
saved, and the librarian takes this occasion to call of this calendar, for the trial of such high reputation for ability and unflinch
upon every one having a book of the Law Insti cases, will commence on the third Mon ing integrity. Orders for this volume
We call attention to Mr. Howe's ad
tute in his possession to return the same promptly day of December, 1871, but no case will
or notify the librarian thereof. Your librarian be entitled to be tried in which the should be addressed to James B. Black, vertisement on the 31st page of this issue,
of a law library for sale.
looked upon our Law Library not only as upon issues have , not been made up prior to Reporter, Indianapolis.

Chicago Legal News.

30
We are under obligations to the law that the account in the partnership books 41 of chap. 133 of the Revised Statutes, Where the principal debtor executes to
and which are usually denominated " at the payee of a note on whih there U
firm of Carpenter & Murphy, of Mil contained errors, and that items were torney's
fees." This section of the stat personal security, a mortgage for further
omitted from it which ought to have
waukee, for the following recent opin been included in it, which errors and utes contained no limitation of the security, until the surety pays the debt
amount of costs which might have been he has no right to be subrogated to the
omissions were against the defendant.
ion :
taxed by virtue of it, in any action. By rights of the mortgagee, and to have the
On
the
principle
that
he
who
asks
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. equity must do equity, the plaintiff can the
laws of 1859, chap. 200, "the following mortgaged premises sold and the money
Pierce Grace v. Menzo Newbre.
proviso
added to the section : "Pro paid to him.*Ib.
not
be
allowed
to
open
the
account
and
ACTION TO OPEN AND SURCHARGE AN AC surcharge it, by reason of errors com vided, thewasfees
shall not in any one case
COUNT FOR ERRORS.
CHANCERY.
1. What errors will be corrected on open mitted against his interest, without at exceed twenty-five dollars; and in ac
3. Relief upon answer. Where the
ing an account.Held, that the plaintiff cannot the same time being held to corrections tions on contract, where the amount re surety
on a note secured by mortgage,
be allowed to open the account and surcharge it of the account where errors have inter covered is less than two hundred dol
by reason of errors committed against his interest
brought suit for the purpose of obtaining
without at the same time being -held to correc vened in stating it, which are in his lars, shall not exceed fifteen dollars."
By this enactment the recovery of a decree of foreclosure in tys favor, ana
tions of the account where errors nave intervened favor and against the interest of the
in stating it, which are In his favor and against other party thereto. Floyd v. Priester, 8 costs by the prevailing party, under sec. the payee filed an answer resisting the
the interest of another party thereto.
relief sought by the surety, but filed no
2. What a defendant may show.That a de Rich., Eq., 248. But it is argued that the 41 of chap. 133, R. S., was limited to
bill nor asked for any relief ; held,
fendant may deny the existence of an account evidence was not- admissible under the twenty-five dollars in all cases, whether cross
stated in his answer, and still when an account is answer because the answer denied the the action was at law or in equity, and it was error to decree a foreclosure for
shown to have been stated, impeach it for fraud accounting, and it is said that a pleading in a class of actions the recovery was the benefit of the payee.76.
or mistake.
TIME.
3 Attorney's fees under the statutes.The which denies the stating of an account, limited to fifteen dollars.
court construes the various sections of the Wiscon and then alleges errors in the account
The legislature in 1864 again amended
1. Of taking action in courtunder no
sin statutes authorizing the taxation of attorney's stated, the exiSenee of which is denied, sec.
41 aforesaid, by adding thereto the tice to do so on a particular day.Where
fees as costs, and states the amount that may be
taxed in actions at law or in equity.{Ed. Legal is an inconsistent pleading and ought following proviso : Provided, that in ac- i a person is notified that a particular stop
News.
not to be tolerated or permitted, and tions at law on contract, the fees Hhall will be taken in court on a particular
The' complaint alleges that the parties that the defendant can not be heard to not in any case exceed twenty-five dol- ; day of the term, it is his duty to be
having had mutual dealings in the pur allege errors in the account until he ad lars, and when the sum recovered is less present at the time and await the action
chase and sale of gas, tar, etc. had a mu mits that an account has been stated. than two hundred dollars, the same shall ofthe court, or take a rule on the party
tual accounting in respect to such deal If there is any rule of pleading in force not exceed fifteen dollars." Laws 1864, giving the notice to proceed with his
ings on the 22d of July, 1869, upon which in this State which prohibits a defend chap. 402, sec. 2 of this act repeals the i motion or cause by filing the necessary
the account between them was stated, ant from setting up inconsistent defenses law of 1859, although by its title it pur- 1 papers, and on his failing to comply with
and a balance of $2,626 was found to be in his answer, then we are of the opin ports only to amend set'. 41 . The only such rule, to have the proceeding dis
due to the plaintiff from the defendant ion that the answer of the defendant as limitations prescribed by the law of missed. (Opinion by Walker, J.)
on final adjustment thereof ; that on the he proposed to amend it, does not con 1864 relate to " actions at law upon con Shoemate et at. v. Lockrxdge, p. 503.
15th day of August. 1869, the defendant tain inconsistent defenses. The sub tracts." Equitable actions are subject to
ADMINISTRATORS.
paid the plaintiff $1,000 on account of stance of it is, 1st. That the parties did no limitations, and the parties recover
such balance ; and that in stating said ac not state an account, but should it be ing costs therein may lawfully recover 2. Petition for order to sell land to pay
count there was an error of something held that the transactions between them full costs, without "reference to the debtstime of filing.So where an ad
over one thousand dollars made in foot amounted to the stating of an account ; amount of the judgment. In the view ministrator gives notice that he will file
ing up the amount of sales in November, then, 2d. That the account, by reason which we have taken of this case, it was a petition on a particular day of a term,
1867, against the plaintiff. The relief of mistakes and errors therein, was sta not absolutely necessary to decide this for an order to sell real estate to pay
sought is that the account be surcharged ted at too large an amount against the question of costs, and we have not in debts, he is not restricted to the day
quired whether the question could be named, but may file his petition on
by adding thereto the amount omitted defendant.
by reason of such mistake, and that the
The defendant may honestly deny, properly raised on this appeal, or, if so, subsequent day of the same term. lb.
plaintiff have judgment for the unpaid and, doubtless, has honestly denied, that whether the defendant has saved his 3. Necessity of an appraisement bill.It
balance due him on such corrected ac he was ever a party to the stating of an right to have the taxation reviewed. is not essential that it appear an ap
count and the interest thereon.
account with the plaintiff. Notwith But we have decided the question be praisement bill was filed by an adminis
The answer of the defendant denies standing the finding of the county court, cause it is one of general interest to the trator, to authorize the court to grant his
that the parties ever stated an account, he probably is not yet convinced that he profession, and because we know that it petition for an order to sell land to pay
but admits that they had mutual deal did so. But that issue having been de is desirable that it should be definitely debts. The statute only requires the
ings as stated in the complaint. It fur termined against him, we know of no settled by an adjudication of this court. administrator suall make a just and true
Because the defendant was not allowed account of the personal estate and debts,
ther alleges that they were equal part- I rule of law which prohibits him from
ners in such business under the name I impeaching that account for fraud or upon the trial to introduce testimony so far as he can discover them, and he
and style of M. Newbre & Co., that the mistake, merely because he has denied tending to show that there were errors may thereupon file his petition.Ib.
4. Preservation of the evidence in such
books of account showing all ofthe trans that it was ever stated. The case of WU- and mistakes against him in the account
actions of such co-partnership were kept lard vs. Giles, 24 Wis., 319, is precisely in stated, the judgment of the CircuitCourt proceedings presumption.- In a pro
during the whole term thereof by the point. This court there held that in an must be reversed and the cause remand ceeding under the statute for an order
plaintiff exclusively ; that until this ac action for the wrongful conversion of ed for further proceedings in accordance to an administrator to sell land to pay
debts, it not being a chancery proceed
tion was commenced the plaintiff refused certain choses in action which it is with this opinion.
to let him examine such books ; and that alleged were left with the defendant as Carpenter & Murphy, attorneys for ing, it is not necessary, in order to sup
port the judgment, that the evidence be
in many respects, particularly specified collateral security, a denial that the de the appellant.
Jenkins & Elliott, attorneys for the preserved in the record, but it will be
in the the answer and in schedules an fendant ever received them does not
presumed the evidence heard on the
nexed thereto and made a part thereof, preclude the defense that they were lost respondent.
trial was sufficient.Ib.
there are errors and omissions in said by the defendant without his fault. The
books, against the defendant, to the original answer alleged errors in the
ADMINISTRATOR.
LIII. ILLINOIS REPORTS.
amount of several thousand dollars. The partnership accounts as contained in the
5. Of his power in respect to the realty.
Our
thanks
are
due
the
Hon.
Norman
answer prays a dissolution of the part books and omissions therefrom to the
It has been held that an administrator
nership and for an accounting. The tes prejudice of the defendant. The proofs L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following has no power to file a bill to remove a
timony introduced upon the trial showed showed that the account stated was head-notes to cases to appear in the 53d cloud from, or perfect the title to lands
that the account which the complaint al made up 6f the accounts contained in volume of Illinois Reports :
of which his intestate died seized.lb.
leges was stated by the parties is con such books.
6. So an administrator has no authori
[Continued
from
Page
22.]
It would seem, therefore, that the origi
tained in the partnership book mentioned
ty to apply to a court of chancery to re
5.
This
is
not
the
case
of
an
action
in the answer, and also that in footing nal answer alleged substantially that if
by statute, with an exception in form a deed made to his intestate in his
the account of sales for November, 1867, any account was stated, the same was given
the
same
giving the right of ac lifetime, on the allegation that there
a mistake or omission against the plain erroneous in the particulars therein tion, as in clause
Whitecraft
Vanderver, 12 was a mistake therein in the description
tiff occurred as stated in the complaint mentioned. If such was the effect of 111., 238, and Chicago, v.Burlington
and of the land intended to be conveyed.
and for the amount therein stated. Up the averments contained in the answer Quincy R. R. Co. v. Carter, 20 111., 391.
lb.
on the question whether the parties sta when taken in connection with the evi
ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES.
ted the account, the testimony was con dence introduced by the plaintiff, it Ib.6. Averment as to name of party to whom
7.
In
Chancerygenerally, in such cases.
flicting, but there seems to be a prepon would seem that the original answer was license was issued.And an objection that In this case
the administra
derance of the evidence in support ofthe sufficient to permit the defendant to the declaration shows the name of plain tor obtained itanappeared
for the sale of land
proposition that the account was stated surcharge or falsify the account. It has tiff's daughter to be " Martha," when the to pay debts, in aorder
proceeding at law un
been held that under a plea of non-as
by them, as claimed by the plaintiff.
the statute, lie afterwards filed his
The defendant asked leave upon the sumpsit to a count in the declaration license was issued to " Mattie," will not der
in chancery to correct a mistake in
trial to amend his answer by inserting on an account stated, the defendant may avail where the declaration, in several bill
its counts, describes the daughter's a deed to his intestate, and asked a de
therein averments to the effect that the show that the account is incorrect. of
cree to sell the land. The court belowtransactions between the parties which Thomas v. Hawkes, 8th of M. and W., name as Mattie, and in others as Martha decreed
relief sought in the suit in
constituted the alleged stating of the ac 140. But if the original answer was not or Mattie, and avers the license was chancery,thereforming
deed, and giv
count, had reference to and was based sufficient to give the defendant the right issued to her under the name Mattie, by ing the administratorthe
authority to sell :
upon the books of account kept by said to surcharge or falsify the account, then virtue of which she was married to the Held, while that decree
was erroneous,
firm, and that the result which it is al we think the defendant should have other party named in the license.76.
by reason of the want of authority in
MARRIAGE LICENSE TO MINORS.
leged in the complaint was reached by been allowed to make the proposed
the administrator to apply to a court of
the parties, embraces the mistakes stated amendments thereto. Such amendment 7. Clerks of county courts succeeded clerks chancery
such purpose, yet, as that
and set forth in the original answer. The does not change the nature of the de county commissioners' courts.Nor is the court had for
a general jurisdiction of the
proposed amendment was accompanied fense, and we cannot perceive how the objection, when the suit is against a subject matter,
the administration of es
by an affidavit of merits in due form. opposite party could possibly be misled county clerk, that the statute, by its tates, the decree
was not void, and a
Leave to make such amendment was re by it.
terms, only applies to the clerk of the 6ona fide purchaser
under the decree
fused by the court, and the court exclu
It is objected that the proposed amend county commissioners' court, well taken ; would be protected.Lb.
ded all testimony offered by the defend ment was not verified. It was not ob because the clerk of the county court, in
8. Moreover, the administrator having
ant tending to show that the books con jected to or rejected for that reason so succeeding to the powers and emolu been
authority to sell, by the order
tained the errors and omissions set forth far as appears by the case, and it is fair ments of the clerk of the superseded in thegiven
proceeding, a sale made
in the answer and the schedules annexed to presume that had it been allowed the court, accepted, also, his responsibilities. by him,statutory
even after the decree in chan
thereto. The court found substantially answer would have been amended and Ib.
cery, would, unless that fact were nega
that the complaint was true and that the the amended answer verified at once.
COSTS.
tived, be referred to and upheld by the
plaintiff was entitled to the relief therein This is understood to be the usual prac
1. Oil foreclosuresolicitor's fees.In a order in the first proceeding.Ib.
demanded, and gave judgment against tice at the circuit, where a verified plead decree
foreclosure of a mortgage, it is
AMENDMENT.
the defendant for tl\e unpaid balance due ing is amended upon the trial, when the error toofallow
for money advanced by
from him to the plaintiff upon the ac amendment does not result in a continu and for fees of the
1. Of answer in chancery when and on
solicitor,
such
allow
count stated after correcting the same in ance of the cause. A question of costs
terms allowable. Permission to a
not being statutory fees or charges. what
party to amend his answer is a matter of
accordance with the facts stated in the has been made, or attempted to be made ances
(Opinion
by
Walker,
J.)
Conwell
et
discretion ' in the chancellor, and will
complaint. From that judgment the on this appeal. It is whether the party al. v. McCowan et al., p. 363.
always be allowed in the promotion of
recovering costs in an equitable action is
defendant appeals.
SURETY.
We are of the opinion that the defend limited to twenty-five dollars in respect
See, also, Darut v. Bates et al., 51 ni., 439.
2.
Of
his
rights
before
he
is
damnified.
ant should have been allowed to show to those costs which are given by sec.

Chicago Legal News-

31

SNOWHOOK & GRAY,

justice and when injury can not result to amining a book kept by the Sheriff, there
L AW
BOOKS
Attorneys, 35 Monroe St.
the opposite party.(Opinion by Walk was found written across the face of a
notice of the sale pasted therein, the
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois. Cook
er, J.) Wylder v. Crane et al., p. 490.
FOR BALK.
County, ss. Superior Court of Cook county,
2. And in cases where injury might words " Ret. by order of plaintiff." The
November Term, 1871. Margaret Ward vs. Corne
result unless time is given to the oppo purchaser at the sale, the judgment cred
OHANCEXY.
v^ lius Ward. In Chancery.
site party to meet the change in the case itor, did not pay the costs until nine Vernon, 1st Am., from 3d (Raithby's) Load. ed.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Cornelius
Ward, defendant above named, having been filed
produced by the amendment, the court months after the sale, and then the nec
Brookfield.
1829
2
in
the office of the Clerk of said Supenor Court of
should always refuse leave to amend, or essary papers were made out by the Pccre Williams, Cox's cd. Lond., 1787. (Bind
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said
give reasonable time to the other party sheriff, but the certificate of sale was
Cornelius
Ward that the complainant heretofore
ing broken).
.
. S filed her certain
bill of complaint in said court on
still not placed on file. In July, 1869, the McNaughten's
to meet the amendment.Ib.
Select
Cases,
(temp,
king)
2d
ed.
the
Chancery
side thereof, and that a summons
debtor, learning what had been done, de
WAIVING ANSWER UNDER OATH.
thereupon issued out of said Court against said
Phil., 1851
1 defendant
returnable on the first Monday of No-*
the Sheriff the necessary Atkyns 1st Am., from 3d (Sander's) Lond. ed.
3. By amended bill. The effect of an posited with
vember next, (1871) as Is by law required.
for redemption, which the sheriff
N.
Y.,
1825-6
3
answer under oath, to an original bill amount
Now,
unless
you, the said Cornelius Ward, shall
Lond. ed.
refused to receive for that purpose. Vesey, Sr., 1st Am., from Belt's
Bersonally be and appear before said Superior
calling for an answer under oath, can While
Phil.,
1831
1
ourt
of
Cook
county, on the first day of a term
the
money
was
so
deposited,
the
Vesey, Sr., Belt's Supplement to Phil., 1831 , 1 thereof to be holden
not be avoided by the riling of an '
Chicago, in said County,
creditor assigned the certificate Eden. Phil.. 1831. 2 vols. in.
.
.1 on the fjrst Monday ofatNovember,
amended bill waiving the oath, and an judgment
1871, and plead,
Perkins ed.
Boston,
1844.
. 24 answer or demur to the said complainant's
purchase, the assignee having full Brown.
Dill of
answer to the same not under oath. The of
Cox.
Hoffman's
ed.
N.
Y
1824.
.
.
complaint,
the
same
and
the
matters
and things
knowledge
of
the
debtor's
rights
:
Held,
. 19 therein charged and stated, will be taken
answer under oath, to the original bill, on bill in chancery filed by the debtor, Vesey, Jr. Lond., 1806-22. .
as
con
(Binding of vol. 3 considerably, and of
would still be evidence on the hearing on the sixth of August, 1869, that by rea
fessed, and a decree entered against you accord
vols.Index
6 and to18 Lond.,
slightly,1822.
broken.)
ing to the prayer of said bill.
of the cause, so far as responsive to the son
Vesey,
Jr.
.
1
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
of the irregular and fraudulent con Vesey, Jr. Hovenden's Supplement to Phil.,
bill.
Snowhook & Gray, Comp'ts Sol's.
4-7
duct of the officer, the debtor had the
1828
2
and Beames. Phil.. 1822. 3 vols, in . 2
CHATTEL MORTGAOES.
right to redeem from the sale, at least Vesey
Cooper
(George).
Lond..
1815.
(Binding
bad
F. A. HOFFMAN, Jr.,
4. Right* of prior and junior mortgages. within twelve months after the papers
ly broken).
.
.
..
.1
Lond., 1817-18.
..
.3
Attorney, 168 W. Madison St.
In a suit to subject property to payment evidencing the sale were actually made Merivale.
.
. 2 CHANCERY NOTICE-State of Illinois, Cook
of a chattel mortgage, sold nnder fore out.(Opinion by Breese C. J.)Bris Jacob and Walker. N. Y., 1822-7.
Jacob. N. Y., 1844
1
County, ss. Circuit Court of Cook County.
closure of a prior mortgage, it was held, coe et al. v. York et al. p 844.
Turner
and
Russell.
N.
Y.,
1865.
.
.
.1 November
term, 1871. Henry Fuhrmnn vs. Adeline
the prior mortgage, not being shown to
Russell. Vol. 1, N. Y., 1828 ; vols. 2-5 N. Y., 1843Fuhrmann:In
Chancery.
4.
(Binding
of
vol.
1
partly
broken).
.
5
have been fraudulent when it was fore
Affidavit
of the non-residence of Adeline Fuhr
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
Russell and Mylus. N. Y.. 1844-65.
.
. 2 mann, defendant
namedt having been filed
closed, barred and foreclosed the equity
Mylus and Keen. N. Y., 1852-65.
. 8 in the office of theabove
clerk of said Circuit Court of
of redemption of the mortgagor, and BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street.
Mylus
and
Craig.
N.
Y.,
1843-65.
Vols.
1-4.
.
4
Cook
county,
notice
is
hereby
given to the said
Craig and Phillips. N. Y.,1847.
. .
. 1 Adeline Fuhrmann that the complainant
also of the mortgagee under the junior Bates & Hodges, 113 West Madison street
hereto
2 fore filed his bill of complaint in said Court,
Bonney. Fay <5t Griggs, 120 West Washington st. Phillips. N. Y., 1848-^4
on
mortgage.lb.
Law
Rep.
Ch.
App.
Phil.,
1867-70.
Vols.
1-4.
4
the
chancery
side
thereof^
and
that
a
summons
Bentley, Bennett, ULUnan & Ives, 376 Wabash av.
5. Notice ofsalepublic and private sales. Barker
thereupon
issued
out
of
said
court
against
said
KING'S BENCH AND QUEENS BENCH.
& Walte, 46 East Harrison street
defendant, returnable on the 3d Monday of No
Where the power of sale contained in a
Burrow. 1st Am., from 4th Lond. ed. Bost,
O. R., 400 Wabash avenue.
vember next, 1871, as is by law required.
chattel mortgage does not require notice Brotise,
Now, unless yon, the said Adeline Fuhrmann
1808 1st Am., from 2d Lond. ed. Boat., 5 shall
<5t Rickerts, 114 West Madison.
Cowper.
of sale to be given, the mortgagee has Brown
personally be and appear before the said
Canniehael,
D.
L.,
845
Prairie
auenue.
Circuit
of Cook county, on the first day of
1809. Vols....
. 2 a termCourt
the option to give notice or not as he Carter, Becker & Dale, 56 Canal street.
Douglas.
1
and
2.
1st
Am.,
from
3d
Lond.
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, In
may choose, and he may sell at public or Clarkson Van Schaack, No. 464 Wabash Ave.
said
county,
on
the third Monday of November 1871
ed. Phil., 1807
2 and plead, answer
private sale, but as between the mort
or demur to the said complain
Douglas. Vols. 3 and 4. Roscoe's ed. Phil.,
Condon,
Wm.
It,,
34
Canal
street
ant's
bill
of
complaint
the same, and the matters
1853. (New)
28 and things therein charged
gagor and mortgagee, the sale, to be Deane & Cahill, room 7, Lind's Block.
Durnford
and
East
Phil.,
1811.
.
and stated, will be
binding, must be fair.lb.
East.
Wharton's
cd.
Phil.,
1845.
16
vols
in
.
8
taken
as
confessed,
and
a decree entered against
& Black, 740 Wabash avenue.
6. Of the possession of the mortgaged Dent
MaulcandSelwyn.
Metcalfe's
ed.
Phil.,
1845.
you
according
to
the
prayer
of
said bill.
Ewing & Leonard. 511 Wabash avenue.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
6 vols in
...
.
.2 F. A. Hoffmann,
property. Where a chattel mortgage pro
Jr.,
Pl'fls.
Atfy.
4-7
Goudy
&
Chandler,
391
Wabash
avenue,
branch
BarneWall
and
Alderson.
Vols.
1
and
2
bound
in
vided that the mortgaged property
1. N. Y., 1849. Vols. S-o, Phil., 1857.
. 4
64 South Halsted street
should remain with the mortgagor until office,
Barnewall
and
Cresswell.
Phil..
1856-64.
.
10
J. S. GBINNELt,
B. W., 115 West Madison street
Barnewall and Adolphus. Phil., 1852-7.
. 5
the maturity of the debt, which was Ellis,
Attorney, 45 S. Canal St.
Wm. 8., 371 State street.
Adolphus and Ellis. Phil., 1851-64.
. 12
January 1, 1861, but was permitted to Felker,
Queen's
Bench.
Phil..
1860-4.
.
.18
Anthony & Gait, 356 Wabash avenue.
NOTICE.State of Illinois,
retain the possession, as to a portion of Hervey,
Ellis and Blaekum. Phil., 1862-5. .
. 8 PUBLICATION
Cook County, ss. Cook County Circuit Court,
Hopkins, Wm., 46 East Harrison.
Ellis, Bl. and Ellis. Phil., 1866.
. .
.1 December
the property, until the spring of 1861, Herbert
Term,
A.
D. 1871. Henry Sayrs, Ed
<t Quick, 529 State street.
Ellis and Ellis. Phil., 1864-8.
.
.
.3 ward W. Thompson and
Franklin Gilmore vs. F.
and of the residue until the autumn of Hoyne, Phil.
Best and Smith. Phil., 1863-9. .
.
.4 W.
A.,
Congress
Hall,
between
Michi
Hull
and
Barton
C.
Tillett
1862, it was held, the mortgage was fraud gan and Wabash avenues.
Law Rep. Q. B. Phil., 1867-70. Vols. 1-4. . 4 Public notice is hereby
given to the said F. W.
ulent and void as to a bona fide purchaser Hitchcock, Dupec A Kvarts, corner Wells and
Hull and Barton C. Tillett, that a writ of attach
COMMON
PLEAS.
ment
issued
out
of
the
office
of the Clerk of Cook
of the propertv at the dates last named. Monroe streets.
Henry Blackstone. Dublin, 1800.
.
. 2 County Circuit Court, dated on the 23d day of Oc
Ib.
tober,
A.
D.
1871,
at
the
suit
of
said Henry Sayrs,
Bosanquct and Puller. Day's ed. Hartford, 1811. 5
Howe & Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
7. Irregularity in salessubsequent pur
Edward W. Thompson and Franklin Gilmore, and
Taunton. Vols. 1-4. N. Y., 1810-16; vols. 5-7.
Isham,
Edward
S.,
654
Wabash
avenue.
against
the
estate
of
the
said
F.
W. Hull and Bar
Phil., 1852-7; vol. 8. Boston, 1824. (Uniform
chasers. A bona fide purchaser, without
Ingcrsoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
ly bound).
.
.
.
.
.8 ton C. Tillett, for the sum of one hundred and
notice, from the purchaser at a fore
thirty-one
dollars
and
twenty-seven
cents, direct
Broderip
and
Bingham.
Phil.,
1857.
.
8
closure sale of a chattel mortgage, is not Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street
Bingham. Phil., 1845-56
10 ed to the Sheriff of Cook county, which said writ
King,
Scott
&
Payson,
637
Wabash
avenue.
has
been
returned
executed.
Bingham.
New
Cases.
Phil.,
1853-4.
.
.
6
required to inquire whether such sale
Now, therefore, unless you, the said F. W. Hull
was regular, but must be protected.Ib. Learning & Thompson, 109 West Madison street. Maiming and Granger. Phil., 1864-5. . . 7 and
Barton C. Tillett, Bhafi personally be and ap
Common Bench. Phil., 1854-64.
. . .18
8. And if such sale is irregular, the Leary, D. James, 159 West Madison.
pear
before the said Cook County Circuit Court on
Common
Bench,
U.
8.
Vols.
1-15;
18
and
19,
Lyman
<fc
Jackson,
79
W.
Madison
street,
room
3.
or
before
the first day of the next term thereof, to
Phil.,
1859-68
17
mortgagor, or his assigns or creditors,
be
holden
at the Court House in the city of Chica
Law
Rep.
C.
P.
Phil.,
1867-70.
Vols.
1-4.
.
4
McClelland,
The*.,
172
West
Washington
street.
should take steps to enforce their liens,
go,
on
the
third Monday of December. A. D. 1871,
EXCHEQUER.
or to make redemption before the rights Miller, Frost & Lewis, 363 Michigan avenue.
give special bail and plead to the said plaintiff's
action, judgment will be entered against you and
of innocent purchasers have intervened, Moore & Caulfleld, 44 Harrison and 133 West Johnson's Phil. ed. complete from McClelland
in lavor or the said Henry Sayrs, Edward W.
Madison streets.
and Younge to 3 Hurlstone and Coleman,
or be barred in their rights.Ib.
and Franklin Gilmore, and so much of
inclusive. Phil.. 1857-69.
.47 Thompson
Newcomb, G. W., 214 Warren avenue.
the property attached as may be sufficient to sat
CHANCERY.
Law
Rep.
Exch.
Phil.,
1867-70.
Vols.
1-4.
.
4
Nissen & Barnum, 26 W. Randolph, and 376 State.
isfy
the
said
judgment and costs, will be sold to
The bookstowhich a* is prefixed wereboughtby
9. Remedy at law. Upon a bill in chan- Otis, E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
me as second hand. They are all in good second satisfy the same.NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
cery being filed by a junior mortgagee Paddock & Ide, 449 Wabash avenue.
hand condition, with unbroken binding, except J. S. Grinnkll, PlfTs Att'y.
4-7
of chattels, the mortgagor being made a Perkins, N.C., 479 Wabash av.,cor. Eldridge court. as
specified in above catalogue. The books not
designated as second hand were bought within
party defendant, to subject property, sold Palmer, L. L., 481 Wabash avenue.
HERVEY,
ANTHONY
&
GALT,
the last few yearsmost of them since 1866and
under forclosure of a prior mortgage, to Reynolds, Wm. C, 176 West Washington street are
in as good condition every way as new books.
Attorneys, No. 356 Wabash Ave.
payment of his debt, it was held, upon Rich & Thomas, 945 Michigan avenue.
They are not marked in any way, and look as PUBLICATION
NOTICE.State of Illinois,
well
as when first bought. All except Vesey, Jr.,
failure to establish his right to equitable Roberts, R. Biddle, room 11, 364 Wabash ave.
Cook County, ss. Superior Court of Cook
are of the latest and best editions. Only propo County,
relief against the property, the complain
November Term, 1871. Ready Roofing
Rorke,
M.
A.
&
Son,
154
Halsted
street
sals
for
whole
lot
will
be
considered.
Company vs. Edward D. King.Attachment.
ant could not obtain a decree against the
Pence & Moses, Masonic Building, S. Address
DAN. HOWE,
notice is hereby given to the said Edward
mortgagor for payment of his debt, there W.,Rosenthal,
Franklin, Johnson Co., Ind. D.Public
King, that a writ of attachment issued out of
cor.
Randolph
and
Halsted
and
1180
Wabash
av.
being a complete remedy at law, unle.ss Roys, C. D., 677 Wabash avenue.
the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of
WARD, STANFORD & RIDDLE.
Cook County, dated the twenty-fifth day of Octo
such relief was prayed for in the bill.. Sawin & WTells, 59 West Madison street.
A. D. 1871, at the suit of the said Ready Roof
Attorneys, 183 West Washington St. ber,,
Ib.
ing Company and against the estate of the said
Scoville,
George,
30
South
Clinton
street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County Edward D. King, for the sum of three thousand
FORTHCOMING BOND.
Sheldon <t Waterman, 360 Michigan avenue.
of Cook, ss. Circuit Court of Cook county, one hundred and seventy-two dollars and thirtyVnder act of 1857 concerning attachment Sherman, E. B., 153 W. Madison.
November term, A.D. 1871. Samuel Walker v. nine cents (*3.172.39) directed to the Sheriffof Cook
Elizabeth Walker.In chancory.
of boats and vessels. In an action upon a Sleeper & Whiton, 441 Wabash avenue.
County, which said writ has been returned execu
Affidavit of the non-residence of Elizabeth ted. Now, therefore, unless you the said Edward
forthcoming bond given upon the seiz
Snowhook & Gray, 85 W. Monroe st, cor. Jeffer Walker,
defendant
above
named,
having
been
D. King shall personally be and appear before the
ure of a Bteamboat? under an act of 1857 son.
filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit Court said Superior Court of Cook County on or before
of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said the first day of the term thereof, to be holden at
on that subject, it is not necessary, in a Tenny, McClellan & Tenny, 454 Wabash ave.
Elizabeth Walker that the complainant heretofore the High School building in the City of Chicago,
plea setting up that, after judgment in Thomas, Sidney, 95 East Harrison street
filed his bill of complaint in said court, on the on the first Monday of November, A. D. 1871, give
the attachment proceeding, the officer Van Buren, E. 4 A., 194 West Madison street.
chancery side thereof and that a summons there special bail and plead to the said plaintiff's
upon issued out of said court against said defend action, Judgment will be entered gaainst you and
took the boat and sold it under a special Vallette, H. F., 59 West Madison street.
ant, returnable on the third Monday of November in favor of the said Ready Roofing Company, and
execution issued thereon, to aver that White, Hugh A., 165 West Washington street.
1871, as is by law required.
so much of the property attached as may be suf
the boat was subject to levy and sale. Whitehousc, Wm. F.. 188 West Madison, late Tri instant,
Now, unless you, the said Elizabeth Walker, ficient to satisfy the said judgment and costsThe obligors in the bond had nothing to bune building.
shall personally be and appear before said Circuit will be sold to satisfy the same.
Court of Cook county, on the first day of a term Hervey, Anthony '& Galt, Plfls' Att'ys.
do with that question, they having only Williams & Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, 4-7
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
contracted that the boat should be forth
on the third Monday of November, 1871, and
Walker, Dexter & Smith, 792 Wabash avenue.
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
the
said
complainant's
coming to answer the judgment.(Opin
Wilson, Perry & Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
bill of complaint, the same, anil the matters and
ion by Lawrence Z.)Hogan, use, etc. v. Wlndett,
Arthur W., 562 Wabash ave., and room things therein charged and stated, will be taken
Attorney,
113 W. Madison St.
Shutter et al. p 487.
as confessed, and a decree entered against you ac
5 Lind's Block.
ESTATE OF SUSAN A. LOYD, DECEASED
cording to the prayer of said bill.
EXECUTION.
Waughop, J. W 401 Wabash avenue.
Public
notice
is
hereby given to all persons
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Ward. Stanford & Riddle, Compl'ts Sol'rs. 5-8 : having claims and demands against the estate of
Sale of landirregular and fraudulent
Susan
A.
Loyd,
deceased,
to present the same for
proceedingsremedy in chancery. The
JAMES FRAKE,
adjudication and settlement at a regular term of
JOHN LYLE KING,
land of a judgment debtor was sold un
the
County
Court
of
Cook
county, to oe holden at
Attorney, 115 West Madison Street.
Attorney, 76 Dearborn St.
the Court House in the city of Chicago, on the first
der execution, March 14, 1868, he not instate
of
william
hurst,
deceased.
ESTATE
OF
PATRICK
GILLIGAN,
deceased.
\
Monday
of
January,
A.
D.
1872, being the fourth
knowing of the sale at the time ; but j Notice is hereby given to all persons having
Public notice is hereby given to all persons i day therof.
hearing a rumor of the sale, he applied claims and demands against the estate of William having claims and demands against the estate of
ALEXANDER T. LOYD, Administrator.
Hurst deceased, to present the same for adjudica Patrick Gilligan, deceased, to pnesent the same for Jas. B. Bradwell, Att'y for estate,
at the Sheriffs office in May or June fol tion
and settlement at a regular term of the Coun adjudication and settlement, at a regular term of i Chicago, Oct. 26, 1871.
lowing, and also in October, to learn the ty Court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court the county court of Cook County, to De holden at
facts, and was told on both occasions by house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday the Court House in the city of Chicago, on the first
CHARLES DRTESSLETN,
being the first day thereof. Monday in December, A. D. 1871, being the fourth
the deputy sheriff that there had been i of January, A.D. 1872,
JOHN COMMACK, Executor. day thereof.
MATHILDA GLILIGAN,
SHORT-HAND
WRITER,
no sale, nor were there any papers on file Chicago, November
9, A.D. 1871.
Administratrix with will annexed.
showing a sale ; on the contrary, on ex
James Fkake, Att'y.
5-10 Chicago, September 27, 1871.
l-7a Wettent Union Telegraph Office, 554 Wabash Ave.

Chicago Legal NewsCHICAGO ATTORNEYS.

MARTIN A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D ,
554 Wabash avenue.
J. SEYBOLD, 497 Wabash avenue ; residence
F., 140 South Green street.
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
SANFORD, E. Special attention given to Col
lections and Real Estate.
14*
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
HERNDON & ORENDORF,
Office west side square. 27*
MINNEAPOLIS (MINN.) ATTORNEYS.
gMITH 4 ORDWAY,
No. 11 Centre Block, Nicollet St. 61-11*
ST. LOUIS (MO.) ATTORNEYS.
ALFRED PAXSON.
Insurance Exchange Building.
LOOANSPORT (IND.) ATTORNEYS.
HOWARD,
Attorney at Law.
5-16*
J."
LAW DEPARTMENT,
Chicago University.
LECTURES were resumed in this institution on
Monday, Oct. 80th last, in the lecture room of
the Second Baptist Church, corner of Monroe and
Morgan streets. All the old advantages obtained
by students in this law school are again offered.
For information address
JOHN A. HUNTER,
Sec. Law Dept.
135 W. Monroe street, Chicago.
D. E. K. STEWART,
Attorney, 181 West Madison Street.
tj18tate of peter zoller, deceased.
Public notice is hereby given to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate of
Peter Zoller, deceased, to present the same for ad
judication and settlement at a regular term of the
County Court of Cook county, to oe holden at the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first
Monday of January, A.D. 1872, being the fourth
day thereof.
ELLEN ZOLLER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Nov. 11, 1871.
5-10p
THE CHICAGO LEGAL NEWS
AS A MEDIUM FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE
LAWS, DECISIONS, AND LEGAL NOTICES.
Since the fire but few of the Attorneys
in the city have access to the session
laws; we therefore reprint the following
relating to the Legal News. The char
ter of the Chicago Legal News Company
passed the Legislature, and was approv
ed by Governor Palmer on the 29tn day
of February, 1869, from which we take
the following :
" Section 5. Any notice or advertise
ment required by law, or the order of
any court, to be published in any news
paper, shall be as good and valid if pub
lished in the Chicago Legal News, as in
any newspaper, and the certificate of the
President or Secretary, under the seal of
said company, of the publication of any
notice or advertisement, shall be suffi
cient evidence of the publication therein
set forth."
The following sections are from a law
of this State, approved on the 11th of
March, 1869 :
" Section 2. All laws of this State, and
all decisions of the Supreme Court of Il
linois, printed in the Chicago Legal
News, shall be and the same are hereby
declared to be prima facie evidence of
the existence and contents of such laws
and decisions, in all places and before
all courts of law and equity in this State.
" Section 3. Any change in the form
of said Chicago Legal News shall not
affect the legality of any legal notice, ad
vertisement, or other thing published in
said paper ; and said Chicago Legal
News is hereby declared to be a news
paper, within the meaning and intent of
chapter three of the Revised Statutes of
this State.'^
ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS
IN REGARD TO THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICES
IN THE LEGAL NEWS.
The following order was entered in the
United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, on the 28th
of July last :
" Ordered, That hereafter notices of
sales or other proceedings in bankruptcy
and admirality cases pending in this
court may be published in the Chicago
Legal News with the same effect as if
published in either of the other papers
designated by the rules and orders of
this court for the publication of notices."
A similar order was also entered in
the Circuit Court in regard to notices in
that court.

BAKER, VOORHIS & CO.'S

LEADING
LAW PUBLICATIONS.

Shearman & Redfield on the Law of Negli

gence. 2d Edition, ...
7 60
Sherwood's Manual of Legal Study, .
SO
Stamp Duties of the U. S. with Decisions, etc.
1870. Paper, 75 cts. ; cloth, .
. 1 26
Tayler's Precedents of Wills, with Notes, . 5 00
Tayler's Law Glossary. 4th Edition, en
larged, .
.
.
.
.
. 4 SO
Trial of Huntington for Forgery. Plea, In
sanity, .
.
.
.
.
. 8 50
Townshend on Slander and Libel. 2d Edit.
(In press),
.....
Voorhies' N. Y. Annotated Code. 10th Edi
tion, with Additional Notes, etc. 1871, . 6 00
Waterman on Set-Off, Recoupment and Coun
ter-claim,
. 7 50
Wedgwood's Government and Iaws. New,
6th Edition
5 00
Our Law Publications can usually be had
of the Chicago Law Booksellers, at our
LOWEST CASH RATES.
BAKER, VOORHIS & CO.,
Lav> Booksellers, Publishers, and Importers,
66 Nassau street, New York.

Abbott's Digest of the New York Statutes

and Reports. 8 vols., complete to January,
1870
162 00
Abbott's Forms of Practice and Pleading. A
new edition. 2 vols.,
. 12 00
Abbott's Clerk's and Conveyancer's Assist
ant Over 1,300 Forms,
.
.
. 6 00
Abbott's Legal Remembrancer. (N. Y. and
U. S. Law,)
2 76
Abbott's Practice Reports. 29 vols. Price
per vol., .
.
. 5 00
Abbott's Digest of the Law ol Corporations.
(Large vol., over 1,000 pages. .
. 10 00
Burrill's Law Dictionary and Glossary. 2d
Edition. 2 vols.,
.
. 10 00
Burrlll on Voluntary Assignments. 2d Edi
tion
7 60
Burrlll on Circumstantial Evidence. 2d Edi
tion,
7 60
Bump's Law and Practice of Bankruptcy.
The Best 4th Edition,
. 6 60
Bump's U. S, Revenue LawsDecisions of
Courts, Rulings, etc., ,
.
.
. 5 SO
E. B. MYERS,
Benedict's U. S. District Court Reports. 1866
to 1870. 8 vols. Per vol., .
.
. 10 00
Law Bookseller,
Blydenburg on Usury, .
.
. 3 SO
Bradford's New York Surrogate's Reports. 4
1022 WABASH AVE.,
vols.
24 00
Redfield's New York Surrogate's Reports. In
Has been receiving daily large shipments of the
continuation. Vol. 1, .
.
.
. 6 00 Law Publications of
Blatchford's U. S. Circuit Court Reports. 7
LITTLE, BROWN & CO.
vols., 17.50 each,
. 52 50
BANKS & BROTHERS,
Blatchford's A Howland's Admiralty Re
BAKER, VOORHIS & CO.,
ports. 1 vol.
. 5 60
T. & J. W. JOHNSON & CO.,
Bamwall A Alderson's Reports. 2 vols. In 1,
KAY & BROTHER,
66. 2 vols,
7 00
W. C. LITTLE & CO.,
Blatchford's Prize Cases, decided during the
ROBERT CLARKE & CO.,
Rebellion
7 50
W. H. & 0. H. MORRISON,
Cleveland's New York Banking Laws. With
Digest of Decisions. .
.
.
. 5 50 which he is selling at his usual low prices.
Cocke's Common and Civil Law Practice, as
%* Orders from the profession by mail will have
embraced In the Jurisprudence of the
prompt attention.
United States
4 00
1022 WABASH AVENUE.
Cooper's Institutes of Justinian. New Edi
tion. By A. S. Garr, .
.
. 6 50
Digest of Fire Insurance Decisions. littleton & Blatchley. New edition,
. 7 60
Dwight on Charitable Uses. 2 vols., .
. 20 00
THE CHICAGO
Duer on Marine Insurance. 2 vols., .
. 15 00
Daly's N. Y. Common Pleas Reports. 2 vols., 13 00
Devereaux's Klnne's Blackstone. Commen
LEGAL
NEWS
taries reduced to Questions and Answers, 4 00
Devereaux's Kinne's Kent Commentaries
COMPANY.
reduced to Questions and Answers,
. 4 00
Edwards on the Stamp Act. 2d Edition. Re
vised, with Decisions, etc., 1869, .
. 4 00
Elwell's Medical Jurisprudence. Mal-Practicc and Medical Evidence. New Edition, 7 50 PRINTING OFFICE,
Gardner's International and Interstate Luw, 5 50
15 North Jefferson Street ;
Greenleaf's Overruled and Doubted Cases.
2d Edition,
4 50
Business Office, 116 West Madison Street,
Halsted's Digest of the Law of Evidence.
Civil and Crim. New Edition. 2 vols., . 10 00
CHICAGO.
Hare on Discovery of Evidence In Equity, . 8 50
Hilliard's American Jurisprudence, .
. 3 50
Hoffman's Provisional Remedies of the Code
of New York,
.
.
. 5 00
Hoffman's Legal Outlines,
.
.
. 4 00
BOOK AND JOB
Howard's New York Court of Appeals Cases 7 50
Hane's U. S. Criminal Digest. Royal 8vo.
Nearly 800 pages,
.
.
. 7 60
Hammond on Insanity in its Medico-Legal
e
Relations. Paper cover, $1.00 ; cloth,
. 1 50
Hill on the Law of Fixtures. 2d Edition . 2 00
Jones' Introduction to Legal Science,
. 2 00
Jeremy's Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of
Particular attention given to all kinds of
Chancery,
.
. 4 00
Kerr on the Law of Fraud and Mistake.
LEGAL PRINTING :
With full American Notes, by O. F. Bump.
INCLUDING
Nearly ready, .....
Law's American Digest of Patent Cases, etc.
Attorneys'
Abstracts,
Large vol., 826 pages, .
.
. 8 00
Law's Patent and Copyright Laws, Annota
Briefs and Dockets,
ted. With Forms, etc.,
.
.
. 2 50
Books, Pamphlets and Reports.
Loan and Currency Acts of the United States 2 00
McAllister's U. S. Circuit Court Reports, . 6 50 Orders for this description of work will be execut
ed promptly in the neatest style of the art.
Notaries' and Commissioners' Hand-Book.
Paper cover, 75 cts., cloth,
.
. 1 50
Decrees, Orders,
Notaries' and Bankers' Law Manual. Large
vol., 700 pages, .
.
. 6 00
Mortgages, Deeds, Leases,
Olcotfs Admiralty Reports,
. 6 50
Checks, Notes, Drafts, Bonds,
Pierce's American Railroad Law,
. 5 00
Parish Will Case. 2 Vols. One of the most
Cards, Labels, Letter Headings,
remarkable coses on record, .
. 15 00
Bills of Lading, Bill Heads,
Ram on Facts as Subjects of Inquiry by a
Jury. 2d Edition
6 00
Insurance Policies, Circulars,
Ram on the Science of Legal Judgment
Receipts, Hand-bills, etc., etc.,
With Townshend's Notes,
. 5 00
Redfield's N. Y. Surrogate's Reports. Vol. 1, 6 00
Printed
upon the shortest notice.
Rockwell's Spanish, Mexican and English
Law Relative to Mines and Mining,
. 7 SO
THOMAS L. MclNTOSH, late head of the Book
Sedgwick on the Measure of Damages. 5th
Edition, .
...
.
.
. 8 50 and Newspaper department ofthe Lakeside Print
ing Company, is the superintendent of our Print
Sedgwick'sStatutory and Constitutional Law.
ing Department.
(New Edition in press)
...

ATTORNEYS.
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.
GEORGE C. FRY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
54 West Randolph Street, formerly 86 LaSalle
Chicago.
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 113 West Madison Street, Chicago.
Special Attention Given to Probate Matters
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
ESTATES SETTLED.
"8et t?!lne,. bouse in order; for thou shalt die
and not live."2 Kings xx. 1.
'
8. A. GOODWIN.
E. C. LARKED.
H. 8. TOWLI.
GOODWIN, LARNED tt TOWXE,
ATTORNEY'S AT LAW.
No. 494 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWARD G. MA.SON
MATTOCKS & MASON,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
No. 523 Wabash Avenue, S. W. cor. Harmon Court
Chicago, III.
W. H. WING,
ATTORNEY AT LAW ,
Elgin, III.
Collections promptly attended to.
LAW

5-1S

BOOKS.

Bourquin & Welsh,

LAW BOOKSELLERS,
P UBLISHEBS & IMPOB TEBS,
No. 431 Walnut Streiet,
Philadelphia.
4-16

LAW

BOOKS.

SOULE, THOMAS & WINSOB,

215 North Fifth St.,
ST. LOUIS, Mo.,
Invite orders from lawyers in all parts of the
country.
Full stock of Reports and Elementary
Books constantly on hand.
SECOND-HAND REPORTS bought
and sold on favorable terms.
US'PRICES LOW.
TERMS INVARIABLY CASH.
5-8
LA W STUDENT WANTED.
Inquire of CONSIDER H. WILLET, at 151 south
east corner Twenty-second street, morning, or 89
West Madison street, afternoon.
Scale of Advertisitiff Rate*.
Space. 1 w. 2w. 3 w. 1 m. 3 m. 6m. I J1 sq $1.00 $1.75 $Z50 $3.25 $8.00 $15.00 "$sobo
2.00 3.50 4.75 6.00 15.75 30.00 59.00
2 sq
3 sq
2.80 5.00 6.50 8.00 23.00 44.00 87.00
yt col.... 3.75 7.001 9.50 12.00 30.00 59.00 110.00
% col.... 7.00 11.50 17.25 22.00 58.00 108.00 210.00
lcol . ... 12.00 22.00 31.00 42.00 108.00 210.00 350.00
Ten lines of Agate
make
Square.
Advertisements
must
be apaid
for in advance,
and when not so paid, 50 per ceut. will be added.
Legal Notices not included in the above.
Printed at the Chicago Legal News Press, 15
North Jefferson street, Chicago.

QhicagoJegal^ews.

Entered accordiag to Act of Congressf in the year IS71, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian ot Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 6.

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1871.

therefore, the only one we are called creating the Recorder's Court, or else such
upon to decide in this case.
functions must be considered as dormant
The Criminal Court of Cook county is until the means for their exercise shall
but the continuation of the Recorder's
provided by legislation.
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. Court of the city of Chicago, with its ter beThat
the Recorder's Court had juris
Opinion Filed October, 6, 1871.
ritorial jurisdiction extended from the diction of the writ of habeas corpus ad
The People cx rel. Hickey v. T. M. Bradley, boundaries of the city of Chicago, to subjiciendum, there can be no doubt. It
sheriff, etc.
those of the county of Cook ; its crimi is a prerogative writ, great and effica
nal jurisdiction enlarged to the inclusion cious in the protection of the citizen in
Petition for Writ.
treason and murder ; but its purely one of the most essential of all his per
HABEAS CORPUSTHE POWERS AND JURIS of
DICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF civil jurisdiction in all cases between sonal rightshis right to liberty. When
COOK COUNTY DEFINED.
citizen and citizen is taken away.
independence was achieved all of the
1. No COKTEMPT WREN Whit Void.That It may
The first section of the act creating prerogatives of the Crown of England
be conceded if the court had DO jurisdiction to the Recorder's Court (Scates Stat., 661,1 devolved upon the people of the States,
issue the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in declared that there should be established
and are usually, though not always, ex
any case, the writ in question would be void, and
the person to whom it was directed could not be in the city of Chicago an inferior court ercised through statutory and constitu
charged with contempt in refusing to obey it.
2. The Criminal Court ok Cook. County.This of civil and criminal jurisdiction which tional enactments, and wfiere jurisdiction
court is but the continuation of the Recorder's should be a court of record by the name over any of the writs recognized as pre
Court of the city of Chicago, with its territorial of the Recorder's Court of the city of rogative has been given by the common
jurisdiction extended from the boundaries of the Chicago, and should have concurrent law,
or conferred by statute upon any of
city to those of the county; its criminal jurisdic
tion enlarged to include treason and murder, but jurisdiction within said city, with the the courts of the States, amendments of
its purely civil jurisdiction between citizen and Circuit Court in all criminal cases ex the Const itution, continnuing such courts,
citizen is taken away.
3. STATUTES RELATINIi TO THE RECORDER'S Col'RT cept treason and murder, and of civil will not be deemed to take away the
still IN force.That the provisions of the statute cases where the amount in controversy writs unless the intention so to do, at
fixing the terms of the Recorder's Court, provid should not exceed one hundred dollars. | least, fairly appears.
ing for the selection of juries, the attendance of " Srid court and the judge and clerk thereof,
It lias been repeatedly held in Eng
Suite's attorney anil sheriff, and their duties in re
respectively have the like power, authority land that the prerogative writ of certior
lation thereto, are still in force, and all the ma shall
and
jurisdiction,
and
perform
the
like
duties
as
chinery through which the functions of the the Circuit Court and the judge and clerk thereof, ari will not be deemed taken from the
Criminal Court are exercised are afforded by the
relation to all matters, suits, prosecutions and crown unless expressly mentioned. Rex
statute creating the Recorder's, or else such in
within the city of Chicago, so far as v. Davies, 5 term, R., 626. Rex v. Tinfunctions must be considered as dormant until proceedings
the
same are not otherwise limited by this act."
the means for their exercise shall be provided by
dall, 15 East, 339 N. Nor is the rule lim
legislation.
section then proceeds to provide ited to cases when the crown has an
1. Jurisdiction to Issue Writ of Habeas Cor forThe
the election of the judge ana clerk, actual interest, but extends to all prose
pus.That the Recorder's Court had jurisdiction
of the writ of habtns corpus nit subjiciendum ; that and prescribe their term of office.
it is a prerogative writ, great and efficacious in the The third section declared that the cutions in the name of the King. Rex
protection of the citizen ; that when independence court should have a seal to be provided v. Boultbee, 0 N. and M. 26, 4 A. and E.
498.
was achieved, all of the prerogatives of the Crown
of England devolved upon the people of the by the city of Chicago ; that it should be
This rule is one of the many of that
States, aud are usually, though not always, exer held in such place as should be provided great
system of the common law, afford
cised through statutory and constitutional enact by said city.
ing the strongest guaranties of the rights
ments, and: when Jurisdiction over any of the
write recognized as prerogative has been given by The ninth section prescribes the quali of liberty and property, and from which
the common law or conferred by statute upon any fication of jurors, and the maimer of system we have borrowed much, and
of the courts of the States, amendments of the their selection ; the tenth section for
Constitution continuing such courts will not be changes of venue ; and the twelfth sec to which have really added but little, by
deemed to take away the writs unless the inten
tion so to do at least fairly api>ears.
tion for the regular terms of the court. means of either bills of rights, or the
5. Circuit CourtsCommon Law Jurisdiction By a subsequent act (Scates Stat., 071) it development of new principles.
to Issue.That the Circuit Courts of this State
In Rowley's case, 2 Swanson, R. 71,
would have common law jurisdiction to issue the was declared : That the inferior courts,
Eldon applied the same rule to the
writ of habeas corpus if the habeas corpus act had which were then, or might thereafter be Lord
writ
of habeas corpus in the following
never been passed, and all of this Jurisdiction is established in the cities in this State,
forcible
language:
expressly conferred by the ConstftutiO.. of 1870 should have concurrent jurisdiction with
upon the criminal court of Cook county.
"
It
Isthere
contended." he says, "that the statute
6. When Crime Committed out of State.The the Circuit Courts in all civil and crimi
Car. 2 contains an implied negative of the gener
objection made that there was no jurisdiction be nal cases, except in cases of murder and 31
al power of the Court of Chancery to issue the
cause the crime with which Brown was charged treason, any law7 there in force to the con writ,
because it expressly confers that power In
did not arise in Cook county, is untenable.Eb.
cases. Be it so ; but If the power ex
Leoal News.
trary notwithstanding; and that the rules particular
isted before that statute, a power vesting a very
prerogative in the King, I say that it could
Opinion of the court by McAllister, J. of practice in such inferior courts should high
not be taken away in any ease by inference from
as near as might be to the rules an
enactment which enforced it in some cases. I
This is a proceeding upon habeas cor- 1 conform
of
practice
in
the
Circuit
Court
of
the
fro
further : if the prerogative of the King cannot
pus issued out of this court upon the ii]>- I county in which the particular inferior >e affected
by general words in a statute, will a
plication of Michael C. Hickey, alleging ; court might be established.
British court of justice permit it to \tc said that a
that he was unlawfully imprisoned by These were some of the statutory pro statute designed to enforce in particular instan
the prerogative in favor of the liberty of the
the sheriff of Cook county. The sheriff visions relating to the Recorder's Court ces
subject, shall deprive the subject of that liberty
has returned as the cause of the capture at
in
any
case ?*'
the time of the adoption of the Con
and detention of the relator an attach stitution
But there is nothing in the limitation
of
1870.
The
twenty-sixth
sec
ment issued by the Criminal Court of tion of article VI. of that instrument is of the section of the Constitution, which
Cook county, against him for a contempt as follows :
amounts to a negative of the general pow
in failing to produce the body of Lli " The Recorder's Court of the city of Chicago er of the Recorder's Court to issue the
Brown upon a writ of habeas corpus. The shall be continued and shall be called the ' Crimi writ :
illegality of relator's imprisonment is nal Court of Cook county.' It shall have the juris
" It (the Criminal Court) shall have no jurisdic
diction of a Circuit Court in all cases of criminal tion
based upon two grounds: 1st. That the and
In civil eases except in those on behalf of
criminal nature arising in the county of
people and incident to such criminal or quasi
Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to Cook,quasi
or that may be brought before said court the
criminal
matters."
issue the writ of habeas corpus; that it pursuant to law ; and all recognizances and ap
taken in said county in criminal and <piasi
Blackstone in speaking of the writ of
was wholly void, and, therefore, he peals
cases, shall be returnable; and taken to
Corpus ad subjiciendum says :
could not be in contempt for not obeying criminal
said court. It shall have no jurisdiction in civil Habeas
This is a high prerogative writ, and therefore
it. 2d. That the writ was not delivered cases, except in those on behalf of the people, by" the
common law issuing out of the court of
and incident to such criminal or <puisi criminal King's Bench,
to him, so that there was no such ser matters,
in term time but also dur
and to dispose of unfinished business. ing the vacationnotbyonly
vice as bound him to obey it.
Aflat from the Chief Justice or
The terms of said criminal court of Cook county any
of the Judges and running into all parts
We think the circumstances preclude shall be held by one or more of the judges of the of theother
King's dominions; forthe King is at all times
Circuit or Superior Court of Cook county, as nearly
him from objecting to the service. The as
be in alternation as may be determined entitled to have an account why the liberty ofany
writ was applied for and issued in open by may
said judges or provided by law. Said judges of his subjects is restrained wherever that restraint
may be inllieted." 2 Bl. Com. 131.
court, while he was present with the pris shall be ex officio judges of said court."
" The Hcbeas Corpus ad subjicieiulum is that
oner and there read to relator. The
This provision, as clearly appears from which
in crimtiud cases, and is deemed a pre
court then took a recess, and was to con the context, was intended to be self-ex rogativeissues
writ which the King may issue to any
as he has a right to be informed of the state
vene in the afternoon for the purpose of ecuting and operated upon the court in place
condition of the prisoner and for what reason
proceeding with the case. All this he question immediately upon the Consti and
he is confined. It is also in regard to the subject
well knew, and if he had asked for the tution being adopted.
deemed a writ of rigjht, that is such an one as he is
writ to make his return it is to be The declaration that the Recorder's entitled to cx ilebilojustitiac and is In the nature of
writ of error to examine the legality of the com
presumed that it would have been Court shall be continued is to be read in amitment
; and therefore commands the day, the
given to him. But failing to do so, connection with the other parts of the caption and
cause ofthe detention to be returned,"
when he was fully cognizant of all section. When so read, the meaning is 4 Bac. Abr. 664.
"
The
Httbcas
Corpus ad subjiciendum, (so termed
the proceedings, will be deemed under apparent. It is continued with air its from the language
to undergo and re
the circumstances disclosed by his peti powers, authority and jurisdiction, ex ceive all such thingsofasthethewrit,
court shall consider of
tion and the exhibits, as acceptance of cept its jurisdiction in purely civil eases the party in that behalf) issues in criminal cases
is deemed a prerogative writ which the King
service, and a waiver of the act of de between citizen anfl citizen is taken and
send to any place, he having a right to be in
livering the writ to him. It may be con away. The provisions of the statute may
formed of the state anil condition of every prisoner
for what reason he is confined. It is also in
ceded that if the court had no jurisdic fixing its terms, providing for the selec and
regard to the subject, deemed his writ of right to
tion to issue the writ of habeas corpus tion of juries, the attendance of State's which
he is entitled ex debitojustitiac, and is In the
ad subjiciendum in any case, the writ in attorney and sheriff, and their duties in nature of a writ of error to examine the legality of
commitment and therefore commands the day,
question was simply void, and the person relation thereto, are still in force. In the
the caption and the cause of detention to be re
to whom it was directed could not be short, all the machinery through which tained."
1 Chit. ( rim. Law 120. 2 Tomlius Lawchargeable with contempt in refusing to the functions of the Criminal Court are Diet. 63-64.
obey it. The question of jurisdiction is, exercised, are afforded by the statute The prerogative of the crown of Eng
H>he (Jourk

Whole No. 164.

land being here invested in the people,
they, in the place of the crown, are en
titled to have an account why the liberty
of any citizen is restrained. Or in other
words, to be informed of the state and
condition of the prisoner, and for what
reason he is confined.
Upon this ground the writ always runs
in the name of the State or the people.
The State in all cases of wrongful deten
tion, is in legal presumption concerned
in having justice done, and therefore
must be a party to the proceeding to re
move it. AVade v. Judge, 5 Ala., 130.
The proceeding in habeas corpus, says
Betts, J., " is an inquisition by the gov
ernment at the suggestion and instance
of an individual, but still in the name
and capacity of the sovereign." Bar
ry v. Meraer, 5 How., 108. Such be
ing the right of the sovereign in Eng
land, of the people of the States here,
and the nature of the writ, it is a case
which falls within the very exception
contained in the clause limiting the ju
risdiction of the criminal court in civil
cases. It is substantially a case on be
half of the people and incident to crimi
nal or quasi criminal matters.
The writ is unquestionably of common
law origin. 2 Inst.,.to; 4 Inst., 290. 2
Hale, P. C, 144. 2 Vent., 22, and in
Crowley's case, 2 Swans, mora, its origin
and the jurisdiction of the high courts of
England were discussed by a great and
accomplished judge. From that case
and the authorities cited, it appears that
the courts of Westminster Hall had a
full or partial jurisdiction over the writ
according to the nature of their respec
tive jurisdictions as respects civil and
criminal cases. Hence the king's bench
being a court of the highest original
jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases,
had a full and undisputed cognizance of
the writ in all cases. The Common
Pleas keing a court of civil jurisdiction
only, \*iw ntr-posc;} prior to the statute
16 Car. 2, to have but a partial jurisdic
tion of it. If a party were privileged in
that court as being, or supposed to be,
an officer or suitor in the court, the writ
might at common law have been awarded
from that court. So with the exchequer.
But if he were committed for any crimi
nal matter, those courts would only have
remanded him or taken bail for his ap
pearance in the court of king's bench.
In Jones' case, 2 Mod., 198, an applica
tion for the writ was made to the Com
mon Pleas for Jones, who was committed
to prison by warrant from a justice of the
l>eace. " The Chief Justice doubted that
a writ of lutbeas corpus could not be grant
ed in this case, because it was in a crimi
nal cause of which the Court of Common
Pleas hath no jurisdiction." And the
writ was refused. In Wood's case, 3
Wils., 172, where the party was in custody
under color of civil process, and was a
case between subject and subject, the
writ was awarded.
If the writ issued out of chancery,
and on retnm thereof the Lord Chan
cellor found that the party was ille
gally restrained of his liberty, he might
discharge him, or if he found it doubt
ful he might bail him, but then it
should be to appear in the King's Bench,
for the Chancellor had no power in crimi
nal cases. 2TonilinLaw Diet., 64. Crow
ley's case supra.
The Common Pleashaving jurisdiction
of the writ so far as concerned its civil
jurisdiction in many cases, awarded it,
and if it appeared by the return, that the
party was illegally imprisoned for a sup
posed criminal matter, because the court
could not sulro juramenio sua remand
him to that unjust imprisonment, or, in
other words, could not refuse to dis
charge him. Bushnell's case, Vaughan,
155.
This distinction, that the authority of
the court over the writ depends upon the
nature of the jurisdiction of the court
itself, in reRpect to criminal cases, and
the nature of the cause of the detention
of the person on whose behalf the appli

Chicago Legal News.

34
cation is made, is fully recognized in Ex jurisdictionbecausethe crime with which I was incorporated, with full power to con of Madisi m county was set apart and des
parte Tobias Wat kins, 3 Peters (N. 8.), R. Brown was charged did not arise in Cook i struct a road on the route therein desig ignated by commissioners appointed for
county is untenable. The true questions nated ; that the company was duly or the purpose, an election was held therein
15).!. Marshall, ('. J., says:
' This application N made to a court which has are : Was it a case of a criminal nature, ganized, and proceeded to construct a to determine whether a subscri ption of
no jurisdiction in criminal wises (H Cranch, 1611). and was it brought before the court pur road on the specified route, which was $50,060 should be made to the capital
which could not reverse oraDirm it were the record
to law ? That it was of a criminal completed before this proceeding was in stock of the company, which resulted in a
brought up directly by writ of errer." * "The suant
majority of the vote cast against subscrip
writ of halms corpus is a liigh prerogative writ, nature is beyond doubt ; and if the court stituted, and was then in operation.
known to the common law. the great object of had jurisdiction of the writ of Habeas That on the 23d day of January, 1869, tion, and that afterwards another election
which is tlie liberation of those who may be im Corpus and one was properly issued and the charter of that company was amend was called in the same strip or portion of
prisoned without surlicient cause. It is in the na served, then it was brought before the ed, by which Madison and other counties the county, which resulted in favor of sub
ture of a writ of error to examine the legality of
the commitment." 0 * " We have no power to court pursuant to law.
therein named, were authorized to sub scription. It is further shown in the re
examine the proceedings on a writ of error, and it
Suppose that instead of charging Brown scribe to the capital stock of the road an turn that when the vote was taken the
would be strange if under color of a writ to lilier- with
having committed burglary in one amount each of not exceeding one hun road had been locatadsoasto runthrough
atc an individual from unlawful imprisonment,
we could substantially reverse a judgment, which of the States or Territories of the Cnited dred thousand dollars, and to issue bonds township three, range eight and nine,
the law has placed beyond our control."
but the company afterwards so changed
States relator had charged him with hav therefor.
By the second section of this amenda the road-bed that it, when constructed,
The Circuit Courts of this State possess ing committed such offense in one of the
an original common law jurisdiction in Canadas, and the justice upon examina tory act, it is provided that if the county did not pass through those townships, arid
criminal cases answering; to that of the tion had committed him to jail. That authorities shall be of the opinion that they were thus deprived ofthe benefit of
King's Bench. Consequently, if our would have been an excess of jurisdic the road would he a special advantage all taxes arising from such road with
habeas carpus act had never been passed, tion and entitled Brown to a discharge to the inhabitants or owners of property which to pay such indebtedness. The re
jurisdiction of the writ would devolve upon Habeas Corpus. But would it not in a particular strip, district or section of turn sets up as a defense that the act un
upon the Circuit Courts by the common have been a case arising in Cook county the county, and not of great advantage der which these proceedings were had is
law. All of that jurisdiction is expressly and of a criminal nature ? The statute, to the county at large, thev may sub in violation of the State constitution.
Upon filing the return, relator entered
conferred by the Constiution of 1S70 as we saitl above, does not purport to scribe such sum as they shall deem pro
puon tho Criminal Court of Cook county. provide for the trial and punishment of per to the capital stock, or as a contribu a motion to quash so much and such
So that it possesses all of the authority an offense committed in another State or tion in aid of t he railroad company, and parts of the return as is here specified :
over the writ given by the common law, Territory ; lint only the means of secur shall issue their bonds therefor as in oth 1st. " So much of the said return as al
and the first section of the habeas corpus ing the offender. Whatever is done to er cases which are declared to be valid leges that the said act of the legislature
of the State of Illinois in force January
act, R. S. 269. There can be no doubt that end, constitutes the Of.sc and it arises and binding.
And the county authorities are em- 23d, 1869, in the alternative writ to wit
but Brown, on whose application the where the party is found and proceeded
! powered, and it is declared to be their mentioned, is in violation of article 3d,
writ was issued in the Criminal Court, against.
We are clearly of the opinion that the duty, to take all proper steps and to section 38 ; ofarticle 9 sections 2, 5, and 6 ;
was committed and detained upon a sup
posed criminal matter. He had been criminal court had authority to issue the make all necessary rules and regulations article 13 section 8; of the constitution of
arrested, and was detained under a war writ of Habeas Corpus. It is declared by ! for collecting the necessary revenue to the State of Illinois in force until August,
pay the principal and interest out of and 1870, and also in violation of the United
rant issued on the 14th day of August, statute that
any process which may be issued by any of upon the inhabitants and property in States," etc.
1871, by a justice of the peace, on the "
the
clerks
of
the
said
Circuit
Courts"
or'any
2nd. " So much of said return as alleg
oath and complaint of relator Ilickcy, Judge thereof in pursuance of law, shall be ex such strip, district or section, in the same
charging him with the commission of ecuted by the officer or person to whom the same manner as for the countv at large. The es that an election had been ordered and
be directed, in any county or place in this strip, district or section is required to be held previous to the said election in the
burglary in the State of Indiana and shall
state, in the same manner that process usual specifically designated by the county au said alternative writ mentioned."
with Vicing a fugitive from justice. This ly
is, or may lie required to be executed thorities at the time of making such sub- 3d. " So much of said return as alleges
was under the statute concerning fugi and returned : and the said circuit Court shall
respectively have power to punish all contempt scri ption.
that there was no legal election held ex
tives from justice. K. S. 262. The fourth offered
any person or persons to them while sit
is also declared that no part of the cept the one mentioned and set forth in
section of thatstatute declaresthat when ting as bysuch,
at any regular or specified term taxIt assessed
upon the railroad for coun said return."
ever any person within this State shall aforesaid : and for disobeying any of Its process,
rules, or orders issued or made conformably to ty purposes within such strip, district or 4th, " So much of said return as alleg
be charged upon the oath or affirmation law."
dross
Stat.
177.;
es that the election mentioned in tiie al
of any credible witness before any judge
There is also undoubted authority at section, shall be applied to any other
or justice of the peace with the com common law, to punish as a contempt purpose than the payment of the indebt- ternative writ was to subscribe stock and
mission of any murder, rape, robbery, for disobedience of the writ of Ifabeas i edness thus created, with its interest. not for the purpose of donation or bonus,
burglary, arson, larceny, forgery or coun Corpus. Crowley's Case 2 Swanst. supra. , The act declares that no such subscrip as alleged in said writ."
5th. So much of said return as alleg
terfeiting, in any other State or territory
The court below having jurisdiction of tion shall be made until the strip shall
of the Lnited States, and that said per both the writ of hcheas corjms and the j be designated by commissioners, and the es that the agreement to sell said stock
son hath fled from justice, it shall be attachment, and having heard evidence I proposition for subscription or contribu for one dollar is illegal and without au
lawful for the said judge or justice to both as to the service of the writ of tion shall have been submitted to the thority of law," etc.
6th. " So much of said return as alleg
issue his warrant for the apprehension habeas corpus and disobedience of its com legal voters of such strip, district or sec
of said prisoner. If, upon examination, mand, the determination ofthe court be tion, and sanctioned by a majority of the es that at the time of the designation of
it shall appear to the satisfaction of such low on those matters is conclusive. What votes cast at such election. The tenth said strip in the said writ mentioned, the
judge or justice that the said person is that evidence \jas is not before us and | section of this act authorizes counties, Decatur & East St. Louis Railroad Com
guilty of the offense alleged against him, cannot properly be brought here in this towns, etc., to sell and dispose of the pany represented to the householders
it shall be the duty of such jud^e or jus proceeding. We must presume hi its stock obtained by such subscription to appointed by the Judge of the Circuit
tice to commit him to the jail of the absence that it showed a service of the the railroad company, on such terms and Court, that said railroad was located or
county ; or if the offense is bailable ac writ, and such a willful disobedience or for such sums as may be mutually agreed would run through town 3 raiLge 9, and
upon such representation the said house
cording to the laws of this State, to take evasion of the writ as amounted to a con upon by the parties.
It further appears that the county holders aforesaid designated as part of
bail for his appearance at the next Cir tempt of the authority of the court.
court of Madison county did on the 14tfi said strip for subscription and taxation
cuit Court holden in that county.
these reasons the relator must he re day of April, 1860, by an order of that all of said strip located in town 3 range 8
The offense with which Brown was For
manded.
date, submit to the voters of a strip and town 3 range 9 along with the por
charged was burglary and which is bail
Remanded.
through which the road was located in tions mentioned in said writ, and thatafable according to the laws of this State.
that county, the question of subscription ter the designation ofsaid strip and after
If bail had been taken, and to give
Our
thanks
are
due
Otto
II.
Wanuelin,
of fifty thousand dollars to the capital theelection said railroad company chang
which might have been the object of the
writ he sued out, such bail would be re of the law firm of Wetcalf & Wangelin, stock of the road, which resulted in favor ed its track by diverging northwesterly
quired, by the very clause of the Consti of Edwardsville, for the following opin of such subscription. The county court so as to run in a direct line to the Indian
on the 3th day of June, 1869, subscribed apolis A St. Louis Railroad at Mitchell's
tution extending the criminal jurisdic ion :
that sum to the capital stock of the com station," etc., etc.
tion of the Recorder's Court tojbe taken
And relators traversed the remainder
pany, chargeable exclusively to the strip
SUPREME CO CUT OE ILLINOIS.
to the Criminal Court.
or portion of the county which had voted of the return, and respondents entered a
Nor does it affect the question of juris
Opinion filed Oct. 5, 1871.
diction that the crime with which he Tiik County ok Madison v. Tilt: People ex rcl. in favor of the same, and pledged the cross motion to quash the alternative
county to issue bonds for that sum bear writ, but the court overruled this latter
The Toledo, W. and W. Railway Co.
was charged was committed in another
ing eight per cent, interest and running motion and sustained the motion to
Appeal from Madison.
State. The case for his arrest arose in
LEGISLATURE HAS NO WAVER TO AU twenty years. And the subscription pro quash the portions of the return specifi
Cook county. The Courts or Magistrates TIIK
THORIZE THE INHABITANTS OK A STRIP vides that when the bonds are issued and ed in the motion.
here, have authority to deal with the per
OK LAND OK A COTXTY TO SUBSCRIBE TO the stock delivered that the county will The cause was then heard by the court
son so charged, only to a certain extent, RAILROAD STOCK.
sell the stock to the railway company for by consent of the parties upon such por
not to try and punish him, but to secure 1. Held, that the act providing if the countv au the
sum of one dollar. It is alleged that tions of the return as were traversed, and
shall be of the opinion that the railroad
iiim for extradition. But he is detain thorities
respondents would be of special advantage to in submitting the question to a vote the the court found for the relator and award
ed and committed for a criminal or sup of
the inhabitants or owners of property in a particu law was fully complied with in all of its ed the relief sought, from which decisposed criminal matter within the mean lar strip, district or section ot the county, and not requirements. It is also averred that sion of the court respondent prosecutes
at large, they might subscribe to the
ing of the first section of the Habeas to the county
.stock or as a contribution in aid of the rail the road was completed and all the terms this appeal and asks a reversal.
Corpus Act. The Criminal Court, says the capital
road company, and should issue their bonds as in and conditions of the subscription has The judgment is erroneous for several
Constitution,
other cases, but that no such suliseription should been performed.
reasons. The objections to granting the
until it bad been submitted to the legal
" shall have the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court be made
of such strip, is unconstitutional.
It is also averred that the Decatur & relief sought specified in the return may
in all cases of a criminal or quasi criminal nature I voters
2.
What
Bodies
May
Assess
and
Collect
arising in the County of Cook, or that may bo Taxes.That under the Constitution the corporate East St. Tii mis Railway Company was on lie treated as overruling the demurrer to
brought before said court pursuant to law." "The authorities of counties, townships, school districts, the 9th day of August, 1870, consolidated the alternative writ. Although such a
word quasi is a latin word in frequent use in the
towns and villages may lie vested witli the with relator, and that the name assumed practice is irregular we may treat the
civil law signifying as ij\ rrhno.it. It marks the re cities,
jMtwer to assess and collect taxes for corporate pur by the consolidation company is, " The question presented in argument as aris
semblance and supposes a little difference between poses,
etc.. but the territory or strip of land, al
two objects,"' Bouv. Law Diet. 411.
though composed ofseveral townships upon which Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Com ing on demurrer. The first question thus
The word criminal as here used to de the burthen of this tax is proved to be levied pany." It is averred that the relators presented is whether there is any war
and collected, is not a corporation, nor lias it the did on the 1st day of December, 1870, ten rant in the Constitution of 1848 for the
fine the nature of the case over which power
or authority of a corporation.
the court has cognizance, means relat
3. Power to Impose Tax.That a portion of the der to Madison county a certificate of five legislation under which this subscription
ing to, or having the character of crime. citizens of a county, at an election confined to hundred shares of the capital stock of was made. The first portion of that in
and from which the otiier citizens are ex the Decatur & East St. Louis Railway strument referred to as being violated is
The jurisdiction conferred, therefore, in them,
cannot impose a debt upon the county.
cludes every species of case relating to cluded,
4. The court states the cases in which the Legis Company, which had been entered on the the 38 sec., art. 3, which declares, the
crime, and also such as are regarded by lature may permit a municipal corporation to im books of that company before the con credit of the State shall not in any man
the law as if a crime, though a little dif pose a tax.Ed. Leijat. News.
solidation was made, and demanded that ner be given to or in aid of any individ
ferent, like cases of bastardy. Any such | Opinion of the Court by Walker, J. the county issue and deliver the fifty ual association or corporation. It will
cases, therefore, arising within the
This was a petition for a mandamus thousand dollars of bonds thus subscrib be perceived that this law does not pur
County of Cook, or that may be brought I filed by the people on the relation of the ed, and also tendered the coun ty the sum port to give State credit to this company,
before said court pursuant to law, are j Toledo, Wabash and Western Railway of one dollar and requested the county to but simply to authorize a small district
within its jurisdiction. Besides, it also against the County of Madison. It ap assign and transfer the stock to relator, of the county to give its credit and aid to
has appellate jurisdiction over all inferi pears that at the session of the General but the county court refused to issue the the corporation.
or courts in the county in every case of \ Assembly held in 1867, an act was adopt- bonds and assign the certificates of stock
It neither gives directly or indirectly
money from the treasury, or bonds
the nature indicated wherein an appeal j ed which took effect on the 26th of Feb to them.
or
property of the State to this
is given by law.
ruary of that year, by which the Decatur It appears from the return to the alter
The objection made that there was no ' and Fast St. Louis Railway Company native writ that after the strip or portion road. We fail to see that this section

Chicago

Legal News.

35

has any bearing on the validity of the law ment to the charter of the railroad com same under a penal sum of two thousand should paralyze, for the time being, the
dollars to be paid said O'Hara, his national authority of the district or drive
under consideration. The State in nowise pany.
Again, this writ prays that the county heirs or assigns, by us, our heirs, execu off the able-bodied men ;anything, in
became liable for the payment of the
and administrators. Witness our short, w hich should defeat a conscription
County bonds or the interest thereon, but be compelled to issue the bonds and to tors
hands and seals, this 14th February, 18li.r>. would be the gain of the insurers, and if
leaves the persons and property of the transfer to relators the certificate of stock
William S. Maynabdi). [Seal.] they did not favor it to the full extent of
for the consideration of one dollar. The
district liable for their payment.
all that a substitute might cost them in
[Seal.]"
Horace
Carpenter.
seems so monstrously inad
The act is in no sense compulsory on consideration
lT]>on
this
state of
facts the maker
of
event of the insured person being
the people of the district, as it might be equate that we feel that to compel its as the note contended that the instrument the
drafted, it would be because their patri
signment would be to perpetuate a griev
urged with more plausibility that the ous
wrong on the people ofthe county. The was invalid, because the contract which otism was sufficiently strong and active
act loaned the credit of the State to aid
the consideration therefor was con to overcome their selfishness. The pat
in the construction of the road. We fail recital, in the order of the County Court, was
that the subscription was intended as a trary to public policy and void in law, riotic impulses which ought at all times
to perceive how sections 2, 5, and (!, arti donation,
is not borne out by any proof I and for that reason was incapable ofsup- to inspire the citizen, and impel him to
cle 3, can have the least relation to the
the record. On the contrary, the no- plying the necessary consideration for favor, support and assist the enforcement
act under consideration. "We presume in
calling the election does" not state the promise contained in the note. But of the law, would necessarily, in the case
the draftsman has made a wrong refer tice
it was so intended, and we arc at a the Circuit Judge held otherwise, and of persons standing behind this contract,
ence in the return, and other provisions ; that
to conjecture how it could be other- the plaintiff had judgment. We think be opposed by strong pecuniary consid
were intended to be cited.
I loss
wise proved. But we can never consent 1 the Circuit Judge erred in this ruling, i erations, constraining them to sympa
It is urged in the argument that the | to exercise a discretion to compel the We find on examination of the contract thize with and inviting them to favor
act is repugnant to section Ave, article ' county to assign fifty thousand dollars that its general purpose was to insure any occurrence or measure by means of
nine. It declares that "The corporate j of the capital stock in a powerful and i and protect a citizen liable to perform which the conscription law might en
authorities of counties, townships, school rich railroad company for the sum of i military duty, against being compelled to counter embarrassment, and the person
districts, cities, towns and villages, may | one dollar. It looks like a fraud per e. j do so. Some question was made on the for whose protection they had undertak
be vested with the power to assess and ; We could not, if the bonds were legally ; argument regarding the precise meaning en escape its operation.
collect taxes for corporate purposes ; j voted, ever compel this stock to be thus I of the words in the contract," be drafted
Insurance contracts in other cases gen
such taxes to be uniform in respect to ' transferred. This qui
question was before | so as to do duty in the army," etc., but erally so framed as to make each party
persons and property within the juris us in the case of Macoupin County v. we can put no other construction upon interested in doing that which is for the
diction of the body imposing the same."
Appellees at the present time, them than that the parties insuring only public welfare, as well as for the individ
This,then, presents the question whether these
where it was held that such a sale would undertook to pay the large sum specified ual good. The insurer against loss by
the territory upon which the burthen of not be compelled by mandamus. That by way of indemnification in the event fire, for instance, will take a risk upon
this tax is proposed to be levied and the case is conclusive of this question. The of the draft being made effectual by a property to the extent only of a part of
debt virtually imposed is a corporation.
of the court below awarding a compulsory service of the insured party its value, so that the hazard shall rest in
The act gives it more of the distinctive judgment
peremptory
writ of mandamus is re as a conscript in the army. The mere I part upon the insured also, who will be
features of a body politic. It is not versed.
drafting was not to entitle the party to interested in preventing a loss if possible.
*
declared to be a corporation, nor has it Judgment reversed.
indemnity, but he was to be drafted so as All experience show s this to be w ise pol
any of the powers or authority of such Dale iV. Birnett for Helator.
to do duty ; or in other words, do duty j icy, and the underwriter who should as
a body. It appears by the return of the
in the army in consequence of the draff- - sume risks in excess of the value, would
A. W. Metcalf for Respondents.
Commissioners to be composed of sev
ing. This was what was insured justly be looked upon as wanting in or
eral congressional townships, and no SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. against, and for such a drafting the in dinary business prudence. How ever
doubt embraces several school districts
Daniel O'Hara v. Horace demnity was provided. The contract is fair might be the reputation of the as
and portions of others. It can neither John O'Haka amiCarpenter.
compared by the defendant in error to sured, all reasonable men would concede
sue or be sued. It has no succession, is j
other contracts of insurance, and it is that it was indiscreet and dangerous to
Error to W<i*Mamw Circuit
governed by no municipal officers, but ' A CONTRACT TO INDEMNIFY A CITIZEN stronglv insisted that it is equally enti- 1 contract with him on a basis which might
is simply a territory in which the citi
AOAINST A DRAFT IS AGAINST PIBLIC POL tied to legal protection ; but it differs from quiet his vigilance and bribe his integri
AND VOID.
zens may first vote whether the county ] ICY
Hi Id, where a party contracted by n writing in other insurance in the important partic ty by such pecuniary consideration as
shall subscribe stock to a railroad com the1. penal
sum of Synjn in consideration of S-VKJ, ular that in other cases the indemnity is might incline him to desire a loss to oc
pany, and then the persons and property duty
that mincase
one <s.' Haru
drafted
as to do against the actual fir possible consequen- | cur ; and no person could be regarded as
the
arniyshould
againstbethe
late so
rebellion,
in that district be burthened with its within three IT.
ces of some evil, and makes the insurer reasonably safe and prudent in the man
years
from
the
date,
ofsuch
contract,
payment. The imposition of the debt, to procure lor him a substitute or otherwise clear interested with the insured in prevent agement of his affairs who should rely
and the levy of a tax for its payment, is him from said draft and keep him harmless from ing such evil if possible, and in punish upon the vigilance and integrity of oth
any cost or expense in consequence thereof, that ing the auilty cause of it, if such there ers to protect his interest w here it ap
not sanctioned by this provision of the such
is against public policy and void.
Constitution, and if this strip of the 2. Acontract
Waokk Polio- Void.That the law laid be ; while this contract, on the otherhand, parently conflicted with their own. Up
county is claimed to be liable under its down by the courts presents analogous eases of insures against the enforcement of a law on what principle, then, can the State be
adjudged void because contravening
provisions, then the law is invalid, as it contracts
Jin>ublic policy ; a wager policy, that is to say a pol- ful proceeding which the law has direct called upon to lend its aid in enforcing a
is not a corporate body.
on
a
risk in which the assured has no Inter- ed for the protection and support of the contract which enlists the interests of
Icy
t. Is void, for the reason among others that it government, and the interest of the as one of the parties in favor of embarrass
If, on the other hand, it be claimed holds
out
eontinuouslv
strong temptation to the surer lies in having the proceeding de ing and defeating a measure of govern
that it is a debt against the county, to be commission of crime, ina order
to cause the loss
paid out of the property of this strip, upon which the insurance money is made payable. feated, and in giving countenance, en ment of the highest importance,one of
then it is not uniform in respect to the En. l.Ki.At, News. .
couragement and aid to any person or to a class that is never resorted to. except
The opinion ofthe Court was delivered any measures which, legally or illegally, in the most serious emergencies, and
persons and property of the county, and
is repugnant to that section of the Con by Cooley, J.
may interpose obstacles.
when the safety ofthe republic seems ab
The action in the Court below appears It is true that there was a mode in which solutely to demand it. A single instance
stitution. The power to impose a cor
porate debt or tax on a portion of the to have been upon a promissory note giv the contemplated protection might have ofsuch insurance might not lead to anypersons or property of a corporate body en by John O Ham with Daniel O'Ha been legally given in this case, that is to very serious consequences, but if the con
is expressly prohibited, and this law can ra as surety, to Horace Carpenter and say, by providing a substitute ; and it is tract is to be sustained in one case, it must
not be sustained under this provision. William s". Maynard. The facts are urged with much force that when a con- have been legal in all, and these parties,
Again, a portion of the citizens of a agreed upon and are substantially the ! tract is capable of legal performance, it had they seen fit, might have made such
is but just to assume that the parties had insurance a continuous business. To
county at an election confined to them, following :
1st. That the defendant John O'Hara such legal performance in view when judge how thepublie interest might have
and from which the other citizens are
excluded, can not impose a debt upon was, at and before the making of the : they entered into the contract, and that been affected, we have only to suppose
the countv. It was held in the case of note, to wit : on and before the 14th day j they did not contemplate a violation of the citizens of the State generally to have
the People, etc., v. Chicago, ol 111., 1, of February, I860, a citizen of the United , law". We are not at liberty, however, to made themselves parties to such con
that a municial coporation could not be States, a resident of the township ofAnn j shut our eyes to the fact" that the par- tracts either as insurers or insured, and
compelled to issue their bonds unless Arbor, Washtenaw county, Michigan, of ties also contemplated that the insured we can not fail to perceive that the in
sanctioned by a vote of the citizens of the age of thirty years, and liable to be might tie protected against a draft " oth evitable result must have been seriously
the corporate body, or the debt was in drafted into the military service of the erwise" than by furnishing a substitute ; to embarrass, if not wholly defeat, any
curred by officers elect with the power. United States and duly enrolled under but had they not done so, and were we attempted conscription. A conscription
able to see "from the terms of their un is always an exceedingly harsh and re
It was necessary that there should be a the acts of Congress then in force.
2d. That at the making of said note, dertaking that the motives of the insur pulsive" measure, only to be justified by
vote of the citizens of the county in fa
vor of creating the debt before it could said John O'Hara had not been, nor was ers were in every particular correct and the most imperative reasons, and re
be required to issue these bonds, or that he afterwards actually drafted into the unexceptionable", the fact would still re quiring the strong moral support of
they should have corporate officers who military service of the United States.
main, that whatever would have defeated public opinion in order to its enforce
were bv the charter authorized to create 3rd. That a draft had been ordered by the the draft would have conduced to the ment. With a general public senti
a debt binding the corporate body. No proper authority under which the quota benefit and protection of the insurers, so ment against it, enforcement would be
such election was or could be held, and of men required to be furnished from the that the contract necessarily and effect impossible, and such a sentiment would
hence the county can not be required to township of Ann Arbor aforesaid had ually placed them in a position of antag behalf formed so soon as the citizens
issue the bonds'so as to render it liable been assigned, apportioned and estab onism to an important measure which could see that the command of the law
lished, and that at the time of the mak the government in a time of war had re pointed in one direction, and their pri
for their payment.
The fifth" section of article nine is a ing of said note said quota had not been sorted to in order to recruit its armies. vate interests in another. Public opin
limitation on the taxing power of the filled, and a draft was impending to fill
The thing insured against in this case, ion is not always fully and cordially
State. It only authorizes the Legislature such quota unless the same should be fill though an evil to the individual, had united in favor of the vigorous prosecu
to permit a municipal corporation to im ed by volunteers.
been decided by the proper authorities tion of an existing war; and even when
4th. That the defendants executed and to be needful for the country. Inasmuch it is, citizens may still differ regarding
pose a tax, and hence restrains the Legis
lature from imposing such a tax, unless delivered the note to the payees therein as the law permitted a substitute to be the most suitable and efficient means to
it be for the payment of a debt created named, at the date of such note, and enrolled, we must assume that where be employed for the purpose ; and no
by such a body. We have held in sev that the plaintiff was the holder thereof j such enrollment should take place, the obstacle could be interposed to the
eral cases that the Legislature has no at and before the commencement of this public interest would be subserved to the measures of government, which would
power to impose such a tax, or to author suit.
same extent as if the drafted man him be more serious and embarrassing than
5th. That the consideration for said self had been put into the ranks. But to to strengthen the repugnance and fortify
ize individuals to impose the same. And
the same is true of the power to create note was the following contract, executed procure a substitute would necessarily the doubts of those who disliked or dis
corporation indebtedness. This district and delivered by said Carpenterand May have cost the insurers a considerable sum trusted its action, by showing them that
upon which it is proposed to place this nard to John O'Hara at the date of the of money, and they were consequently in what the law commanded it was not for
burthen, not being a corporation, the note to wit : " For and in consideration terested to the extent of such cost in their personal interest should be done.
Legislature could not authorize its citi of five hundred dollars received of John whatever might effectually defeat the When the call of one's country is most
zens to create the debt, and they are not O'Hara of the town of Ann Arbor, we , draft and save this expenditure. A riot urgent, it must often happen that both
liable. And as the authority was not hereby agree that in case said O'Hara which should terrify and drive offthe en inclination and the prospect of gain in
given to the county to create such liabil shall be drafted so as to do duty in the rolling officers, or by means ofw'hich the vite the citizen to evade it if possible,
ity, the Legislature could not impose the army of the United States against the lists might be destroyed after the drawing but the law can not favor the voluntary
burthen on the county, or empower the present rebellion, within three years from had taken place ; the flight or conceal establishment of a conflict between in
citizens of a fraction thereof to impose this date, we will procure for him a sub ment of the drafted man; any fraud or terest and duty, nor give its sanction to
such a liability. We are unable to find stitute or otherwise clear from said draft deception which should baffle theofficers ( undertakings, the unavoidable tendency
any warrant in the Constitution for the and thus save him harmless from any- in their attempt to make the draft, effect j of which is to weaken the bonds of legal
enactment of this portion of theamend- cost or expense in consequence of the ual ; a raid by the enemy perhaps, which
[Continued on page 3S.I

Chicago Legal News.

Chicago Legal News. ment, no consideration being shown, nation would receive not only the care have too much legislation upon tliis sub
cannot be enforced.
ful consideration of those bodies, but of ject. We hope the legislature, which is
Bank Account of Bankrupt. The the thinking portion of American citi composed of some of our ablest lawyers
Lords Justices held, in Ex parte King zens. Germany has her congress of and experienced judges, will act upon
ston, that when a customer has opened lawyers, why not this country?
its own good judgment after consider
CHICAGO, NOVEMBER 18, 1871,
ing the suggestions of all parties. In
with his bankers separate accounts spe
cially headed with the names of the TIIE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE AND our judgment, we only require a law
rl'bushkd f.vkry saturday by
ITS WORK.
providing that a court of chancery may
Tiie Chicago Legal News Company, trusts to which the moneys paid into
The present is one of the most im decree title defining the notice to be
those accounts belong, the bankers are
AT 11j MADISON STREET.
not at liberty, upon the bankruptcy of portant sessions, in many respects, ever given, the effect to be given to the de
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
the customer, to apply those moneys in held by the Legislature of this State. cree, and extending the rules of evidence
payment of the balance due to them There are many changes to be made in so that the court may give any secondary
Terms :
Two Dollars per annum, in advance. Single cop upon the customer's overdrawn private the laws to make them conform to the evidence such weight as it thinks it is
ies Tun Cents.
provisions of the new Constitution, and entitled to receive.
account. 25 L. T. Rep. N. S., 250.
carry
out the reforms intended by the
Bankruptcy Fraudulent Prefer
We call attention to the following ences.The Court of Bankruptcy, on an framersof that instrument. The reve
RECENT PUBLICATIONS.
eases reported at length in this issue :
nue
system
should
be
simplified
;
the
appeal from the Judge of the Liverpool
Pleading and Practice of the High
Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction of the County Court, held that a payment in the subject of fees should be carefully con
Court of Chancery. By the late Ed
Criminal Court op Cook County.The ordinary course of business, made by a sidered, and a law passed which will
mund Robert Daniel!, Barrister-atLaw ; with the subsequent Additions
opinion of the Supreme Court of Illi debtor in embarrassed circumstances, did give the officers a sufficient compensa
and Improvements of Thomas Emer
nois, delivered by McAllister, J., in the not amount to a fraudulent preference, tion for their services, but not allow
son Headlam, M.P., one of Her Maj
Hickey Habeas Corpus case, defining the provided the creditor acted bona tide, and them to rob the people. A wise and
esty's Counsel; and the still later Ad
ditions, Alterations and Improvements
jurisdiction of the Criminal Court of the evidence showed that the debtor did well-considered law regulating the exer
of Leonard Field, Edward ( '. Dunn, BarCook county, and holding that the Crim not intend the payment to be preferen cise of the right of eminent domain
rister-at-Law, and John Riddle, of the
should be passed. The chapter regulat
inal Court, with its enlarged powers, is tial. 25 L. T. Rep,, N. S., 276.
Master
of the Rolls' Chamber. Fourth
operated solely through the statute
American edition with Notes and Ref
Right of Ship's Agent to Sue Vessel. ing the practice and jurisdiction of jus
erences to American Decisions, an Ap
creating the old Recorder's Court ; in Held by the Court of Admiralty, in tices of the peace should be revised, and
pendix of Precedents and other Au
fact, the learned Judge, in delivering the the Underwriter, that the agents of a for their jurisdiction increased. It is very
ditions and Improvements, adapting
opinion, says the provisions of the stat eign ship in a British port, who have evident, from the discussion in the pubthe work to the demands of American
ute fixing the terms of the Recorder's paid for necessaries supplied to her, or lie press upon the attempt of the Legis
Practice in Chancery. Bv J. C. Per
kins, LL.D. Vol. I. Boston: Little,
Court, providing for the selection of who have rendered themselves liable to lature to give these tribunals jurisdiction
Brown & Co. 1871.
juries, etc., etc., are still in force. If this pay for such necessaries, may sue the to the extent of $200, that the wants of
No
English work is better or more fa
the
people
now
demand
that
justices
is the true construction to place upon ship for such advances as were made on
the statutes relating to the Recorder's the ship's account, but not for the bal shall have an increased jurisdiction. The vorably known to the American bar than
Court, and the clause of the Constitution ance of a general account against her practice of our courts of record should Daniell's Chancery Pleading and Prac
be made uniform throughout the State. tice ; while every edition has been use
changing the name of that court to the owners. 25 L. T. Rep. N. S., 27!>.
The
Statute of "Wills and Guardian and ful, Mr. Perkins' latest is doubly so to
Criminal Court of Cook county, and in
An Appeal from Order of Sale.In Ward needs careful revision. There are the American practitioner. The third
creasing its jurisdiction, then is it not
illegal to summon the grand and petit Robinson's appeal, the Supreme Court of many provisions in these acts which volume is devoted almost exclusively to
juries from the body of the eounty,when Pennsylvania held, in a well-considered come to us from past generations, which valuable forms suited to the practice in
the statute relating to the court requires opinion, that an order for the sale of real are not applicable to the present time. this country. Over sixteen thousand
them to be from the city alone ? After estate granted by the Orphans' Court, is Although not one family in ten thousand casesabout ten thousand in the Eng
carefully reading this opinion, the stat not a definitive decree from which an in the State have a loom, spinning-wheel, lish edition, and over six thousand ad
utes relating to the Recorder's Court, appeal lies to the Supreme Court, but pair of cards, or side-saddle, still the ap ditional in the American editionhave
and the provision of the Constitution that such appeal lies only from the de praisers in every estate where the head been cited and referred to in the work
changing its name, etc., we fear indict cree confirming the sale upon the order. of a family dies leaving a widow, must before us. Mr. Perkins is entit led to the
fix a value upon these articles. This is thanks of the American bar for the very
ments and convictions in the Criminal i Legal Gazette, 3(>3.
Attorney no Authority to Postpone only one of the many provisions of a satisfactory manner in which he has
Court, since its re-organization, can not
be sustained, as the juries have been Execution.The English Court of Com similar kind. Some years ago the pro prepared and presented this edition.
taken from the county at large. The mon Pleas, in Lovegrove v. White, holds bate judges of the State held a conven This is the most complete and extensive
Legislature now in session .should, with that an attorney retained for the conduct tion, appointed a committee to prepare work yet published upon Chancery
out delay, pass the necessary actandpre- of an action has no implied authority, an act embracing the suggestions made Practice. It should be in every law li
after judgment in favor of his client, to by the various judges of the State. Of brary. Orders may be addressed to the
event a general jail delivery.
enter into an agreement on his behalf to this committee Judge Bradwell was publishers, Little, Brown & Co., Boston,
Contract to Indemnify against a postpone execution. Law Rep., (i C. P., chairman, and Judge Anson S. Miller Callaghan & Cockcroft, or E. B. Myers,
Draft Void.The opinion of the Su 440.
a member. A bill was prepared Chicago.
preme Court of Michigan, delivered by
which contained many needed reforms, A Selection of Cases on the Law of
Bank
AccountAuthority
of
Part
Cooley, J., holding that a contract made
Contracts. With References and Cita
reducing all the probate laws of the
to indemnify a citizen of the United ner.Held by Keating, J., in The Alli State into one chapter, which passed the
tions. By C. C. Langdell, Dane Pro
ance
Bank
v.
Keasley,
that
one
partner
fessor of Law in Harvard University.
States against a draft after it had been
house
by
only
four
dissenting
votes,
but
I
Prepared for use as a text-book in
ordered during the late rebellion, was has not an implied authority to open a failed to pass the Senate for want of
Harvard Ijiw School. Boston: Little,
against public policy and void. We do banking account on behalf of the firm in time. This bill would undoubtedly aid
Brown and Company. 1871.
not remember to have seen any case his own name. Law Rep., 0 C. P., 4:!:!.
those revising our laws, as it is founded This volume is a new candidate for
where this precise question was deter
upon the suggestions and experience of | public favor. It was issued from the
Tiie Pittsburgh Legal Journal says :
mined.
press during last month, and in size is
all the probate judges of the State.
"
A
call
has
been
addressed
to
the
law
Power of LegislatureAid to Rail yers of Kentucky by the Breckinridge
One of the most important matters to much larger than the average of law
roads. The opinion of the Supreme county bar, inviting them to meet in come before the General Assembly will books. It contains 1022 pages, and as its
Court of this State, delivered by Walk convention in the city of Louisville on be to determine what legislation will be title indicates, is a selection of leading
er, J., holding that the legislature, under December 15. The proposition seems to required in cases where the records and English cases on Contracts, prepared by
favorably received by the Kentucky
the Constitution of 1S48, had no authori be
press, and it is probable that the con deeds relating to real estate are lost or Professor Langdell, for use as a text-book
ty to permit the inhabitants of a strip of vention will be held."
destroyed. The immediate necessity for in Harvard Law School. This volume
land in a county, although composed of Editors, printers, physicians, minis some law upon this subject is very great, begins with the subject of Contracts, and
several townships and school districts, to ters, merchants and mechanics have as millions of money are now tied up, embraces the important topics of Mutual
impose a tax upon them for stock in aid their conventions and form associations waiting the action of our legislature, and Consent, Consideration and Conditional
of a railroad.
for the advancement of their own inter as a consequence the rebuilding of our Contracts. The author says, though
ests and the good of the public, and we city is greatly delayed by the reluctance complete in itself, it is his expectation
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
see no reason why the members of the of capitalists to loan money to land own that it will be followed by other volumes
EasementHow Transferred. The bar in each State of the United States ers until there is some law passed in re- u]K>n the same plan ; but as yet he has
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Erb should not form legal associations, and gard to our lost records. We think there formed no definite opinion as to how far
v. Brown et al., reported 19 Pittsburg Le delegates from each State Association has been much injury done by the doubt the design will be carried. A volume
gal Journal, held, where an easement is make up a National Legal Association thrown upon our titles by many of the upon Sales of Personal Property is more
created by deed, the servitude imposed which should meet once in each year at communications published in the press. than half completed, and will be pub
cannot l>e assigned, granted or surren Washington, New York, Philadelphia, A person having a good title to land at lished within a few months. By the aid
dered except by deed, a note in writing, St. Louis, Chicago, or some other of our the time of the fire has a good title still, of these volumes, the lawyer may trace
or by act and operation of law, and great cities, and discuss matters relating unless he has conveyed it since. A deed the history of the cases from which the
where A. purchased land at an execu to the profession, the amendment of the filed and recorded before the fire, not principles or doctrines governing the
withstanding the fact that it and the re construction of contracts is derived, and
tor's sale, subject to an easement, a parol laws, and reforms in practice. Measur
recommended
to
the
National
or
State
cord
have been destroyed, is under our receive much assistance in determine?
agreement on the part of the owner of
what the law is at the present time upon
the dominant tenement, at the time the Legislatures by a congress composed of | statute notice to all the world.
a
hundred
of
the
ablest
lawyers
in
the
|
Our
present
danger
is
that
we
shall
any
subject treated.
deed was made, to surrender the ease-

Chicago

Legal News.

37

and honorable exertion in which they and the test of time, Courts do not en buranee company has an agent in an
courage verbal objections to the form of other State upon whom service of suit
may wish to act ?
Judge Anson S Miller, who was one of the specification. If a claim to the pro can be made as required by the law of
duction of a material can be substantia
the examining committee, informs us ted,
the description of a particular use to such State, it cannot revoke the author
that Miss Hulett was one of five appli which it can bo applied, which may be ity or representative1 character of such
cants for license, and that she answered comprehended in the general description agent (having no other such agent with
questions much more readily than the of its uses, but is also specially set forth in the State) and thus prevent the service i
the specification, will not constitute
four gentlemen who were examined with in
an objection to the validity of the pat while it has contracts of insurance out
her, and have since been admitted to ent. A patent having been sustained, standing in such State."
the bar. Well, Miss Hulett, wait a little the decree granted an injunction against
infringement, directed an inquiry
longer. The doors of the legal temple farther
Chicago Daily Law Record.AVe ar
as to damages and an account of profits.
in Illinois will surely be opened for the j The
decree was varied by striking out glad to note the fact that the Law Record
admission of women. It only remains the order for the account of profits. But still lives. Our old friend, R. R. Stevens,
to be seen whether it will be done by the in this case the variation of the decree is its editor and publisher. It has just
Supreme Court of the United States or was held not to affect the patentee's right entered upon its eighteenth volume. The
the State Legislature. Our own case to costs.A". }'. Tramcript.
Record gives the number of each ease
upon a writ of error from the Supreme
LEGAL OBITUARY.
commenced in the courts of record in this
Court of the United States to the Su
JUDGE HIRAM DEMO.
county, both State and Federal, together
preme Court of this State, will be argued
Hiram Denio, formerly judge of the with the names of the partiesand the na
by the Hon. Matt H. Carpenter, one Court of Appeals, died at his residence ture of the action ; the amount and date
of the ablest and most eloquent advo in Utica, on Sunday, the 5th of Novem of each judgment ; the names of parties
cates in the nation, at Washington (lur ber.
He was born at Home, in this State, to all chattel mortgages, and the amount
ing the present term, when we shall
have a decision upon the question by on the 21st of May, 1799. He com such mortgages are given to secure. The
the court from which there is no ap menced the study of the law with Judge Record should not only be taken by all
Hathaway, at Rome, in 1816, and after attorneys practicing in the courts of this
peal.
^^^^^^^^^^^
ward went to Wliitesboro and entered
the office of Storrs it White, where he county, but by all merchants living in
STAMPS ON DEEDS.
remained until 1821. In that year he Chicago and those interested in their
J. W. Douglas, Commissioner of In became a partner of Wheeler Barnes, standing. Any of our readers wishing to
ternal Revenue, in reply to a letter writ Esq., a lawyer in established practice at take the Record, should address R. R.
ten by S. A. Irvin, Deputy Collector of Rome. In October, 1825, he was ap Stevens, No. 11 S. Canal Street, Chicago.
LIBERTY OF PURSUIT.
pointed by the Court of General Ses
The Hon. Thos. J. Turner, in the this district, says : " When deeds duly sions, District Attorney to succeed Sam
stamped
are
lost
or
destroyed,
as
by
fire,
uel Beardsley, Esq., and held the posi
House of Representatives, at Springfield,
Any of our subscribers, who do not
on Thursday, introduced the following : counterparts executed to replace them tion for nine years. Meantime, and in keej)
files of the News, having a copy of
1820, he removed to Utica and became a
need
not
be
stamped.
In
such
cases
the
A Bill for an act to secure to all persons
of E. A. Wetmore, Esq. In the issue of Oct. 21st, (No. 2, A'ol. 4), will
new deed should contain a recital of the partner
freedom in the selection of labor.
1834 Mr. Denio was appointed a circuit confer a great favor by sending the same
Be it enacted by the people of the facts, and show the reason for its execu judge
for the fifth circuit. In 1830 he
State of Illinois, represented in the Gen tion."
formed a copartnership with the Hon. to us.
^^^^^^^^
eral Assembly :
Ward Hunt. In June, 1853, he was ap
Sec. 1. No person shall be precluded or
pointed to fill a vacancy on the bench of Illinois Reports.AVe call the special
PA TENT FOREIGN-MADE AR
debarred from any occupation, profes
the Court of Appeals, and was twice af
TICLE.
sion or employmentexcept military
terwards elected to that position, retiring attention of our readers to the circular
on account of sex. This act shall not bo
of Hon. Norman L. Freeman, Reporter,
Elsewhere will be found the English in 1800.
construed to affect the eligibilitv of any ease of Neilson against Betts, before the
Judge Denio married, in May, 1S29, found on the 40th page of this issue. Mr.
person to an elective office. All laws in House of Lords. Betts held an English Miss Ann H. Pitkin, of Earmington,
consistent with this act are hereby re patent for the manufacture of a combin Conn., by whom he had three children, Freeman proposes to furnish the bar
with the reports published by him from
pealed.
ed metal, to be (among other purposes) one only of whom survives.
Mr. Turner is a clear-headed, able and applied as capsules to put on bottles.
In October, 1868, he was stricken by a the 47th to the 52nd, for five dollars per
talented member, and, we have no doubt, Tennent (who resided and carried on the paralytic stroke, from which ho never volume, without any charge for delivery.
of a brewer in Scotland) pur fully recovered, and his death was anti
will succeed in getting this or some other business
chased capsules, made according to cipated for some time before it occurred.
The Grand Jury of the Criminal Court
bill embodying the same principles the process described in Betts' patent,
As a judge, Mr. Denio held a very high
from a foreign nanufacturer, and, in Scot rank. His broad views, sound judgment on Thursday afternoon finished their
enacted into a law.
land, put these capsules upon his beer and great legal learning, gave to his | investigation of the Treat-Grosvenor
bottles, which he then sent to his agents opinions a weight and value not always case, and found no bill against Treat.
Miss Hulett Refused Admission to in England for transhipment and expor accorded even to the opinions delivered
the Bar because She is a Woman. tation. There was no evidence that the, from the appeals bench, while the purity
was sold in England for consump and benevolence of Ins heart and the SPEECII OF A RURAL MEMBER.
AVe take the following from the Rockford beer
tion there :It is held, that though the rectitude of his life endeared him to all
Rer/istcr of the 4th inst. :
! capsules was put on in Scotland, their who had the honor to know him person AN INCIDENT CONNECTED WITH THE PAR
LIAMENTARY" HISTORY OF THE MAN WITH
The Supreme Court, we learn, has just I user while the beer remained in England ally.Albany Luw Journal.
THE " WHITE BLANKET COAT."
refused to admit to the Bar Miss Alta M. ! wras a continual user of them which
Hulett, a law student of this city, on amounted to an infringement of the pat
Some time during the last session of
The Legal News Directory. AVe
account of her sex. This we regret, as ent. In ordinary eases the duty of estab
we understand Miss II. to be a young lishing that the thing patented has been would call the attention of Chicago at the Arkansas Legislature a member in
ladv of superior talents and attainments, pirated lies on the patentee, and Courts torneys to the convenience of having troduced a bill to authorize the burning
and well qualified to enter upon the pro of equity grant limited orders of inspec their names inserted in our Directory. of old poll-books in the clerk's office as
fession of her choice. Under an ap tion for the purpose of enabling him to
useless paper. Our hero totally mistook
pointment of the Circuit Judge here discharge that duty. Such orders can It is, since the fire, often very difficult to the object of the bill, as was his custom,
Miss H. was examined for admission to not be granted where the piracy alleged find the office of attorneys, and the in
the legal practice by Messrs. Wight, has taken place abroad. It seems that sertion of their names in the Directory and supposed it was a bill to burn all the
Miller and Brazee, of the Rockford Bar, then it becomes the duty of the Defend will not only aid their brother attorneys records of the counties. AVith this view
who certified to her ample qualifications. ant to give evidence of a negative char to
of the subject he arose in his place, greatfind them, but their clients.
But the Supreme Court has again, as in acter to prove (in answer to the prima
lyexeited,ran his chubby fingers through
the late application of Mrs. Myra Brad- facie case made by the patentee) that the
well, the gifted and accomplished edi process used was of a different character
The Chicago University.The friends his hair, threw out his tobacco, and said :
" Mr. Speaker : This proposition con
tress of the Chicago Legal News, de from that which had been patented. of this institution will be glad to learn
founds my comprehension, and prays
cided against the admission of women Where that negative evidence was not
to t he legal profession. So it seems there given by the Defendant, but positive ev that lectures in the Law Department, loudly on my feelings. AVhat, sir ! burn
may be brothers, but not sisters, in law. idence on the part of the patentee was which were interrupted for a time by the up the universal memorial of all our
Whatever opinions may be entertained given by one workman that he had been fire, have been resumed. The Law- progeny which has gone before us, as
as to the expediency of woman's enter employed at the foreign manufactory, School is now at the Second Baptist well as that of the present transactions ?
ing the learned professions, we see no and there saw the capsules manufactur
Oblivion would float over us forever.
justice in closing the avenues to success ed by a process not distinguishable from church, corner of Monroe and Morgan AVhy, sir, I would as soon vote aye to
by arbitrary distinctions in any of the that of the patentee, it is held, that these streets. Many of the most promising burn in one common conflagration the
departments of labor, physical or intel circumstances justifv the conclusion of young members of the Chicago bar are scriptures of the Bible ! Then, sir, I
would like to know who, ah, who, sir,
lectual. All these should be left free to identity of material and process, and
personal choice and qualification. Our were sufficient warrant for the grant of graduates of this institution. The law could tell when Christ made his" advent
western colleges, and the best institu an injunction, Where a patent had been school, like almost everything else con into the New Testament ! I'll not go for
tions of learning, are opening their doom taken out by Dobbs in 1804 and another nected with Chicago, has suffered a bap a measure so diabolical and multifarious
to all without distinction of sex. Ex patent had been taken out by Betts in tism of fire. It deserves, as we know never !"
Here he of the " blanket" became so
clusive privileges are surrendering to 1849, and Betts took proceedings against it will receive, the cordial aid and sup
the advancement of equal rights. Why, Neilson for infringement, to which Neilmuch excited that the mover of the bill
port
of
the
profession
and
law
students
then, should not the ways to prosperity son set up as an answer want of novelty,
interrupted him, and told him it wasnot
and excellence be open to all through and proved Dobbs' patent, evidence of of the Northwest. AVe call the attention to burn all the records, but only the old
out the realms of effort ? Whatever may all that was done in the trade to which of our readers to the advertisement of poll-books that had accumulated in the
be thought otherwise, the spirit and the patent related between the date of this institution on the 39th page of this offices under the old vim voce system of
movements of the age are for a rational Dobbs' patent and of Betts' patent, was
elections. His mouth fell open, his
eyesexpanded and his long^nrms dropped
equality, and nothing not even Su admissible on this question of novelty.
preme ( 'ourtscan stay the progress or Lord Colonsay holds that it is not enough
to his side, while he gazed at the mem
prevent the triumph of just and liberal that there has been in a former patent a
The Albany Evening Times says :"The ber for two minutes, and then inquired :
sentiments. Men have no objection to general disclosure of the object to be at supreme court of Connecticut, in the " To burn up the old vivy vocu sistem, is
women in the home and social spheres; tained, unless there is a specification
it?"
why do men, or laws made by men, ob clearly pointing out the mode of attain case of Semmes v. City Fire Insurance The mover of the bill nodded.
ject to women in any sphere of useful ing it. After a patent has stood inquiry company, has decided that where an in- " Then burn and he d
d."
Township OrganizationElections, Estrays and Roads: Being all the Gen
eral Laws of Illinois in force on
each of those subjects, complete, to
the end of the Second Session of the
Legislature of 1871, and identical in
Language, Arrangement and Paging
with the same chapters of Gross' Stat
utes. Springfteld : E. L. & AV. L.
Gross. 1871.
The editions of the General Statutes
of this State by the Gross Brothers luiTe
deservedly become very popular with
the bar. Township Organization is made
up of chapters taken from their Statutes,
and contains 140 pages. AVe regret that
it has not a more copious index. We
cannot assent to the doctrine laid down
in the commencement of the volume
that " Annotations are of use only to the
professional reader, since in every case
of doubt or difficulty the opinion of a
lawyer must be taken, notwithstanding
notes." We think brief notes to the de
cisions of the Supreme Court a great ad
dition to any edition of the Statutes, and
valuable toall readers. This volume will
be sent to any address by the publishers
upon the receipt of 75 cents.

38
[Continued from page 35.]
authority, and increase the difficulties
which imperil the government at tiie
very moment when its needs are the
greatest and most urgent. The private
interest of parties liable to a draft is al
ways apparently adverse to a conscrip
tion, and contracts of this description
would create another class whose inter
ests would also be hostile.
The law of insurance, laid down by t he
courts, will present analogous cases of
contracts adjudged void because con
travening public policy. A wager policy,
that is to say, a policy upon a risk in
which the insured has no interest, is
void, for the reason, among others, that
it holds out continuously a strong temp
tation to the commission of crime in
order to cause the loss upon which the
insurance money is made payable. Sad
ler's Company v. Badesch, 2 Alk., 557.
Amory v. Oilman, 2 Mass. 1. Adams v.
Pennsylvania Ins. Co., 1 Kawle, 107. The
case of insurance upon enemy's property
in time of war is still more closely analo
gous. The insurers, in that case as in
this, are by the contract placed in antag
onism to the government of their coun
try, and in a qualified sense become its
enemies. The temptation to save them
selves from pecuniary loss, perhaps from
disaster and ruin, by thwarting the
measures of government, is constant and
powerful, and they must be men of ex
traordinary strength of will and purity
of purpose if they do not rind that
the tie of allegiance and the sentiment
of patriotism are weakened in the con
stant strain of interest, until they shall
be ready to tolerate, if not actually to
countenance, the open resistance or
secret circumvention of the authorities.
We do not question by this opinion the
actual integrity and patriotism or the
purity of motive on the part of the
plaintiff and his associate insurer in this
contract, but the law of the land will
not favor arrangements by which even
the best and purest of citizens are to try
their fidelity by temptations of this na
ture. The judgment of the Circuit Court
must be reversed, with costs, and a new
trial awarded.
The other justices concurred.
E. Lawrence, for Plaintiffs in Error.
H. J. Beakes and X. W. Cheever, for
Defendants in Error.
LIII. ILLINOIS REPORTS.
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman
L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following
head-notes to cases to appear in the 53d
volume of Illinois Reports:
PARTIES.
1. Defendant, to a creditor's bill. "Where
a judgment creditor, who has levied upon
and purchased at the sheriff's sale, a
tract of land which he claims belonged,
in equity, to his debtor, seeks, by bill in
chancery, to have his title derived under
such sale, established as paramount to
the legal title thereto held by a third per
son, the hitter is a necessary party to the
bill.(Opinion by Lawrence, J.)Low
. t id. v. Pratt etal'p 438.
PURCHASER.
2. Pendentelitewho so regarded. A judg
ment creditor filed a bill for discovery
against his debtor and another, to ascer
tain whether the debtor had any proper
ty which could be subjected to the pay
ment of his judgment. A supplemental
bill was filed, alleging that after filing
the original bill, the complainant had
levied upon and purchasedat the sheriffs
sale a tract of land, the legal title to
w hich was in the co-defendant of the
debtor, but in trust for the latter. By the
supplemental bill it was sought to have
the title ofthe complainant, derived under
his judgment, established as paramount
to that held by the alleged trustee of the
debtor. After the filing of the original
bill, but before the supplemental bill
was filed, the party who then held the
legal title, the co-defendant of the debt
or, sold and conveyed the land to a
third person : HM, the latter would
not be regarded as a purchaser pendente
lite. The original bill, being a mere bill
fordiscovery, containing noallegations in
regard to this land, or any allusion to it
except an interrogatory to the debtor
whether his co-defendant did not hold it
in trust for him, was no notice to subse
quent purchasers that the debtor had ;
equities in the land which his creditors
were seeking to reach.Jb.

Chicago

legal news.

BURDEN OF PROOF.
1. In suit against an officer for failing to
make a levy. In a suit against a sheriff
for a failure to seize and subject to sale
under execution personal property shown
to have been in possession of the defend
ant in the execution, it devolves upon the
officer to show that such property was
exempt from execution, or such facts as
justify a failure to make a levy. The
onus probandi in such a case is upon the
officer.(Opinion by Walker, J.) Bonnell v. Bowman, p 400.
2. Where a sheriff was sued for a fail
ure to make the money in satisfaction of
an execution received by him, the plain
tiff proved the defendant in the execu
tion to have owned and been in posses
sion of a horse, which the deputy sheriff
levied upon, but the sheriff afterwards
returned under a claim that he was ex
empt from execution : Held, the plain
tiff having shown the defendant m the
execution to have been the1 ownerofand
in possession of property sufficient to
satisfy the execution, the officer, failing
to show that the debtor was the head of
a family or the property in any way ex
empt from levy and sale, was liable.lb.
3. And that an instruction given for
the defendant which failed to require
the jury to find that the property was ex
empt from levy and sale on execution,
but only required them to find that the
horse was worth less than a hundred
dollars, and had been returned under a
claim that he was exempt, was errone
ous.lb.
EXEMPTION FROM EXECUTION.
4. Duty of the debtor. Where the defend
ant in an execution is in possession of
personal property specifically exempt
from levy and side, and the officer levies
upon it without his knowledge, before he
can afterwards claim such property as
exempt he must, if lie has it, offer to sur
render other property not exempt.lb.
assignment.
1. Without datepresumption as to time
of assignment. Where the assignment of
a promissory note is without date, the law
raises the presumption, subject to be re
butted, that the transfer was made be
fore maturity. And, in such case, in an
action by the assignee against the maker,
it devolves upon the defendant to over
come this presumption by proof.(Opin
ion by Walker, J.) Richards v. Betzer,
p 460.'
2. So, in an action on a promissory
note, by the assignee against the maker,
the assignment being without date, and
the defense being a partial failure of con
sideration, it was held, the defendant hav
ing failed to introduce anv evidence
showing the transfer was made after ma
turity, the question was properly left to
the jury, whether the plaintiff purchased
the note under such circumstances as
charged him with notice of any defense
the defendant might have to the note,
whether the circumstances were such as
would put a prudent man niton inquiry.
Ib.
FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION.
3. What constitutes. To constitute a fail
ure of consideration of a promissory note,
there must be either a warranty or a false
and fraudulent representation of the
thing sold.lb.
FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS.
4. Scienter. And to render representa
tions fraudulent, the person making them
must know, or have reason to believe
them to be false.Ib.
5. So, in an action on a promissory
note, where the defense is a failure of
consideration, on the ground of false and
fraudulent representations it devolves up
on the defendant to prove, not only that
the representations were untrue, but that
the seller knew them to be false when he
made them.76.
PARTIES.
0. In action upon promissory noteof
the equitable owner. The right of action
upon a promissory note is in the person
holding the legal title, notwithstanding
the fact that another person may have
an equitable interest therein. And it is
no concern of the maker that a t hird per
son holds an equitable interest in the
note.Ib.
1. Reforming contracts, in equity. A
court of equity will not grant relief
against or correct a mistake or misappre
hension of the law, and if a party designs
to and performs an act, under a mistaken

view of the law affecting the transaction,

hi; is held to the obligation incurred.
(Opinion by Walker, J.) Goltra et al v.
Sanasark et al. 'p 456.
2. Nor will equity relieve against a
mistake of fact unless such mistake is sat
isfactorily established, and not inferred
from loose, doubtful or unsatisfactory ev
idence.
NEW TRIALS.
1. How many maybe granted. The 34th
section of the practice act, which declares
that,'" No more than two new trials shall
be granted to the same party in the same
cause," does not operate to restrain the
court from granting any number of new
trials upon errors of law, but only from
granting to the same party more than
two new trials upon the ground of the
verdict being against the evidence.
(Opinion by Walker, J.) Silsbe v. Lncas
etal.p 479.
MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
2. In suit on aninjunction bond. A par
ty whose land was sold under a decree
of foreclosure of a mortgage, borrowed
money to redeem from the sale. The
lender advanced the money for the re
demption, and took the title to the land
in himself, for security, giving an obliga
tion to reconvey upon payment of the
money so advanced by him, within a stip
ulated time. The time having expired,
he obtained a decree for the sale of the
land to pay the debt, becoming himself
the purchaser, and after the expiration
of fifteen months, procured a deed from
the master in chancery. Upon his ap
plication for a writ of possession, the bor
rower filed a bill in chancery, enjoining
the same, giving a bond conditional for
the payment of costs and damages, etc.
The injunction being dissolved, the lend
er brought suit on the bond : Held, the
only question to be considered in estimat
ing the damages he was entitled to re
cover was, what damages he had sustain
ed by being prevented from obtaining
possession of the land in consequence of
the suing out of the in junction, and that
no sum the land was worth, above the
amount advanced" by him, could be set off
against the damages sustained.Ib.
ACTION PREMATURELY BROUGHT.
1. Whether bar or in abatement. Where
an action is prematurely brought, because
of an agreement to extend the time of
payment, which has not elapsed, that is
matter in abatement only, not ill bar of
the action.(Opinion by Walker, J.)
Archibald v. Argall, p. 307.
PLEA IN ADATEMENT.
2. Time ofpleading it. After a plea in
bar, it is too late to plead in abatement.
Ib.
CONSIDERATION.
3. When it mast be averred. A plea that
the action was prematurely brought, be
cause of an agreementto extend the time
of payment, which has not elapsed,
should aver the consideration of the
promise. / ''.
CltOMISSORY NOTE.
4. Whether in extinguishment of a prece
dent debt. The mere giving of a promis
sory note does not, of itself extinguish
a precedent debt, whether it be an ac
count or other demand. In such case it
is a question of intention, which may be
manifested either by an express agree
ment or by the attendant circumstances.
Ib.
QUESTION OF LAW OH FACT.
5. Whether a promissory note was
given in satisfaction of a precedent debt,
is a question of fact for a jury, not a ques
tion of law.Ib.
COLLATERAL SECURITY.
6. Right to sue. upon the principal debt.
Where a party holds a promissory note
as collateral security for a debt, he is not
bound to enforce the collection of the col
lateral, nor is he precluded from suing
upon the principal debt, unless he has
entered into a valid agreement to that
effect.Ib.
NOTICE.
1. Of amendment of officer's return.
Leave will be granted to an officer to
amend his return, as a matter of course,
and notice to the opposite party of the
intended application for such leave is not
necessary. T. P. & W. II. & Co. v. Butler,
y).323.
ERROR.
2. Obviated by amendmerd in the court
below. Where jdgument is entered by de
fault, and it is assigned for error that the

sheriff's return was insufficient, such er

ror may be obviated by amendment in
the court below.Ib.
COSTS.
'3. Where error is removed b / amend
ment in the court below. Where tl ip record
in the circuit court, after a writ of error
is sued out, is so amended as to remove
the error of which the complaint has
been made, a motion by the plaintiff in
error for judgment for costs comes too
late after the amended record is filed.
Such motion should be interposed or
terms should be insisted upon by the
plaintiff in error w hen the application is
made to file the amended record, when
it is discretionary with the court to re
quire the payment of costs as a condition
to the filing of the same.Ib.
CO CRT OF PROBA TE, ENGLAND.
Tuesday, April 18, 1871(Before Lord
Penzance.)
In the Goods ofAacHSR.
WILLEXECUTION"FOOT OR END"liand
16 VICT. e. 24.
The testator wrote his will in (he presence of the
attesting witnesses on one side of a piece of paper,
and though there was a considerable space lefl
blank at the bottom of the page, he wrote the at
testation clause at the back, and the atte-tiiig wit
nesses signed there : Held to be a sufficient execu
tion.
William Archer, deceased, left a will
written on one side of a piece of paper,
but only occupying about half of it. At
the bottom there was sufficient room for
the signature and attestation clause. At
the back of the paper there was written,
Signed, sealed, and delivered by William Arch
er for his last will and testament, in presence of
us, who, in his presence and at his reque-st, and in
the presence ot each other, have hereunto signed
our names.
J. Archer.
M. E. Archer.
There was no other signature of the
testator but that contained in the attest
ation clause.
Dr. Tristram moved for probate on an
affidavit from one of the attesting wit
nesses, who stated that when the will
was executed, the deceased asked him to
witness his w ill, and that he then wrote
the will and attestation clause in the
presence of the witnesses. The only ques
tion is, whether, as there is a b lank space
at the bottom of the paper, the signature
is at the " foot or end ?" The name of
the deceased, written by him in the at
testation clause is a sufficient execution,
and as the whole will was writ ten before
execution, Lord St. Leonards' Act (15 &
16 Vict. c. 24) has been complied with.
He cited In the Goods of Ha mmond, 3
Sw. & Tr. 90 ; 8 L. T. Rep. N. 516.
Lord Penzance.As the will was writ
ten before execution, I think it was duly
executed, and probate may go.
Proctors, Brooks and Dubois.London
Law Times.
Tuesday, June 27.
In the floods ofAbthtb.
WILL CLAUSE INSERTED BETWEEN THE
TESTATOR'S SIGNATURE AND ATTESTATION.
A testator, after signing his will and before the
attesting witnesses, inserted a clause changing his
wife's interest, and made no fresh acknowledg
ment before the witnesses signed. The court ex
cluded the clause from probate.
E. P. Arthur, late a lieutenant colonel
in the Bombav Stuff Corps, died at Tours
on June 12, 1871. He left a will of which
his wife was appointed sole executrix.
He left seven daughters and one son sur
viving him, of whom the latter and sev
eral of the former were still minors. The
will as originally drawn and as signed by
the testator gave his wife an absolute in
terest in the property, but after he had
signed and before the attesting witnesses
had signed, he wrote a clause partly above
and partly by the side of his own signa
ture, by which he converted his wife's
interest into a life interest only. He
made no fresh acknowledgment of his
signature after adding this clause.
Searle moved for probate without the
new clause. The loth Vict. s. 1 express
ly directs that no signature shall be op
erative to give effect to any disposition
or direction inserted after the signature.
Lord Penzance.The object of a sig
nature is to affirm what has been written
before, but it cannot validate anything
which is written subsequently. The
clause in question was added after the
signature had been made, and it nj"therefore be rejected. If after the addi
tion of the clause the testator had ac
knowledged the paper, as it then stood,
to be his will, he might therebv have vandated the clause ; but there is iio evidence
to show that he did so, and probate must
therefore issue without it. This being
decided merely on motion, there is notn-

Chicago

Legal Ne^ts.

39
ing to hinder any party interest from pro LAW DEPARTMENT,
SNOWHOOK & GRAY,
pounding the will.
Attorneys, 35 Monroe St.
Chicago University.
Attorney : B. S. Taylor.Ib.
C1HANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, Cook
BOOKS.
LECTURES were resumed In this institution on } County, ss. Superior Court of Cook county, LAW
Monday, Oct. 30th last, in the lecture room of November Term. 1871. Margaret Ward vs. Corne
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
the Second Baptist Church, comer of Monroe and lius Ward. In Chancery,
Morgan streets. All the old advantages obtained Affidavit of the non-residence of Cornelius
Barber and Lackner. 64 West Lake street.
by
students in this law school are again ottered. Ward, defendant above named, having been filed
Barker. J. C, 77 West Madison street.
in the office of the Clerk of said Superior Court of
For information address
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said
BRADWELL, J. B., 11") West Madison street.
JOHN A. HUNTER,
Cornelius Ward that the complainant heretofore
Sec.
Law
Dept.
Bates it Hodges, 113 West Madison street.
filed her certain bill ofcomplaint in said courton
135 W. Monroe street. t'hj5S^_ the
Bonney, Kay &. (irlggs, 120 West Washington st. 5-13
Chancery side thereof, and that a summons Bourquin & Welsh,
thereujMm
issued out of said Court against said
ward, stamford & riddle.
Bentley, Bennett, I'llman & Ives, :>76 Wabash av.
defendant
returnable on the first Monday of No
Barker ,i Waite, 40 East Harrison street.
Attorneys, 183 West Washington St. vember next,
as is by law required.
(1HANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County Now, unless (1871)
Brouse, O. R., 400 Wabush avenue.
the said Cornelius Ward, shall
j of Cook, ss. Circuit Conn of Cook county, personally be you,
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
"and appear before said Superior
Brown <i Kickerta, 114 West Madison.
November term, A.I). 1871. Samuel Walker v. . Court
ofCook....,...
county, .u
on the first day ofa term
Elizabeth Walker.In chancery.
Coruiiehcel, D. L., !*4."> l'rairie auenue.
I
thereof
to
be
holden
"at
Chicago,
in
said
County,
Affidavit of the non-residence of Elizabeth | on the ttet^Mondiiy of No\
Carter, Beeker A: Rale, "; Canal street.
1871, and plead.
Walker, defendant above named, having been answer or demur to the saidmber,
complainant's
T>;U of
Chase, F. L., :'>jh> Wabash avenue.
tiled in the office of the elerk of said Circuit Court complaint,
the
same
and
the
matters
and things T I BLISHERS & IMPOB TEBS,
Clarkson i Van Schaaek, No. 454 Wabash Ave. of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the slid therein charged and stated, will be taken
as
con
Elizabeth Walker that the complainant heretofore fessed, and a decree entered against you accord
Condon, Wm. II., Si Canal street.
riled
his
bill
of
complaint
in
sold
court,
on
the
ing
to
the
praver
of
said
bill.
Deane & Cahill, room 7. 1.ind's Block.
chancery side thereof? and that a summons there
No. 431 Walnut Street,
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
upon issued out of said court agaiiiHt said defend
Dent & Black, 740 Wabash avenue.
SNOwiiooK & Gray, Comp'ts Sol's.
4-7
ant,
returnable
on
the
third
Monday
of
November
Ewtng & Leonard. 1st Wabash avenue.
instant, 1871. as is by law required.
Ellis, B. W., 11") West Madison street.
Now, unless you, the said Elizabeth AValker,
F. A. HOFFMAN, Jr.,
Philartolpliia.
shall personally be and appear before said Circuit
Felker, Wm. S., 871 -State street.
Attorney, Ki8 \V. Madison St.
Court
county, on (he flntt day of a term
4-16
Goudy *i Chandler, 301 Wabash avenue, branch thereof,oftoCook
be holden at Chicago, in said county,
NOTICE-State of Illinois, Cook
ofnee. W south Halsted street.
on the third Monday of Noveml>er, 1871. and (1HANCERY
j County, ss. Circuit Court of Cook County.
nlead, answer or demur to the said complainant's November
Harrison and Whitehead, 1 CI W. Madison street. (till
term,
1871. HenryFuhrmnn vs. Adeline
of complaint, the same, and the matters and Fuhrmann.In Chancery.
Hervey, Anthony it Halt, Km Wabash avenue.
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will
betaken
Affidavit
of
the
of Adeline Fuhr
Hopkins. Wm., 4(1 East Harrison.
as confessed, and a decree entered against von ac mann, defendant non-residence
above named, having Ijeen riled
cording to the praver of .said bill.
LAW
BOOKS.
in the office of the clerk of mid Circuit Court of
Herbert i Quick, 529 State street.
NOKMAX T. GAZETTE, Clerk. Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said
Hoyne, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michi WARD. Stankoimi
A Rinni.K, Compl'ts Sol'rs. 5-8 Adeline Fuhrmann that the complainant hereto
gan ami Wabash avenues.
fore tiled his bill of complaint hi said Court, on
JOHN LYLE KING,
the chancery side thereof, and that a summons
Hitchcock, Dupee it Evarts. corner Wells and
thereupon issued out of said court against said SOULE, THOMAS & WIXSOB.
Attorney, 76 Dearbokn St.
Monroe streets.
defendant, returnable on the 3d Monday of No
ESTATE OF PATRICK OILLIGAX, deceased. vember
Howe & Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
1871, as Is by law required.
Public notice is hereby given to all persons Now, next,
unless you, the said Adeline Fuhrmann
lsham. Edward s., fio4 Wabash avenue.
215 Xorth Fifth St.,
having claims and demands against the estate of
personally be and appear before the said
Patrick (rilligan, deceased, to present the same for shall
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
Court of Cook county, on the first day of
adjudication and settlement, at a regular term of aCircuit
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in
the county court ofCook County, to be holden at
ST. LOUIS, Mo.,
county, on thethird Monday ofNovember 1871
King, Pcott A Payson, 0;:7 Wabush avenue,
the Court House in the city of Chicago, on thetirst said
and plead, answer or demur to the said complain
in December, A. D. 1871. being the fourth ant's
learning it Thompson. 109 West Madison street. Monday
bill of complaint, the same, and the matters Invite orders from lawyers m oil parts of the
day thereof.
MATHILDA OLILIOAN, and things
I^eary. I). James, 189 West Madison.
therein charged and stated, will lie
Administratrix
witli
will
annexed.
taken
as confessed, and a decree entered against
Lyman it Jackson, 79 W. Madison street, room 3. Chicago, September 27, 1871.
l-7a you according
country.
to the prayer ofsaid bill.
McClelland, Thos., 172 West Washington street,
NORMAN
T.
(JAHSETTK.
Clerk.
JAMES
FRAKE,
Merriain, Alexander and Bol-ter, 1 19 W. Wash
F. A. Hofk.m.vnx, JK., lTffs. Att'y.
4-7
Full stock of Reports unci Elementary
Attorney, 11-5 West Madison Street,
ington street.
Books constantly on hand.
estate ok william hvhst, deceased.
Miller, Frost it Lewis, :>t>3 Michigan avenue.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
J. S. GRINNELL
and demands* against the estate of William
Moore it Caulfleld. S. E. cor. State and Madison. claims
SECOND -HAND REPORTS bought
Attorney, 4-j S. Canal St.
Hurst,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudica
Newcomb, G. W., 214 Wane* avenue.
tion and settlement at a regular term of the Coun IJUBI.ICATION NOTICE.State of Illinois, and sold on favorable terms.
Norton. Jesse O.. :KsO Wabash avenue.
ty Court of Cook county, to Ik* holden at the court
Cook County, ss. Cook County Circuit Court,
in the city of Chicago, on the lirst Monday December Term, A. D. 1871. Henry tfayrs, Ed m~PRICES LOW.
Kisaen it Barnuin,l2U W. Randolph,and376 State house,
of
January.
A.D."
1872,
being
the
Hrst
day
thereof.
ward
W. Thompson and Franklin Cmmore vs. F.
Otis, E. A., 4S1 Wabash avenue.
JOHN COMMACK, Executor. W. Hull ami liarton C. Tillett.
US- TERMS INVARIABLY CASH.
Paddock it lde, 419 Wabash avenue.
Chicago, November 'X A.D. 1.871.
Public notice is hereby given to the said F. W.
5-3
B40 Hull mid Barton C. Tillett. that a writ ofattach
Perkins. S.C., 479 Wabash av.,cor. Eldridge court. .1 vmks l;i: \K!;, Att'y.
ment Issued out of the office of the Clerk of Cook
Palmer, L. I... IS1 Wabash avenue.
GILBERT & GARY,
Countv Circuit Court, dated on the Sid day of Oc
Reynolds, Wm. C, 176 West Washington street.
tober. A. )). 1X71, at the suit of said Henry' Sujts.
Attorneys. 122 W. Washington St.
Edward \\ . Thompson and Franklin Gilniore, and
Rich it Thomas, 94."> Michigan avenue.
THE CHICAGO
HANCKRY NOTICE.State of Illinois, Cook against
the estate of the said F. W. Hull and Bar
County, ss. Snncrior Court of Cook County, ton C. Tillett.
Roberts. P.. Biddle, room 11, :MV4 Wabash ave. C1
for the sum of one hundred and
l)ecember
Term.
A.D.
1871.
(ieorge
strauchon
v.
thirty-one dollars and twenty-seven cents, direct
Rorke, M. A. it Son, 151 Halsted street.
Edward (i. Mason, Trustee,
Clark, and Annie ed
t'thc Sheriff' of Conk county, which said writ LEGAL
Rosenthal, Pence it Motes, Masonic Building, S. Maria Raker.In Chancery.
NEWS
luis
been returned executed.
Affidavit of .the non-residence of Annie Maria Now.
V"., cor. Randolph and Halsted and 1130Wabash av. Baker,
therefore, unless you. the said F. \V. Hull
defendant
above
named,
having
been
filed
Barton C. Tillett. shall personally be and ap
Roys, C. I).. 677 Wabash avenue.
in the office of the Clerk of said Superior Court of and
pear before the said Cook County Circuit Court on
COMPANY.
Bawin & Wells, .">9 West Madison street.
Cook County, notice is hereby given to the said or
before
first day of the next term thereof, to
Annie Maria Baker that the complainant hereto be holdenthe
Seoville, George, :!0 South Clinton street.
at
the
Court
House
in
the
city
of
Chica
fore tiled his bill of complaint in said Court, on | on the third Monday of December. A. I>. 1871,
Sheldon it Waterman, 360 Michigan avenue.
the chancery side thereof, and that a sum- go,
special bail and plead to the said plaintiff 's PRIIVTIIVG OFFICE,
Sherman, E. B., 153 W. Madison.
mons thereui>on issued out of said Court ngajnst give
judgment will be entered against you and
said defendant, returnable on the tirat Monday of j action,
Sleeper it Whiton, 111 Wabash avenue.
in
favor
of the said Henry Sayrs. Edward W.
I December next (1871). as is by law required.
Thompson
Franklin (lilmorc, and so much of
15 Xorth Jeffekson Street ;
Small and Ingalls, 181 Wabash avenue.
Now, unless you, the said Annie Maria Baker, the propertyand
as may be sufficient to sat
Snowliook it Gray, 85 W. Monroe si., eor. Jeffer shall personally be and appear before said Su- ! isfy the said attached
Judgment
and
costs,
will
be
sold
to
I perior Court of Cook County, on the first day of a
son.
! term thereof, to l>c holden at Chicago, in said coun- satisfy the same.NOKMAX T. CASSETTE, Clerk. Business Office, 113 West Madison Street,
Story and King, 149 West Washington street.
i tyonthe first Monday of December,1871,andjlead. J. S. GRINNELL, Pill's Att'y.
1-7
CHICAGO.
j answer ordemur to the said complainant's bill of
Tenny. McClellan it Tenny. 454 Wabash ave.
complaint, the same, and the matters and things
Thomas, Sidney, !.">East Harrison street.
therein
charged
and
stated,
will
be
taken
as
con
HERVEY,
ANTHONY
&
GALT,
Van Buren, E. it A., 194 West Madison street.
fessed. and a decree entered against you according
Attorneys, No. 356 Wabash Ave.
to the praver of said bill.
Vallette, H. F., 59 West Madison street.
AUOCSTCS JACOHSON. Clerk. PUBLICATION NOTICE.State o f Illinois.
Waterman, A. X., lit) West Monroe street.
Gilbert
&
Oaky
Comp'to
sol's.
6-9
BOOK AND JOB
Cook Countv, ss. Superior Court of Cook
White, Hugh A., 163 West Washington street.
County, November Term. 1871. Ready Rooting
NEWELL PRATT,
Whitehouse, Wm. F.. 183 West Madison, late Tri
Company vs. Edward I>. King.Attachment,
Attorney, 1 124 Wabash Avenue.
I'ublic notice is hereby jrlven to thesaid Edward
bune building.
rtHANCERY
NOTICE.State
Illinois.
C.mntvFebof P. King, that a writ ot "attachment issued out of
Williams it Thompson, 55-1 Wabash avenue.
V-'
Cook. ss. Superior
Court ofofCook
County.
the
of the Clerk of the Superior Court of
ruary Term, A. D. 1*72. Peter Bucbanau v. Ann Iiu- Cookoffice
Walker, Dexter it Smith, 792 Wabash avenue.
County, dated the twenty-filth day of Octo
chanan.In Chancery.
ber,,
A.
I).
1S71.
at the suit of the said Ready RoofWilson, Perry it Sturgcs, 479 Wabash avenue.
Affidavit of the Don-residence of Ann Buchanan, the I ing Company and
the estate of the .said
above
inun"d,
havingCourt
been file*]
in thecounty,
nfflcn Edward I), lung, foraguinst
Windett. Arthur W., 562 Wabash ave., and room defendant
the sum of three thousand
of
the
Clerk
of
sai'i
Superior
of
Cook
one
hundred
and
seenty-two
dollars and thirty5 Lind's Bloek.
notice
i* hereby given
to tin-filed
>uhl his
AnnbillBuchanan,
that
Particular attention given to all kinds of
the
complainant
herernfore
of (complaint
nine cents (SUTJ.&l) directed to the Sheriffof Cook
Waughop, J. W.. 401 Wabash avenue.
in wd<l Court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a County, which said writ has been returned exeousummons thereupon issued, out of said Court ajzainirt ; ted. Now. therefore, unless you the said Edward LEGAL PRINTING :
until defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Feb I). King shall personally be and appear before the
Scale of Advertising Hates.
ruary next, (1872). ivi is by law rerniin-d.
Superior Court of Cook County on or before
Now, unless you, the ttftid Ann Buchanan, shall per said
IKCU'MKil
the Mrst day of the term thereof, to be holden at
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court ofCook the
Space. 1 w. 2 w.i 3 w, 1 m.
High School building in the City of Chicago, Attorneys' Abstract*,
county,
on
the
first
day
ota
term
thereof,
to
be
holden
on
the
first
Monday
of
Noember,
A.
D.
1871
.
give
at
ChicaKo,
in
said
county,
on
the
Hrst
Monday
of
Feb
1 sq....... S1.00 S1.75 !^0i83.25| >8.(, S15.00 $30.00 ruary. 1*72. and plead, answer or d-'inur to the Maid special bail and plead to the said plaintiff's
Briefs and Dockets,
i.<'iiii>uiiiiiiiii ? bill
Li of
iii complaint,
mi,>i;i mr, the
i same, and the action, Judgment will be entered gaainst you and
complainant's
mutter?a?*niul
tliinas therein
t-fmrycilentered
unit stiitM
will'you
i.. In faor of the said Ready Rooting Company, and
2l t 2.00 3.501 4.7.->: O.OOj 15.75 :K>.1 1 59.00 tnken
roiifcs^-d.
ami a dcrn'e
acaiiirit
Books, Pamphlets and Reports.
so
much
of
the
property
attached
as
may
be
suf
of ^lid hill
3sq I 2.80, 5.00! M- 8.00! 23.00 44.00! 87.00 ftci/ording to the praver
to satisfy the said judgment and costs- Orders for this description of work will oe execut
Aitgi'stts IACOBSON, Tlerk. ficient
will
be
sold
to
satisfy
the
same,
K C01....J 3.75 ! 7.00 9."J).12.00| 30.00 59.00 ! 110.00 Nr.WF.ti. Pimtt, Comp'tri tioi'r^
ed promptly in the neatest style of the art.
Hkhvkv, Anthony & Galt, PlftV Att'vs.
, 4-7
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
MITCHELL,
HCOli ''*> n-:*> 1^"' -".00, 58.00 108.00; 210.00 Attoknky, RAE
14 South Clinton Street.
Decrees, Orders,
NOTICE.State of lllinoiK, county of
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
1 col 12.00 22.00131.00!42.00 ! 108.00 210.00 35000 rtHANf-KRY
! Cook.
Superior Court of Cook countv. '.De
Mortgages, Deeds, Leases,
cember term, 1871. Rachel Mix v. .lames It. Mix. In ;
Attorney, 113 AV. Madison St.
Ten linos of Agate make a Square.
Chancery.
Checks, Notes, Drafts, Bonds,
Advertisements must lie paid for In advance, Aflidnvit of the non-residence of James B. Mix. do- i TESTATE OF SUSAN A. LOYD. DECEASED.
fondant, above named, having been filed In the offlce JCj i'ublic. notice is hereby given to all persons
and when not so paid, 50 per cent, will be ad-led. of
Cards, Labels, Letter Headings,
the isclerk
of said
Court of Cook
county,
Legal Xor.ces not included in the above.
haing claims and demands against the estate ol
notice
hereby
givenSuperior
to the
Mix
that Susan
A. Loyd, deceased, to present the same for
the
complainant
heretofore
tiledsaidherJames
bill ofR.complaint
Bills of Lading, Bill Heads,
adjudication and settlement at a regular term of
in said court,
on the chancery
andagainst
that a the
J. C. & J. J.. KNICKERBOCKER,
Countv Court of Cook county, to bo holden at
summons
thereupon
issued outsideof thereof,
said court
Insurance Policies, Circulars,
Attokneys, 163: West Washington. St. said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of De- . the Court House In the city of Chicago, on the first
next. 1871, as Is by law required.
Monday of January. A. D. 1372, being the fourth
XiSTATKOF MART ANlflCAVANAGHJDECKASED cember
Receipts, Hand-bills, etc., etc.,
Now,'unless
you,
the
said
.Tames
II.
Mix.
shall
per
day
therof.
_Tj Public notice Lshereby given to all peraoiu having sonally
be and appear before said Superior Court of
ALEXANDER T. LOYD, Administrator.
claims and demand! against the estat of Mary Ann Cook county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to
be
Printed
upon the shortest notice.
Jas.
B.
Bbadwkll,
Att'v
for
estate.
Cavanagh,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudica
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the lirst Monday Chicago, Oct. 26, 1871.
tion and settlement nt a reuulnr term of the County of
3-8
Mffl, and plead, answer or demur to the
'ourt "1" Cook County, to he holden at the Court saidDecember.
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
same,
and
Houite, in the city of Chicaau. on thu Jlrst Monday of the matters and things therein charged and stated,
THOMAS L. McINTOSH, late head of the Book
Vehruarv, A.D. 1872, being the 5tn day thereof.
CHARLES DKIESSLEIN,
will h taken asconfessed, and a decree entered against
and Newspaper department ofthe Lakeside Print
JOHN (^tRBKTT.
prayer of said hill.
D
WRITER,
B
II
O
Ii
T
H
A
N
J. C. *. -J- J.IK\[c;ir.RnorKt:K.
Administrator. you according to theAUOUSTTTS
Attorneys for Estate.
ti-ll Rak Mitchell, Comp'ts BoTr. JACOBSON, Clerk.0-9 i Western Ihtion Telegraph Office, 551 Wcibath Are. ing Company, is the superintendent of out; Print
ing Department.

Chicago Legal News.

4o
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
MARTIN A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D.,
KM Wabash avenue.
J. SEYBOU), 4117 Wabash avenue : residence
R 140 South lircen street.
MORRIS (ILL. I ATTORNEYS.
2JANFORD, E. Special attention given to ColO lections and Real Estate.
11*
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
HERNDON & ORENDORF,
Office west side square. 27*
MINNEAPOLIS (MINN.) ATTORNEYS.
SMITH <fc ORDWAY,
No. 11 Centre Block, Nicollet^st 51-11*
ST. LOUIS (HO.) ATTORNEYS.
LFRED PAXSON.
L
Insurance Exchange Building.
LOGANSPORT (IND.) ATTORNEYS.
M. HOWARD,
Attorney at Law.
5-16'
LAW PUBLICATIONS
OF
T. & J. W. JOHNSON & CO.,
OF PHILADELPHIA, PA.
A full supply on hand and for sale by
CALLAGHAN & COCKCJtOFT,
AND
E. B. MYERS,
CHICAGO, ILL.

English Common Law Reports, from 1813

to 1805. 116 Vols., $507 00
Index to Common Law Reports. 2 Vols., - 10 00
English Exchequer Reports, from 1824 to
1865. 47 Vols.,
.... 1HS 00
u 00
Digest of Exchequer Reports,
The " Law Reports " from 1865 to the pres
ent time, comprising :
2T> 00
Queen's Bench Reports. 5 Vols., 2S 00
Common Pleas Reports. 5 Vols., ir) 00
Exchequer Reports. 5 Vols., Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Reports. 2
10 00
Vols.,
5 00
Probate and Divorce Reports. 1 Vol.,
25 00
Chancery Appeal Cases. 5 Vols., Equity Cases. (Vice Chancellors'). 10 Vols., no oo
Any of the Reports of these several Courts can
be had separately.
These are the regular and authoritative Re
ports of the Courts in England ; they contain the
decisions in permanent and reliable shape, as
prei>ared by the Reporters of the Court, and in the
form In which those decisions are incorporated
into the body of English jurisprudence, cited by
authors, and referred to by the Courts.
6 50
Crabbe's District Court Itejiorts. 1 Vol.,
Cranch's L'. 8. S. Court Reports. 9 Vols, in 8, SO no
Dallas' " "
"
4 Vols. - 25 00
30 00
Day's Connecticut Reports. 5 Vols.,
East's King's Bench Reports. 16 Vols, in 8, 30 00
Harris & McHenry'a Maryland Reports. 4
, - 16 00
Vols., McNaghten's Select Cases in Chancer}-. 1
- 2 50
Vol.,
Maddocks' Chancery Reports. 0 Vols., - 15 (XI
- 5 50
Parsons' Equity Cases. 1 Vol.
Pennsylvania State Reports. By Barr <fc
Jones. 12 Vols.,
.... 54 00
ti .VI
Peters' Circuit Court Reports. 1 Vol.,
Rawlc's Pennsylvania S. C. Reports. 5 Vol*., 40 00
Wallace, Jr.'s C. Court Reports. Vols. 2 and 3, 15 00
Washington's C. Court Reports. 4 Vols.,
30 00
Wharton's Pennsylvania .S. Court Reports.
48 00
6 Vols.,
55 00
Bacon's Abridgement. 10 Vols.,
2 50
Appleton on Evidence,
7 60
Adams' Doctrine of Equity, 5 50
Bateman's Commercial Law, 1 50
Beaumont on Bills of Sale,
7 50
Broom's Legal Maxims,
Browne's Civil and Admiralty Law. 2 Vols., 8 00
1 60
Bucknell on Criminal Lunacy,
8 00
Bunycn on Life Assurance. Burlemaque's Xatural and Politic Law,
2 50
Byles on Bills and Notes. By Judge Shars6 50
wood,
Chitty ou Carriers. American Notes,
* 00
Collier on Mines,
.... 1 50
Curtis' Commentaries. U. H. Courts,
6 50
Ellis on Life and Fire Insurance,
S 00
-I tt\
Fisher on Mortgages and Priority, -

Flanders on Shipping,
- $4 50
Fry on Specific Performance of Contracts, - 3 00
Grant on Banking,
- 3 50
Hill on Trustees. American Notes by Bispham, .
- 7 50
Hilliard on Sales. 3d Edition,
- 7 50
Jones on Land Office Titles in Penn.,
1 50
Kelly on Usury, 1 50
Kerr on Actions at Law,
- 2 50
Law Library. A Collection of Valuable Ele
mentary Treatises on almost every branch
of the Law. 31 Vols.,
- 93 00
Lewin on Trusts and Trustees,
- 5 50
Lindley on Partnership,
6 50
Lindley s Introduction to the Study of Jur
isprudence, - 3 00
Mucnomarra on Nullities, -150
Mayne on Damages, - 3 00
Moore on Abstracts of Titles, - 1 50
Norman on Patents, - 2 50
Ordronaux's Jurisprudence of Medicine, - 4 00
Parsons on Wills,
- 1 50
Phillimon's International Law. 3 Vols., - 11 00
Powell on Evidence and Damages, - S 00
Roscoi's Criminal Evidence, 7 50
Rose Leading Cases. 3 Vols.,
- 12 00
Smith's Leading Cases. 3 Vols., - 19 60
American Leading Cases. 2 Vols., - 15 00
Scribner on Dower. 2 Vols., - 15 00
Sergeant's Constitutional Law,
- 4 00
Sharswood's Legal Ethics, - 2 00
Sharswood's Law Lectures, - 1 50
Smith on the Law of Contracts,
5 50
Smith on the Law of Landlord and Ten
ant,
4 00
Smith on Real and Personal Property,
- 4 80
Spencc's Equity Jurisdiction. 2 Vols.,
- 10 00
Sugdcn on Powers. 2 Vols., - 10 00
Starkie on Evidence. By Sharswood,
7 50
Vattel's Law of Xations,
- 4 00
Westlake's Private International Law, - 2 50
Wharton's Conveyancing, - 3 00
White's Land Laws (of Texas, Mexico and
California). 2 Vols.,
- 10 00
Williams on Personal Property.
- 6 00
Williams on Real Property, - 5 00
Wells on Circumstantial Evidence, - 2 00
Woolrych on Waters and Water Courses, - 3 00
And many other of the most valuable Law Books
now in use and of authority, Catalogues of which,
containing full particulars, will be furnished upon
application.
6-41

BAKER, VOORHIS & CO.'S

LEADINU
LAW PUBLICATIONS.
Abbott's Digest of the New York Statutes
and Reports. 8 vols., complete to January,
1870
tea 00
Abbott's Forms of Practice and Pleading. A
new edition. 2 vols.,
.
.
. 12 00
Abbott's Clerk's and Conveyancer's Assist
ant. Over 1,300 Forms,
.
.
. 6 00
Abbott's Legal Remembrancer. (N. Y. and
I'. S. Law ,)
.
.
.
.
. 2 75
Abbott's Practice Reports. 29 vols. Price
per vol., .
.
.
.
.
. 5 00
Abbott's Digest of the Law ol Corporations.
(Large vol., over 1,000 pages. .
.
. 10 00
Dun-ill's Law Dictionary and Glossary. 2d
Edition. 2 vols.,
.
.
.
. 10 00
Burrill on Voluntary Assignments. 2d Edi
tion,
.
.
.
.
.
. 7 50
Burrill on Circumstantial Evidence 2d Edi
tion,
7 50
Buinp's Law and Practice of Bankruptcy.
The Best. 4th Edition,
.
.
. 6 50
Bump's U. S, Revenue LawsDecisions of
Courts, Rulings, etc., ,
.
.
. 5 50
Benedict's U. S. District Court Reports. 1865
to 1870. 3 vols. Per vol
10 00
Blydenburg on Usury, .
.
.
. 3 50
Bradford's New York Surrogate's Reports. 4
vols
24 00
Redfield's New Y'ork Surrogate's Reports. In
continuation. Vol. 1, .
.
.
. 6 00
Blatchford's U. S. Circuit Court Reports. 7
vols., $7.50 each,
.
.
.
. 52 50
Blatchford's & Howland's Admiralty Re
ports. 1 vol. .
.
.
.
. 5 50
Barnwttll & Aldcrson's Reports. 2 vols, in 1,
$6. 2 vols
7 00
Blatchford's Prize Cases, decided during the
Rebellion,
7 50
Clcttveland's New York Banking Laws. With
Digest of Decisions
5 50
Cocke's Common and Civil Law Practice, as
embraced in the Jurisprudence of the
United States
i 00
Cooper's Institutes of Justinian. New Edi
tion. By A. S. Garr, .
.
.
. 6 50
Digest of Fire Insurance Decisions. Little
ton & Blatchley. New edition, .
. 7 50
Dwight on Charitable Uses. 2 vols., .
. 20 00
Duer on Marine Insurance. 2 vols., .
. 15 00
Daly's N. Y. Common Pleas Reports. 2 vols., 13 00
Devereaux's Kinne's Blackstonc. Commen

taries reduced to Questions and Answers, 84 00

Devereaux's Kinne's Kent. Commentaries
reduced to Questions and Answers,
. 4 00
Edwards on the Stamp Act. 2d Edition. Re
vised, with Decisions, etc., 1869, .
. 4 00
Elwell's Medical Jurisprudence. Mal-Practice and Medical Evidence. New Edition, 7 50
Gardner's International and Interstate Law, 5 50
Grecnleaf's Overruled and Doubted Cases.
2d Edition,
.
.
.
.
. 4 50
Halsted's Digest of the Law of Evidence.
Civil and Crlm. New Edition. 2 vols., . 10 00
Hare on Discovery of Evidence in Equity, . 8 50
Hilliard's American Jurisprudence, .
. 8 50
Hoffman's Provisional Remedies of the Code
of New Y'ork, .
.
.
.
. 5 00
Hoffman's Legal Outlines,
.
.
. 4 00
Howard's New Y'ork Court of Appeals Cases 7 50
Hane's U. S. Criminal Digest. Royal 8vo.
Nearly 800 pages,
.
.
.
. 7 50
Hammond on Insanity in Its Medico-Legal
Relations. Paper cover, 81.00; cloth,
. 150
Hill on the Law of Fixtures. 2d Edition . 2 00
Jones' Introduction to Legal Science,
. 2 00
Jeremy's Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of
Chancery,
.
.
.
.
. 4 00
Kerr on the Law of Fraud and Mistake.
With full American Xotcs, by O. F. Bump.
Nearly ready, .....
Law's American Digest of Patent Cases, etc.
Large vol., 826 pages, .
.
.
. 8 00
Law's Patent and Copyright Laws, Annota
ted. With Forms, etc.,
.
.
. 2 50
Loan and Currency Acts of the United States 2 00
McAllister's U. S. Circuit Court Reports, . 6 50
Notaries' and Commissioners' Hand-Book.
Paper cover, 75 cts., cloth, .
.
. 1 50
Notaries' and Bankers' Law Manual. Large
vol., 700 pages, .
.
.
.
. 6 00
Olcott's Admiralty Reports, .
.
. 6 50
Pierce's American Railrofld Law, .
. 5 00
Parish Will Case. 2 Vols. One of the most
remarkable cases on record, .
.
. 15 00
Ram on Facts as Subjects of Inquiry by a
Jury. 2d Edition,
.
.
.
. 5 00
Ram on the Science of Legal Judgment.
With Townshend's Notes, .
.
. 5 00
Redfield's N. Y. Surrogate's Reports. Vol. 1, 6 00
Rockwell's Spanish, Mexican and English
Law Relative to Mines and Mining,
. 7 50
Sedgwick on the Measure of Damages. 5th
Edition
8 50
Sedgwick's Statutory and Constitutional Law.
(New Edition in press)
Shearman & Redfield oil the Law of Negli
gence. 2d Edition, ...
7 50
Sherwood's Mannal of Legal Study, .
. 50
Stamp Duties of the U. S. with Decisions, etc.
1870. Paper, 75 cts. ; cloth, .
.
.125
Taylor's Precedents of Wills, with Notes, . 5 00
Taylor's Law Glossary. 4th Edition, en
larged
4 50
Trial of Huntington for Forgery. Plea, In
sanity, .
.
.
.
.
. 3 50
Townshend on Slander and Libel. 2d Edit.
(In press),
.....
Voorhles' N. Y. Annotated Code. 10th Edi
tion, with Additional Notes, etc. 1871, . 6 00
Waterman on Set-Off, Recoupment and Coun
ter-claim,
7 50
Wedgwood's Government and Laws. New,
6th Edition,
5 00
Our Lav Publications can usually be had
of the Ch<- 'tgo Law Booksellers, at our
LOWEST CASH RATES.
BAKER, VOORHIS & CO.,
Law Booksellers, Publishers, and Importers,
06 Nassau street, New York.
LAW BOOKS.
J. It. McDIVITT,
81 NAMMAU STREET, NEW VOKK.
No Law Books sold at Cost for the next six
months.
Second-hand Law Books Bought, Sold and Ex
changed.
6-19
D. E. K. STEWART,
Attorney, 181 West Madison Street,
tjistate of peter zoller, deceased.
tjj Public notice is hereby given to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate of
Peter Zoller, deceased, to present the same for ad
judication and settlement at a regular term of the
County Court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first
Monday of January, A.D. 1S72, being the fourth
day thereof.
ELLEN ZOLLER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Nov. 11, 1871.
5-10p

ATTORNEYS.
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 79 Delaware Sired, Leavenworth. Kansas.
52'
GEORGE C. FRY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW.
54 West Randolph Street, formerly 86 LaSalle Street,
Chicago.
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
ATTORNEY AT LAW.
2Co. 113 West Madison Street. Chicago.
Special Attention Given to Probate Matters.
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
ESTATES SETTLED.
"Set thine house in order; for thou Shalt die,
and not live."2 Kisos xx. 1.
8. A. GOODWIN.
E. C. EARNED.
H. S. TOWLE.
GOODWIN, LARNED tc TOWLE,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
No. 494 Waljash Avenue, Chicago.
JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWARD G. MASON.
MATTOCKS & MASON,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
Ab. 523 Wabash Avenue, S. W. cor. Harmon Court,
Chicaao, III.
W. H. WING,
ATTORNEY' AT LAW,
Elgin, III.
Collections promptly attended to.

5-16

WANTS.
WANTKD.-Tlic I., II. and III. volumes of the
NEWS.stating
Address
M.. care, ofof
Legal LEGAL
Kews office,
priceWni.
uiul S.condition
volumes.
ANTED.A full set of ILLINOIS REPORTS.
w Address J. H. Legal News office.
Wood & Long's
ILLINOIS DIGEST.
If any of our readers have a copy of the first
volume and the NEW second volume of WOOD
and LONG'S Illinois Digest which they can part
with, wc should like to purchase the same for the
use of the Legal News office.
We sold quite a number of those volumes lost
spring to parties out of the State, and hope some
of them may be willing to dispose of theirs.
ILLINOIS REPORTS.
Having ho arrangement for the distribution of Vol.
53 Illinois Reports to lawyers in Chicago, and the list
of subscribers in that city being lost, I desire to say to
such as wish the future volumes, that they will bo dis
tributed directly from my office to all who will send me
their names. It is desirable I should also have the
address in the city, to facilitate the delivery. No ex
press charges are to Tx- paid by purchasers. Vol. 53 is
now being bound, and will be ready in a few days.
Of the back volumes, I have from 17 to 52, both in
clusive, delivered anywhere, at $."> per vol. Express
charges prepaid.
N. L. FREEMAN.
Springfield, Nov. 16, 1871.
6-Sj>
hugh a. white,
Attorney, 165 Washington St.
COMMISSIONERS' NOTICE.-Public notice ishereVy by given,
thatCounty
we, the court
undersigned
aplHiintt-d
by the
of Conkcommissioners
county. State
of Illinois, in the matter of the petition for a ditch in
the
sewers
of
Evanston
and
New
Trier,
in
said county,
have
made,ourandreport
on the
ISth day
of November,
1H7], tiled
therein,
in the
clerk's officeA.D.of
said
courtof; PeeemlMT,
and that weA.I).
will 1*71.
applyforto asaid
court, on the
AX\\ day
confirmation
of
said
at which
and the
place
all persons there
inter
estedreport,
mav appear
andtime
contest
confirmation
of.
WILSON PHELPS,
E. A. GAGE.
WELLS
LAKE.
Commissioners of Evanston and New Trier Ditch.
Huoh A. White, Att'y for Comm'rs.
6-7
JAMES B. BRADWELL.
Attorney, 113 West Madison St.
TESTATE
FRIEDERICH
MEDELMAN.deceased.
Xj Public OF
notice
is hereby given
to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Friedericn
Mcdelman, deceased, to present the s:ime for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the Couuty
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of January,
A.D. 1S72, being the first dav thereof.
DOROTHEA MEDELMAN, Administratrix.
James B. Brapwei.l, Att'y for Estate.
Chicago, Nov. is, W71.
6-11
ESTATE
OF
PHILIP
F.
W.
PECK,
DECEASED
Notice is hereby given to all persmi* having claims
and demands against the estate of Philip F. W. Peck,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of January, A.D. 1S72,
being the first day thereof.CLARENCE I. PECK and
FERD. W. PECK,
Chicago, November 17, A.D. 1871. Administrators.
6-lla

LAW BOOKS WANTED.

Any person having a set of Illinois
Reports, or standard Text Books for sale,
can find a cash purchaser, at fair rates,
by addressing A., Chicago Legal News Printed at the Chicago Legal News Prf.-w, 15
North Jefferson street, Chicago.
Ofiice.

Qhicago

Jegal

]^ews.

Entered according; to Act of Congress, in the year IS71, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian ot Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 7.
hc Courts.
We are under obligations to the law
firm of Wake & Clark , of this city, for
the following opinion :
U. S. CIRCUIT COURT, N. D. ILL.
Opinion Delivered August 2, 1871.
Holland M. Richmond v. Mary E. Richmond and
Thomas Richmond.
WHEN AN ABSOLUTE DEED MAY BE CONSID
ERED A MORTGAGE, AND UNDER WHAT CIR
CUMSTANCES SUCH DEED MAY BECOME AB
SOLUTE AS IT APPEARS ON ITS FACE.
Busdgett, J., delivered the opinion of
the Court :
The complainant in this case, Holland
M. Richmond, files his bill in the nature
of a bill to redeem against Mary E.
Richmond, as executrix and legatee of
Dean Richmond, deceased, and Thomas
Richmond, who was formerly a partner
of the complainant, Holland M. Rich
mond.
The complainant alleges that a co
partnership formerly existed in this
city between Thomas Richmond and
one or more of his sons at different
times, but the business being at all
times transacted under the firm name of
Richmond & Co., and that during the
transactions referred to and in regard to
which relief is sought in this bill, the
firm was composed of the complainant,
Holland M. Richmond, and his father,
Thomas Richmond, making the linn of
Richmond & Co.
The substantial allegations in the bill
are that in 1850 the firm of Richmond
& Co. became indebted to Dean Rich
mond, then of Batavia, N, Y., in a con
siderable sum of money, and also sought
from Dean Richmond a loan of money
for the purpose of completing a hotel
then in process of erection in this city,
known as the Richmond House, and
that such negotiations were had between
the parties, which it is not necessary to
detail here at length, as resulted in the
execution of two mortgages by Allen
Richmond and wife, who at that time
seems to have been a member of the
firm of Richmond & Co., or at least to
have held in his name a title to a part
of the real estate, one of said mortgages
being for the sum of $30,000, to secure
the bond of Richmond & Co., payable
with seven per cent, interest, and the
other of said mortgages being for the
sum of 830,000, to secure the pay
ment of the bonds of Richmond & Co.,
with ten per cent, interest. Both of
these mortgages bear date on the first
day of January, 1856, but they are ac
knowledged on the fifth day of April,
1856, and recorded shortly afterwards,
there seeming to have been some hitch
in the negotiations, which delayed their
delivery for some time after they were
prepared.
The mortgages thus given are attacked
in this bill as having been given partial
ly to secure an indebtedness of W. T.
Richmond to Dean Richmond, which
it is alleged has been canceled since
that time in two ways: first, that W. T.
Richmond has taken the benefit of the
insolvent laws of the State of New York,
and thereby released himself from lia
bility ;. and secondly, that by subsequent
dealings between Dean Richmond and
W. T. Richmond, this indebtedness was
extinguished by a large amount of mon
ey received by Dean, which ought to
have been passed to the credit of W. T.
Richmond, being the earnings of certain
boats, and the proceeds of the sale of
certain boats, which W. T. Richmond
aud Dean Richmond managed together.
It is also alleged in the bill that after
the giving of these mortgages, some
time about the 9th of December, 1858,
the said mortgages, given by said Allen
Richmond were released, and Holland
M. Richmond, the present complainant,
conveyed to Dean Richmond, by a deed
absolute upon its face, the property de
scribed in these deeds, also certain other

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 187 1.

property in addition, and that the giving shares of the stock of the Galena and
of these deeds was merely a security for Chicago Union Railroad|Co., at prices va
the indebtedness previously secured by- rying from sixty-five to seventy-two cents
said mortgages, and that these deeds on a dollar, that those shares were sold at
now stand as a security for that indebt a small advance of about 5 cents on a
edness ; that contemporaneously, or at dollar, when they should have been
or near the time of the giving of these kept until some time in 1864, in May or
deeds by Holland 51. Richmond and June in 1864, when the stock of the Chi
Allen Richmond, the firm of Richmond cago aud Galena Railroad Co. was worth
& Co., also turned out to Dean Richmond one hundred and fiftv or one hundred
and placed in his hands, also, as they and sixty cents on a dollar, and the stock
allege, as security, certain stocks, and of the Rock Island Road has since been
bonds, and notes secured bv trust deeds worth over one hundred and thirty cents
and mortgages, of great value, and also on a dollar.
The margin or difference between the
a lot in the city of Racine.
The bill then goes on to aver that the cost of these stocks and the interest on
that
cost and the prices at which they
parties treated these transactions always
from the time the deeds were given as a would have sold, is claimed as against
mortgage; that Dean Richmond however, Dean Richmond.
after the lapse of some time, in violation
It is also alleged that the indebted
of his trust relationship, proceeded to ness for which these deeds were given,
has
been largely reduced by these sales,
sell some part of the property in ques
tion, and that he also, in violation of his and that by a fair accounting between
trust, allowed the Richmond House, the parties, the complainant or the firm
which had previously been mortgaged to of Richmond & Co., are entitled to have
one George Brown for $60,000, to be sold returned to them the unsold portions of
upon the prior mortgages, when he had the property, which was conveyed by
agreed to protect the property against these deeds of the 9th of December,
those mortgages by the payment of the 1858, and the larger balance which
interest and principal as it matured, and would be due for the value of the prop
that thereby the complainants, or the firm erty, thus improvidently sold, including
ofRichmond & Co. were subjected to great the" stock and securities.
loss, to wit : the difference between the
This forms the substantial claims for
value of the Richmond House property the interposition of this court, upon
and the mortgages upon which it was I which the complainant bases his bill.
sold.
I He alleges that Thomas Richmond reThev also aver that Dean Richmond I fuses to join with them in bringing this
sold three lots fronting on Michigan Av j bill, and therefore makes him a defend
enue directly north of the Richmond ant.
House, for a grossly inadequate price,
I have carefully examined the proof
and claimed to recover the difference be in this case, which is very voluminous,
tween that price and the actual value of and has been taken very much in detail
the property. A similar claim is made by both parties, and without going elab
in reference to a certain piece of prop orately into an examination and canvass
erty which is known as the Park Row in this opinion of all the testimony, I
property, being the house occupied by will simply say that it seems to me "the
Thomas Richmond at the time this con evidence, by a clear preponderance, justi
veyance was made, and which he con fies the conclusion that the transaction of
tinued to occupy for two or three years the 9th of December, 1858, when the ab
afterwards. Dean Richmond sold this solute deeds of this property were given
house sometime in the year 1802 for$10,- to Dean Richmond by Holland M. and
000. It is claimed that it was then worth Allen Richmond, was in the nature of a
$20,000, and is now worth a great deal security for the then existing and future
indebtedness between the firm of Rich
more.
It is claimed that the Richmond House mond & Co. and Dean Richmond, and I
was sold upon its mortgages, and Buffer am clearly of opinion that had a bill
ed to be sold for about $50,000, when it been filed by the firm of Richmond &
was worth $200,000, and that difference Co. or Holland M. Richmond, within any
is claimed to be accounted for by the es reasonable time after the giving of those
tate. The Michigan Avenue lots, north two deeds, and while the dealings of the
of the Richmond House, it is claimed, parties continued substantially in the
were sold forsome ten or twelve thousand same manner as they seem to have con
dollars less than their actual value.
tinued immediately after these deeds
It is also alleged that the deceased, were given, a court of equity would have
Dean Richmond, during his lifetime, treated those deeds as equitable mort
made certain gifts or conveyances of gages, and decreed that the property be
some portion of the property which was reconveyed upon the payments of the
conveyed to him, situated south-west of indebtedness then existing between
the city, known in the papers here as the them.
country farm, described in the pleadings
My reasons for coming to these con
and proof as the " Farm" to the Chicago, clusions are substantially these : There is
Burlington and Quincy Railroad, in such a document produced in evidence, which,
manner as to make turn accountable for from the best data that I have been able
the present value of the property, and a to obtain with reference to the time when
similar charge is made with reference it was made up, 1 think was actually
to some of the property situated on Mil made about the date of the deeds which
waukee Avenue, or the junction of Mil purports to be a memorandum of the se
waukee Avenue and Chicago Avenue, curities held by Dean Richmond. It
and near there.
does not state what it is security for, but
It is also alleged that Dean Richmond it states that it is a memorandum of se
in violation of his trust, disposed of and curities held by Dean Richmond, and
converted to his own use, several thou that document is so connected with Dean
sand dollars of the stock of the Chicago, Richmond by the proof as, in my opin
St. Paul and Fond du Lac Railroad Co., ion, to charge him as admitting or con
and some $10,000 or $12,000 of the stock ceding its contents, and there can be no
of the Chicago and Milwaukee R. R. Co., other transaction between the parties, to
$4,000 or $5,000 of the bonds of the city refer this document to, except the trans
of Racine, and a certain mortgage which action of these deeds, and I therefore
was given by the Racine Railroad Co., conclude the parties at that time looked
for about $6,1X30 on certain property sit upon this property as held by Dean Rich
uated in Racine, upon which the depot mond to secure an indebtedness between
grounds, I think, of the Racine and Miss himself and the firm of Richmond & Co.
issippi Railroad were located.
There is also another significant fact
It is also alleged that sometime in the connected with the manner in which the
vear 1859, at the request of the firm of parties kept their accounts. At about the
Richmond & Co., or of Thomas Rich time these deeds were given, the firm of
mond, Dean Richmond bought two Richmond & Co. were indebted to Dean
hundred shares of Chicago and Rock Is Richmond in a balance of about $106,000
land Railroad stock, and two hundred including these two mortgages of $30,-

Whole No. i65.

000each and the accrued interest there
on ; the amount over and above the
mortgages being for balances of account,
money advanced and paid, and indebt
edness assumed by Dean Richmond for
Richmond & Co. after the execution of
these mortgages. It must be borne in
mind, that these deeds bear date on the
9th of December, 185S, and on the 1st of
January, 1859, only a few days after the
date of these deeds, Dean" Richmond
charges up in account against the firm of
Richmond & Co. these two mortgages.
They seem no longer to have been kept
among the bills receivable of Dean
Richmond ; they seem no longer to have
been treated by him as a part of the pa
per which he expected to be paid at ma
turitycurrent commercial paper ; but
they were charged up in account, and
the notes or mortgages filed by his book
keeper as vouchery to sustain his account ;
and from that time forward the interest,
whenever interest was computed upon
this mortgage indebtedness, is computed
at 7 per cent, per annum, instead of be
ing computed at lOper cent, upon one of
the $30,000 mortgages, as it would have
been upon its face. This is a circum
stance which, of itself perhaps, standing
alone, would not be of sufficient weight,
but taken in connection with all the
transactions between the parties, I think
tends to sustain the theory on the partof
the complainant, that these deeds were
mortgages. Then whenever called upon,
and perhaps once if not more, voluntar
ily, after the 1st of January, 1859, Dean
Richmond renders a statement of account
to Richmond &Co., showing that the re
lation of debtor and creditor still exist
ed, and was treated as existing between
the parties.
There is nothing disclosed in the evi
dence as to the direct and express com
munication between the parties, as to
terms upon which these deeds were
made. There is evidence in the case
going to show that one Beers, and certain
other creditors of the firm of Richmond
& Co., were pressing the firm of Rich
mond & Co. here for an indebtedness
which they were unable to pay, and
were about to commence suit for the col
lection of their indebtedness, and finally
Beers <& Co. did commence, and at about
that time, or about the time that Beers
filed his bill, Richmond & Co. called up
on Dean Richmond for statements of
account, saying in substance that Beers
had filed his bill, in which he proposed
to uncover everything, and bring all
truths to light, and asked Dean Rich
mond to furnish statements of account,
for the purpose of making up their an
swer, and one at least of these statements
was undoubtedly furnished for the pur
pose of putting in an answer in the case.
It does not clearly appear whether Dean
Richmond was made a party to that bill
or not, by anything which attracted my
notice in looking through the papers,
but the firm of Richmond & Co. sought
from Dean Richmond this statement of
account for the purpose of facilitating
the making of their answer, and sus
taining the conveyances which they had
made.
Then, too, as bearing upon the ques
tion, we have a characteristic letter from
Dean Richmond, bearing date on the 21st
of October, 1857, in which he says:
" Your favor is received. .Will write you
soon. If you think there is difficulty,
you had better allow all the property to
me. That will let your creditors see that
everything is in my hands." This letter
is dated over a year before these absolute
deeds were made, but within about a
month of the time of the making of
'.hese deeds, Allen Richmond makes an
other mortgage to Dean Richmond of all
the lands which are in controversy here.
I think the description covers them all,
to secure any balances which may be due'
from the firm of Richmond &' Co., or
Holland M. Richmond, to Dean Rich
mond, to the amount of $(50,000. This
mortgage was made a short time prior to

42

Chicago

Legal

the suggestion made by this letter of Oc mond & Co. to the proceedings of Dean
tober, and may have been made, after Richmond. But Dean Richmond did
all, in furtherance of the similar sugges not sell the property, of seek to sell it ;
tion made by parol, but, as I said before, that is, he made no actual sale, although
the evidence discloses no express under in his letter of the 28th he authorized
standing bet ween the parties as to what his gent, Alonzo Richmond, to sell the
was the intent of these deeds of the 9th property if he could find a purchaser,
of December, 1858, and the court is com and indicated his wish and determina
pelled to look into the circumstances and tion to sell it, and there is no dissent
the facts and the relations existing be from the course on the part of Richmond
tween the parties, and determine from & Co. They acquiesced in the course
these relations what the real intention which Dean Richmond had indicated
was ; and determining from the light of that he intended to pursue, and in the
those circumstances, I have come to the direction which he gave Alonzo Rich
conclusion, as I said before, that the re mond, his agent, but there is no express
lationship of debtor and creditor did assent.
On the 21st of September, 1861, this
continue to exist between the parties
after the execution of those deeds, and letter is written :
that thev treated and considered it so,
"Chicago, Sept. 21, 1861.
"Dean Richmond, Dear Sir: It
but the indebtedness did not grow any
less, the interest accumulated, and the seems to nie that you had better credit
firm of Richmond & Co. seemed to have up in detail or in gross, the pptyj you
made no headway in the payment of any hold and balance our account in full of
part of the principal, and on the 28th of all in toto.
" I think it is certain that we shall
February, 1861, Dean Richmond ap
pointed Alonzo Richmond his agent to never be able to do more than to give
take charge of all his property in Chi you what you have got, and it is now all
cago. The letter to Alonzo Richmond in your possession, better figure it up to
upon that subject is somewhat significant, just what will settle the accounts all told,
and balance the books.
and is as follows :
"There are some things you never val
"Buffalo, Feb. 28, 1861.
ued anything than or very little, such as
" Ai.oxzo Richmond, Esq.,
the R. R. stocks and perhaps Racine city
" Chicago :
"Dear Sir: I hereby appoint you my bonds and the like, worth little or noth
agent to take charge of all my property ing,perhaps you would like to give
in Chicago. I own the lot and house back to help us figure out with. But do
that Thomas Richmond lives in. I own as you please as to keeping all or return
two houses below the Richmond House : ing someonly balance the claims all
there is one house between the Rich told against any and all of us forming
mond House, and these two lots. I own Richmond & Co. If there is any less
a lot called the Napier lot, which you sum than 10,000 yon would take cash
can find by calling upon Richmond & in hand for the furniture in the Rich
mond House, just make the figurethe
Co.
" I own a large lot on the West side, very lowest cent cash. I am trying to
making some forty lots.
induce Dickey to furnish me with means
" 1 have rent due mc from the Rich to buy the furniturethere may be a lit
mond House ; you will call upon Geo. tle prospectthe less the sum the better,
Smith & Co., where you will find the or more likely to succeed. I offer him
lease. I have a farm of one hundred some motives to buy and hold the fur
and fifty acres. I wish you to take niture for security of the cost till paid.
charge of all this property ; get what Let me hear soon.
ever rents or income you can out of it.
Yours truly,
" If any opportunity comes to sell, let
Tho. Richmond."
The record does not disclose any ex
me know, as 1 am desirous to sell ; would
be willing to give any time that is wanted press or categorical answer to this propo
on any of this property if enough is sition. It will be borne in mind, how
paid to make it secure, or if enough is ever, and the Court is bound to take
expended on the property to make the notice of some facts of current history,
sale good. I do not want any of the that this letter wa.s written about the
vacant stores in the Richmond House darkest times, financially, in the history
rented beyond July 1st, as 1 may give it of this countryduring the time of the
up at that time. I have a lot in Racine. late civil war. It was after it had be
Mr. Murphy N. Y. C. R. R. Agent, will come a fixed fact that we were to have
inform you in relation to it. Mr. Mur a long, expensive and bloody war with
the revolted States.
phy would be a good man to sell it.
The financial affairs and policy of the
You will show this to Richmond &
Co., and take full charge of all the prop country had not then taken any shape.
erty mentioned.
The banks of this State had all failed.
If Geo. Smith & Co. have not got the The currency of the State had all col
lease of the Richmond House, Messrs. lapsed, and was then being retired and
Waite & Towne, my lawyers, have got adjusted at the Auditor's office at rates
it, and call upon them for it, they are of from 30 to 50 cents a dollar ; property,
getting other securities for me. I want especially real estate, was greatly dis
the rent of the Richmond House paid persed in value, and business men no
promptly.
doubt as much discouraged as they ever
"Please let me hear from yon as soon have been at any period in the history
as convenient, after you have looked this of the country.
matter over. Yours truly,
At that juncture, Mr. Thomas Rich
" Dean Richmond."
mond, in behalf of himself and his part
I ought to have observed in passing, ners, writes this letter. As I said before,
that up to the writing of this letter, the there is no express answer to it. We
management and control of the property have no letter from Dean Richmond to
conveyed by these two deeds continued Thomas Richmond or Richmond & Co.
in the hands of Richmond & Co., and in regard to these propositions. We
the title papers remained seemingly with have no evidence of any interview or
them. They paid the taxes, collected communication between the parties in
the rents, made the repairs upon the regard to the subject matter of this let
property which needed repairing, and ter, any further than what may be in
had general oversight and charge of it, ferred from their conduct.
There can be no doubt, I think, that
which is another circumstance bearing
strongly in favor of the hypothesis that the acceptance of the propositions con
these deeds were intended as mortgages. tained in this letter would completely
Alonzo Richmond waited upon the bar and defeat any claim which might
firm of Richmond & Co. and upon j have been set up previously by the firm
Thomas Richmond with this letter, and of Richmond & Co., that these convey
thev delivered over to him all the papers ] ances were in the nature of securities.
and muniments of title, and facilitated j It is a distinct and unequivocal propo
him in taking possession and control of | sition that Dean Richmond shall take
the affairs of Dean Richmond, so far as what he then has, and balance his claims
this property is concerned, and from that against the firm of Richmond & Co.
If he assented to that proposition, so
time forward the firm of Richmond &
Co., or either member of it, does not as to become bound by it, there can be
seem to have taken any active part in no doubt, it seems to me, that it would
the management of thiM property ; al defeat the claim that these deeds con
though from the date of this letter up tinued longer to operate as a mortgage.
to September there is no evidence of The old and oft-quoted legal maxim,
any express communication between "once a mortgage, always a mortgage,"
the parties, as to the relations which is, undoubtedly, to be read and consid
continued to be borne between them ered with this limitation, "once a mort
with reference to the property. The gage, always a mortgage until the parties
record does not disclose any negotiation, to it agree to treat it differently." But
or any attempt at payment, nor does it when they agree to treat it differently,
disclose any dissent on the part of Rich and do so treat it.it losesitscharacterasa

News.

mortgage ; one party ceasing so to treat for the indebtedness of Richmond & Co.
it is not sufficient, but both parties so to Dean Richmond, then if Thomas
ceasing to treat it is sufficient no doubt. Richmond bought back from Dean Rich
Our Supreme Court, in a case reported in mond any part of the property, the pur
the 29th of Illinois, recognize this prin chase money, instead of increasing went
ciple, and hold distinctly that the par to diminish his liabilities, and yethe re
ties may abandon the equitable relation fuses to consummate this contract for
that exists between them, and that a the purchase of this property solely on
conveyance absolute upon its face, al the ground that he was too old to in
though at one time in its history a mort crease his liabilities. Subsequently, Mr.
gage, may subsequently become an abso Alonzo Richmond, as the agent of Dean
Richmond, sold the house to another
lute and indefeasible estate.
The only question is, Did the parties person, with the knowledge of Thomas
consent, or did Dean Richmond consent and Holland M. Richmond.
to this proposition? and upon this ques
Thomas Richmond moved out and
tion of fact I have carefully read the gave possession to the purchaser, and
voluminous testimony which has been took out with him from the house the
adduced by the parties, and have come gas fixtures and the furnace, or, rather,
to the conclusion that the evidence fully they compromised in regard to the fur
sustains the claim upon the part of the nace and left it in, but received pay for
defendant, that the parties did, from the it, treating the furnace as his, alt which
date of this letter, treat this proposition he would hardly have done if they con
as accepted. These conclusions are de sidered that they owned the property or
duced mainly from the course of deal had a reversionary right in it upon the
ing between the parties, rather than payment of the indebtedness between
from any express statement or words, themselves and Dean Richmond.
either by personal intercourse or corre
Some time near the date of this letter
spondence which transpired between of the 21st of September, 1861, Dean
Richmond also quit-claimed back to
them.
In the first place the evidence disclos Thomas Richmond the Richmond House
ed the fact that Dean Richmond was here property. The deed is not introduced in
in the city of Chicago shortly after the evidence, but the evidence in the case
writing of this letter. He was" here and fully discloses the fact that such a deed
served with process in the case of Brown was" made and delivered to Thomas Rich
v. Richmond & Co., for the foreclosure mond ; that he attempted to negotiate
of the mortgage on the Richmond House. with Judge Dickey, who was the agent
He was here again some time between of the Browns, upon the basis that he
the first of December and the first of Jan had received a deed from Dean Rich
uary of that year, as shown by the testi mond of the Richmond House property,
mony. There was, therefore, opportu and was then the owner of it, and that
nity for personal interview between the he was in position to treat with Dickey
parties. The evidence in the case dis for the settlement of the mortgages
closes the fact that Mr. Dean Richmond which Dickey held as the agent of the
was a man of very few wordshis letters Browns. The record does not disclose
are brief and generally very much to the what the consideration was for this deed.
point. '
We are left to conjecture entirely in re
He was, evidently, as shown by the gard to it.
The deed itself must, from the nature
letters written by him and produced in
evidence, a man of very little education. of the case, have been in the possession
He might have had a personal interview, of Mr. Thomas Richmond, and he has
as I said before, with the firm of Rich not produced it upon the trial, so that we
mond & Co., here in Chicago. He, no do not know what the consideration ex
doubt, did not understand the necessity pressed upon its face was. Dean Rich
for any writ ing between himself and the mond is dead. His lips are sealed as to
firm of Richmond & Co., in order to va reasons which moved him to make this
cate or avoid the construing of these deed. It may have been the very fact
deeds into an equitable mortgage. He that Dean Richmond and Thomas Rich
had the deeds ; they were safe in his cus mond, at some interview between them,
tody, and purported on their face to con concluded that Dean should keep the
vey to him an absolute estate in the prop rest of the property, and Thomas, for
Richmond <s Co., tsike a deed of the
erty.
He, no doubt, did appreciate that he Richmond property, and make the best
was under any ether than an honorable that he could out of a compromise with
obligation as a business man, to re-con Brown, and the balance of the property
vey the property on the payment of this should go to Dean in settlement and ad
indebtedness, and when the firm of justment of this indebtedness. We do
Richmond & Co. expressed their aban not know from the proofs why this deed
donment of any hope or expectation of was given. We can only conjecture in
paying this indebtedness, he considered regard to it. But the fact is established,
the relationship of mortgagor and mort that in his negotiations with Judge
gagee at an end. This W'ould be the Dickey, and the attempt to procrastinate
conclusion of any person not learned in the foreclosure of these mortgages on the
the law, who had not given to the sub Richmond House, and attempt to set up
ject any express consideration. He at a title to defeat the foreclosure, Thomas
once set his agent, Alonzo Richmond, to Richmond asserted that he had a deed,
making sale of the property, and early and exhibited it to Judge Dickey, so that
the next spring he insisted upon having the fact that dealings between Dean and
possession of the house which had been Thomas Richmond, or Richmond & Co.,
occupied by Thomas Richmond, in order took place at about this time, is estab
that he might dispose of it. Mr. Thomas lished, enough is disclosed to show that
Richmond had built the house apparent this property, which is now alleged to be
ly for his own residence, and was reluc of such inestimable value that it forms
tant to move out, and sought to rent it the subject matter of one of the gravest
for a further term, at an increase of rent. charges in this bill of complaint, was ac
But finally, on finding that he could not tually conveyed long before this sacrifice
pay the amount of rent which Alonzo by Dean Richmond, back to Thomas
Richmond thought he could get from | Richmond for some consideration or
some other person for the property, he other. Now, contemporaneously almost
suggested the propriety of buying the i with that transaction. Dean Richmond
house, and nogociations were set on foot : also, through his agent, Alonzo Richbetween Thomas Richmond and Holland ' mond, put the lot. on Michigan avenue
M. Richmond and Dean Richmond, north of the Richmond House into the
through Alonzo Richmond here, Dean 1 market for sale, and they were sold, and
Richmond's agent, for the purchase of j that sale was made with the assent and
the Park-row house by Thomas Rich knowledge of the firm of Richmond &
mond or Holland M. Richmond. The Co., no express assent, but no dissent
price and terms were finally agreed up I when they knew that the sale was being
on, and the negociations went so far as ! madewith their acquiescence at least.
that Alonzo Richmond, Dean Rich
Then at about that time, or shortly
mond's agent here, made out a deed and afterwards, Mr. Dean Richmond made
forwarded it to Buffalo, for Dean Rich j disposition of the Racine lot, and also
mond to execute. It was executed, and | collected the mortgage due from the Rareturned here to Alonzo Richmond, and ! cine Railroad Co.
on being tendered or ottered to Thomas
There is no evidence in the record diRichmond, and he being notified that | rectly tending to show that the Railroad
Alonzo was now ready to complete the , stocks were sold, that is the Chicago and
trade, Thomas Richmond made reply Milwaukee, and tho Chicago and North
that lie had concluded not to take it, western, orChicago, St. Paul and Fond du
that he was too old to increase his liabil Lac stock, with the assent of Richmond
ities.
.* Co.
Now, if this property was held by
The evidence seems to be that Dean
Dean Richmond solely at that time, and Richmond himself sold the Chicago and
so considered by the parties, as security North-western stock in New York

Chicago

Legal

through his brokers, H.T. Morgan & Co., shows that he got their full value at the
and that Alonzo Richmond as the agent time he sold them. The only question
of Dean Richmond sold the Chicago and is as to whether he had a right to sell
Milwaukee stock here in Chicago to one them at the time he did.
Now the letter of the 21st September
Frost. However, both those companies
were corporations existing and having says, " There are tome things you never
offices in this city. They had transfer valued anything, or very little, such as
books in this city. This was the home the R. R. stocks, and perhaps Racine
of Richmond & Co., and I think they city bonds." This clearly alludes to
are perhaps chargeable with notice of these Chicago and Milwaukee, and Chi
those transfers, although perhaps it is cago and St. Paul stocks, which Dean
not material to lay any stress upon that Richmond then had in possession. " Per
haps you would like to give those back
consideration.
From this time forward, however, to help us figure out with."
The evidence shows that he did not
Dean Richmond deals with this entire
property as his own. He renders no ac give them back, he kept them in pos
counts to, Richmond & Co.; he does not session, and subsequently sold them, and
charge them with interest; he makes I think they come fairly within the pre
no statement to them. There is no evi sumption that is raised in regard to the
dence in the correspondence or else other property which he had in posses
where that he from that time forward sion, that they were the subject matter
treated them in any way as his debtors. of the settlement or adjustment between
He takes possession of this property, the parties, that he retained all the
pays the taxes, pays the assessments, stocks and all the property he had in
pays the attorneys for perfecting the ti possession, except the Richmond house,
tle, makes a donation of some part to a and he gave that back probably in place
Railroad that was proposed to be located of the stocks, and he sold these stocks as
through it, and in all respects treats the many other persons did sell them at the
property through his agent, Alonzo time, for all they were worth all the
Richmond, who resided here, as his ab market would then justify.
If the relationship of trustee still
solute property, with no right on the
part of Richmond & Co., to defeat his existed, why of course he had no right
to sell any of this property without the
title.
There can then, it seems to me, be no assent of the other party ; but if that
ground for assuming but what the par relationship was at an end, as I conclude
ties had acted upon the proposition it was, then the sale wTas entirely justifi
contained in this letter of the 21st of able, and the evidence shows that he got
September, 1861, and the principle seems all it was worth, even if the relationship
to be established by all the well-consi of trustee continued, although perhaps
dered cases, both in this state and in the he would not have had a right to sell at
federal courts, and elsewhere, that on the all as mortgagee, without notice to the
question as to whether an absolute deed other party. As I do not think that re
shall be considered a mortgage, you are lationship continued, I shall not discuss
not to look to what the parties say at the it.
time they make the deed, but you are to
There is another feature in this case
look to the relation, and the dealings, which strikes me as perhaps stamping
between the parties before and after the the whole case somewhat with the char
deed was made, to determine whether acteristics of a speculative or fishing bill,
the deed was intended as a security for and that is the allegation in regard to
money, or whether it was intended as an the purchase of the Rock Island and
absolute conveyance ; and if you are sat Galena slocks. The only evidence bear
isfiedif the court is satisfied from the ing upon that subject is that Thomas
evidence, that although the deed was Richmond, some time in 1859, wrote to
absolute upon its face, yet it was intend Dean Richmond that the Rock Island
ed as a security for an indebtedness, they stock and Galena stock were going to
will treat it as an equitable mortgage, rise ; there was going to be a heavy crop,
and if they are satisfied to the contrary, and the roads had a great deal to do, and
they will of course treat the deed ac the stocks would go up in value, and sug
gested that Dean Richmond should buy
cording to its terms.
I can see no reason why the same rule some stocks and put up the margin, and
cannot be carried further, and there are as the stocks rose they would be able
numerous cases, which I will not stop to to withdraw the margin, and the
quote, which have been cited by the de stocks would carry themselves, and
fendants' counsel to show that it is com they would therefore make some
petent for parties where their dealings, money to help Richmond & Co. out of
their acts in pain, have been such as to their embarrassments, and there is a let
raise a conclusive presumption against ter in the record from W. T. Richmond
them that the transaction was a mort to Thomas Richmond, in which he says
gage transaction by subsequent dealings that he saw Dean that day or the day
in pais to rebut the presumption, and before, and he said, " Tell your father
show that a different transaction was I have bought the stocks;" there is also
subsequently agreed upon, or a different evidence in the record that about that
character subsequently given to the deed. time Dean Richmond did buy 200shares
I can see no reason why this rule is not of Rock Island stock, and 2(10 shares of
sound ; why, if parties have agreed to Galena stock, and that in about three
treat an absolute deed as a mortgage, months afterwards he sold it at an ad
they may not subsequently agree that the vance, as I said before, of four or five
relations of debtor and" creditor shall cents on a dollar, but there is no evi
cease to exist between them, and the dence that that was the stock which he
deed shall be from that time forward, bought at the suggestion of Thomas
absolute as it appears upon its face.
Richmond, nor is there any evidence
The same evidence which is compe that he ever agreed to buy the stocks, or
tent to raise the presumption in the mind carry them. The allegation in the bill
of the court, that the deed was a mort is that he carried the stocks until 1864,
gage, is competent to raise the presump having bought them in 18o9, that he
tion that the parties subsequently aban would have made an immense profit out
doned the relation of mortgagee and of itenough to have almost paid the
mortgagor. The authorities I will not indebtedness of Richmond A Co. But
stop to read, but they are ample and sus what sane business man would under
tain the doctrine, and it seems to me ' take to pay the indebtedness of a bankthey are consonant with reason.
nipt firm to himself by gambling upon
It is not necessary to say more then the stock market with 1ns own money,
upon the conclusion to which I have ar for that is what the proposition amounts
rived.
to, and the proposition in the complain
But serious charges are made against ants bill in regard to that transaction is
the defendant in this case, or against I was going to say kindred to many of
Dean Richmond, in regard to the viola the other propositions in the bill, in re
tion of the trust relation which existed gard to other transactions, as for instance
between himself and Richmond & Co., the grave assertion of a large equity in
in the sale of parts of the property, and this case against the defendants, because
I will simply say in passing, that the ev the Richmond House was sacrificed, or
idence does not sustain the allegations in suffered to be sacrificed for less than its
the bill in that regard. The evidence value, when in point of fact the evidence
shows that $10,000, for instance, was all discloses that it it was sacrificed at all, it
that Richmond & (Jo. were willing to was sacrificed by the acquiescence of
give for the Park Row house, and that Thomas Richmond or Richmond & Co.,
was what Dean Richmond sold it for.
they being the parties who held the title
The evidence is somewhat conflicting to it, at the time of the foreclosure.
as to the value of the Michigan Avenue Now these parties must have known
property, but substantially, I think it that the property was conveyed
shows that Dean Richmond got all that to Mr. Thomas Richmond. They
piece of property was worth. The evi must have been aware of the fact
dence as to the stocks, 1 think, fully that when this mortgage was fore

News.

43

and the receipt was actually given in

November, and ante-dated. The agent
had occasionally advanced it, had as
sured appellee that it need not be paid
on the exact day named in the policy;
had induced her to believe it had been
advanced, and had received a part of it
in July. He testified that he made in
j quiry of her, as to where, and how her
husband was in November. She replied
that he was in the State of Missouri, she
had just received a letter from him, and
that he was in his usual health.
Dr. Perryman, the medical examiner
of the company, testified, that in a con
versation with appellee, in November,
she said she had received a letter from
her husband stilting that he was well.
The policy, introduced in evidence,
stated that it was made in consideration
of the representations contained in the
application, and of the premium ; and
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
" that if the declaration, made by or for
Opinion Filed at Last Term.
the assured, and bearing date March 19th,
Mutual Benefit Insurance Co. v. Robertson. 18(S6, and upon the faith of which this
is made, shall be found in any
ACTION ON LIFE INSURANCE POLICYREP agreement
RESENTATIONS OF ASSCKEKAUTHORITY respect untrue, then this policy shall be
OF AtiENT.
void ;" and that upon failure, to pay the
1. Practice representations of Assured. annual premium, on the daysmentioned,
That when the appellee introduced the policy, the the policv should cease and determine.
renewal receipt, and proved the death, she made
Conceding that the representations
out a//ro;m/<[ciV ease, and was not bound to set out
and prove the trulh ol' the application, notwith contained in the application for the pol
standing the policy stated that it was made in con icy were made warranties, by the refer
sideration of the representations contained in the ence to them in the policy, still we can
application, and ol the premium, and it* the de
claration made by or 1'or the assured should be not say that they were untrue. The ap
found in any respect untrue, then the policy
was not introduced and we are
should be void ; that this paper must have been plication
in the custody of the company, and they might not advised by the evidence, of its con
have introduced it and proved its representations tents. We cannot determine that there
to be false.
2. Warranty of i'oou Health.That there was was either misrepresentation or conceal
no warranty of good health. A warranty is in the ment of facts. For aught that appears in
nature of a condition precedent: it must appear
on the face of the policy ; or if on another part of this record, there may have been a full
it. or on a paper attached, it must appear that the disclosure of every fact material to the
statements were intended to form a pan of the risk ; and a true answer to every ques
policy; or if on another pai*er, they must be so
propounded.
referred to in the policy, as clearly to indicate that tion
Appellee was not bound to set out the
tlic parlies intended them to form a part of it. A application
and prove its truth. This pa
warranty can not be created nor extended by con
struction.
per must have been in the custody of ap
3. Misrepresentation when it avoids Policy.
The company might have in
That the statement of appellee was verbal, and pellant.
is not referred to in the policy, and must be troduced it and proved its representa
deemed to have been a mere .representation. It tions to be false. We cannot surmise
was independent and collateral to it. It may have
been untrue, and yet not kvoid the risk. It must that it contained a warranty of good
be proved to have' been material, and that it in health, in the absence of proof. New
duced the risk.
4. Renewal Receipt.The effect of a renewal England Fire and Marine Insurance Co.
receipt and the authority of an insurance agent v. Wetmore, 32 111., 221.
There was then no warranty of good
considered.
5. Forfeiture.That the condition of forfeiture
A warranty is in the nature of a
in case the annual premium is not paid on the health.
condition
precedent. It must appear on
day named, is for its benefit solely ; and a waiver
of*a strict compliance continues the obligation; the face of the policy ; or if on another
that the failure to communicate a material fact un part of it, or on a paper physically at
known to the assured will not vitiate a policy. tached, it must appear that the state
The undertaking is merely to represent truly facts
within the knowledge of the assured.Ed. Leoal ments were intended to form a j>art of
News.
the policy ; or if on another paper they
Opinion by Thornton, J.
must be so referred to in the policy, as
This is an action of assumpsit, upon clearly to indicate that the parties inten
an insurance policy.
ded them to form a part of it. A warranty
The declaration contains two special, cannot be created nor extended by con
and the common, counts. The general struction. Reynolds Life Insurance Co.,
issue was filed, and also special pleas as 85 et seq. Campbell v. New England
follows :
Ins. Co., 98 Mars. 381. Burntt v. Sarato
First, that the policy was originally ga Ins. Co., 5 Hill, 188. Jefferson Ins.
procured by fraud and misrepresenta Co. v. Cotheal, 7 Wend., 72.
tion. Second, that it became void on the
The only proof to sustain the charge
19th day of March, 1869, in consequence of fraud and misrepresentation, was the
of the non-payment of the premium, and remark of appellee to the agents of the
its renewal was effected by fraud and company, that she had received a letter
misrepresentation. The life of the de from the deceased,that he was in Mis
ceased was insured in 18(S<>, for the bene souri, and in his usual health. The de
fit of his wife, the appellee, and a renew ceased was a traveling agent, and the
al was procured from year to year. Ap fact of his absence from home was known
pellee recovered a judgment for the to the agents of the company. This
amount of the policy and interest. The statement was verbal and is not referred
assured died in January, 1870.
to in the policy, and must be "deemed to
There was introduced, in evidence, a have been a "mere representation. It
receipt for the annual premium, of the was independent of the contract and col
date March 19th, 1869, signed by the lateral to it. It may have been untrue,
proper officers, which by its terms con and yet not avoid the policy. It mast be
tinued the policy in force for one year proved to have been material, and that
from its date. The language of this it induced the risk. Farmer's Ins. Co. v.
receipt is: " Policy on the life of Byrd Snyder, 16 Wend., 481.
M. Robertson is hereby continued in
Did it induce the risk ? The evidence
force for one year from date, settlement satisfies us to the contrary.
of the premium having been made."
The renewal receipt, though dated the
The policy was issued to insure the life 19th of March, was in fact executed on
of the deceased, for the term of life, in the 11th of November. The premium
consideration of the premium paid, and should have been paid on the 19th of
to be paid in each year during its con March. Notwithstanding this provision
tinuance. This receipt did not make a in the policy, a part of the premium was
new contract. It was merely evidence received by the agent of the company,
of compliance with the condition of the in July ; and he had induced appellee to
policy. It did not alter its terms or legal believe that it had been advanced. An
effect, or change the parties. It was not advancement of it had previously been
an independent contract, but a continu made by the agent
The medical examiner of the com
ance of the old one.
A prima facie case was made in behalf pany, on the 2d of November, gave a
of appellee, by the introduction of the certificate, that the assured was then in
policy, the renewal receipt, and proof good health. He had made a careful and
of the death.
personal examination of him in March,
It is contended that the continuance and in September or November, 1869.
of the policy was procured by fraud. Besides appellee testified, that she made
This is the allegation of the plea : but it- no application for, and did not know of
the necessity of, such a certificate. Wre
is wholly unsustained by the proof.
The premium was due in March, but think that these acts of the agents were
it was not all paid until in November;
'Continued on page 40.]
closed, Dean Richmond had not a scin
tilla of title in it, and yet that is set up
here, because this deed never got upon
the record. Dean Richmond is dead,
and the inference seems to be that they
could put the sacrifice of that property,
of the Park row property, and Michigan
avenue property, and these stocks alto
gether, and make up an enormous charge
of dereliction and bad faith as trustee,
as against Dean Richmond's estate.
It seems to me, for these considera
tions, that the allegations in the bill are
not sustained by proof, and that the bill
must be dismissed.
Messrs. Ksowlton & Jameson, Coun
sel for Complainant.
Messrs. Waits & Clarke, and C. Beckwrrn, Counsel for Defendant, Mary E.
Richmond.

44

Chicago

Legal

News.

line is about to commence. Already I

Chicago Legal News. reward offered, the corporation was a Superior Court of this county, stating the am trustee of the property of two hun
state bank, but subsequently under the facts, and praying that the Board be com
law of that State, became a national bank. pelled by mandamus to place her name dred bankrupts and liquidating debtors,
fex fittrft.
The court held that the action for the re upon the register. Chief Justice Jame besides being, I fear, receiver of a great
ward
was properly brought against the son, on Monday, granted an alternative deal of stolen property, or at least prop
CHICAGO, NOVEMBER 25, 1871,
writ returnable on Monday next, com erty dishonestly obtained.' "
national bank.
published every saturday by
Public Road not an Incumberance. manding the Board to show cause, if any
The Chicago Legal News Company, The same court held in Peck v. Jones, they have, why Mrs. Waite's name
CRIMINAL COURT OF COOK
at 115 madlsos .street.
COUNTY.
that a public road or street upon lots of should not be placed upon the register.
ground shown by a public recorded plot
report of the grand jurythey in
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
dorse THE ACTION OF GENERAL SHER
is not such an incumbrance as will enti
The Chicago Law Institute has se
IDAN AND MAYOR MASON.
tle the vendee to defalk from the pur cured two large rooms of the city on the
Terms :
The grand jury of this court concluded
Two Dollars per annum, in advance. Single cop chase money. 19 Pitts, Leg. J 49.
corner
of
Adams
and
La
Salle
streets,on
ies Ten Cents.
Communicating Infectious Disease. the second floor. Mr. Shorey, the Chair its labors on Monday, having found
man of the Finance Committee, assures eighty-seven true bills, including four for
We call attention to the following The Supreme Court of Michigan hold in us that these rooms are sufficiently large murder and one for manslaughter. They
Eaton
v.
Winnie,
reported
20
Michigan,
opinions reported at length in this issue:
156, where a party being allowed to re to contain ten thousand volumes of failed to find a bill against the young
man, Theodore N. Treat, who shot Col
Absolute DeedWiikn a Mortgage. main on land under a mere license so books.
The opinion of the Uniied States Circuit uses it as to make it the means of com
onel Grosvenor, but before being dis
Court for this district, delivered by municating an infectious disease, will be
We regret to learn that Mr. Samuel charged, made the following report :
Blodgett, J., stating when a deed abso held liable in damages, for the injury W. Packard, of the law firm of Cooper
The grand jury for November term,
lute on its face may be treated as a mort thus occasioned to the property of the & Packard, of this city, has been com having now finished their labors, and
about to adjourn, would re
gage, and when such deed without any owner or licensor of the premises, such pelled by ill health to relinquish tempo being
port to your Honor facts brought to their
conveyance between the parties may, by owner being ignorant of the damage to rarily the practice of the law, to spend notice, "and, in response to your able
to us at the commencement of
a parol agreement, become in fact, as which ids property was exposed.
the winter in the exhilarating climate of charge
our term, beg to say that they have been
well as on its face, an absolute deed.
Denver and Salt Lake city.
mindful of its counsels, and that their
Lipe Insurance Policy Forfeiture
Mr. Packard has been engaged in the action has not been without some pain
HON.
GEORGE
C.
BATES,
of. The opinion of the Supreme Court
practice of his profession here for nearly ful and trving circumstances.
We desire to say that we fully indorse
U. S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR UTAH.
of Illinois, delivered by Thornton, J.,
six years, and by his industry and appli
commend the action of His Honor
construing several provisions in an ap
The telegraph announced a few days cation has achieved a prominent position and
Mayor Mason in calling to his aid the
plication and life policy, and settling since, the appointment of George C. among the younger members of the bar, services of Lieutenant General Sheri
some interesting questions in regard to Bates, Esq., of this city, as U. S. District and was well known and highly esteemed dan ; that we honor the wise discretion
what misrepresentations will forfeit a Attorney for Utah, and his commission by the judiciary of this county. He has of our Mayor in thrusting aside the pet
ty vanity of place and position, and sum
policy.
has now been received and accepted, our best wishes for the speedy restora moning to his side the wisest counsels in
and he goes at once to his post. Bred tion of his health, and his many friends our midst, and availing himself of their
to the Bar by John C. Spencer of New here will gladly welcome him back to powerful aid in the appalling emergen
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
cies of the late conflagration.
In our opinion the thanks of the com
AppraisersAll Must be Present. York, he emigrated to Michigan in 1834, enter again upon a professional career
where
the
highest
rewards
seem
sure
to
and
was
twice
made
U.
S.
Attorney
munity are due to the Lieutenant Gen
The N. Y. Court of Appeals holds in the
eral of the Army for the timely and ef
/
case of the Board of Water Commission there, first by Gen. Harrison, then by await him.
ficient aid he afforded us in co-operation
ers of Cohoos v. Lansing that the report (Jen. Taylor, and in 1852 Special Counsel
with the regular police force of our city,
for
the
United
States
in
California,
and
LAW BOOKS.
recognizing in his efforts no spirit of
or certificate of an officer is evidence of
usurpation of law or authority, but, on
fact., which by law he is required or au so has had large experience in its duties.
Kay
&
Brother,
of
Philadelphia,
contrary, an unselfish desire to do a
thorized to certify, that where appraisers Since 18<31 he has been a member of this have just issued a neat catalogue of law the
duty that the emergencies of the hour
Bar, and by diligence, industry, temper
are appointed to determine the value of ance, and integrity had made a handsome books, published and for sale by them, demanded, the assumption of which was
property to be taken for public purposes,
from which we learn that they have a great relief to the anxieties of the peo
not only the examination must be had, competence, all of which went down among others the following books in ple. In the discharge of the trying du
with our own property in the same
ties imposed on men under his charge,
but the determination must be made at building
or rather of his subordinates, acting
on that dreadful night of Octo press and in preparation:
a meeting at which all are present.N. ber 8. Having been well acquainted
Bishop on the Law of Married Wom voluntarily under him, a citizen who un
fortunately was found from home at a
Y. Transcript, Nov. 17.
Vol. II. 8vo.
with Mr. Bates since the establishment en.Greening's
Forms of Declarations. 8vo. very unreasonable hour, was shot, and
Damages for Delay. The Supreme of this journal, we do not hesitate to
Milliard on the Law of Contracts. 2 died in a few hours thereafter. We have
Court of the United States in affirming indorse his appointment as one emi vols. 8vo. Will be ready in November. given this sad case a patient and careful
Hood on the Law of Executors in examination. We have had before us
the judgment of the United States Cir nently fit to be made. He brings to his
all those who bad the slightest knowl
cuit Court for this district, in the case of aid fine natural abilities, being one of Pennsylvania. Second Edition. 8vo.
Kerr on the Law and Practice of Re edge of the affair, and our deliberations
the Merchants Insurance Co. v. Huch- the most eloquent speakers in the North ceivers. With American Notes by G. have resulted in setting at liberty the
berger, being of the opinion that the west, and possessed of an extensive and Tucker Bispham, Esq. 8vo.
young man who was the cause of the un
fortunate occurrence. Not only were the
Rand and Furness on Poisons. 8vo.
writ of error was taken for delay award varied experience, the interests of the
captured villains in our jail turned loose,
Redfield on Corporations. 8vo.
ed 10 per cent, damages, which added to government in Utah will be safe in his
Saunders on Pleading and Evidence. but the thieves and robbers of the land
the interest upon the judgment, makes hands.
flocked to the carnival offlame. Numer
Sixth American Edition.
the appellant pay a heavy penalty for
Smith's Pennsylvania State Reports. ous crimes, including many murders,
committed during the fire, have been be
YXI. Svo.
prosecuting the writ of error without
English Law Books.It is with pleas Vol.
Sugden on Vendors and Purchasers. fore us for examination. We feel con
cause. The Legal Gazette in referring to ure that we call the attention of our Eighth
vinced that nothing but the vigorous
American Edition. Svo.
this ease says, " we are most happy to readers needing English law books, to
Wharton's Conflict of Laws ; or, Pri measures and strict surveillance of the
police and military prevented further
observe a determination on the part of the advertisement of Messrs. Stevens & vate International Law. 8vo.
Williams on Executors and Adminis outrage, and instead of branding the acts
the Supreme Court of the United States Haynes, on the last page of this issue.
of our Mayor and those who assisted
to punish by the infliction of ten per We have known this firm by reputation trators. Sixth American Edition.
him, as criminal, we feel constrained to
T.
&
J.
W.
Johnson
&
Co.,
of
Philadel
cent, damages, in addition to interest, all for many years, and are familiar with
say that we deem their conduct to have
phia,
have
just
issued
a
Supplement
to
been dictated by the highest regard for
plaintiffs in error bringing suits to that their manner of doing business. In
and order.
court and stopping up the course of pub ability to furnish and disposition to their Law Catalogue of 1866, with tabu law
We have further to report that a seri
lic justice with cases when they have no please their customers, they have no su lar list of contents of the " English ous complaint was brought to our notice
real grounds to dispute the justice of perior. Their honesty is unquestioned. Common Law Reports," revised tables of by a respectable citizen of Canada,
the Managers and Warden of the
verdicts and judgments below."
For many years the Chicago Law Insti English, Irish and Scotch Reports, and against
abbreviations in citation. The explana County Hospital, who charges that a kins
Infringment of Patent. Held by tute has imported direct from this well- tion of abbreviations used in reference man of his had died there recently, and
McKennan J., in Jordan v. Wallace et al, known firm, all the foreign books it re to English, Scotch and Irish Law Books that his remains had been stolen and
that where an infringment of a patent is quired, and in every instance they have is very complete, and will be useful in could nowhere be found. We summon
ed before us the Warden and Managers
alleged in the bill the respondents are given entire satisfaction. An American
and others, but could obtain no satisfac
bound to answer it distinctly and une- attorney, by consulting their catalogue, any law office.
tory account from any of them regarding
may send an order from his own office
the missing remains. The statute of our
vasively.3 Legal Gazette, 371.
Dvyarris on Statutes and Constitu State does not seem to cover the case,
Liability of BankAot of Cashier. for one or more books, and receive them
therefore we can only censure these of
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, by return of mail. Large orders will be tions.We will send Judge Potter's edi ficers or managers for want of vigilance
tion
of
Dwarris
on
Statutes
and
Consti
filled
and
sent
by
express.
in the care of their dead. We recom
in Kelsey v. the N. Bank of Crawford
tutions to any address, express charges mend that the proper authority forth
County, reported 19 Pittsburgh Leg. J.
Woman Suffrage.Mrs. Catharine V. prepaid, upon receipt of the price, 7.50. with employ a night watchman to guard
49, held, where the cashier of a bank,
these premises, and take other proper
which had been robbed, offered a re Waite, of Hyde Park, made a written ap
measures to prevent a like occurrence in
Workings
of
the
English
Bank
plication
to
the
Board
of
Registration
at
future, and the attention of our Legisla
ward for the apprhension of the thieves,
and the directors after notice individu the late election, and asked them to place ruptcy Law.The London Law Timet ture be called to the insufficiency of our
in such cases.
ally, did not officially disavow his action ; her name upon the register as a voter, says : " We have received incidentally a statute
The above report was signed by twen
that the assent and ratification must be which they refused to do, upon the curious illustration of the working of ty-one of the members of the jury. Two
presumed, and the bank was bound. ground that she was a woman. AVhere- our present bankruptcy law. A corre
When the theft was committed and the upon Mrs. Waite filed a petition in the spondent writes, ' the busy season in my members did not sign it.

Chicago
CHICAGO LAW INSTITUTE.
MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
THE WORK OF RESTORING THE LIBRARY.
The executive committee of the Chi
cago Law Institute met on the 20th inst.
at the office of Hon. Elliott Anthony,
the president. There were present Mr.
Anthony, Hon. Thomas Hoyne, Hon.
Samuel W. Fuller, and Messrs. M. W.
Fuller, Julius Rosenthal, 0. H. Horton,
H. N. Hibbard, Daniel L. Shorey, B. F.
Ayer, and Charles M. Sturges, members
of the committee.
Daniel L. Shorey, chairman of the
finance committee, in behalf of that
committee, presented the following re
port, which was adopted :
The finance committee, pursuant to a
resolution of the executive committee
of the Chicago Law Institute calling for
information as to the former anil present
condition of the library and nuances of
that institution, respectfully report,
That the C hicago Law Institute is a
corporation organized under a charter
granted by the general assembly of this
State, dated Feb. IS, 1857, and amended
by an act approved Feb. 14, 1803, and
also by another act approved Feb. 23,
1807, and is the only organization of the
lawyers of this city which has been in
existence since 1858. It was chartered
and organized mainly for the purpose of
collecting a law library in the city of
Chicago, which object was steadily pur
sued from the first, and, on the 8th
day of October, 1871, it had acquired
about 7,000 volumes of law books,
valued at about 830,000. In October,
1867, it owned by actual count 4,081 vol
umes, which number has since rapidly
and steadily increased, and embraced
a nearly perfect series of American re
ports; all the reports of the English
courts, and many of the most valuable
Irish and Scotch reports; all t ho law
journals of the United States and Eng
land ; most if not all the modern text
books published in this country and
England, and also the old English di
gests, together with a large collection of
rare and valuable works on the civil
law. While the institute had been aided
by many generous gifts from personal
and professional friends, yet most of the
library had been procured with its own
fundsj derived from the sale of its stock
and assessments upon its members. The
library was the property of the share
holders, and freely used bv them and all
subscribers to the stock who were not in
default in the payment of their dues,
and was free to all the judges and law
yers living outside of Cook county, eith
er in this or any other state. It had al
ways been kept in roosfrs in the court
house furnished by the county of Cook.
Convenient to all the state courts, and
freely used by all the judges holding
courts in this city ; and was in charge of
a librarian and assistant, one of whoin
was always in attendance, and was in
sured for S20,000, divided among differ
ent companies, as follows : five thousand
each in the Lumberman's, Merchants',
Firemen's, and Equitable Insurance
companies, all established in the city of
Chicago, and organized under charters
granted by the State of Illinois.
Besides the library, the institute had,
on the 8th dav of October, 1871, $1,318.58 in the hands of its treasurer, and owed
only about $350 for all purposes.
On the night of the 8th of October,
1871, a memorable fire destroyed all the
books, records, vouchers, and papers of
the institute, with even' record of deeds
and wills, and all the files and records of
all the state and federal courts establish
ed and held in the city of Chicago. The
law institute thus lost everything it pos
sessed, except its name and legal organ
ization, the balance of $1,318 58 in the
hands of its treasurer, and what may be
realized upon its insurance, which will
not, in the present judgment ofthis com
mittee, exceed $1,500. In addition to
their loss as members of the institute,
the lawyers of the city, with, so far as
now known, but one or two exceptions,
lost at the same time all their private li
braries and papers, although some of
them saved a very few setts of reports
mostly those of the state of Illinois and
the supreme court of the United States.
Having sustained such heavy losses,
the members of the institute, believing
that in union there is economy as well as
strength, determined to do all in their
power to restore their library ; and at
the annual meeting held on the 0th day
of November, 1871, voted to levy and

Legal

collect an assessment of $25 on each

share of stock, which the committee
think will realize within the next sixty
days about $3,000, and it was also voted
to sell new shares of stock to those who
wish to purchase them on the original
terms ol one quarter down, and the bal
ance payable in one, two and three years,
such new stock, however, to be free from
assessments for the next two years.
The city of Chicago has kindly pro
vided two good rooms for the use of the
institute and its library in the new build
ing, where the city offices will be located,
and which are believed to be reasonably
secure from fire.
The institute has received since the
fire several generous and valuable gifts
and offers of books, such as the follow
ing:
One of the first, if not the very first
offers of help was a draft for $500, sent
bv Hon. Joel Parker, of Cambridge,
Mass., to Hon. R. B. Mason, Mayor of
Chicago, for the benefit of the bar of
this city, and which it is expected will
ultimately be turned over to the insti
tute.
The following donations are also ac
knowledged : I rom David Murphy, Esq.,
of St. Louis, text-books and statutes;
from D. B. Canfield & Co., Philadelphia,
$200; from secretary of State of Illinois,
reports, statutes and digest ; from Judge
Wm. 1). Kelley, M. C, Philadelphia, 350
volumes, reports and text-books; from
David Webster, Esq., Philadelphia, text
books ; from governor of State of Maine,
through the aid of Hon. Lyman Trum
bull, Maine reports, digests, and statutes;
from D. Dickinson, Esq., State librarian,
Kansas, Kansas reports and statutes;
from the Hon. Gustavns Ku-riicr, Belle
ville, reports; from Little, Brown &. Co.,
Boston, 92 volumes Massachusetts reports
and digests ; from State of Iowa, through
D. L. Shorey, Esq., Iowa reports, digests
and statutes ; from Supreme Court, In
diana, through Hon. S. B. Gookins, In
diana reports and digests; from Hon.
S. S. Fisher, Cincinnati, three volumes
patent cases. Robert T. Lincoln, Esq.,
has received advices of the shipment of
the following books for the uses of the
law institute :
From Hon. Emory Washburn, of Cam
bridge, Mass., Washburn on Real Prop
erty, 3 vols.; from Hon. Alfred Conkling,
Geneseo, N. Y., United States Statutes at
Large, 10 vols.; Story's Commentaries on
the Constitution, 3" vols. ; Kent's Com
mentaries, 4 vols.; Chitty's Blackstone, 2
vols.; Story's Commentaries on Equity,
3 vols.; Story's Commentary on Equity
Pleadings, 1 vol.; Greenleaf's Evidence,
3 vols.; New York Digests, 3 vols.; Voorhies' Code, 1 vol. ; Curtis on Patents, 1
vol.; Story on Partnership, 1 vol.; Drake
on Attachment, I vol.; Conklin's Trea
tise, 1 vol.; Court of Claims Reports, 3
vols.; from John Henry Hull, Esq., New
York city, S25 ; from D. \V. Esmond,
Esq,, Newburgh, N. Y., $5.
From Joel P. Bishop, a copy of each of
his treatises ; from Hon. John M. Wilson,
of Chicago, a valuable set of State Trials;
also a full set of Michigan Reports, Stat
utes, and school laws, forwarded to him
bv the Governor of that state, and from
N. L. Freeman, $50 cash.
The thanks of the institute are due to
all these generous donors, and also to all
those gentlemen in the city and else
where who have taken the trouble to
solicit donations for our library.
This, so far as can now be known, is
the condition of the law institute, and
the committee believes that it appeals
strongly to the shareholders and all the
lawyers of this city to do all in their
power to repair its losses at the earliest
practicable time as the best and cheap
est way of providing themselves with
law books.
There were about 500 lawyers in the
city before the fire, and although they
all have suffered great losses, yet your
committee think that more than lialf of
that nnmber still remain who will aid us
by paying their assessments or taking
new stock on the terms proposed, and if
they do so, we can within ninety days,
hav'e on our shelves for the use of all the
judges and all the shareholders a full
collection of the most necessary text
books and reports. Your committee, in
common with all the members of the in
stitute, are deeply sensible of the prompt
sympathy and generous aid which law
yers, book-publishers, state officials, and
our friends in all parts of the country
have extended towards us, and are be
comingly grateful for it ; but the great

News.

task of restoring our library must rest

on the lawyers of this city, and your
committee believe that they will, to the
utmost of their means, aid in accom
plishing it.
I). L. Shorey,
B. F. Ayer,
O. H. Horton,
S. W. Fuller,
John V. LeMoyne,
Finance Committee.
resolutions.
On motion of Samuel W. Fuller, the
committee then passed the following:
Resolved, That the Librarian be in
structed to procure immediately, on the
best possible terms, such of the follow
ing books as have not already been ob
tained, to wit : Illinois Reports ; Illinois
Statutes and Session Laws, so far as pos
sible; Reports of Supreme Court of
United States, original editions ; Reports
of the Circuit and District Courts of the
United States, except such as are soon to
be reprinted ; a full set of text-books, to
cost not more than $1,000, to be selected
by the Librarian, with the assistance of
the Library Committee ; United States
Digest ; United States Statutes at Large ;
Brightly's Digest of United States Re
ports.
Elliott Anthony presented a communi
cation from F. H. Bailey, Secretary of
the Board of Public Works, designating
rooms in the new city building for the
use of the institute.
Julius Rosenthal, Librarian, "laid be
fore the committee a letter from N. L.
Freeman, Reporter of the Supreme
Court of Illinois, enclosing his check for
$50, as a part of the aid which he in
tended to extend in restoring the library.
The thanks of the committee were voted
to Mr. Freeman.
After the transaction of other busi
ness, not of general interest, the com
mittee adjourned.
PROOF OF LOST INSTR VMENTS.
Our Chicago readers are particularly
interested at this time, in the law relat
ing to the proof of lost records and pa
pers. We therefore re-print the follow
ing from Brightley's Digest of the Decissions of the Federal Courts, a work that
should be in every lawyer's office.
388. The courts cannot by rule, con
trol the rights of parties as to the admis
sibility of secondary evidence of a writ
ing. Paterson v. Winner, 5 Pet. 233.
389. Where the original instructions
of the president fo the head of a depart
ment are destroyed, secondary evidence
of their contents" is admissible. Williams
v. United States, 1 H. 200.
390. If a privateer, cruising under the
commission of a newly established gov
ernment, not acknowledged by the Unit
ed States, be lost after making a capture
the previous existence of her commis
sion may be proved by parol. The Estrella, 4 Wh, 298.
391. The contentstf a deed destroy
ed by accident, may be proved by parol ;
and where great time has elapsed, and
the parties claim under such deed, strict
proof may be dispensed with. Lewis v.
Baird, 3 McL. 56.
392. A lost will may be established
by proof of its due execution. Gains v.
Hennen, 24 H. 55S.
393. The contents of a lost warrant
may be proved by parol. United States
v. Lambell, 1 Cr. C. C, 312.
394. But the loss must be proved. Uni
ted States v. Wary, 1 Cr. C. C.,312 ; Uni
ted States v. Long, Ibid, 373; United
States v. Chenault, 2 Cr. C. C, 70.
395. If a chose in action be lost, such
loss may be supplied by parol evidence
of its contents, if it be the best evidence
the nature of the case will admit. Bul
let v. Bank of Pennsylvania, 2 W. C. C,
182.
396. Bonds, wrongfully withheld from
the owner, in time of war, by one in the
enemy's territory, may be recovered on,
as lost instruments. Union Bank v.
New Orleans, 14 Am. L. R., 555.
397. The loss of a paper must be estab
lished, before its contents can be proved ;
but where a patent issues upon an as
signment of the warrant, and the legal
title is thus consummated, the assign
ment itself being no longer a paper es
sential to the title, the same degree of
proof of its existence cannot be required,
as if it were relied on as a muniment of

45
title. Bouldin v. Massie's Heirs, 7 Wh.,
122.
398. The 8th section of the act, 3
March, 1803, was passed for the protec
tion of the government against fraud,
and a private person cannot take advan
tage of it. Ib.
399. Secondary evidence of the con
tents of a lost instrument is admissible,
whenever it appears that the original is
destroyed, or lost, by accident, without
M
any fault of the party. Rennerv. Bank of
Columbia, 9 Wh. 581. United States v.
Laub., 12 Pet. I. S. C, 4 Cr. C. C. 703.
Patriotic Bank v. Little, 2 Cr. C. C. 627.
400. To prove a lost note, it is not
necessary to produce a notorial copy ;
the party may prove it by the best evi
dence in his power. Ibid.
401. Where an original deed should
have been in the possession of the plain
tiff's grantor, and, on application, he fur
nished a bundle of papers, which he said
were all he had relating to the lands,
and the deed in question waH not among
them ; held that in the absonce of any
circumstances of suspicion, it was not
necessary to produce the grantor as a wit
ness, to prove its loss ; that due dilligence had been used, and secondary ev
idence was admissible. Minor v. Tillotson, 7 Pet. 99.
KIND WORDS FROM FRIENDS.
from stevens & haynek, law hook pub
lishers, london, england.
Bell Yakd, Temple Bar, )
London, \\. C, Nov. 3, 1871. f
To Mrs. Myra Bradwell, Chicago.
Madam : We beg to be allowed to offer
you our most sincere sympathy for the
unparalleled disaster that has befallen
your great city, and also to express our
admiration of the noble spirit manifest
ed in your address "To Our Readers" in
the Legal News, Vol. 4, No. 1, wherein
you so feelingly compare your own ir
reparable loss with those of your more
suffering fellow-citizens.
Observing that Judge Bradwell (to
whom our Mr. Haynes was introduced
by Mr. Julius Rosenthal) has lost his
valuable probate library, we beg to offer
for his use two works which we have
mailed to you to-day. Please hand them
to him.
We will thank you to insert the en
closed advertisement in the Chicago
Legal News for twelve months. Upon
receiving your note of charges, we will
remit you the amount.
Very faithfully yours,
Stevens & Haynes.
from r. h. dana, jb,
Richard H. Dana, Jr., of the Boston
bar, concludes a letter to us, under date
of Nov. 14, as follows :
Your courage, energy and fortitude
have challenged the admiration of the
bar, not only of the United States, but of
England.
The motto which Burke claimed for
himself is well applicable to you Victor
in advermim.
Believe me, with great respect,
Yours very truly,
"R. H. Dana, Jr.
Litchfield, III., Nov. 3, 1871.
Mrs. Myra BradwellMadam : Ipresume the numbers of last year of the
Legal News which I sent vou about the
5th of October, 1871, were all burnt in the
great conflagration in your city. How
can I get the same duplicated ? I deep
ly sympathize with you in your afflic
tion, and hope you may soon recover
from the terrible calamity which has be
fallen you and your city, but a woman
possessed of the energy and ability that
you are, will rise amidst any and all
impediments that might be thrown in
your pathway. Any assistance that I
ca n render you as far as subscription is
concerned, will do so cheerfully.
I remain yours, most respectfully,
J. R. Blackwkll.
Frankfort, Ind., Nov. 8, 1871.
Mrs. Myra Bradweix : We find the
Legal News to be almost invaluable.
We were much pained to hear of your
loss, but admire your pluck. We were
surprised at seeing you rise out of the
ashes so soon. * * *
Respectfully,
Doyal A Sard.
We received, too late for this issue, a
certified copy of the opinion recently de
livered by the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia, upon the right of wo
men to vote in the District.

46

Chicago

Legal

News.

however, that such power exists, still

[Continued from Page 43.]
demurrer.(Opinion by Breese, C. J.) gage, purchased in the title to the por that
would not oust a court of equity of
tion
sold
under
execution,
and
as
to
that
the result of their own knowledge, and Oridley v. Watson, p. INC.
its
jurisdiction.
Fraud is a 1 natter of
portion
it
was
held,
upon
a
bill
filed
to
2.
But
where
a
bill,
filed
by
an
admin
were not prompted by the representation
chancery
jurisdiction,
and that court
redeem,
he
had
the
title
in
fee,
not
sub
istrator for such purpose, was fully an
of appellee.
would
not
lose
it
merely
by the statute
ject
to
redemption
by
the
mortgagor,
or
Their acts were voluntary. The pre swered, and an issue made up thereon,
conferring
a
similar
jurisdiction
upon
a
junior
mortgagee,
or
those
claiming
un
mium was received by the agent, and and a cross bill filed and fully answered,
courts
of
law.Ib.
der
them.lb.
forwarded to and accepted by the com and an issue made up, and tried on testi
execution.
REDEMPTION FROM MORTGAGE.
pany. The agents acted within the scope mony taken, the cause was held to have
4. Prior lery pending.X levy upon
of their authority. The company rati been properly heard on the merits.lb.
5. By whom. In a ease where the
fied these acts. The right of forfeiture
right of redemption from a mortgage still property is only prima facie evidence of
JUDGMENT LIEN.
was thus waived ; and we cannot en
existed,
a junior mortgagee executed an a satisfaction of the judgment, yet, while
Of its duration. Under our statute,
courage the perpetration of a fraud, by if 3.a judgment
agreement
by which he agreed to sell a prior levy remains undisposed of, it is
takes out an exe
permitting the company to repudiate the cution within creditor
and
convey
all his interest in the mort irregular to issue an ordinary fi.fa. The
one year from the rendi
conduct of its agents. The condition of tion of his judgment,
gaged
premises
a certain sum, but process should be a venditioni exponas,
the judgment will payment was not for
forfeiture, in case the annual premium is be a lien on his debtor's
to
be made unless the with a fi. fa clause if desired.Ib.
for the
not paid on the day named, is for its ben period of seven years from land
right of the party purchasing, or his as
the
last
day
efit solely ; and a waiver of a strict com
to redeem from the senior mort
the term of the court in which the signs,
pliance continues the obligation. F. & of
gage, should be established. This agree
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
same
is
rendered
;
after
this
period,
it
M. Ins. Co. v. Chestnut, 50111., Ill ; -Et ceases to be a lien as against bona fide ment was assigned to the wife of the
na Ins. Co. v. McGuire, 51 111., 342 ; Mil mirchasers, or subsequent incunibrancers mortgagor. Then the mortgagorand his
ler v. Phoenix, 27th Iowa, 203 ; Bouton bv
wife executed a quit claim deed for the Barber and Lackner. 54 West Luke street.
Barker, .1. C, 77 West Madison street
v. American Life Ins. Co.; 25 Con., 542 ; lb. mortgage, judgment or otherwise. premises, and the grantee therein releas
Bates & Hodges, 113 West Madison street.
Wing v. Harvey, 27 Law & Fq., 140.
ed
to
the
wife
of
the
mortgagor
:
Held,
4. So, whether an execution may be the wife thereby became invested with BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street
But the evidence wholly fails to stamp legally
issued or not, after the lapse of
Burgess, W. T 165 W. Wahington.
the statement of appellee as a misrepre seven years,
and be levied upon the the right to redeem from the senior Bonney, Fay & Griggs, 120 West Washington st
sentation. There is no proof whatever, debtor's property,
mortgage.lb.
cannot operate to
Bentley, Bennett, I'llman & Ives, 370 Wabash av.
that she had any knowledge of the al revive the lien of theit judgment,
PARTIES.
if issued
Barker Waite. 46 East Harrison street.
leged sickness of her husband. She after
time, so as to subject property
6. To a bill to redeem. And upon bill
Brouse, o. R., 400 Wabash avenue.
communicated all that she knew. She in thethathands
of those third persons filed for redemption, by the party Brown A Rlckerts, 114 West Madison.
acted in perfect good faith. The failure named in the statute.lb.
so invested with the right to redeem, the Carmichael, D. I.., 845 Prairie auenue.
to communicate a material fact, unknown
5. ]Yho trill be considered subsequent in junior mortgagee should be made a par
Carter, Becker & Dale, 86 Canal street.
to the assured, will not vitiate a policy. cumbrancers,
within tlte statute. A judg ty, because the terms of the agreement, Chase. 1". I.., 380 Wabash avenue.
The undertaking is merely to represent ment was obtained
against a party who by which he transferred his interest, re
Clurkson * Van Schaack, No. 454 Wabash Ave.
truly facts, within the knowledge of the hud previously purchased,
witn his own mained unexecuted, leaving equities to Condon, Wm. H 34 Canal street.
assured. In Daniels v. Hudson River money, a lot of ground, which
was con be settled between him and the party Heane A: Cahill, room 7, Linda Block.
Fire Ins. Co., 12 Cush., 417, Chief J. Shaw
to a member of his family. The with whom he contracted. Had he ex
Dent & Blaek. 740 Wabash avenue.
said : " Misrepresentation is the state veyed
contracted debts after having alted a deed, he would not have been a Ewing A Leonard. 487 Wabash avenue.
ment of something as fact, which is un grantee
become invested with the legal title to necessary party.Ib.
Ellis. B. W., 115 West Madison street.
true in fact, and which the assured the
and afterwards died. It was held,
PURCHASERS.
Felker, Win. S 371 State street.
states, knowing it to be not true, with an thatlot,
the creditors of the grantee were
Goody A Chandler, 391 Wabash avenue, branch
intent to deceive the underwriter ; or subsequent
7.
Pendente
lUe,
A
purchaser
of
mort
incumbrancers, within the
which he states positively as true, with
premises from a mortgagee, pend office. 64 South Habited street.
of the statute, and as to them, gaged
out knowing it to be true, and which has meaning
ing
a
suit
redeem from the mortgage, Harrison and Whitehead, 143 W. Madison street.
judgment ceased to be a lien upon will hold tosubject
a tendency to mislead,such fact in the
the equities of the Hcrvey, Anthony A Gait. 856 Wabash avenue.
the lot after the lapse of seven years, parties seeking thetoredemption.Ib.
Hopkins, Wm.. 46 East Harrison.
either case being material to the risk."
if it had been a lien before the ex
Herbert & Quick, .529 State street.
In the case at bar there is entire ab even
REDEMPTION.
Hoyne. Phil. A., Congress Hall, betw een Michi
sence of any intent at deception. The piration of that time.lb.
8. From mortgageof the terms thereof.
VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCE.
and Wabash avenues.
representation was not of a positive
A mortgagee, under a power in the mort ganHitchcock,
Dupee & Evarts, corner Wells and
character, but simply the communication
6. Whether fraudulent as to creditors. gage,
sold
the
premises,
but
improperly
of the contents of a letter. It was not Where a debtor has property more than
Monroe
streets.
Howe & Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
the assertion of a fact, in reply to infor sufficient to pay his debts, he has a right became the purchaser himself, in an in
mation sought, and could not have mis to provide a home for his wife and chil direct way. Subsequently, and while in Isham, Edward S., 554 Wabash avenue.
he purchased in the outstand
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
led the agent. The representation did dren, leaving property sufficient to satis possession,
title to a portion of the mortgaged Jenkins, Robert E., IS East Harrison street
not induce the risk, and, under the cir fy his creditors, and' if he procures a ing
which had been sold under a
King, Seott & PayBon, 037 Wabash avenue.
cumstances, was immaterial, and cannot conveyance to be made to secure that premises,
priorjudgment lien. The mortgage bore Learning A: Thompson. 109 West Randolph street.
vitiate the policy. Carter v. Boehm, 3 end, it will not be deemed fraudulent as date
thirtieth
July,
1858,and
his
sale
was
Leary, D. James, 159 West Madison.
Burr, 1,905 ; Biays v. The Union Ins. Co., to creditors.lb.
made December, 1800. In January, 1805, Lyman
<v. Jackson, 70 W. Madison street, room 3.
1 Wash. Cir. C. R. 506 ; Lord v. Dall, 12
TRUSTEE.
a
bill
was
filed
to
redeem.
Redemption
McClelland,
Thos., 172 West Washington street.
Mass., 115; Swete v. Fairlie, 6 Cor &
was
allowed
on
these
terms
:
the
mort
1.
Purchasing
at
his
own
saleEffect
on
McClelland, Thos. S., 40 So. Canal, ttoom 6.
Pavne, 1 ; Henguenin v. Bailev, 6 Taun
the rights of the mortgagor.A trustee un gagee was allowed the amount of his Merriam, Alexander and Bolster, 149 W. Wash
ton, 18(i.
der a mortgage containing a power of mortgage debt, and interest, all taxes ington street.
All the evidence, then, as to the last sale,
cannot become a purchaser at his paid upon the lands, and all reasonable Miller, Erost & Lewis, 363 Michigan avenue.
sickness of the deceased, and the cause own sale,
either directly, or indirectly by repairs, and, on account of the delay in Moore & Caulfield, S. E. eor. Slate and Madison.
of his death, was wholly irrelevant, and
filing the bill to redeem, he was allowed Neweomb, G. \\\, 214 Warren avenue.
the errors assigned thereupon are imma procuring another person to purchase for for
necessary and permanent improve
benefit; and if he does so become
Norton, Jess, (),. 3S0 Wabash avenue.
terial. The admission, as well as the ex his
the purchaser, the rights of the mort ments, made prior to the filing of the Nisscn ii Baruut,120 W. Randolph, aud376 State
clusion, of testimony in regard to such gagor
bill.
He
was
charged
with
the
amount
will
remain
precisely
the
same
as
Otis, E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
matter, was error without prejudice. though no sale had been made. (Opin bid at the mortgage sale upon that por
Such action of the conrt could not change ion by Walker, J.)Roberts rt tit. v. tion of the lands to which he acquired
Paddock & Ide, 440 Wabash avenue.
Perkins. N.C.,470 Wubash av.,cor. Eldridge court.
the law of the case, or affect the pro
the
outstanding
title,
but
not
with
the
Fleming
et
id.,
p.
196.
Palmer, L. L., 481 Waba-Oi avenue.
priety of the verdict.
rents and profits thereof, nor was he al
SALE OK LAND EN MAHKK.
Reynolds, Wm, C, 170 West Washington street.
Counsel for appellant have indulged in
lowed
the
amount
he
paid
for
such
out
language, in their printed argument,
& Thomas. 945 Michigan avenue.
2. Under execution Lapse of time.
title. Upon the residue of the Rich
highly improper, and indecorous to the Where it is alleged that a sale of land standing
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 So. Canal.
mortgaged
premises,
he
was
charged
with
judge on the circuit. Abuse can never under execution, was for an inadequate the rents and profits received, or which
Rorke. M. A. A: Son, 154 Halsted street.
rise to the dignity of argument. If such price, and without proper division, an might have been received by reasonable
Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, MaMinic Building, S.
language had been used in an oral argu application to set aside the sale tin that effort and proper management of the W.. eor. Randolph and Halsted and 350 Wabash av.
ment, counsel would have been peremp ground must be made within a reason property.Ib.
Roys, C. P.. G77 Wabash avenue.
torily silenced.
Sawin & Wells, 50 West -Madison street
able time. In this case, there was a de
INJUNCTION.
For like offense in the future, the brief lay of between seven and eight years,
Scoville. George, 30 South Clinton street
1. Judgment improperly changed. Where Sheldon A; Waterman, 360 Michigan avenue.
will be ordered to be stricken from the and, after such a lapse of time, the court
files, and such other action taken as will declined to inquire whether the price a judgment was obtained anil execution Sherman, E. B., 153 W. Madison.
protect judges of the Circuit Court from bid was inadequate, or whether the issued, and was levied on property suf
Sleeper & Whiton, 441 Wabash avenue.
like aspersions.
Small and lugalls, 481 Wabash avenue.
sheriff' should have sold the property in ficient to satisfy the debt, but was re
The laws must be respected. They smaller quantities.Ib.
turned by order of the plaintiff, and sub
Snowbook & Gray. 65 W. Monroe si., eor. Jeffer
constitute the basis of civil society. For
sequently the record was fraudulently son.
MORTGAGEE.
the maintenance of this respect, a gentle
and the amount of the judg
Story and King, 149 West Washington street
">. Purchasing in outstanding title.A changed
ment increased, without consent of the Tenuy, MeClcllan tt Tenny, 454 Wabash ave.
manly courtesy should ever be observed
mortgagee
may
purchase
in
an
outstand
judgment debtor, and a second execution Thomas, Sidney, 95 East Harrison street
towards those who for the time adminis
ing title, or the equity of redemption, issued thereon : Held, a court of equity Van
ter them.
Buren, E. & A., 194 West Madison street.
either
from
the
mortgagor,
or
from
a
had jurisdiction to interpose by injunc
The judgment is right, and must be af
Valletta, H. F., 59 West Madison street.
third
person
who
has
acquired
it
by
tion, to prevent its collection, and relieve
firmed.
A. N'., 135 West Monroe street
grant, directly from him, or by a pur against the fraud. (Opinion by Walker, Waterman,
Judgment affirmed.
White, Hugh A.. 165 West Washington street.
chase
under
a
judgment
or
decree
which
Snyder & Dill, attorneys for appel
J.) Rabcork r. MeCamant et al..p'2\A.
Whitehouse. Wm. F., 188 West Madison, late Tri
was a prior lien to his mortgage, and hold
2. But had the only relief sought bune building.
lant.
the
title
absolutely
in
his
own
right,
Wm. H. Underwood, attorney for ap where he has made no arrangement with been to quash the execution and set Williams & Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
aside the lew, the remedy would have
Dexter & Smith, 792 Wabash avenue.
pellee.
the mortgagor, or any promise, or done been by motion, when an order could Walker,
Wilson, Perry & Sturges. 47U Wabash avenue.
any
act
which
w
ould
preclude
him
from
have been obtained by applying to the Windett, Arthur W., 562 Wabash ave., and room
/.///. ILLINOIS REPORTS.
so doing. The mere relation of mort
at chambers, staying the proceed j Liud's Block.
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman gagor and mortgagee will not preclude judge
ings until the hearing of the motion, Waughop, J. W.. 401 Wabash avenue.
L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following the latter from so acquiring the outstand but the relief sought, going to the judg
ment itself, and to relieve against a fraud,
head-notes to cases to appear in the 53d ing4. title.lb.
J. C. & J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
A mortgagee under a power in the the remedy could be pursued in chan
volume of Illinois Reports:
Attorneys, 163 West Washington, St.
mortgage, sold the property, but improp cery.Ib.
T^stateof mary ann;cavanaghjdkckased
ADMINISTRATOR.
erly became the purchaser himself, in
j Public
ishereby
Riven
all persons
JURISDICTION IN CHANCERY.
1. Of his powers respecting incumbrances directly through a third person. A part
claims
and notice
demands
against
thetoestate
of Maryhaving
Ann
3.
Remedy
at
lair,
by
statute.

Even
Cavanagh,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
in
of
fortheMinolCSV
C
of
the
same
property
had
been
previous
won lands sonpht to be sold to pay debts.
County
nent
at
a
regular
tennoi
o'f
v^
settlement
at i to be holden at the C'Ji
The statute gives an administrator no ly sold upon execution, under a prior though a court of law may have the tion
Courtand
of Cook
County,
power, under the statute, to correct a House,
ity uiof vunu.
dllicago. on the lust - Monda) 01
in A.D.
the city
power to engage in litigation to remove judgment lien, and the time of redemp judgment
February.
1S72,
being tlwMl, *
^thereof.has been fraudulently
clouds upon the title to lands belonging tion allowed to expire, so that the pur changed bywhich
increasing the amount for J. C. 4 J.J. Knickerbocker. " ''Administrator.tv-ll
to the estate, and a bill filed by him for chaser obtained a sheriff's deed. The
Attorneys for Estate.
lhat purpose, is obnoxious to a general mortgagee, after his sale under the mort which it was rendered, it not being clear,

Chicago

Legal

JOHN WOODRRIDGE,
LAW DEPARTMENT,
High School Building, Monroe 6t.
Chicago University.
publication
in attachment.StHteof Illinois,notice
Cuuk comity,
tw. Circuit Court
were resumed in this institution on
of Cook County. November Term, A.D. 1871. William LECTURES
Monday, Oct. ;t0th last, in the lecture room of
P. Dickinson, William Dickinson, ami Alfred Smith
the Second Baptist Church, corner of Monroe and"
v. William H. Fitch. Jr.
Public notice is hereby given to the said William H. Morgan streets. All the old advantages obtained
Fitch,ofJr.,
a writ
attachment
outcounty,
of the by students in this law school are again ottered.
office
thethat
Clerk
of thoof Circuit
Courtissued
of Cook
dated
the
eighth
day
of
November,
A.
D,
1*71.
the For information addrft*
JOHN A. Hl'XTER,
Buit of ihe said William P. Dickinson. William atDick
See. Law Dept.
inson and Alfred Smith, and against the estate of Wil 5-13
13-* W. Monroe atreot, Chicago.
liam H. Fitch, Jr.. for tin- sum of three hundred dol
lars,
directed
to
the
Sliei
ill'
of
(
'otik
county,
which
said
WARD, STANFORD & RIDDLE.
writ has been returnod executed.
Now, therefore, untesw you, the said William U. Attorneys, 183 West Washington St.
Fitch,
Jr.,
shall
persouully
be
and
appear
before
the
said Circuit Court of Cook county, on or before the first CHANCERY NOTICE.Htflte of Illinois, County
of Cook, ss. Circuit Court of Cook county,
day
of the
nextcity
term
holden
the Court
House,
in the
of thereof,
Chicago,toonbethe
thirdatMonday
of November term. A.D. 1871. Samuel Walker v.
December, A. D. 1*71, give special bail, and plead to Elizabeth
chancery.
the said plaintiff's action, judgment will be enteral AffidavitWalker.In
of the non-residence of Elizabeth
against
you, and IVckiiiaon
[n favor ol and
the said
William
Dickso I Walker, defendant
above named, having been
inson, William
Alfred
Smith,P.and
filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit Court
much of the property attached as may be sufhVient to j of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said
satisfy
the snme.
said judgment and costs will be sold to ] Elizabeth
Walker that the complainant heretofore
satisfy the
NOKMAN
T.
GAU6KTTE,
Clerk.
filed
his bill of complaint in said court, on the
John WooDimincE, PIff's Att'y7-10 chancery
side thereof, and that a summons there
upon issued out of said court against said defend
ant, returnable on the third Monday of November
BROWN & RICKETTS,
instant, 1871, as Is by law required.
Attorneys, 114 Madison Street.
Now, unless you, the said Elizabeth Walker,
(CHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of
Illinois,
county
of
shall
and appear before said Circuit
J Cook.ss. Superior Court of Cook county. To De Courtpersonally"be
county, on the first day of a term
cember Term, 1S71. Charles Zircher v. Euu-liii Zirrher. thereof,oftoCook
be holden at Chicago, in said county,
In Chancery.
third Monday of November, 1871, and
Affidavit of the non-residence of Emelin Zirchor, de on theanswer
or demur to the said complainant's
fendant above named, having been tiled in the oftk<> of Plead,
bill
of
complaint,
the same, and the matters and
the
Clerk
of
said
Superior
Court
of
Cook
county,
uo ticeis hereby given to the said EmeMa Zircher that the things therein charged
and stated, will be taken
complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint in as confessed, and a decree entered against you ac
said Court, on the Chancery side thereof, and that a cording to the prayer of said bill.
summons
thereupon
issuedonouttheoffirst
saidMonday
Court against
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
said defendant,
returnable
of De
Ward. Stanford & Riddle, Compl'ts Sol'rs. 6-8
cember next, i 1*71), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, tiie said Emulia Zircher, shall per
sonally be ana appear before said Superior Court of
JOHN LYLE KINO,
Cook
on tin-infirst
of a onterm
to be
Attorney, 76 Dearborn St.
holdencounty^
at Chicago,
saidday
county;
the thereof,
first Monday
of December, 1*71, and plead, answer or demur to the ESTATE OF PATRICK GLLL1GAN. deceased.
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
Public notice is hereby given to all persons
matters
things therein
and stated,
willyou
be having
claims and demands against the estate of
taken asandconfesi-ed,
aud a charged
decree entered
againt
Patrick
(Jilligan, deceased, to present the same for
according to the prayer of caid bill.
adjudication and settlement, at a regular term of
At'GCSTUS
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
the county court of Cook County, to be holden at
Brown k Rickktts Compl'ts Sol'rs.
7-10 the
Court House in the city of Chicago, on the lirst
Monday in December. A. t). 1871. being the fourth
RUNYAK, AVERY, LOOBUS & C OMSTOCK, day
thereof.
MATHILDA GLLUGAN,
Attorneys,
Administratrix with will annexed.
l-7a
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of Chicago, September '27. 1871.
Cook.ss. Superior Court of Cook county. To De
james frake,
cember Term, A.I>. 1671. Ellen Cushing v. John dish
ing.In
115 West Madison Street.
AffidavitChancery.
of the in-residencc of John Curbing, de- , Attorney,
of william hurst, deceased.
fendant above named, having been filed in the office of j instate
j Notice is hereby given to all persons having
the
Clerk
of
said
Superior
Court
of
Cook
county,
no'
tice is hereby given to the said John Cushing thai tho ' claims and demands against the estate of William
complainant heretofore tiled her bill of complaint in Hurst, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a ; tion and settlement at a regular term of the Coun
summons thereupon issued out of said < 'onrt against i ty Court of Cook county, to be holden at the court
said
defendant,
returnable
first Monday of De house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday
cember
next (1*71>,
as is by onlawtherequired.
being the tirst dav thereof.
Now, unless you, the said John Cushiug, shall per of January- A.D. 1872,
JOHN COM MACK, Executor.
sonally bo and appear before said Superior Court of j Chicago, November
'J, A.D. 1871.
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday ! James Frakk, Att'y.
5-10
of December, 1*71, and plead, answer or demur t-> the 1
said complainant's hill of complaint, the same, nnd the
GILBERT
&
GARY,
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be , Attorneys, 122 W. Washington St.
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
NOTICE.State of Illinois. Cook
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON. Clerk. , CHANCERY
County, ss. Superior Court of Cook County,
RUKYAN, Avt'.EY. I.OOMIS
A CojISTOCK,
December
Term,
A.D. 1871. George Strauchon v.
7-10
OoniplTs Sol'rw.
K<I\^ard G. Mason, Trustee,
Clark, and Annie
Maria
Baker.In
Chancery.
HIGH ft TRUMAN,
Affidavit of .the non-residence of Annie Maria
Attorneys, No. 4S7 Wabash Avenue. Raker, defendant above named, having been filed
ESTATE OF ELI M. SKINNER, DECKASED.- in the office of the Clerk of said Superior Court of
Cook ('ounty. notice is hereby given to the said
Notice is against
hereby given
to all ofpersons
claims
and demands
the estate
Eli M.having
Skinner,
de
Marin Baker that the complainant hereto
ceased, to present the same for adjudication aud set Annie
fore tiled his bill of complaint in said Court, on
tlement at a regular term of the County Court of Cook the
chancery
side thereof, and that a sum
county, toonbe the
holden
the Courtof House,
in the
mons thereupon issued out of said Court against
Chicago,
firstatMonday
February.
A.D.City1**72,of ; said
defendant,
returnable on the first Monday of
being the fifth day thereof.
\ December next (1871). as is by law required.
BETSEY SKINNER,
I
Now,
unless
vou.
the said Annie Maria Baker,
S. CLOUUH,
Chicago.
Nov. 21, Attorneys.
H71.JEREMIAHAdministrators
'i shall personally be and appear before said Su
High
- 1 : perior Court of Cook County, on the first day of a
" iou St<fc Tkvhan.
T:
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said coun
H0GH A. WHITE,
ty on the first Monday of December. 1871, and plead,
answer ordemur to the said complainant's bill of
Attorney, 105 "Washington St.
the same, and the matters and things
COMMISSIONERS'
notice is here complaint,
therein charged ami stated, will be taken as conby given, that we,NOTICE.-Public
the undersigned commissioners
appointed
by
the
County
court
of
Cook
countv.
State
1
fessed.and
a
decree entered against you according
of Illinois, in the matter of the petition for a ditch in
bill.
the sewers of Evanstun ami New Trier, in said county, to the praver of said
JACOBSON, Clerk,
have made, and un the lsth day of November. A.f). i Gilbert A GaryAUGUSTUS
Comp'ts
SoTs.
6-9
W71, filed our report therein, in the clerk's office of
said court; aud that we will apply to said court, on the
NEWELL PRATT,
4th day of December, A.D. Is71, for a confirmation of
Attorney, 1124 Wabash Avenue.
said report, at which time and place all person* inter
ested may appear and cont est tne confirmation th- iere- pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
of.
WILSON PHELPS,
I V.' Cook.ss. Superior Court of Cook Connty. FVbE. A. GAGE.
| nmry Term, A.
D. 1S72. Peter Buchanan v. Ann BuChancery.
Commissioners of EvanstonWELLS
and NewLAKE,
Trier Ditch. chunan.In
AflhJuYit of the non-residence of Ann Bucluumn. the
Hugh A. White. Att'y for Comm'rs.
fl-7 defendant above named, hnvimr heon filed in the office
of the< i*Clerk
of said
Court
Cook county,
lI iinti"
hereby
givenSuperior
to the said
AnnofBuchanan,
that
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
the complainant heretofore filed his hill of complaint
Attorney, 113 West Madison St.
,
in
said
Court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
mid
that
a
ESTATE OF FRIEDERICHMEDKLMAN.decea*ed. > summons
thereupon
issuedonouttheoffirst
saidMonday
Court of
against
returnable
Feb
Public notice is hereby given to all persons having mid defendant,
claims
and deceased,
demands toagainst
next. (1S72), as is by law required.
MedWman,
prosentthetheestate
same offorFriederich
adjudica ruary
Now. unless you. the said Ann Buchanan, *liall per
tion and settlement at a regular term of the < ounty sonally
heonand
appear
said Superior
Court
court ot Cook county, to be holden at the court house Ati-itni.ty,
the
first county,
daybefore
>f aonterm
thereof,
to be ofCook
holden
Chicago,
in
said
the
first
Monday
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of January, ruary.
1ST'-', and plead, answer or demur to theof Febm'ui
A.D. 1*72, being the first day thereof.
DOROTHEA
RINGLEB,
formerh
hill of complaint, the same, and the
DOROTHEA MEDELMAN, Administratrix. complainant'*
matters
and
thingtherein
charged
and
stated,
will
be
James
Dkapwki.l,
taken t- confessed, and a decree entered againtit you
Chicago,B.Nov.
1M. 1871. Att'y for Estate.
fi-11 according
to
the
prayer
of
said
bill.
,
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Ch>rk.
Nkwkix Pratt, Comp'ts sol'r.
fi-(.i
D. E. K. STEWART,
Attorney, 181 West Madison Street,
BAR MITCHELL,
testate of petkr zoller, deceased. Attorney, 14 South Clinton Street.
Ili Public notkv is lu-roby given to nil persons
NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
having claims und demands against tho estate of CHANCERY'
f'ook, rs. Superior Court of Cook county. De
Peter /oiler, deceased, to present the same tor ad cember
term, 1S7L Rachel Mix v. Juiues B. Mix. In
judication and settlement at a regular term of the Chancery.
Affidavitabove
of thenamed,
non-residence
of James
Mix,office
de
County Court of Cook county, to be holden nt the fendant,
having been
tiled inB. the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first of the clerk
of said Superior Court of Cook county,
Monday of January, A.D. 1H72, brim? the fourth notn-eirf
hereby given to the said James B. Mix that
day thereof.
complainant
heretofore
filedfideherthereof,
bill of and
complaint
ELLEN ZOLLER, Administratrix. inthe"-siid
court,
on the
chancery
that a
Chicago, Nov. 11, 1871.
5-10p summons thereupon
issued
out
of
said
court
against
*aM
defendant,
returnable
on
the
first
Monday
of
De
ESTATE
PHILIP
W. persons
PECK, having
DECEASED
next, 1871. as is by law required.
Notice isOK
hereby
given F.to nil
claims cember
Now,
unless
yon,
the
said
James
B.
Mix,
"hall
per
and demands against the estate of Philip F. W. Peck, sonally he and appear before said Superior Court of
dectased, to present the same for adjudication and set Cook I'ounty, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook holden
at Chicago, in said county, on the flixt Monday
county, to be holden at the court house in the city of of December,
1S71. and plead, answer or demur to the
Chicago, on the first Monday of January, A.D. 1372, said complainant's
bill oftherein
complaint,
the and
name,
and
being the first day thereof.
the
matters
and
things
charged
stated,
CLARENCE I. PECK and will be taken as confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
FEKD. W. PECK.
you according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Chicago. November 17, A.D. 1871. Administrators.
6-1 In Rak Mitchell, Comp'ts
Sol'r.

News.

47

SNOWHOOK & GRAY,

Attorneys, 35 Monroe St.
BOOKS.
CHANCERY NOT1CK.State of Illinois, Cook LAW
County, ss. Superior Court of Cook county,
November Term. 1871. Margaret Wartl vs. Corne
lius W ard. In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Cornelius
Ward, defendant above named, having been tiled
in the oflire of the Clerk of said Superior Court of
Cook countv, notice is hereby ylvon to the said
Cornelius Ward that the complainant heretofore
Hied her certain bill of complaint in said courton
the Chancery side thereof, and that a summons Bourquin & Welsh,
thereupon issued out of said Court against said
defendant returnable on the first Monday of No
vember next, (1871) as is by law required.
Now. unless you, the said Cornelius Ward, shall
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
personally be and appear before said Superior
Court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
thereof to be holden at Chicago, in said County,
on the first Monday of November, 1871, and plead,
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill of PUBLISHERS^ IMPORTERS,
complaint, the same and the matters and things
therein charged and stated, will be taken as con
fessed, ami a decree entered against you accord
No. 431 Walnut Street,
ing to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Snowhook & Gray, Comp'ts Sol's.
4-7
Philadelphia..
F. A. HOFFMAN, Jr.,
4-10
Attorney, KiS W. Madison St.
CHANCERY NOTICKState of Illinois, Cook
County, ss. Circuit Court of Cook County.
November term, 1871. Henry Fuurmnn vs. Adeline
Kuhrmann.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Adeline Fuhrmann, defendant above named, having been filed
LAW
BOOKS.
in the office of the clerk of said Circuit Court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said
Adeline Funrmann that the complainant hereto
fore filed his bill of complaint in said Court, on
the chancery side thereof, and that a summons SOULE, THOMAS & WINSOR,
thereupon issued out of said court against said
defendant, returnable on the 3d Monday of No
vember next. 1871, as in by law required.
21ii North Fifth St.,
Now, unless yon, the said Adeline Fuhnnann
shall personally be and appear before the said
Circuit Court of' C-ook county, on the first day of
ST. LOUIS, Mo.,

a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in

said county, on the third Monday ofNovember 1871
and plead." answer or demur to the said complain
ant's bill of complaint, the same, and the matters
and filings therein charged and stated, will be Invite orders from lawyers in all parts of the
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
country.
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NOKMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Full stock of Reports and Elementary
F. A. Hoffmann, Jk., i'l'fl's. Att'y.
4-7
Books constantly on hand.
J. S. GRINNELL,
SECOND-HAND REPORTS bought
Attorney, 45 S. Canal St.
and sold on favorable terms.
PUBLICATION NOTICE.State of Illinois,
Cook Couuty, ss. Cook Countv Circuit Court,
December Term" A. D. 1871. Henry Sayrs, Ed Q&rPRICES LOW.
ward W. Thompson and Franklin Gilmore vs. F.
SST TERMS INVARIABLY CASH.
W. Hull and Barton C. Tillett.
Public notice is hereby given to the said F. W.
5-8
Hull and Barton 0. Tillett, that a writ of attach
ment issued out of the office of the Clerk of Cook
County Circuit Court, dated on the 23d day of Oc
tober, A. I. 1871, at the suit of said Henry Sayrs,
Edward W. Thompson and Franklin Gilmore, and
THE CHICAGO
against the estate of the said F. W. Hull and liarton C. Tillett. for the sum of one hundred and
thirty-one dollars and twenty-seven cents, direct
ed to the Sheriff of Cook county, which said writ LEGAL
NEWS
has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said F. W. Hull
and Barton C. Tillett, shall personally be and ap
pear before the said Cook County Circuit Court on
COMPANY.
or before the first day of the next term thereof, to
be holden at the Court House in the city of Chica
go, on the third Monday of December."A. D. 1871,
give special bail and plead to the said plaintiff's PRINTING OFFICE,
action, judgment will be entered against you and
in favor ot the said Henry Sayrs. Edward W.
15 North Jefferson Street ;
Thompson and Franklin fiilmore, and so much of
the property attached as may be sufficient to sat
isfy the said judgment and costs, will be sold to Business Office, 115 West Madison Street,
satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
J. S. Grinnet.l, Pitt's Att'y.
4-7
CHICAGO.
HERVEY, ANTHONY & GALT,
Attorneys, No. 356 Wabash Ave.
PUBLICATION NOTICE.Suite o f Illinois,
BOOK AND JOB
Cook ("ounty, ss. Superior Court of Cook
County, November Term, 1871. Ready Roofing
Company vs. Edward D. King.Attachment.
1*111)1 ic notice in hereby given to the said Edward
D. King, that a writ of attachment issued out of
the ofnee of the Clerk of the Superior Court of
Cook Countv. dated the twenty-fifthl dav of Octo
ber.. A. D. 1871, at the suit of the said Ready Roof
ing Coniimiiy and against the estate of the said
Edward D. King, for the sum of three thousand
one hundred and seenty-two dollars and thirtyParticular attention given to all kinds of
nine cents (Sl.U'i.SH) directed to the Sherifl'of Cook
County, which said writ has been returned exeou- LEGAL PRINTING :
ted. Now, therefore, unless you the said Edward
D. kirn; shall personally be aiid appear before the
saiff Superior Court of Cook County on or before
,
IMCLCDON)
the first day of the term thereof, to be holden at
the High school building in the City of Chicago, Attorneys' Abstract*,
on the tirst Monday of Nocmber, A. D. 1871, give
special bail and plead to the said plaintiffs
Briefs and Dockets,
action, judgment will be entered gaainst you and
In faor of the said Ready Rooting Company, and
Books, Pamphlets and Reports.
so much of the property attached as may be suf
ficient to satisfy the said judgment and cost*- Orders for Oils description of work will be execut
will be sold to saiisfv the same.
ed promptly in tne neatest style of the art.
Hkrvky, Anthony & Galt, P1HV Att'vs.
1-7
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Decrees, Orders,
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
Mortgages, Deeds, Leases,
Attorney, 1 13 \V. Madison St.
Checks, Notes, Drafts, Bonds,
ESTATE OF SUSAN A. LOYD, DECEASED.
Public notice is hereby given to all persons
Cards, Labels, Letter Headings,
haiug claims and demands against the estate of
Susan A. Jxtyri. deceased, to present the same for
Bills of Lading, Bill Heads,
adjudication and settlement at $ regular term of
the County Court of Cook county, to be holden at
Insurance Policies, Circulars,
the Court House in the city of Chicago, on the first
Monday
of January, A. D. 187*2, being the wtourth
Receipts, Hand-bills, etc., etc.,
dav
therof.
ALEXANDER T. LOYD, Administrator.
Printed
upon the shortest notice.
Jas. B. Bhaowkm.. Att'v for estate.
Chicago, Oct. 'JO, 1871.
3-8
THOMAS L. McINTOSH. late head of the Book
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
and Newspaper department ofthe Lakeside Print
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
ing Company, is the superintendent of our Print
WeJern Union Trfcfjraph Office. 554 Wcii>a#h A\r. ing Department.


Chicago

48
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
ART1N A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D ,
554 Wabash avenue.
M
J. 8EYBOLD, 497 Wabash avenue ; residence
F 140 South Green street.
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
ANFORD, E. Special attention given to Col
lections and Real Estate.
14*
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
TERNDON & ORENDORF,
\_
Office west side square. 27*
MINNEAPOLIS (MINN.) ATTORNEYS.
MITH & ORDWAY,
No. 11 Centre Block. Nicollet st. 51-11*
s
ST. LOUIS (M0. > ATTORNEYS.
ALFRED PAXSON.
Insurance Exchange Building.
LOOANSPORT (IND.) ATTORNEYS.
M. HOWARD,
5-16*
Attorney at Law.
LAW PUBLICATIONS
OF
T. & J. W. JOHNSON & CO.,
OF PHILADELPHIA, PA.
* A full supply on hand and for sale by
CALLAGHAN <$ COCKCJtOFT,

E. B. MYERS,
CHICAGO, ILL.

English Common Law Reports, from 1813

to 18C5. 116 Vols., $507 00
Index to Common Law Reports. 2 Vols., - 10 00
English Exchequer Reports, from 1824 to
1865. 47 Vols.,
- 18S 00
Digest of Exchequer Reports,
- 5 00
The "Law Repokts " from 1865 to the pres
ent time, comprising:
25 00
Queen's Bench Reports. 5 Vols.,
25 00
Common Pleas Reports. 5 Vols.,
25 00
Exchequer Reports. 5 Vols., Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Reports. 2
10 00
Vols.,
5 00
Probate and Divorce Reports. 1 Vol.,
25 00
Chancery Appeal Cases. 5 Vols., Equity Cases. (.Vice Chancellors';. 10Vol* 50 00
Any of the Reports of these several Courts can
be had separately.
These are the rf.gvi.ar and authoritative Re
ports of the Courts in England ; they contain the
decisions in pehmane.st and reliable shape, as
prepared by the Reporters of the Court, and in the
form in which those decisions are incorporated
into the body of English jurisprudence, citeu by
authors, and referred to by the Courts.
6 50
Crabbe's District Court Reports. 1 Vol.,
Cranch's U. 8. S. Court Reports. 9 Vols, in 8, 30 00
Dallas
"
4 Vols. - 2D 00
30 00
Day's Connecticut Reports. 5 Vols.,
East's King's Bench Reports. 16 Vols, in 8, 30 00
Harris & McHenry'B Maryland Reports. 4
16 00
Vols.,
McNaghten's Select Cases in Chancery. 1
2 60
Vol.,
10 00
Maddocks' Chancery Reports. 6 Vols.,
5 50
Parsons' Equity Cases. 1 Vol.
Pennsylvania State Reports. By Barr it
Jones. 12 Vols.,
.... 54 00
6 50
Peters' Circuit Court Reports. 1 Vol.,
Rattle's Pennsylvania S. C, Reports. 5 Vols., 40 00
Wallace, Jr.'s C. Court Reports. Vols. 2 and 3, 15 00
Washington's C. Court Reports. 4 Vols., - 30
~ 00
Wharton's Pennsylvania S. Court Reports.
48 00
6 Vols.,
55 00
Bacon's Abridgement. 10 Vols.,
2 50
Appleton on Evidence,
7 60
Adams' Doctrine of Equity, 5 50
Bateman's Commercial Law, 1 50
Beaumont on Bills of Sale,
7 50
Broom's Legal Maxims,
Browne's Civil and Admiralty Law. 2 Vols., 5 (K)
1 50
Bucknell on Criminal Lunacy,
3 00
Bunyon on Life Assurance. 2 50
Burlemaqui's Natural and Politic Law,
Byles on Bills and Notes. By Judge Sharswood, ------ 6 50
4 00
Chitty on Carriers. American Notes,
Collier on Mines,
...
- 1 50
fi 50
Curtis' Commentaries. V. S. Courts,
:-; 00
Ellis on Life and Fire Insurance,
4 00
Fisher on Mortgages and Priority, -

Legal

Flanders on Shipping,
- $4 50
Fry on Specific Performance of Contracts, - 3 00
Grant on Banking,
- 3 50
Hill on Trustees. American Notes by Bispham, ------ 7 GO
7 60
Milliard on Sales. 3d Edition,
1 GO
Jones on I-and Office Titles in Penn.,
Kelly on Usury, ----- 1 50
2 GO
Kerr on Actions at Law,
Law Library. A Collection of Valuable Ele
mentary Treatises on almost every branch
93 00
of the Law. 31 Vols.,
5 50
Lewin on Trusts and Trustees,
6 50
Lindley on Partnership,
Lindley's Introduction to the Study of Jur
3 00
isprudence, 1 50
Macnamarra on Nullities,
3 00
Mayne on Damages, 1 50
Moore on Abstracts of Titles, Norman on Patents, .... 2 50
Ordronaux's Jurisprudence of Medicine, - 4 00
Parsons on Wills,
.... 1 50
Phillimorc's International Law. S Vols., - 11 00
3 00
Powell on Evidence and Damages, #7 50
Roscoc's Criminal Evidence, 12 00
Rose Leading Cases. 3 Vols.,
19 50
Smith's Leading Cases. 3 VoK,
15 00
American Leading Cases. 2 Vols., 15 00
Scribner on Dower. 2 Vols., - 4 00
Sergeant's Constitutional Law,
- 2 00
Sharswood's Legal Ethics,
- 1 50
Sharswood's Law Lectures,
- 5 50
Smith on the Law of Contracts,
Smith on the Law of Landlord and Ten
1 00
ant,
1 50
Smith on Real and Personal Property,
10 00
Spencc's Equity Jurisdiction. 2 Vols.,
io on
Sugden on Powers. 2 Vols., 7 50
Starkie on Evidence. By Sharswood,
4 00
Vattel's Law of Nations,
2 50
Westlake's Private International Law,
#3 00
Wharton's Conveyancing,
White's laud Laws (of Texas, Mexico and
10 00
California). 2 Vols.,
6 00
Williams on Personal Property.
5 00
Williams on Real Property,
J ,i
Wills on Circumstantial Evidence, Woolrych on Waters arid Water Courses, - 3 00
And many other of the most valuable Law Books
now in use and of authority, Catalogues of which,
containing full particulars, will be furnished upon
application.
6-9

News.
AD VERTLSEMENT.

ATTORNEYS.
H. H. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.

52
GEORGE C. FRY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Lnw Publishers,
54 West Randolph Street, formerly 86 LaSalle Street,
Chicago.
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 113 West Madison Street, Chicago.
AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS,
Special Attention Given to Probate Matters.
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
ESTATES SETTLED.
" Set thine house in order ; fo%thou shalt die,
and not live."2 Kings xx. 1.
LONDON.
STEVENS & HAYNES

Works in all Classes of Literature

. GOODWIN.
E. C. LARNED.
H. S. TOWI.K.
GOODWIN, LARNED & TOWLE,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
Xo. 494 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.

Hl'PPLIED TO ORDER.

JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWARD G. MASON.
MATTOCKS & MASON,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and iVo. 523 Wabash Avtnue, .<'. W. cor. Harmon Court,
Chicago, III.
Orders Promptly Filled.
W. H. WING,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
The Trustee, and Officer* or Public MElgin, 111.
brarlea may rel.v upon the most
5-16
Collections promptly attended to.
careful attention to their
i'omnilNMlOM..
CHARLES J. BISHOP,
Successor to J. Fkbeman Silke,
ACCOUNTANT AND EXPERT UOOK-KEEPEE,
By importing DIRECT from England, a conxidi r122 W. Washington St., Chicago, IU. 7-18p
ablt saving it effected, especially in Uu Customs duty,
C. M. HARRIS,
from which Public Institutions in tlte Vnitcd State* are
Attorney, Monroe Street.
'
CHANCERY
NOTICE.State
of Illinois,
of
Cook. ss. Circuit Court ofCook
county,county
February
term, A. D. 1ST2. Alice Simons v. Edward Simons.
InAffidavit
Chancery.of the non-residence of Edward Simons,
SUNDRY mistakes having been made di-lendant
above named, having been tiled iu the office
of
the
Clerk ofgiven
Haid Circuit
of Cook Simons
county,that
no
by our Foreign and Colonial Correspond tice is hereby
to the Court
Bald Edward
heretofore filed her certain bill of com
ents in addressing their letters, we beg complainant
plaint In said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of Haiti Court
to notify that the members of our firm against
said defendant, returnable on the third Mon
are Henry G. Stevens and Robert W. day of February next (1*72), as is by law required.
Now.
unless
t he said
Edward
Haynes, the son and stepson of the late sonally be andyou,
appear
before
said Simons,
Circuit shall
Courtperof
Cook
county,
on
toe
first
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to be
holden
at C hicago,1872,in and
said plead,
county,answer
on theorthird
Monto
LAW BOOKS, Valentine Stevens, the eminent Law day
of
February,
demur
Publisher. Since our father's death we the said complainant1* bill of complaint, the same,
J. R. McDIVITT,
and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
have continued to carry on the business will
fie taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
81 NASSAU
you according to th<' prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
No Law Books sold at Cost for the next six of Law Publishers, Booksellers and Export
(*. M. Harris. Sol'r.
7-wp
ers, at the above address.
months.
Second-hand Law Books Bought, Sold and Ex
SMITH & KOHLSAAT,
During
his
recent
visits
to
the
United
changed.
0"19
Attorneys, No. 62 Soi th Canal St.
(if cornelius
f. backus,
deStates and Canada, Robert W. Haynes "pestate
EDWIN GREENE,
mj ceased.Notice
is hereby given
to all personB
Attorney, 45 Hubbard Court.
having claims and demands against the estate of Cor
secured
many
Friends
and
Correspond
nelius F. Ruckus deceased; to present the same for
publication notice in attachment.and settlement at a regular term of the
istatecounty,
of Illinois,
Cook Term,
county,A.ss.1>. 1*71.
CircuitWfllium
Court ents; we are thus enabled to give refer adjudication
County Court of Cook county, to be hedden at the
of Cook
November
Court House, Id the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
E. Eastman v. Willi* P. Collins, Jr., and Mary E. ences of the highest character in most day
of February, A. D. 181* being the fifth day there
Collins.
of.Chicago, Nov. 24th, A.EMILY
Public notice ia hereby given to the Haiti Willis P. of the principal American cities.
D. 1871,BACKUS.
Administratrix.
Collins, Jr.. and Mary E. Collins, that a writ of attach
We
have
no
connection
whatever
with
ment issued out of the office of the Clerk of the Cir
Smith
ft
Kohlsaat,
Attorneys.
7-12
cuit
Court
of
Cook
county,
dated
the
thirty-first
day
of October, A. D. 1871, at the suit of the said William any other house of business, and to pre
E.
the for
estate
Of Willi*
Col vent delay and miscarriage, our Corre
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
lins.Eastman,
Jr., and and
Maryagainst
E. Collin*,
the sum
of fiveP. hun
dred and ninety-oue ttMOu dollar*, directed to the spondents abroad are respectfully re
Sheriff of Cook couuty, which said writ has been re
IN States,
THE for
DISTRICT
COURTDistrict
OF THE
UNITED
the Northern
of Illinois.In
turned
Now, executed.
therefore, unless you, the said Willis P. Collins, quested to plainly address their letters Bankruptcy. In the matter of Daniel S. Heffron, bank
rupt. This is to give you noticethat I have tiled my final
Jr., aud .Mary E. Collins, shall personally be and ap to us as follows :
accounts as assignee of the estate of s;iid bankrupt, in
pear before the said Circuit Court of Cook county, on
said Court, and that on the 26thday #f December, Uffl, I
or before the first day of the next term thereof, to be
shall apply to said Court for the settlement of hit said
holden
at
the
Court
House,
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
accounts and for a discharge from all liability as as
the third Monday of December, A. D. Hffl, give special STEVENS & HAYNES,
signee of said estate, in accordance with the provisions
bail and plead to the said plaintiff's action, judgment
will be entered against you, and in favor of the said
of The 2-th section of the Bankrupt Act of March 3d,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
William
E.
Eastman,
and
so
much
of
the
property
1*87.
E: JENKINS.
attached as may be sufficient to satisfy the said judg
7-3 Yours, etc, ROBERT
Assignee
of said Estate.
ment and costs will bo sold to satisfy the same.
LONDON,
TN
THE
DISTRICT
COURT
OF
THE UNITED
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
States, for the Northern District of Illinois.In
Edwin Grernk, Attorney.
7-lup
ENGLAND. A
Bankruptcy.
In
the
matter
of
Daniel
Heffron,
bankrupt. Notice is hereby given that aS. final
gen
8FAFFORD, McDAJD & WILSON,
eral meeting of the creditors of said bankrupt will be
held on the 26th day of December. Is71, at No. 18 East
77 \V. Madison.
street, in the t'ity of Chicago, before H. N.
pHANCERY NOTICE. -State of Illinois, county of Extract from " Report of Jruus Rosenthal, Esq., Hurrision
HmBAED, Esq., Register, for the purposes named in
w Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook county. To the
the
27th
and
of the Bankrupt Act of
December Term, A. D. 1871. Sciniry C. Lewis v. Fran
Librarian to the President and m embers op March 1*6T. 2gth sections
ROBERT
E. JENKINS,
cisAffidavit
8. Lewis.In
the Chicago Law Institute," November, 1870.
Assignee
of said Bankrupt's
Estate.
of the Chancery.
non-residence of Francis S. Lewis,
utflee " To our collection of English Reports a valuable Chicago,
defendant
above
named,
having
been
filed
in
the
ol
Nov.
2%
W71,
N. B.In the late fire all Proofs of Debt In the hands
of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook coun
unffy,
of
the
Assignee
and
Register
in
Bankruptcy
were deto
Lewis
notice
hereby givenheretofore
to the said
has been made by the importation of a stroyed. It will be necessary for each Creditor
mat theitincomplainant
tiledFrancis
his thereof,
billS,of and addition
full and well preserved set of the House of Lords make another proof. If you have already received
plaint
.ml Court, on the chancery
side
one dividend in the above case, another Proof will not
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
be required, an the Assignee has preserved all dividend
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of
orders, which -how tli' claims allowed.
ot Now,
December
next
(1871),
as
is
required
by
law.
volumes.
ROBERT Assignee
K. JENKINS,
unless you, the said Francis s. Lewis, shall
of said Estate.
personally be and appear before said Superior Court " English books were imported directly free of
of Cook couuty/ou the firstjday of a term thereof, to be duty, and their purchase was attended to by the
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
first
Monday
firm
of
Stevens
and
Haynes
in
London,
whose
Scale of Advertising itafeg.
of December, 1?7I, aud plead, answer or demur to the diligence, promptness, and care in filling our or
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
1 w.i 2 w. 3 w. 1 m.j 3 m. 6 m. iy8PACE.
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer
of said bill.
82.50,J3.25' ~ 88.00
1 sq
Augustus
jacobson. cierk.
Staffouo, McD.uit iv Wilson. Compl't's Sol'rs. 7-10
2.00 3.&0 4.76 COO! 15.75 30.00 59.00
ILLINOIS REPORTS. 2 Kq
HUOH A. WHITE,
Having no arrangement for the distribution of Vol.
44.00 87.00
ArcoiiNEY, Klo Washington St.
i3 Illinois Reports to lawyers in Chicago, and the list 3 sq i 2.80, 5.00 fi.50 8.00 [ 23.00
(TOMMIS8ION8BS'
NOTICE.-Publlc
notice
is
here> by given, that we, the undersigned commissioner* of subscribers in that city being lost, I deBire to Bay to % col... | 3.75j 7.00 9.50I12.001 30.00 59.00 110.00
iippoiulrd by the County court ot Cook county. State such as wish the future volumes, that they will be dis
ol Illinois, in the matter of the petition for a ditch in tributed directly from my office to all who will send nie H col... [ 7.00. 11.50! 17.25; 22.00: 08.00 108.00 210.00
the towns of Evanston and New Trier, in said county, their names. It is desirable I should also have the
: 12.00 1 22.00 : 31.00 \42.00 ; 108.00 210.00 moo
have
on the
Mh dav
of November.
A.Dof
1671, iimade,
i! ourandreport
therein,
in the
clerk's otlice
in the city, to facilitate the delivery. No ex l col
aid court: aud that wc will apply to said court, on the address
Ten
lines
of ApUu
mnkc
Square.
must
be apaid
for in advance,
tirst day of the January tenn A.D. 1?72, for a confirma press charges are to be paid by purchasers. Vol. 53 is Advertisements
of
suid
report,
at
which
time
and
place
all
persons
tion
now
being
bound,
and
will
be
ready
in
a
few
days.
and
when
not
so
paid.
50
per
will be added.
interested may appear and contest the continuation Of the back volumes, I have from 47 to M, both in Legal Notices not included inceut.
the aboyo^__^
thereof.
WILSON PHELPS,
clusive,
delivered
anywhere,
at
$9
per
vol.
Express
E. A. GAGE.
Printed at the Chicago Legal News Press, 15
prepaid.
X. L. FREEMAN. North
( ommusiooers of EvanstonWELLS
and NewLAKE,
Trier Ditch. charges
Jefferson street, Chicago.
6-6p
High A. White. Att'y for Ooiuin'rs.
7-8 Springfield, Nov. 16, 1871.

Qhicago

Jegal

^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the ofliee or the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 8.

Cfje Courts.
We are indebted to Frank J. Crawfoup, of the Ottawa bar, for the follow
ing opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed May 22, 1871.
Lyman Sanderson impleaded, etc., v. The City of
LaSalle.
Apptal Jrom LaSalle County ( hurt.
TAXATIONASSESSMENT FOR, I'NDER CITY
ORDINANCES, AND HEREIN OK THE RE
TURNORDINANCESGENERAL REVENUE
LAW.
1. The Assessor's Return.Where the city ordin. anee provides that the assessor of property for city
taxation shall complete tfie assessment and make
return thereof to the city clerk on or before the 15th
day of July, and that thereupon the clerk shall
give notice ofsuch completion and return by pub
lication, and that the assessment is subject to the
inspection of any person interested, and that on
the first Tuesday oi August next thereafter the
City Council will sit as a Court of Appeal from
such assessment, when all persons will be heard
who feel themselves aggrieved by the assessment of
their property, and further provides that the City
Council may approve, reduce, increase, alter, cor
rect, or amend such assessment as may be just ;
held that such requirement of the assessor to make
his return is designed for the protection of proper
ty" owners, and is mandatory, and If not complied
with the assessment is necessarily invalidated.
12. Revenue Act of 1S53.The act of 18.5a. amend
ing the general revenue law, w hich provides that
the failure to return the assessment in time shall
not vitiate, relates in no manner to assessments for
corporate purposes; they are regulated by the
revenue law of the municipality. Such provision
as that in the act of 1853 has not been incorporated
in the ordinances, nor is it to be found in the
charter of the city.
8. City Ordinances.An ordinance within the
chartered ]>wers of the city is the law of the case
to the same extent that an act of the Legislature
would be on a subject within their constitutional
powers.
4. Former Decisions.The case of Marth v.
Chemul, i4 111. 23 cited and approved.Ed. Legal
News.
This was an application by appellee, at
the March term A. D. 1870 of the court
below, for judgment against certain lands
and town lots in the city of La Salle, for
non-payment of the general and special
city taxes assessed and levied thereon
for lhiii), and the back taxes for 18(48.
Appellant, the owner of lot 2, block 120,
embraced in the list, filed objections,
which were overruled, and judgment
was rendered against the lot described,
together with the others embraced in the
list, from which judgment this appeal is
prosecuted.
Crawford A Beck and ('. S. Miller
for appellant.
It was urged against entry of judg
ment that the assessor's book was not
returned in the time and manner re
quired by law.
These were objections which would
defeat a title acquired under a sale upon
this judgment, and should have suf
ficient force, when interposed to the
entry of the judgment, to defeat the ap
plication, so far as the property of the ob
jectors is concerned.
By the eighth section of an ordinance
prescribing the manner of assessing prop
erty for taxation in the city of La Salle,
the assessor is required to "finish and
complete Itie assessment on or be/ore the fif
teenth tiny of July in each year, and shall
add up, extend, certify, and sign the
same and make return thereof to the
clerk of the city, on or before the day
named in each year." The ordinance
further provides that the city clerk shall
immediately give notice that the assess
ment list is subject to the inspection of
any person interested, and that on the
first Tuesday of August following, the
council will sit as a court of appeal from
said assessment, when all persons will be
heard who feel themselves aggrieved by
the assessment of their property. A
similar provision is incorporated in the
revenue law of this State, (Laws 1861, p.
242, sees. 11, 12, 13,) and in many of the
other States, and the decisions thereon
seem to be uniform, and to the effect that
the provision is compulsory and must be
strictly complied with by the assessor, or
the assessment is absolutely void.
The object of the provision is to fix a
time certain when the assessment will be

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1871.

open to the inspection of the property
owners, and within which they can ex
amine the assessment of their property,
and prepare objections to be presented to
the court of appeal or board of revision.
Unless the provision is strictly enforced
by the courts, the whole time designated
in the revenue law for this purpose,
which is the safeguard of the taxpayer,
may be frittered away until the oppor
tunity of appeal is lost entirely.
T'nder the acts of the legislature of
1839 and 1845 a month was given tax
payers to inspect the assessor's books
and to prejiare their objections to the
assessment. Similar provisions to that
of this ordinance were in those acts, re
quiring the assessor to complete the
assessment and return his book by a
dav,named therein, and it was held that
a Court had no power to declare such
provision directory, but that it was im
perative and indispensable to a valid as
sessment. Marsh v. Chesnut, 14 111.,
224. Billings v. Better, 15 111., 218.
Brown et al. v. Hoyle et a)., 30 111., 142.
The Supreme Court of Connecticut
say, in commenting upon a similar stat
ute, " This direction is imperative, and is
alone alterable by the legislature. The
Court must take the law as they find it,
and can not say that a return after the
first day of December is valid, unless
they assume the character of law
makers." Thames Manufacturing Co. v.
Lathrop et al., 7 Conn. 365.
Bull & Follett for appellee.
The charter does not require the assess
ment to be finished on or before the loth
day of July in each year, and returned
to the City Clerk by that time ; but sim
ply the ordinances, as the}' admit in their
brief. In other words, it is not the char
ter, but the City Council that makes the
above requirement. It not being acharter requirement, it becomes simply direct
ory, and its omission is consequently not
fatal. The City of Ottawa v. Macv etal.,20
111., 421. But even if required by the
charterand a fortiori, since it is simply
required by the ordinancesthe omis
sion complained of is cured by the act of
1853, p. 21, $ 50, which provides that the
failure to return the assessment in time
shall not vitiate. Hill v. Figley, 25 111.,
102.
Crawford & Beck and C. S. Miller
for appellant in reply.
The 50th section of the act of 1853 has
nothing to do with this question. That
act is a general law, not in any way re
lating to assessments for corporate pur
poses, and neither has that section nor
any similar provision been incorporated
into the charter or ordinances of the city
of La Salle. The power to assess and
collect taxes for corporate purposes hav
ing been delegated by the Legislature to
the City Council of La Salle, and that
body not having adopted the 50th section
of the act of 1853, tliat section can no
more qualify or limit the revenue law of
the city of La Salle than that of New
York or Milwaukee.
Opinion by Breese, J.
The appellee, the City of La Salle, ap
plied to the County Court of LaSalle
County for a judgment a;ainst certain
delinquent lots in that city, for the gen
eral and special taxes assessed for the
city thereon, for the year 180!), and for
the taxes of the previous year. Judg
ment was rendered against appellant's
lot, against his objections then and there
made, from which he appeals. We deem
it necessary to consider only the twelfth
objection, as disposing of that, disposes
of the whole case. The objection is that
the assessor's book was not returned to
the clerk of the city on or before the
fifteenth day of July, as provided by the
ordinance of the city. By section 8 of
an ordinance prescribing the manner of
assessing property for taxation in the
city of LaSalle, it is provided, the as
sessor shall finish and complete the
assessment on or before the fifteenth
day of July in each year, and shall add

up, extend, certify and sign the same,

and make return thereof to the clerk of
the city, on or before the day above
named in each year, and the city clerk
shall thereupon immediately give notice
by two publications in a weekly news
paper published in the city of LaSalle,
that the assessment list for the year
therein stated has been returned to him
by the assessor, and is subject to the
inspection of any person interested, and
that on the first Tuesday of the month
of August following, at two o'clock, p.m.,
the city council will sit as a Court of Ap
peal from said assessment when all per
sons will be heard who feel themselves
aggrieved by the assessment of their
property ; and the city Council may ap
prove, reduce, increase, alter, correct, or
amend such assessment as in their opin
ion shall be proper and just.
It is not contended by appellee that
this ordinance is not within the char
tered powers of the city. It is conceded
to be, and as such, it is the law of the
case to the same extent than an act of
the Legislature would be on a subject
within their constitutional powers. Ap
pellee, however, insists that under the
authority of the caseof the City of Ottawa
v. Macy et al., 20 111., 413, this provision
being a part ot an ordinance only, and
not of the charter, that, therefore, it is
simply directory, and consequently not
fatal. That case has no resemblance to
the one before us. Here the complaint
is that the assessment was not returned
at the time required by law, then the
objection was, that the collector had not
returned his warrant in thirty days as re
quired by the ordinance. By section
nine of that ordinance, it was the duty
of the Commissioners, when they had
completed the assessment, to file the
same in the ofliee of the City Clerk within
forty tfavs after their appointment, un
less further time should be given them
for the purpose, and the Clerk was re
quired to give notice of such return for
six days in the corporation paper, re
quiring persons wishing to appeal from
tne assessment, to file their objections by
a certain day, at which time the City
Council would hear all objections to the
assessment and revise and confirm or
amend the same.
This was designed for the protection of
property owners, and if omitted would
dotiDtless have invalidated the proceed
ings, but the requirement of the Collec
tor to return the warrant in thirty days,
was for the benefit of the City Council,
and not necessarily mandatory, as no
property owner could be injuriously
affected by a failure of the Collectors to
comply strictly with the requirement.
This case is very different, and is strongly
put by this court in Marsh v. Chesnut,
14 111., 223, where the Legislature made it
the imperative duty of an assessor to
complete an assessment and return the
same to a particular place on or before
a certain day, as in this case. It was
there held that the duty cannot be dis
pensed with without the consent of the
party taxed, and t he assessment is therebv
invalid as against the owner of the land.
The object of this provision in the rev
enue law is identical with that of the or
dinance, to afford the owner ample time
and opportunity to ascertain the valua
tion put upon his property by the asses
sor, and if deemed excessive, that he may
make application to the proper authority
for a correction of the error. It was the
intention of the law in both cases that
some time should intervene the return of
the assessment and the sitting of the
tribunal having the power to revise the
doings of the assessor.
This interval of time is allowed the
owner, the court say, to inspect the re
turn and prepare for the hearing of his
objections to the assessment. This requi
sition of the statute is clearly imperative.
It is made for the benefit of the owner,
and cannot be dispensed with without
his consent. A failure to observe it may
seriously injure him. The courts have

Whole No. 166.

no power to declare it directory merely.
Such a decision would virtually deprive
a party of the protection the Legislature
designed to afford him. The court fur
ther say : " We have no doubt this direc
tion to the assessor was intended to be
compulsory ; and that a failure by him
to comply with it renders the assessment
invalid as against the owner of the land."
In conclusion, it is further said : It is a
sound and inflexible rule of law, that
when special proceedings are authorized
by statute, by which the estate of one
man may be divested and transferred to
another, every material provision of the
statute must be complied with. The
owner has the right to insist upon a
strict performance of all the material re
quirements ; and especially of those de
signed for his security, and the non-ob
servance of which mav operate to his
prejudice. On this principle alone, the
direction of the assessor to make his re
turn by a given day is compulsory, and
its performance is indispensable to the
validity of the assessment. Without a
valid assessment, the subsequent pro
ceedings necessarily fall for the want of
a basis on which to rest.
With equal force and propriety, may
these views be urged in this case. No
difference in principle is perceived in
the cases. But it is contended by ap
pellee this omission is cured bv the act
of 1853 amending the general revenue
law of the State, providing as it does,
that the failure to return the assessment
in time shall not vitiate. It will be ob
served, the act cited relates in no man
ner to assessments for corporate purposes ;
they are all regulated by the revenue
law of the municipality." No provision
like this in the general law has been in
corporated with the ordinance, nor is it
to be found ir. *he charter of the city.
The case then stands upon tire eighth
section of the ordinance cited above, and
the provision therein requiring the re
turn of the assessment to be made on or
before the day named therein, is, for the
reasons given in Marsh v. Chesnut supra,
of an imperative and mandatory charac
ter, and not having been complied with,
the assessment is necessarily invalidated.
For the reasons given, the judgment is
reversed and the cause remanded.
INSURANCE CASES.
[From the Western Insurance Review.]
KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSURED.
Fire.Increase of risk.H. effected a
policy on his premises with the National
Insurance . Company. The policy con
tained a clause that the assured should
give notice to the company if anything
occurred on the premises insured, or on
those adjacent thereto within the knowl
edge of the assured, whereby the risk
should be in any way increased. Held,
that where the risk was increased by the
deposit of goods on the assured's "own
premises, the question of knowledge did
not arise ; that it only had reference to
what took place on the adjacent premises.
1 A. J. It, 134 ; 1 W. W. and A. B. L.,
155.Hillman v. National Ins. Co.
EVIDENCE.
AssessmentPrima facie correct.By the
charter of a mutual insurance company,
it was provided that the premium notes
should be paid as the corporation should
direct ; that every member should pay
for losses and expenses in proportion to
the amount of his note, and in an action
to recover assessments, the certificate of
the secretary specifying the amount, etc.,
should be prima facie evidence of the
amount due, etc. : Held, that a statement
of the condition of the company in 1863,
was not evidence to rebut the" correct
ness of an assessment in 1805 ; that an
assessment made by the directors after
an assignment by the company for the
benefit of creditors was valid.S. C.
Pennsylvania, June, 1870.Ins. Co. v.
Macklin

5o

Chicago

Legal

V. S. CIRCUIT COURT, I>. OF AR- Congress, and shall grant a certificate

KANSAS.October Term, A. D. 1871. thereof under the seal of the State, to
the person so elected." (Laws of Arkan
United State* v. Clayton.
sas, 1868, 314, 325).
(Before Dn.Losand Caldwell.)
In support of the demurrer it was ar
ENFORCEMENT ACT( "ONSTRCCTIONELEC gued
by defendant's counsel that the in
TION OFFICER.
1. The governor of a State Is not " an officer of dictment is insufficient in law.
1. Because it does not allege that the
election," within the meaning of section of the
act of Congress of May 31 . 1S70, (,ltl Stats, at I... defendant was an election officer.
14.">), which makes it criminal for any "election otii2. Because it does not allege what was
cer" fraudulently to make any false certificate of
the result of the casting mh and arranging
the result of any Congressional election.
J. Rules by which the courts arrive at the inten
the votes by the Secretary of State,
tion of the Legislature in construing criminal of
and that the certificate issued to Ed
statutes, stated and applied.
3. Statutes creating crimes will not be extended wards was false according to the result
by judicial interpretation to cases not plainly and ascertained by the Secretary of State,
unmistakably within their terms.
4. In statutes creating and defining criminal of the only allegation in this regard being
fences, the courts will not, by construction, en that it was false as appears by the returns
graft words in one section upon those of another, on file.
unless the legislative intention be plain and
3. Because within the meaning of sec
dear.
5. The relations of a State to the general govern tion 22 of the act of Congress of May 31,
ment and of the governor or to both, referred to
upon which the indictment is
as showing the improbability that Congress would 1870,
if its power be conceded), provide forthe trial and framed, the defendant being the Gov
imprisonment of this officer for omitting or fraud ernor of the State, was not an officer of
ulently performing election duties prescribed by the Congressional election mentioned in
State laws.
the indictment.
The indictment in this case was pre
4. Because it is not within the Consti
sented at the April term, 1871, and is tutional powers of Congress to provide
founded upon section 22, of the act of for the punishment of the defendant, the
Congress of May 31 ,1870, ( 16 Stat, at Large, chief executive officer of the Shite, in
145). A demurrer thereto is filed. The respect of acts and duties performed by
indictment is, in substance, as follows : him as such executive under the laws of
That on November 8, 1870, an election the State.
was holden under the laws of Arkansas,
Mr. Harrington, District Attorney,
in the several counties (naming them), with whom Mr. Whipple, Mr. Thomp
constituting the Third Congessional dis son and Mr. Barnes for the United
trict of the State, to elect a representa States.
tive in the Congress of the L'nited
Mr. Wilshire, Mr. Gantt/Mr. Warwick
States; that Thomas Boles and John Ed and Mr. Yonley for the defendant.
wards were respectively candidates for OPINION OF THE COURT BY DILLON, CIR
that office, and voted for at said election;
CUIT JUDGE.
that abstracts, duly made and certified
The indictment against the defendant
by the county clerks of the said counties who was at the time of issuing the cercomposing the Congressional district, of I tificate of election to Edwards, the gov
the returns of said election in the vari ernor of the State of Arkansas, is foundous election districts (duly made to said | cd upon section 22, of the act of Con
county clerks by the judges and clerks gress of May 31, 1870, (16 Statutes at
of said election ), showing the number of Large, 145). The amendatory act of
votes cast, respectively, for Boles and February 28, 1871, (lb. 433) does not ap
Edwards were filed in the office of the ply to the case, since the indictment is
Secretary of State ; that on said Sth day for an act committed before its passage,
of November, lh70, and for four months and is not based upon section 20, which
thereafter, the defendant, Clayton, was this last-named statute amended, but
the Governor of the State of Arkansas, alone upon section 22 above mentioned.
charged with the duty of making and This section provides " That any officer
granting the certificate hereinafter men of any election at w'hieh any representa
tioned ; that during said period, one tive or delegate in the Congress of the
Robert J. T. White was Secretary of UnitedStates shall be voted for, whether
State ; that December 1, 1870, said White, such officer ofelection be appointed or cre
in the presence of the defendant,Clayton, ated by or under any law or authority of
as Governor, did dulv cast up and ar the United States.or by or under any State,
range the said votes from the said several territorial, district or municipal law or
counties so returned as aforesaid ; that authority, who shall neglect or refuse to
on February 20, 1870, the defendant, as perform any duty in regard to such elec
Governor, did willfully, unlawfully, and tion required of him by any law of the
fraudulently, make and grant, under the United States, or of any State or Territo
seal of the State, and deliver to said ry thereof ; or violate any duty so im
Edwards a certificate, stating therein posed, or knowingly do any act thereby
" that it appears from the returns made unauthorized, with intent to affect any
to the office of the Secretary of State, such election or the result thereof; or
that an election held, etc., John Ed fraudulently make any false certificate
wards was duly elected in the Third of the result of such election in regard
Congressional district to represent the to such representative or delegate, * *
State of Arkansas in the forty-second Bhall be deemed guilty of a crime and
Congress of the l'nited States." The in liable to prosecution and punishment
dictment then alleges that the said cer therefor," by fine or imprisonment, or
tificate was false and fraudulent, and both.
that " in truth and fact, it did not ap
The indictment necessarily proceeds
pear, at the time it was made, by and upon the theory that the defendant, al
upon such returns so made as aforesaid, though the act charged against him was
that said Edwards was elected ; but, on one required by the laws of the State to
the contrary, it did, then and there, as be done by him in his capacity as gov
^foresaid, appear by said returns that ernor, was within the meaning of the
Hie said Boles was duly elected by a ma section of the act of congress just quoted,
jority of one hundred votes, all of which an officer of election, and as such issued
said Clayton well knew contrary, etc.
and delivered to Edwards the certificate
The election laws of the State of Ar of election which is alleged to be fraud
kansas, in substance, provide that the ulent. Accordingly, one of the counsel
Governor shall appoint registrars of for the government well observed on the
election ; that the board of registrars ap argument that a decisive question here
points the judges of election, and the was, whether the defendant, within the
judges the clerks of election. The intention of Congress, was, or was not, an
judges certify to the number of votes election officer, and acting as such in mak
given to each person, which is attested ing and delivering the election certifi
by the clerks. The judges are to trans cate set out in the indictment. If he is
mit the poll books to the county clerks not an election officer, it was admitted
" within three days after the closing of that the indictment against him would
the polls." " On the fifth day after the not lie. To this fundamental inquiry,
election the county clerks are to open theiij we first direct our attention ; for,
and compare the returns and make ab if this question be resolved against the
stract of the votes given for the several government, that is an end of the case,
candidates, and send certified copies of and it is unnecessary to consider wheth
the abstracts to the Secretary of State. er Congress has the constitutional power
The act provides that " it shall be the to provide for the punishment of State
duty of the Secretary of State, in the officers in respect of acts performed by
presence of the governor, within thirty them, as such, under State authority.
days, or sooner if all the returns are re And so in this event, it would be equally
ceived, to cast up and arrange the votes unnecessary to determine whether, if
from the several counties for the person the defendant were an elective officer,
voted for member of Congress ; and the the indictment sufficiently avers it, or
governor shall, immediately thereafter, charges the offense with a particularity
issue his proclamation declaring the required by the rules of criminal plead
person having received the highest ing.
number of votes to be duly elected to
The act of Congress, in the section un

News.

der consideration, provides for the pun

ishment of any officer of election "
who shall "fraudulently make any false
certificate of the result of any election
in regard to a representative " in Con
gress. The question is one as to the
meaning of the phrase "officer of elec
tion " or " election officer." What was
the scope of legislative intention ? Un
doubtedly this language was designed to
include, and does appropriately include,
local judges and clerks of election at
which a representative in Congress is
voted for. But did Congress mean, by
this language, to include the chief exe
cutive officer of a State ?
Did itactmean
include in
caseand
an
official
of theto governor
of any
a Srtate,
to provide for his punishment, if he
shall neglect or refuse to perform any
duty imposed by State laws in respect to
elections for Congress, or shall violate
any such duty ? Did it mean to include
by this description an official act of the
governor, which in any case cannot be
done until thirty days or more have
elapsed since the election was holden
and the polls closed, and which in the
case made by the indictment was not
done by him until nearly four months
after the election had ended? Is the
act of the governor of the State, in grant
ing the certificate of election, the act of
an election officer?
This is, as above observed, a question
of legislative intention. Now, in what
manner do the courts ascertain the legis
lative will ? AVe answer, that it is ascer
tained primarily and chiefly by the lan
guage the Legislature has used to ex
press its meaning. We must suppose
that in the enactment of statutes, par
ticularly statutes so important as the
one under consideration, that Congress
weighed well the words it employed. In
the office of interpretation, courts, par
ticularly in statutes that create crimes,
must closely regard and even cling to the
language which the Legislature has se
lected to express its purpose. And where
the words are not technical, or words of
art, the presumption is a reasonable and
strong one that they were used by the
Legislature in their ordinary, popular or
general signification. Statutes enjoin
obedience to their requirements, and un
less the contrary appears it is to be taken
that the Legislature did not use the
words in which its commands are ex
pressed in any unusual sense. For these
reasons, whose cogency is obvious, the
law is settled that in construing statutes
the language used is never to be lost
sight of, and the presumption is that the
language is used in no extraordinary
sense, but in its common every-day
meaning. When courts, in construing
statutes, depart from the language em
ployed by the legislator, they incur the
risk of mistaking the legislative will, or
declaring it to exist where, in truth, it
has never found any expression. The
legitimate function of courts is to inter
pret the legislative will, not to supple
ment it or to supply it. The judiciary
must limit themselves to expounding the
law; ihey cannot make it. It belongs
only to the legislative departments to
create crimes and ordain punishments.
Accordingly, courts, in the consideration
of statutory offenses, have always re
garded it as their plain duty cautiously
to keep clearly within the expressed will
of the Legislature, lest otherwise they
shall hold an act or omission to be a
crime, and punish it, when, in fact, the
Legislature had never so intended or
meant to declare. " If this rule is vio
lated," says Chief Justice Best, " the fate
of the accused person is decided by the
arbitrary discretion of the judges, and
not by the express authority of the
lawTs." Fletcher v. Lord Sondes, 3 Bing.,
580.
The principle that the legislative in
tent is to be found, if possible, in the
enactment itself, and that the statutes
are not to be extended by construction
to cases not fairly and clearly embraced
in their terms, is one of great impor
tance to the citizen. The courts have no
power to create offenses ; but if by a latitudinarian construction they construe
cases not provided for to be within legis
lative enactments, it is manifest that the
safety and liberty of the citizen are put
in peril, and that the legislative domain
lias been invaded. Of course an enact
ment is not to be frittered away by forced
constructions, by metaphysical niceties,
or mere verbal and sharp criticism.
Nevertheless, the doctrine is funda
mental in English and American law,

that there can be no constructive of

fenses; that before a man can be pun
ished his case must be plainly and un
mistakably within the statute, and i
there be any fair doubt whether the
statute embraces it, that doubt is to be
resolved in favor of the accused. These
principles of law admit of no dispute,
and have often been declared by the
highest courts, and by no tribune more
clearly than the Supreme Court of the
United States: United Slates v. Morris,
14 Pet., 464 ; United States v. AViltberger,
5 Wheat., 76 ; United States v. Sheldon,
2 lb., 119. And see also Ferrett v. Atwill, 1 Blatchf., 151, 156; Sedgw. Const,
and St. Law. 324, 326, 334 ; 1 Bish. Cr.
Law, sees. 134, 135.
In view of these acknowledged rules
of law, the question occurs: Did Con
gress mean by the use of the words " of
ficer of election," or " election officer,"
in the section of the statute on which
the indictment is framed, to include the
Governor of a State ? Is the ( iovernor
an election officer? It seems to us not.
These words are apt and usual words to
describe the clerks and judges of the
election, but not to describe the ( iovernor
of a State. Such is not their ordinary or
usual meaning. To make them apply to
the Executive of a State, in respect to an
act done a month or more after the elec
tion is closed, would be a forced and un
natural meaning, and one which is not
necessary in order to give the statute ef
fect or operation.
We hazard nothing in saying that, in
popular use, no one would naturally in
fer that the words " officer of election "
include the Chief Executive of a State.
Other considerations fortify the con
clusion that Congress did not intend to
provide for the indictment of the gov
ernor of a State. The States arc integral
and indestructible parts of the general
government, without which it cannot
exist, (Texas v. White, 7 Wall., 700,) and
in view of this relation, and of the high
position and important relation of the
executive of a State to the United States,
as well as to the State itself, it would
seem very improbable that Congress
would undertake to punish the governor
for omitting or fraudulently discharging
the duties enjoined by the laws of his
State. The punishment by imprison
ment would result in depriving the peo
ple of a State of the executive officer
they had electedj and prosecutions of this
kind, if authorized, could nut fail fre
quently to lead to agitation, and disturb
that harmony which should exist be
tween the State and its people and the
general government. Under the Consti
tution (article 1, section 4,) Congress has
the undoubted power to provide its own
officers for the holding and conduct of
Congressional elections, and it would
most probably exercise it, if it deemed
it necessary, in preference to undertak
ing to make or treat the governor of a
State as an election officer, and to punish
him through the national courts for mal
feasance and nonfeasance in office. Ken
tucky v. Dennison, 23 How., 6(i. And
especially would this seem to be so in
view of the fact that the certificate of
the governor is not binding upon Con
gress, each house of which is, by the
constitution, made the judge of the elec
tions, returns and qualifications of its
own members. [Article 1, section 5.]
Admitting for the occasion the power
of Congress to provide for the punish
ment of the executive of a State, as
claimed by the prosecution, we repeat,
that in view of the foregoing considerations; that it seems to be improbable
that it would undertake to exercise the
power. At all events, it is impossible,
on any legal principles, that any such
intention should be held to exist from
the use of the general words, " election
officers."
_ We have carefully considered the very
able arguments which have been ad
dressed to us to show that the governor
is embraced in the more general lan
guage of sections 19 and 20 of the same
act, and that, if so, these words, sup
posed to include the governor, should,
though omitted by the Legislature, be
inserted by official engraf'tment into
section 22, on which the indictment is
founded. In answer to the argument,
we deem it necessary only further to
observe that the governor is not in terms
named in either of those sections ; that
it is far from certain that they intended
to embrace any official act of t his officer,
and if they did, we could not after the
judgment of the Supreme Co-urt deliv

Chicago
ered by Chief Justice Marshall, in the
United States x. Wiltberger, supra, enter
upon the dangerous and unauthorized
work of incorporating the provisions of
one section of a law into another. We
could never be sure that we did not put
in what Congress may have purposely
left out. The bill charges no indictable
offense, and the demurrer thereto must
be sustained.
Caldwell, district judge, concurs.
SUPREME COURT OF THE DIS
TRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Opinion Delivered at the October
Term, 1871.
sara j. spen< er v. the board of registration,
and Sara E. Webstkk v. the Jcdoes ok Ele<tion.
WOMAN SUKt"RA(;ETHE RKiHT OF WOMEN
TO VOTE IN" THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CONSIDERED AND DENIED BY THE COURT.
We have received a pamphlet of 72 pa
ges, containing the argument of A . G. Rid
dle, Esq., and Francis Miller, Esq., of
the Washington bar, counsel for the
Plaintiffs, and the opinion of the Court.
We regret that the length of the argu
ments prevents us from publishing them
entire. They are able and will be read
with interest by the enemies as well as
the friends of Woman Suffrage.
ARGUMENT OK MR. RIDDLE.
May it please the Court r .Although
my learned friend, Mr. Cook, who ap
pears for the defense, is the demurrant,
it has been arranged that in the argu
ment we shall be regarded as having the
affirmative. And, at mv own request, 1
am to open it, and shall bring fully to
the notice of the court the matter which
I wish to submit for its consideration.
In doing this, my purpose is, without
comment upon the gravity of the ease,
and avoiding everything like speechmaking, to deal with the cases in their
purely legal aspects. Nor do I mean to
step from the line of dry argumentthe
narrow st< >ny way of the law.
These plaintiffs, describing themselves
as women, claim to be citizens of the
United States, and of this District, with
the right of the elective franchise, which
they attempted to exercise at the elec
tion of April 20, last past, and were pre
vented. They say, that as registration
was a prerequisite of the right to vote,
they tendered themselves in due form,
and demanded it, under the second sec
tion of the act of Mav 31, 1870, (16th U.
S. Stats., HO.) That is the "act to en
force the right of citizens of the United
States to vote," etc., and authorizes a suit
for refusing registration. They say, that
being refused registration, they tender
ed their votes to the proper inspectors
of said election, with proof of their at
tempt to register, citizenship, etc., as au
thorized by the third section of said act,
and their votes were refused ; and, there
upon. Spencer brings her suit under said
second section, against the registering
officers, and Webster her's under the
third section, which authorizes it. for re
jecting her vote. The questions in both
cases are identical and presented togeth
er. To the declarations the defendants
demur, and thereby raise the only ques
tions we desire to have adjudicated. The
defendants, by their demurrer, admit all
the allegations of the plaintiffs, several
ly, but say. that as they are women they
are not entitled to vote in the District of
Columbia. That the seventh section of
the organic act, the Constitution of the
District, provides, " That all male ritzenx" etc.. " shall beentitled to vote," etc.,
and that this word male excludes women,
of course.
To this the plaintiffs reply, that the
language of the statute does exclude
women, but they say that in the pres
ence of the first section of the Fourteenth
Amendment, which confers the elective
franchise upon " all persons," this word
" male" is as if unwritten, and that the
statute, constitutionally, reads, " That all
citizens shall be entitled to vote."
For we contend, your honors, that al
though the Congress " has exclusive leg
islation in all cases over this District," it
can legislate only, as could the States
from which it was taken. It must legis
late in accordance with American ideas,
and can exercise no power not granted
by the Constitution : and that that in
strument certainly confers no power to
limit the right of suffrage. And so we
are at issue.
The language of the Fourteenth
A rnendicent is:

Legal

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized In

the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, arc citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the priv
ileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States.
Our labor is to determine the mean
ing of these words as they stand. Yott
observe that the controlling word is "cit
izens." What does it mean ? It is a
mere matter of the definition of a word,
and thus the field is seemingly narrowed
to the smallest limits. All we have to
do, apparently, is to consult the diction
aries and bring into court common
usage.
I wish it might be so decided ; and so
it could, if these plaintiffs were not wo
men, or were not seeking some ele
mentary rights of human beings. We
know that whenever they or their claims
of rights are involved, words mean
nothing. No matter how broad a prin
ciple is, no matter how comprehensive
ly it may be stated, the moment a wo
man claims its benefit she is told that
she is a woman, that she is not meant,
and that ends the argument. And so I
must go below words to things. These
twin dragons of prejudice and proscrip
tion must be thrust by, and the founda
tions under the ground on which they
stand must be examined. We will go
back to the genesis of things, and see, if
we may, how, when, and where women
were walled out from the scope and
spirit of the great original lawslaws
that protect the rights of "all persons."
We are told, that to construe " citizens"
so as to embrace the right of suffrage,
and thus thrust it upon women, and thrust
her into government and politics, is a
war against nature ; it is upsetting the
primal foundations of society, and supFlanting the preordained order of things,
mav not here discuss the moral and
social, not even the political aspect of
these questions ; but when I must eontend for the ordinary use of a word, and
so claim a right, and when that right is
to enure to a woman, 1 may show, if I
can, that it would confer no new right
upon her, that the right was always
her's, and thus prove that the word was
used in its ordinary sense.
For if it should really appear that my
use of the word did violate natural law
and contravene natural right, that would
be a strong argument to show that it was
not used in that sense.
I.
Then, as the first proposition ofniy
brief, I contend, that under our *ii*tcm tlie
right to vote U a natural right.
Obviously, government is of right or
it is an usurpation. If of right, it sprang
from some right older than itself ; and
this older right must have existed in per
sons, (people,) in each and all alike,
male and female. And having this right
they used it to form for themselves a
government. Of course, this supposes
that all joined in and consented to the
government, having the power to dis
sent ; for to just the extent that a gov
ernment got it-self agoing without the
free consent of its people, it is without
right. The right of self-government,
and from that springs our right to gov
ern others, is a natural right. This is
the primary idea of American politics
and the foundation of our Government.
This was formulated in the second clause
of our great declaration, and no man has
dared to deny it.
Mr. Kiddle continued at some length
under this head, and then proceeded to
the next branch of his subject.
II.
The second position of my brief is, that
b>i tlic old common law of our English an
cestors, the old storehouse of our rights
and liberties, a* well as the arsenal
where we find weapons for their defense, wo
man always possessed th is right of suffrage.
I will snow by several English cases,
by long usage, and general understand
ing, by principle and precedent, that the
English women both voted and held of
fice ; and I will show that not a single
case, that not a single resolution of the
House of Commons exists to the contratrary ; and that in all the now innumer
able tomes of the common law, of judi
cial decision, commentary, or essay, but
a single dictum exists to the contrary.
And if I thus establish that the construc
tion of the Fourteenth Amendment, for
which I this day contend, is in favor of a
common law right, is in accordance with
its scope and spirit, every lawyer under

News.

stands by how much I strengthen my po

sition.
And for the satisfaction of the court I
am glad to state that this part of my ar
gument will consist entirely of extracts
from recent English text-writers, and a
reference to two or three old cases.
Mr. Riddle, after citing various au
thorities, the several amendments to the
Constitution of the United States bear
ing upon the question under considera
tion, and commenting thereon at some
length, concludes aa follows :
Now, I admit, as broadly and fully as
words can express, that the framers,
adopters, and promulgators of these
amendments, man-like, went through it
all and never thought of women. Never
thought that they were in existence
were persons, or human, even. It was
the product of an unspent, blind, revotionary force ; as the blind forces of na
ture, under her laws, change the config
uration of a continent, unaware of the
mighty result.
And so we havo this first section, not a
mere sounding sham, but a crowned prin
ciple of sovereign right, which this halt
ing and belittling second section, in its
poor way, seeks not to deny or abridge,
but to guard and protect, and thus you
find harmony between them.
I am admonished by the lapse of time
to pass through with what I must still
say, and remit the argument to other
hands, and to minds to whom this sub
ject is fresher than it is to me, who can
not give it the interest of a first discus
sion.
THIRD.
Colored male citizens now vote con
stitutionally and rightfully, although the
word " white" stands as before in most
of the State constitutions ; and yet he
votes in spite of it. Some potent alem
bic has destroyed the force of this word,
although the text remains as of old.
We are at once referred to the Fifteenth
Amendment for a solution. That has
conferred the powerof voting upon them,
and it is superior to the State constitu
tions and statute, and executes itself, as
is claimed.
Now, I concede, your honors, that if
the Fifteenth Ameadment does con
fer suffrage, or remove the exclusion so
that colored citizens can vote; if they
have derived the franchise from thai,
then the argument is against me. But,
if it does not confer it, then judgment
must go for me.
Let us read it :
article xv.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by
the Uniled States or by any State on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to en
force this article bv appropriate legislation. (15
Stat., p. 316.
You see in a moment this does not
confer anything. It uses no words of
grantor grace, apt or otherwise, nor does
it profess to. It expressly recognizes, as
an already existing fact, that the citizezs of the United States have the right
to vote. The right which shall thus be
respected is a right peculiar to the citi
zenit is not a personal right, but a po
litical right ; and a right to vote, the
same one mentioned in the second sec
tion of the Fourteenth Amendmenta
right not created or conferred by the Fif
teenth Amendment. It could not be, for
it existed, and ,as I have just said, was
spoken of in the Fourteenth Amend
ment ; so that it must be as old as that
at the least. This amendment is a solemn
mandate to all concerned not to deny
this right, because it existed, and because
it was of the highest value.
Justice Wylie. It is not to be denied
for either of the three reasons men
tioned.
Mr. R. Yes, your honor, 1 have not
reached that | I am now only showing
that it is a righta citizen rightand
older that the Fifteenth Amendment ;
but if your honor intends to infer, that
because the right cannot be denied in
any one of those cases, that, therefore,
it-may be in all others, then you have
another instance ofa constitutional right
to deny a constitutional right ; and, with
out vanity, I have already pulverized
that assumption.
Tt is thus absolutely certain that col
ored male citizens do not claim their ad
mitted right to vote from this Fifteenth
Amendment. They had it before, and
this came in to protect and secure them
in its enjoyment.
Whence did thev derive it? From

5r
the Fourteenth Amendment? If so,
then did women acquire it by the same
amendment ? Was it an inherent right
in them as a part of " the people?" So
women are a much larger and more im
portant part of " the people."
The right to vote shall not be denied
on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude, was not used to
make the right sacred in male negroes
alone, while the rights of all others were
left to political caprice, or to be controll
ed by these same colored males mayhap;
but this amendment was aimed fully at
the mischief remedied by the second
section of the ^Fourteenth Amendment,
and there its force is expended. It fos
silizes the second section of that amend
ment. While the broad language of its
first section secures, beyond the abridg
ing hand of the States, the great rights it
securesrights which Congress cannot
abridge on any pretext, for it can exer
cise no power not granted, and the Con
stitution confers on it [no power to
abridge the " privileges or immunities
of the citizen" in any instance.
And here I rest this solemn argument.
I have brought this cause of woman, and
of man as wellof the raceinto the
presence of the court, surrounded by the
severe atmosphere of the law, beyond
the reach of chronic ribaldry, and into
the region of argument, where it must
be estimated by its legal merits. I have
applied to it the rules of law. I have
pushed away the dead exfoliations that
cumber the path ; and have gone to the
foundations, to the ever fresh and pre
serving spirit of the rules ofthe common
law, and have sought to apply them with
candor.
I see here before you these ladies, who
have come with their friends to listen
to the argument of their case, which is to
decide whether, as citizens and subjects
of this great government, they are to
bear the citizens' voice in its manage
ment. A Government which, spite of
its burthens, its neglects, its scorns and
contumely, they love with the passion
ate, self- sacrificing devotion of wo
man ; to which they gave their soul's off
spring, their loves and their lives; or,
whether they are for a time longer to
continue its vassals and serfs. That cit
izen is a vassal and a serf who must re
main dumb in the presence of power,
and who must owe to grace, ever capri
cious, that which can belong alone to
right.
And I see behind them, in shadowy
and endlessprospective, not the matrons
and daughters of rich and luxurious
homes ; not the petted, flattered courted,
loved idols of society and fashion, but
the long array of the pale, woe-worn,
toiling, homeless, helpless wives and
mothers and daughters of care and want,
the. prey of vice, the victims of abnormal
society, who cannot be heard, but who
mutely and unknowingly extend their
weak hand lor the instrument of politi
cal power for their own protection; who,
when they strike for bread, when they
strike for shelter and for raiment, and
warmth and life, may have that power
which will command what they have
yet never hada hearing. And never,
till you give woman this power, and
through it, give her to herself, can you
redeem her, and through her, elevate
the race.
Give her the ballot, and she will grow
to the strength and wisdom to wield it
more purely and unselfishly than it has
ever yet been used.
I see your sensibilities are awakened.
I only invoke your unprejudiced judg
ment. 1 will not have emotion and sym
pathy. I demand the severe voice of
the law.
The court, after listening to an able
and logical argument by Francis Miller,
of the Washington bar, in favor of wo
man exercising the right of suffrage, ren
dered the following decision:
Opinion of the Court, delivered by
Caktter, C. J., sustaining the demurrer,
which is as follows :
These cases, involving the same ques
tions, are presented together.
As shown by the plaintiffs' brief, the
plaintiffs claim the elective franchise un
der the first section of the fourteenth
amendment of the Constitution.
The fourth paragraph of the regula
tions of the Governor and Judges of the
District, made registration a condition
.Continued on page M.]

52

Chicago

Legal

Chicago Legal News. false practice, must be for the full market
value of such goods, without deducting
the amount of duties.14 Int. Rev.,
px fitmt.
Record p. 172.
License of Tug-Boat.The Secretary
CHICAGO, DECEMBER 2, 1871.
of the Treasury Department, in a letter
to the Collector of Customs at Mobile
published every saturday by
The Chicago Legal News Company, under date of Oct. 23, 1871, says a tug
boat of 5 34-100 tons without deck, and
T 115 MADISON STREET.
wholly employed within the harbor in
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
drawing loaded flats from a dredgeboat used in deepening the channel,
Terms :
Two Dollars per annum, in advance. Singlecop- need not be licensed while so employed.
les Ten Cents.
Ib. 171.
Canal BoatsHospital Tax.Canal
We call attention to the following boats used exclusively on canals are ex
opinions, reported at length in this empt from the payment of hospital tax,
issue :
and the boatmen employed thereon are
The Enforcement Act.The opinion not entitled to hospital relief.Ib. 171.
of the United States Circuit Court for
Steam Tugs Employed in Enforcing
the District of Arkansas, delivered by Local Laws of the State.Steam tugs,
Dillon, J., construing the enforcement while employed solely and exclusively
act, and holding that the governor of a in protecting the oyster and fishing
State is not " an officer of election " grounds of the States under local laws,
within the meaning of scetton 22 of the carrying neither freight nor passengers,
act of Congress of May 31, 1870, which are not required to take out marine pa
makes it criminal for any "election offi pers while so employed, but under sec
cer" fraudulently to make any false cer tions 41 and 58 of the steamboat inspec
tificate of the result of any Congression tion law of Feb. 28, 1871, they are sub
al election.
ject to inspection at least once a year.
Woman Suffrage in the District of Ib. p. 170.
Columbia.The opinion of the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia, deliv
Internal Revenue ReturnsPrivate
ered by Carttee, C. J., although deny
Banking
Firms.J. W. Douglas, Com
ing the right of women to vote in the
District, is an important victory gained missioner of the Internal Revenue De
for the friends of woman suffrage. The partment, in a letter under date of No
Chief Justice, in delivering the opinion, vember 21st, 1871, to W. C. Church, ed
iys that the first clause of the Four itor of the Imterrtal Revenue Record, says :
I have received under your indorse
teenth Amendment does advance women ment
of the 11th inst., a letter addressed
to full citizenship, and clothes them with to you under date of 4th of September,
the capacity of becoming voters; that in which inquiry is made whether a co
this provision ends with the declaration partnership, engaged in doing a general
banking business, such as is commonly
of this citizenship ; that it is a constitu known
as a private bank, not incorpora
tional provision which does not execute ted under any State or national law, is
liable
to
render returns of earnings on
itself, but is the creation of a constitu
tional condition that requires the super Form 65-}, or whether the individuals
such co-partnership are sim
vention of legislative power in the exer comprising
ply liable to include such earnings in
cise of legislative discretion to give it their annual income returns on Form 24.
I reply that private banking firms
effect; that the constitutional capability
of becoming a voter lies dormant,, as in which are not organized under either
law or special charter, are not li
the case of an infant, until made effect general
able to render returns of profits, etc., as
ive by legislative enactment. Parties provided in Section 15, Act July 14, 1870.
interested in the question of women The individuals comprising such a firm
suffrage should send to Mr. Riddle, for should return their respective shares of
profits of the business in their returns
the pamphlet containing his and Mr. the
of income on Form 24.
Miller's argument.
Taxation.The opinion of the Sup
Loaning Supreme Court Records.
reme Court of this State, delivered by Major W. M. Taylor, Clerk of the Su
Breese, J., settles several important preme Court at Ottawa, writes as fol
questions as to the manner of making lows :
assessments under city ordinances, the
I enclose herewith a copy of a letter
time within which return must be made, received from Mr. Chief Justice Law
the effect of not making it within the rence, in answer to a letter of inquiry
written by me respecting the propriety
required time, and the bearing the gen of
loaning for any purpose whatever, to
eral revenue law has upon assessments parties or their attorneys, any of the
records filed in this office.
made for corporate purposes.
Many applications have been made to
Indictment of Commission Merchant. me to permit them to go from the files,
The opinion of the Supreme Court of and for various reasons assigned. This
Illinois, delivered by McAllister, J., letter, I hope, will be seen by many, if
all, of the members of the bar in
construing the statute of 1869 providing not
Chicago, and settle the question raised,
for the indictment and conviction of a and render it unnecessary for me to re
commission merchant who should con fuse to comply with any further requests
vert to his own use goods consigned to of this kind ; "for 'tis not my nature to."
Respectfully yours, W. M. Taylor.
him for sale on commission. The court
Galesburg, 111., Nov. 27.
holds that an actual demand must be
Major
W.
M.
Taylor,
Clerk Supreme Court :
made on the consignee before a convic
Dear Sir:I have received your letter
tion can be sustained under this statute. of the 25th, in regard to applications
made to you to allow records to be taken
from the office. You are perfectly right
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
in refusing. During the late session, the
court
was several times asked to permit
Claimant's BondPenalty of.The
to be withdrawn in consequence
V. S. District Court of Massachusetts, records
of the destruction of papers by the Chi
in an opinion delivered by Lowell, J., cago fire. We replied that the court
in U. S. v. 1291 Bales of Tobacco, holds never allowed the records to be with
that a claimant's bond for goods de drawn, and that it was now more than
ever important to adhere to the rule, in
posited in a bonded warehouse, and order
that all persons interested in a
seized therein for having been entered record might find it in your office, and
by means of a false invoice or other be able to procure copies. They cannot

News.

be withdrawn, even by consentof parties,

as others than the parties are interested
in their safe-keeping.
Yours verv truly,
C. B. Lawrence.
A practice has prevailed in some of
the courts of this State of allowing par
ties to suits, by consent, to withdraw the
papers from the files without leaving
anything to show what the original
papers were. This, we think, iB a bad
and dangerous practice. If original
papers are ever allowed to be taken from
the files, it should only be in cases of
necessity, and then copies of them should
be filed.
Township Organization.J. S. asks us
if there is any law in force since the new
Constitution took effect whereby a county
can adopt township organization.
We have not examined the question,
but would refer J. S. to the decision of
Tilman Raser, County Judge of Marion
county, reported at length on page 11 of
our issue of October 7, 1871. Judge
Raser held in that case :
1. That petitions for township organi
zation, to be in accordance with the
township organization law of 1861, must
be signed by fifty voters of the county.
2. That the provisions of section 4 of
the township organization law of 1861,
provided that, " If it shall appear by the
returns of said election that a majority
of the legal voters of said county are for
township organization, then the county
so voting in favor of its adoption shall be
governed by and subject to the provisions
of this act, on and after the first Tuesday
of A pril next succeeding," was abrogated
by section 4 of the schedule of the new
Constitution.
3. That it cannot be presumed county
courts for the transaction of county busi
ness and a Board of Supervisors for the
same purpose should exist in a county at
the same time.
4. That at the present time there is no
law in force whereby counties can adopt
township organization.
By the courtesy of James Frake, of the
Chicago bar, we have received the fol
lowing opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed at September Term, 1871.
Gottleib F. Leibbrandt, impleaded with John B.
Reis and F. Peters, v. Myron Lodge No. 1 of
the old Free Order of Chaldea.
Appeal Jrvm Cook.
MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT ENTERED
UPON WARRANT OF ATTORNEY.
Held, that the affidavits disclose no defense to
the note or ground of equitable relief; that there
was no tend, r of the amount due ; that an offer to
pay as statci was not sufficient ; that there was no
consideration for extending the time of payment
of the note, and no time specified.Ed. Legal
News.
The facts in this case as shown by the
abstracts, are as follows : Judgment was
entered up by the Circuit Court, against
John D. Reis and Gottlieb F. Liebrant
in favor of appellee upon an ordinary
judgment note.
Gottlieb F. Liebrant, at a subsequent
term of the Circuit Court, moved to
vacate the judgment, filing his own affi
davit, stating that he was only security
for the said John D. Reis, which fact was
well known to appellee, and that he had
not heard of said, note since it was made,
and supposed that it was paid. He also
filed the affidavit of John D. Reis, stating
that he (Reis) had receivedall the bene
fit for which the note was given, and
that he (Reis), when the note fell due,
offered to pay the note and interest, but
the officers of Myron Lodge told him
they did not want the money, and that
he could keep it longer, and that he was
then insolvent.
Opinion of the Court by McAllis
ter, J.
The affidavits upon the motion made
to set aside the judgment entered
upon the warrant of attorney disclose no
defense to the note or ground for equit
able relief. There was no tender of the
amount made. An offer to pay in the

manner stated does not amount to a

tender.
The supposed agreement with the
principal in the note to extend time of
payment is taken as an essential element
of "a valid agreement.
It was wholly wanting in considera
tion, and no time was specified. No act
was done which would legally tie thehands of the plaintiff below for a singleinstant.
The judgment of the Court below is
affirmed.
Thomas Shirley, for Appellant.
James Frake, for Appellee.
Our thanks are due Sidney Thomas, of
the Chicago bar, for the following opin
ion:
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOISOpinion Filed at Sept. Term, 1871.
Moses C. Wright v. The People of the State of
Illinois.
Error to Circuit Court of Cook County.
INDICTMENT AGAINST COMMISSION MER
CHANT FOR CONVERTING GOODS TO HIS
OWN USE.
Held under the statute of 1S6'.I providing for the
conviction of commission merchants for convert
ing to their own use goods consigned to them, that
the statute, being penal in its nature, must be
strictly construed, and that it is an indispensable
requisite to a conviction that an actual demandshould have been made by the consignor upon the
commission merchant
2. Manner of Making Demand.That the de
mand should be made in such a manner as to
fairly apprise the merchant that he would be sub
ject to the penalties of the statute if he failed to
comply.En. Legal News.
Opinion of the Court by McAllister, J.
The statute of 1869, under which the
indictment in this case was found, de
clares that, " If any warehouse-man,
storage, forwarding or commission mer
chant, or his or their agents, clerks oremployees, shall convert to their own
use the proceeds or profits arising from
the sale of any fruits, grain, tlour, beef,
pork, or any oilier goods, wares, or mer
chandise, otherwise than as instructed
by the consignor of said goods, and shall
on the demand of the consignor, fail todeliver over the proceeds or profits of
said goods, after deducting the usual per
cent, on sales us commissions, shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor," etc.
This statute being penal in its nature,,
must receive a strict construction. An
actual demand, to be made by the con
signor upon the commission merchant,
is an indispensable requisite to a convic
tion. The complaining witness testifies
that when he went into the place of the
accused in Chicago, the latter said, "I
know what you have come for, but it is
impossible for me to pay you anything
now." The witness stated that the ac
cused knew well enough what he had
come for, and this was all the demand
he claimed to have been made.
In a civil cause when a demand was
necessary, such evidence might be suffi
cient for a jury to find a waiver. But
the statute under consideration requires
both a wrongful conversion of the pro
ceeds and a failure to deliver them over
after a demand made by the consignor,
to constitute the offense. The demand
should be made in such a manner, as tofairly apprise the merchant that hewould be subject to the penalties of thestatute, if he failed to comply ; else he
might, by the very course of dealing as
sented to by the consignor, be entrapped
into the consequences of a criminal of
fense, unawares, and without any wrong
intention. Such a result would be re
pugnant to the spirit of our criminal
code, and, as we believe, to the intention
of the statute in question.
The evidence was not sufficient to sus
tain the verdict, and the court shouldhave granted a new trial.
The judgment of the court below must
be reversed and the cause remanded.
Sidney Thomas for Plaintiff in Error.
Charles H. Reed for the People.
AVebster's Unabridged Dictionary.
We never fully realized how valuable
this Dictionary was, and how dependent
we were upon it, until we lost ours in
the fire and were deprived of its use.
We feel its loss daily. It is the standard
to which the learned and the unlearned,
the professor and the mechanic, the law
yer and the doctor, all resort to settle
nice distinctions and questions of doubt.
It should be in every library. In fact,
as soon as a child learns to read it should
have access to one of Webster's Un
abridged Dictionaries.

Chicago
LIII. ILLINOIS REPORTS.
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman
L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following
head-notes to cases to appear in the 53d
volume of Illinois Reports :
BILL OF REVIEW.
1. To what extent and undrr what circum
stances errors may be corrected. Upon a
petition to enforce a mechanic's hen, to
which prior incumbrancers by mortgage
were made parties, the decree found the
value of the premises before the erection
of the improvements, and their value
with tho improvements, for the making
of which the mechanic's lien accrued,
and then declared the rule of distribu
tion, so that the prior mortgages should
first be paid out of tlie proceeds of a side
of the premises, to the extent of their
value without the improvements, and
upon a sale being made, the proceeds
thereof were distributed according to
the rule thus declared. Upon bill of re
view, afterwards filed by those claiming
the mechanic's lien, alleging there was
error, in that decree in regard to the
rule of distribution, it was held, even
though there was error in that respect, it
could not, equitably,be corrected upon bill
of review, so as to compel the prior in
cumbrancers to refund any portion of
what they had received, because, the
sale under the decree being allowed to
stand, they would have no oppor
tunity, under a different rule of dis
tribution hunting their proportion of
the proceeds of the sale, to protect their
interests by making the property bring
a higher price. The only equitable
mode of correcting such error in the
original decree, if one existed, would be
to set aside the sale and order a resale.
(Opinion by Breese, C. J.)Dingledinc v.
Hershmau, 'el al. p. 280.
mechanic's lien.
2. Ofthe ride ofadjustment'asresj/ecls prior
incumbrancers. The rule of disttibution,
however, as between the prior incum
brancers by mortgage and those holding
the mechanics' liens, declared in the
original decree, was correct, being in
conformity to the rule announced in
Croskey v. Northwestern Manufac'g Co., 48
111. 481.-76.
PURCHASER.
3. At judicial sale how affected by a re
versal. Where a purchaser at a judicial
sale is a stranger to the record, he is not
chargeable with any error which, may
be supposed to exist in the decree un
der which he purchased.lb.
limitations.
1. Bill of review. For errors apparent
on the face of the record, a bill of re
view must be brought within the time
allowed for a writ of error.(Opinion by
Lawrence, J.) Dolton v. Erb et al. j>. 289."
COLOR OF TITLE.
2. Adverse possession. A party pur
chased a tract of land from a person,
acting as the attorney in fact of the own
er, and paid him the contract price, and
not receiving a deed, the purchaser af
terwards filed his bill against the un
known heirs of such owner, alleging the
death of the latter, and the purchase
and payment of the money. Under a
decree, the master conveyed to the pur
chaser, who subsequently sold and con
veyed to others, and these entered into
possession under their color oftitle, and
paid the taxes for seven years. On a
bill filed by a purchaser, from the heirs
of the original owner, alleging the revo
cation of the power of attorney under
which the first wale was made,by the death
of the party executing it before the sale
was made by the attorney, it was held,
the possession of those claiming under
that sale was adverse, and they could
protect themselves under their color
of title, possession and payment oftaxes
for seven years.lb.
CRIMINAL LAW.
1. Defense of habitationdegree of force
allowable. Upon the trial of a party on
the charge of murder, it appeared the
deceased went to the room of the pris
oner for a lawful purpose, and w'hile
there demeaned himselfproperly, though
some altercation occurred between them,
and hard words exchanged. The de
ceased, however, left the room, and pro
ceeded down a stairway, remarking as
he went, to the prisoner, "go, with all
the money you have gothasn't your
wife to beg every day ?" to which the
prisoner replied," "you go, you rascal,
go." At this, the deceased turned to go

Legal

up the stairs again, in an angry mood,

when the prisoner said, "come back, I
will fix you." As the deceased advanced
to the door of the prisoner's room, un
armed, in the act of entering it, it being
open, the prisoner seized a rolling-pin,
and wielding it with both hands, struck
deceased three or four blows, fracturing
his skull so seriously that he died there
from the following day. The homicide
was regarded entirely inexcusable, under
the circumstances. The prisoner did not
seek to avoid a collision, but invited it,
and a term of one year in the peniten
tiary was a very much lighter punish
ment than the jury would have been
justified in inflicting upon him.(Opin
ion bv Breese, C. J.) Greschia v. The
People, p. 295.
2. It was not erroneous, in such case,
for the court to instruct the jury that, in
considering whether the killing was in
defense of habitation, they should con
sider the attending circumstances, the
conduct of }he parties at the time and
immediately previous to the killing, and
the means and force used, as bearing
upon that question.lb.
3. And th e jury might properly fur- !
ther consider, in determining whether
the killing was in self-defense, whether
the force used in repelling the deceased,
in its amount and character, was not
such as a reasonable mind would regard
as unreasonable, under the circumstan
ces.lb.
4. If the use of a deadly weapon was
not necessary, or apparently necessary,
in order to prevent the deceased enter
ing the room of the prisoner and com
mitting, or offering to commit, an assault
upon him, and he could reasonably and
safely have avoided using the weapon,
it was his duty to have done so, even
though the deceased was returning to
the prisoner's room with a quarrelsome
intent.lb.
partnership.
1. Remedy as between partners. Where
two partners, upon a settlement of their
partnership affairs, ascertain and agree
upon a balance due from one to the oth
er, it becomes unnecessary to file a bill
in chancery for a statement of the part
nership accounts, and an action of as
sumpsit will lie for the amount found to
be due, as upon an account stated. But
where, upon an attempted settlement
between them, a mistake is made in the
statement of the account, assumpsit will
not lie, and the remedy is by bill in
chancery for a settlement of the partner
ship accounts.(Opinion bv Walker, J.)
Hanks v. Baber, p. 292.
2. What properly included in suck ac
counting. On the tiling of a bill in chan
cery for the settlement of partnership
accounts, the parties cannot introduce
their individual accounts into the state
ment.lb.
3. Of compensation to a j>artner. The
law does not allow compensation to a
partner for his time, efforts and skill in
the management of the partnership
business, but on the contrary implies,
unless otherwise provided by the part
nership articles, that the members of the
firm are to give their efforts and skill for
the promotion of the interests of the
firm.lb.
partition.
1. Who entitled tliereto.A partition of
lands, among several joint owners, will
not be made, unless those by whom the
partition is sought have a legal title to
the por'.ions claimed by them. A party
who has a mere equitable right to a con
veyance of an undivided interest, is not in
a position to ask a partition.(Opinion
by Breese, C. J.) Williams et al. v. Wiggand et al., p. 233.
2. Specific performance and partition in
the same suit.A party having a right to
a conveyance for an undivided interest
in land, may obtain the legal title under
a decree for a specific performance, on a
bill filed for that purpose, and which, no
doubt, mi^ht also contain a prayer for
partition, in case a specific performance
should be decreed. But where the sole
purpose of the bill is for partition, it can
not De allowed merely on proof that the
complainant is entitled to a conveyance.
lb.
HEIRS.
3. I17ioi not bound by settlement of the
administrator.A party claiming an in
terest in land, sought partition thereof
against the infant heirs of the partv
with whom he had the transaction, al
leging he was entitled to a certain undi

News.

vided interest, upon his performing cer

tain conditions, with respect to which he
had made a settlement with the admin
istrator of the estate : Held, the infant
heirs, not having been parties or privies
in any way to such settlement, were not
bound by it, and it could not be evidence
against them in that suit.26.
BAGGAGE.
1. When liability of carrier ceases, and
that of warehouseman attaches. Where the
baggage of a passenger is placed in
charge of the carrier, and upon arriving
at his place of destination the passenger
leaves it in charge of the carrier, the
duty and liability of the carrier, as such,
will not be changed to that of ware
houseman, until the baggage is stored in
a safe and secure warehouse. If the
baggage be placed in an insecure room,
and is stolen, the carrier will be held re
sponsible in that capacity, not as ware
houseman. The same rule applies, in
this regard, to the carrying of baggage,
as in case of ordinary freight.(Opinion
by Walker, J.)Bartholomew v. St. L. J.
& C. R. R. Co., p. 227.
2. Burden of proofin such case. In an
action against the carrier for the loss of
baggage which had been stolen from the
place where it had been deposited by
the carrier, at the place of destination,
if the latter seeks to avoid liability as a
carrier, and place his defense on the
ground that he is only liable as ware
houseman, the burden of proof is upon
him to show the baggage was stored in
a safe and secure warehouse.lb.
JUDGMENTS.
1. Their requisites.All judgments for
money must be certain, and find the sum
for which they are rendered, and failing
so to do, thev are fatally defective.
(Opinion bv Walker, J.)P. F. W. & C.
R. A". Co. v. City of Chicago, p. 80.
2. Judgmentsfor taxes and upon special
assessments.It has been held, that a judg
ment against lands for non-payment of
taxes is fatally defective, unless there is
some character or word which indicates
the amount or sum for which numerals
are employed in the lollector's report,
upon which the judgment is rendered.
The same rule governs in case of a judg
ment for a special assessmentlb.
3. In this case, which was an applica
tion for judgment against city lots for
non-payment of a special assessment, in
the collector's report there were various
numerals in columns, opposite the sev
eral lots, and the columns were headed
thus : the first, " amount due ;" the sec
ond, " costs, cents," and the third,
"amount due." There was neither at
the head of the columns, nor opposite
the figures in the columns, anv word,
mark or character, to indicate for what
the figures were designed. The judg
ment itself contained nothing to indicate
the amount, except by reference to the
report ; held, the judgment was fatally de
fective, in failing to find the sum of
money due.lb.
GARNISHEE.
1. Entitled to notice.A garnishee is en
titled to have notice of the proceeding,
before a conditional judgment can prop
erly be entered for failing to answer in
terrogatories filed against him.(Opinion
by Breese, C. J.)Towner et al. v. George
and Son, p. 108.
2. Time allowedto answer. A conditional
judgment can not be entered against a
garnishee, at the regular term, on default
of answer to interrogatories, because the
statute gives him until the third day of
the next succeeding term in which to
file his answer.lb.
JUDGMENT AGAINST GARNISHEE.
3. Its form. It is improper to render
a judgment against a garnishee in a pro
ceeding by attachment, in favor of the
plaintiff in the attachment ; it should be
entered in the name of the debtor in at
tachment, as the plaintiff, and against
his debtor, the garnishee, as the defend
ant.Ib.
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES.
4. By the Clerk. Under the practice
act it is only where damages rest in com
putation, as upon an instrument in writ
ing for the payment of money, where
the amount is certain, and known, that
the clerk can assess the damages; he
can not assess them in an action
upou an open account, as for goods sold
and delivered.76.
5. By the Court. Under the act of 1863,
the Court may, unless a jury be demand
ed, hear the testimony, where the dam

53
ages are unliquidated, requiring evidence
of the quantum thereof, occasioned by
the breach of the contract, and assess
the damages accordingly ; but the clerk
has no such power.76.
SATISFACTION OF A JUDGMENT.
1. What amounts to. Payment of a
judgment by one of two joint defendants
operates as an extinguishment of the
same.(Opinion by Bheese, C. 'J.)
Tompkins et al. v. Fifth Nat. Bank et al., p.
57.
2. A. and B., being partners, became
indebted to the Fifth National Bank of
Chicago, and executed their note in favor
of the bank for that sum of money ; but
afterward becoming insolvent, the bank,
at the instance of B., sued out an attach
ment against the firm, levying the same
on a lot, the individual property of A.,
and obtained judgment. B. deposited
with the bank his individual securities,
and cash as collaterals to secure the
judgment. Afterward the bank applied
a portion of the collaterals deposited by
B., on account of the note of A. and B.,
balancing the note account, and B. with
drew the remainder of his deposits.
Subsequently the bank assigned the
judgment to C, who claims to have paid
the sum of S722 for the same, A., in the
meantime, having conveyed the lot by
warranty deed to D. Held, upon a bill
in chancery being filed by P., to remove
the cloud upon her title interposed by
said judgment, that the appropriation by
the bank of the collaterals deposited by
B., on account of the note, operated as a
satisfaction and extinguishment of the
judgment.76.
KIND WORDS AND AID.
There is no aid that we receive with so
much real pleasure as an increase of our
subscription list, as we feel it is not tak
ing money without giving something in
return. To the members of the bar who
have interested themselves in our be
half, we return our thanks, and particu
larly to L. P. Williams, one of the clerks
of the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia, from whom we received the
names of twenty new subscribers, and
the following :
Clerk's Office, Sup. Court of the \
District of Columbia. (
November 23,1871.
Mrs. Mvra Rradwbll:
MadamEnclosed please find a draft
on New York for $40, and for which I
desire you to forward to the enclosed
names the Legal News for one year.
These subscriptions are the result of a
little effort in your behalf amongst the
generous bar of this District.
You will please accept my good wishes,
trusting that your journal will soon be
in as prosperous circumstances as before
the terrible conflagration.
Respectfully,
L. P. Williams.
FROM O. F.-BUMP OF BALTIMORE.
Mr. Bump, the author of the leading
treatise upon the Bankrupt Law, which
is found in the office of every bankrupt
practitioner in the United States who
keeps his library up to the times, con
cludes a letter to us, under date of Nov
ember 27, as follows :
" Permit me to say that I regard your
paper as the best law periodical in the
country. I have a complete set and would
not part with it for any price.
" Yours trulv,
"0. F. Bump."
Legal Printing.We hike this occa
sion to say to the members of the bar
and others that we are now prepared, up
on the shortest notice, to print abstracts,
briefs, opinions, blanks, cards, etc. Our
type is new, and we promise neatness,
accuracy and dispatch.
Only thirty years ago the New Orleans Picayune
published this advertisement : " f5 RewardRan
away from the subscribers, on the 23d of Novem
ber last, the negro boy Oscar Dunn, an apprentice
to the plastering trade. He is of griffe color, be
tween 20 and 21 years of age. and about 5 feet 10
or 11 inches high. All persons are cautioned not
to harbor said boy, under penalty of the law.
Wilson and Patcrson, comer St. John and Com
mon streets." That boy was Lieutenant-Governor
of Louisiana until the 22d, when he died of con
gestion of the lungs.

54
[Continued from Page SI.]
precedent to the right of voting at the
election of April 20th, 1871.
The plaintiffs, being otherwise quali
fied, offered to register, and were re
fused. They then tendered their ballot*
at the polls, with evidence of qualifica
tion and oiler to register, etc., when
their ballots were rejected under the
seventh section of the act providing a
government for the District of Columbia.
Mrs. Spencer brings her suit for this
refusal of registration, and Mrs. Webster
for the rejection of her vote, under the
second and third sections of the act of
May 31, 1870.
The seventh section of the organic
act above referred to, limits the right to
vote to ''all male citizens," but it is con'
tended that in the presence of the Four
teenth Amendment, the word male is
without effect, and the act authorizes
" all citizens " to exercise the elective
franchise.
The question involved in the two ac
tions which have been argued, and
which, for the purposes of judgment,
may be regarded as one, is, whether the
plaintiffs have a right to exercise within
this jurisdiction, the elective franchise.
The letter of the law controlling the
subject is to be found in the seventh
section of the act of February 21, 1871,
entitled, " An act to provide a govern
ment for the District of Columbia," as
follows :
And be itfurther enacted, That all male citizens
of the Unl'teil States, above Ihe aire of twenty-one
years, who shall have been ai-iual residents of
said district for three months prior to the passage
of this act, except such as are non compos mcntitt.
and persons convicted of infamous crimes, shall
be entitled to vote a t said election, in the election
district or precinct in which he shall then reside,
and shall have so resided for thirty days imme
diately preceding said election, and shall he
eligible to any office within the said district, and
for all subsequent election*, twelve mouths prior
residence shall be required to constitute a voter:
but the Legislative Assembly shall have no right
to abridge or limit the i i;^ht of suffrage.
It will be seen by the terms of this
act, that females are not included within
its privileges. On the contrary, bv im
plication, they are excluded. We do
not understand that it is even insisted
in argument that authority for the exer
cise of the franchise is to be derived
from law. The position taken is, that the
plaintiffs have a right to vote, Independ
ent of the law ; even in defiance of the
terms of the law. The claim, as we under
stand it, is, that they have an inherent
rightresting in nature,andguaranteed by
the Constitution in such wise that it may
not be defeated by legislation. In virtue
of this natural and constitutional right,
the plaintiffs ask the court to overrule
the law, and give effect to rights lying
behind it, and rising superior to its au
thority.
The Court has listened patiently and
with interest to ingenious argument in
support of the claim, but have failed to
be convinced of the correctness of the
position, whether on authority or in
reason. In all periods, and in all coun
tries, it may be safely assumed that no
privilege has been held to be more ex
clusively within the control of conven
tional power than the privilege of voting,
each State in turn regulating the subject
by the sovereign political will. The
nearest approach to the natural right to
vote, or governtwo words in this con
nection signifying the same thingis
to be found in thor>e countries and gov
ernments that assert the hereditary
right to rule. The assumption of di
vine right would be a full vindication
of the natural right contended for here,
provided it did not involve the hereditary
obligation to obey.
Again, iu other States, embracing the
Republics, and especially our own, in
cluding the States which make up the
United States, this right has been made
to rest upon the authority of political
power, defining who may be an elector,
and what shall constitute his qualifica
tion ; most States in the past period de
claring property as the familiar basis of
a right to vote ; others, intelligence ;
others, more numerous, extending the
right to all male persons who have at
tained the age of majority.
While the conditions of the right have
varied in several States, and from time to
time been modified in the same State, the
right has uniformly rested upon the ex
press authority of the political power,
and been made to revolve within the
limitations of express law.
Passing from this brief allusion to the
political history of the question to the
consideration of its inherent merits, we
do not hesitate to believe that the legal

Chicago

Legal

vindication of the natural right of all

citizens to vote, would, at this stage of
popular intelligence, involve the destruc
tion of civil government. There is
nothing in the history of the past that
teaches us otherwise. There is little in
current history that promises a better
result. The right of all men to vote is
as fully recognized in the population of
our large centres and cities as can well
be done, short of an absolute declaration
that all men shall vote, irrespective of
qualifications. The result in these cen
tres is political profligacy and violence
verging upon anarchy. The influences
working out this result are apparent in
the utter neglect of all agencies to con
serve the virtue, integrity and wisdom
of government, and the appropriation of
all agencies calculated to demoralize and
debase the integrity of the elector. In
stitutions of learning, calculated to bring
men up to their highest state of politi
cal citizenship, and indispensable to
the qualifications of the mind and mor
als of the responsible voter, are j>ostponed to the agency of the dranishop
and gambling hell ; and men of consci
ence and capacity are discarded, to the
promotion of vagabonds to power.
This condition demonstrates that the
right to vote ought not to be, and is not,
an absolute right. The fact that the
practical working of the assumed right
would be destructive of civilization is
decisive that the right does not exist.
Has it become a constitutional light,
under the provisions of the Fourteenth
and Fifteenth amendments of the Con
stitution, which provide as follows:
Fourteenth Amendment, section J.
"All persons, born or naturalized in the
Cuited States, and subject to the juris
diction thereof, are citizens of the United
States, and of the State wherein they re
side. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privil
eges or immunities of citizens of the
United States."
Fifteenth Amendment, Section 1.
"The right of citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States, or by any
State, on account of race, color, or pre
vious condition of servitude."
Section 2."The Congress shall have
power to enforce this article by appro
priate legislation."
It will be seen by the first clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment, that the
plaintiffs, in common with all other per
sons born in the United States, are citizens
thereof, and, if to make them citizens is
to make them voters, the plaintiffs may,
of right, vote. It will he inferred from
what has already been said, that to make
a person a citizen is not to make him or
her a voter. All that has been accom
plished by this Amendment to the Con
stitution, or by its previous provisions,
is to distinguish them from aliens, and
make them capable of becoming voters.
In giving expression to my own judg
ment this clause does advance them to
full citizenship, and clothes them with
the capacity to become voters. The pro
vision ends with the declaration of their
citizenship. It is a constitutional provi
sion that does not execute itself. It is
the creation of a constitutional condition
that requires the supervention of legis
lative power in the exercise of legislative
discretion to give it effect. The consti
tutional capability of becoming a voter
created by this amendment lies dor
mant, as in the case of an infant, until
made effective by legislative action.
Congress, the legislative power of this
jurisdiction, as yet, has not seen tit to
carry the inchoate right into effect, as is
apparent in the law regulating the fran
chise of this district. When that shall
have been done, it will be the pleasure
of this court to administer the law as
they find it. Until this shall be done,
the consideration of fitness and unfit
ness, merit and demerit, are considera
tions for the law-making power. The
demurrer in these cases is sustained.
After the reading of the opinion of
the court by Chief Justice Cartter, Mr.
Riddle, counsel for the plaintiffs, in open
court, prayed an appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United States.
ESTATE
PHILIP
W. persona
PKCK, having
DECEASED.
Notice isOFhereby
given F.to all
claims
aud
demands
againstthethesame
estatefor ofadjudication
Philip . W.andPeck,
deceased,
to present
set
tlement at a regular term of County court of Cook
county, to be holdeu at t he the
court house in he city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of January. A.I). 1S72,
being the first day thereof.CLARENCE I. PECK and
FEKl>. W. PECK,
Administrators.
Chicago, November 17. A.D. 1*71.
6-Ihi

News.

LAW BOOKS.
J. K. McDIVITT,
HI MAHAAV STREET, HEW YORK.
No Law Hooka nolil at Cost for the next six
months.
Second-hand Law Books Bought, Sold and Ex
changed.
6-19
CHICAGO ATTOKXEYS.
Barhor ami Lackner, 04 West Lake street.
Barker, J. ('.. 77 West Madison Mreet.
Bates & Hodges, 113 West Madison street.
BRA DWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street.
Burgess, W. T., 1G3 W. Wellington.
Bonney. Fay & Griggs, I'M West Washington St.
Bentley, Bennett, t'llman vfc Ives, :>70 Wabash av.
Barker Waite, 46 East Harrison street.
Brouse, O. R.T 400 Wabash avenue.
Brown & Riekerts, \U West Madison.
Carmichael, D. L., 84o l'ruirie aueuue.
Carter, Becker & lmle, 5G Canal street.
Chase, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue.
Clarkson a Van Schaack, No. 151 Wabash Ave.
Condon, Wm. II., 34 Canal street.
Deane fc Cahill, room 7, Lind's Block.
Dent & Black, 710 Wabash avenue.
Ewing & Leonard. 487 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. W., 115 West Madison street.
Felkcr, Wm. S., 371 State street.
Goudy ti: Chandler, 'J'.'l Wabash avenue, branch
oflk-e, 64 South Halsted street.
Harrison mid Whitehead, 143 W. Madison street.
Ilervey, Anthony & Gait, 356 Wabash avenue.
Hopkins, Win.. 46 East Harrison.
Herbert A Quick, 529 State street.
Hoyne, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michi
gan and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne, Horton and Hoyne. 267 Michigan av.
Hitchcock, Dupee o; Evarts, corner Wells and
Monroe streets.
Howe -k Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
Isham, Edward S.. 554 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E.. IS East Harrison street.
King, Scott A Payson, 637 Wabash avenue.
Knickerbocker..!..), and J. C. Ha W. Washington.
Learning & Thompson. Hsj West Randolph street.
Leary, I). James, 159 West Madison.
Lyman A Jackson. 79 W. Madison street, room 3.
McClelland, Thos., 17* West Washington street.
Merriam, Alexander and Bolster. 119 W. Wash
ington street.
Miller. Frost A Lewis, :if*i Michigan avenue.
Moore fc Caulrleld. S. E. cor. State and Madison.
Newcomb, G. W., 214 Warren avenue.
Norton, Jesse (),. 386 Wabash avenue.
Nissen A Barnum,126 W. Randolph, and 376 State
Otis, E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Paddock A Ide, 449 Wabash avenue.
Perkins. N.C.,479 Wabash av.,cor. Eldridge court .
Palmer, L. L., 481 Wal>ash avenue.
Ptlrshing, Jos. 47 Peck C't, bet. Wabash and State
Reynolds, Win. C, 176 West Washington street.
Rich A Thomas. 945 Michigan avenue.
Roberts. R. Riddle, room 7, 43 So. Canal.
liorkc. M. A. A Son, 154 Halsted street.
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, Masonic Building, S.
W., cor. Randolph and Halsted and 350 Wabash av.
Roys. C. D., 677 Wabash avenue.
Sawin A Wells, 59 West Madison street.
Seammon. McCagg and Fuller, :i89 Wabash av.
Seoville, George, 30 South Clinton street.
Sheldon A Waterman, r-tio Michigan avenue.
Sherman. E. B., 153 W. Madison.
Sleeper A Whiton, 441 Wabash avenue.
Small ami Ingulls. 4*1 Wabash avenue.
Snowhook A Gray. 85 W. Monroe St., cor. Jea'erson.
Story and King, 149 West Washington street,
'fenny, McClellan A 'fenny, 454 Wabash avc.
Thomas, Sidney, 95 East Harrison street.
Van Buren, E. A A., 194 West Madison street.
Valletle. H. F., 59 West Madison street.
Waterman, A. N., 135 West Monro*.4 street.
White, Hugh A., 165 West Washington street.
Whitehouse, Wm. F., 188 West Madison, late Tri
une building.
Williams a Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
Walker, Dexter A Smith, 792 Wabash avenue.
Wilson, Perry A Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
Windett, Arthur W., 562 Wabash avc, and room
6 Lind's Block.
Waughop, J. W.. 101 Wabash avenue.
Scale of Advertising Rates*
Space. Iw.i2v. 3w. lm. 3 in. I 6m. | 1 y
i sq Ob!^o't^'$^j"!bo "$ioToo| moo
2sq I 2.00] &5qI 4.7o' 6.00| 15.75 , 30.00 59.00
3 sq.. 2.80' 5.00! 6.50 8.00 23.00 44.00 ' 87.00
14 col.... | 3.75 7.00 9.50,12.00 30.00, 59.00; 110.00
14 col....! 7.OO 11.50! 17.25 !; 22.00 58.00 108.00 210.00
1 col.. j 12.00' 22.00 ' 31.00 42.00 108.00 210.00 350.00
Ten lines of Agate make a Square.
Advertisements must be paid for in advance,
and when not so paid, 50 per cent, will be added.
Legal Notices not included In the above.
Printed at the Chicago Lk;ai. Nkws Press, 15
North Jefferson street. Chicago.

BAJS'KR I'FTCY XOTTCES.

ROBERT E. JENKINS.
Attorney, IS East Harrison St.
TN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THK UNITED
A States, for the Northern District of Illinois.In
Bankruptcy.
the mutter
Daniel
S. Ht-ffron.
bank
rupt.
Notice ofIn
is hereby
givenofthat
a third
and final
eral meeting
the creditors
nf Maid
bankrupt
willgenbe
held (tn the Ifith day of December. 1*71, at 2 o clock, p.
m., at No. is Kust Harrison street, in the City of Chi
cago, before II. N.HiiiiiAitn, Esq., Register, for the pur
poses named
of tlie K.Bankrupt
Act of
March
S, 1*67.in the 2*th section
ROBERT
JENKINS.
Assiguee of said Bankrupt's Estate.
Chicago, Nov. 2">, 1871.
. In the late fire all Proofs of Debt in the hand*
ofsr.theeff.-i
Assignee and Register in Bankruptcy were deAssign
stroyed.
It willproof.
be necessary
for each
Creditor
to
make anothkk
If you have
already
received
one
dividend
in
the
above
case,
another
Proof
will
not
be required, as the Assignee has preserved all dividend
orders, which show the claims allowed.
ROBERT Assignee
E. JENKINS,
of said Estate.
IN States,
THE for
DISTRICT
COURT
OF
UNITED
the Northern District THE
of Illinois.In
Bankruptcy. In the matter of Daniel S. Heflron,
Bankrupt. This is to give notice that I have filed my
final
accounts
as assignee
the and
estatethatofonDaniel
s.
Hetfron,
Bankrupt,
in said ofCourt,
the 'Joth,
day of December. IS.71. I shall apply to said Court for
fbe settlement of my said accounts and for a discharge
froin all liability as assignee of >:i\\V estate, in accord
ance
withoftheMarch
provisioned*
1 pro
nipt Act
:d, IsdT. the 2-th section ot the BankROBERT K. JENKINS.
Assignee of said Estate.
Chicago, Nov. 25th, is.71.
*-9
>fOTlCE IN DANKRUI'TCY.-THIS IS TO GIVE
*
notice
that
on
the
25th
day
of
November,
D.
|s71, a warrant in bankruptcy wus issued uiiairistA.the
estate of Orrin Smith, Jr.. of Chicago, in the county
of Cook, and State of Illinois, who had been adjudged
a bankrupt.on his own petition: that the payment ofany
debts, and delivery of any property tielonging to such,
bankrupt byto him,
him, are
or forforbidden
his use, and
nuy
bj the
lawtransfer
; that a ofnieetftropcrty
ng
of
the
creditors
of
said
bankrupt,
to
prove
their
debts, and to choose one or more assignee** ot his es
tate, will be held at a Court of Bankruptcy, to be
holden at No. is But Harrison street, Chicago, before
Homer N. Hibbard, Esq... Register, on the 2t*th day of
December. A. D. 1*71. :it M o'clock a. 111.
B. H. CAMPBELL,
s-lo
U. S. Marshal, Messenger.
DRISCOLL & PFIRSHING,
Attorneys, 47 Peck Court.
/ 1HANCKRY NOTICE.State of Illinois. County of
\-'
Cook, Term,
ss, Superior
of Cook County.
December
A. D. Court
IK7I. Lawrence
Drolling Tov.
Theresa Drilling.In Chancery.
Affidavitcannot
that Theresa
defenduut,
on been
due
Inquiry
be found,Dreiliug,
above named,
"having
filed incounty,
the office
of the
Clerk ofgiven
saidtoSuperior
of
Cook
notice
is hereby
the naid Court
Theresa
Dreiting
that
the
complainant
heretofore
filed
his
bill
of complaint in said court, ou the chancery side there
of,
andagainst
that a summons
thereupon issued out of said
Court
said defendant,
returnable ou the tint
Monday of December next, 1S71. as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Theresa Dreilirag, shall per
sonallycounty,
be andonappear
Superior
Court
Cook
the firstbefore
day ofsaida term
thkereof,
to bof
holden at Chicago, in said count}, on the first Monday
of December, 1>71. and plead, answer or d erour to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, thessamc, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will bo
taken lis confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer
of said bill.
AUliUSTUS
JACOBS02S*. Clerk.
DittsniM. & PnnsHINu. CompPt'B SoPrs.
Mlp
BONNEY, FAY & GRIGGS*,
Attorneys, 120 W. Washington 8t.
PUBLICATION
NOTICE
IN ATTAOHMENT.StateCountv.
of Illinois,
Cook County,
Court
Of Cook
Januar)
Term, A.ss.D. Circuit
ls*72. Samuel
S. Public
White notice
v. C. B.tsStoddard.
hereby given to the Hui(3 C. B. Stod
dard that a writ of attachment issued out *>f the office
of the ( ilerk of the Circuit Court of Cook ci mnty, dated
the tldrd day of November. A. D. 1S71. attlae suit of the
said
Samuel
White,
against theand
estate
of C. B.
Stoddard,
for S.the
sum oftoand
four
eighty-four
12-lou dollars,
directed
the hundred
Sheriff' of Cook
county,
which said writ has been returned executed.
Now,
therefore,
unless
you.
the
said
C.
B.
Stoddard,
shall personally be ami appear ltefore the said Circuit
Court of Cook county, on or la-fore the first day of the
next term thereof, to be holden at the Court House, in
the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of January,
A. D. Is72, give special bail and plead to the said plain
tiff's action, judgment, will be entered against you, and
in
of theattached
said Sauiuel
and tososatisfy
muchtheof
thefavor
property
as mayS. beWhite,
sufficient
said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN
T. OASSETT'E, Clerk.
BoNNKY, Fay & <;i[t<;<;.
Attorneys.
.s-11
CLARKSON & VAN SCHA ACK,
154 Wabamh Avenue.
publication
notice
in attachment.State
of
Illinois,
Cook term,
County,
CircuitMatthew
Court
of Cook county,
December
A. ss.
D., 1*71.
C.Public
Wilburnotice
v. H. isE.hereby
Brown.given to the said H.E. Brown
that it writ of attachment issued out of the office rn
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, dated the
twenty-ninth
day of C.November.
A, D.,against
IS71, atthetheestate
suit
of
the said Matthew
Wilbur and
of H, E. Brown, for the sum df two hundred and thir
ty-three
ninety-one
one-hundreth
the Sheriff
of Cook county,
which dollars,
said writdirected
has beeuto
returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said II. E. Brown,
shall personally be and appear before the said Circuit
Court
of Cook
county,
or before
theCourt
first day
of the
next term
thereof,
to beonholden
at the
House,
io
the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of December.
A.D., M71, give speciul bull and plead to the said plain
tiffs
action,
judgment
u ill 1m- C,entered
against
you,much
and
in
favor
of the
said
Matthew
Wilbur,
and toso
ofthe
property
attached
as may be
sufficient
satisfy
the said judgment aud costs will be sold to sntisfv tti*
same.
NORMAN T. QA88KTTK, Clerk.
Clakkaon* t Van Schaack, Attorneys.
R-ILBROWN ft RICKETTS,
Attorneys, 114 Madison Street.
C1HANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county 0
/
Cook.ss.
Superior
CourtZircher
of Cookv. Emelia
county. Zircher.
To DcemberTerm, 1871.
Charles
In
Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Emelia Zircher, de
fendant
named,
having
beenoffiled
officenoof
the Clerkabove
of said
Superior
Court
Cookin the
county,
tice
Is
hereby
given
to
the
said
Emelia
Zircher
that the
complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
in
said
Court,
on
the
Chancery
side
thereof,
ana
that a
summons thereupon issued out of said Court against
aaid defendant, returnable on the first Monday of De
cember
next, (1871),
as issaid
by Emelia
law required.
Now, unless
the
sonally
be andyou,
appeur
before
saidZircher,
Superiorshall
Courtperof
Cook countyt on the first day of a term thereof, tow
holden
at Chicago,
in said
county!
on the
first Monday
of
ls'l.and
answer
or demur
to th*
saidDecember,
complainant's
bill plead,
of complaint,
the
same, and
the
matters and things thoreiu charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, aud a decree entered againt you
accordiug to the prayer
of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JAOOBSON. Clerk.
Brown A RicKCtrs Compl'td Sol'rs.
7-19

55
JOHN WOODBRIDOE,
High Sc hool Building, Monroe St.
i>ublicatiux notice in attachment.Stateof
Illinois,
Conk county,
em. 1.*").
CircuitWilliam
Court
of Cook
County,
November
Term, A.D.
P. Dickinson. William J)i<-kiij*ini, and Alfred Smith
.William H. Fitch, Jr.
Public notice in hereby given to the paid William H.
Fitch,
a writ
attachment
outcounty,
of the
office ofJr.,
[hethat
Cb>rk
of theof Circuit
Courtinaued
of Cook
dated the eighth day of November, A. I>. I*?!, at the
suit of the said William P. Dickinson. William Dick
inson and Alfred Smith, aud against the estate of Wil
liam
H. Fitch,toJr.,
the nuin
of three
hundred
dollari, directed
theforSheriff
of Cook
county,
which mid
writ
ban
been
returned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless y.u, the said William H.
Fitch, Jr., nhall personally be and appear before tho
naid
Courtterm
of Conk
couutv,
or befort?
first
day ofCircuit
the next
thereof,
to be on
holden
at thetheCourt
House,
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
third
Monday
of
December, A. I). 1*71, give special bail, and plead to
the
said
plaintiff's
action,
judgment
will
be
entered
against you, and in favur of the Maid VUlimn P. Dick
inson, ofWilliam
Dickinson
andasAlfred
and so
much
the property
attached
may beSmith,
sufficient
to
satisfy the said judgment and costs will be sold to
satisfy the same.
NORMAN
T. GASSKTTK. Clerk.7-10
John WoonnitiDoE,
Plff's Att'yRUNTAN, AVERY, LOO MIS & COM STOCK,
Attorneys,
ClHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
/ Cook.ss. Superior Court of Cook county. To De
cember Term, A.D. 1871. Ellen Cushing v. John Cunn
ing.In Chancery.
Affidavit
of the
non-residence
JohninCushing,
fendant
above
named,
having beenof filed
the officedeof
the
of given
said Superior
Court
Cook county,
tice isClerk
hereby
to the said
Johnof CushiiiK
that no
the
complainant heretofore filed her bill of comptaiut in
said
Court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
and
that
summons thereupon issued out of said Court againsta
aid defendant, returnable on the ni>t Monday of De
cember next (Inll >, as is by law required.
Now, nnless you, the said John Cushing, shall per
sonally
be andonappear
Superior
Court
Cook county,
tho firstbefure
day ofsaid
a term
thereof,
to boof
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
first
Monday
of December, 1*71, and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
of complaint,
the stated,
same, and
matters
and things bill
therein
charged and
will the
be
against
you
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk.
RrNYAN. AVKKV, LOOMIS
& COHSTOCK.
7-10
Coiupl't s Sol'rs.
CHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
Illinois,
County
Cook, ss. .Superior
court of ofCook
county,
To Deof
cember
term,
A.D.
1871.
George
Stevenson
vs.
Sarah
J. Stevenson.In Chancery.
Affidavitabove
of thenamed,
non-residence
Sarah
defendant
having fbeen
hiedJ.inStevenson,
the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Sarah J. Stevenson
that
filedside
his thereof,
bill of com
plaintthe
in complainant
said court, onheretofore
the chancery
and
that
a
summons
thereupon
issued
out
of
court
against said defendant, returnable on the firstsaidMonday
ol December next, ( IK71,) as is by law required.
Now, unless
you,appear
the said
Sarah J.Superior
Stevenson, shallof
personally
be and
Cook
county^
on tho
first before
day of said
a term thereof,court
to be
holden
at Chicago,
county,
on the
first Monday
of December,
1871. inandsaid
plead,
answer
or demur
to the
said complainant's
bill of complaint,
the stated,
same, and
matters
and things therein
charged and
willthe
lie
taken
as confessed,
and aofdecree
entered against you
according
to the praver
said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
RUNYAN,
8-11 AVEHY, LOOMIS <fc COMHTOI/K, CoiliplTs Sol'rs.
HIGH & TRUMAN,
Attorneys, Xo. 4S7 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE
ELI given
M. SKINNER,
Notice isOFhereby
to all personsDECEASED.having claims
and
demands
against
estate
of F.Ii 51. Skinner,
de
ceased,
to present
thethe
same
for adjudication
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court Rouse, in the City of
Chicago, on the first Monday of February, A.D. 1872,
being the fifth day thereof.
BETSEY SKINNER,
JEREMIAH S. CLOL'GU,
* Chicago.
Nov.
21,
1*71.
Executors.
High & Thvmas. Attorneys.
7-12a
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
Attorney, 113 West Madison St.
T?STATE
OF FRIEDERICH
MEDELMAN,deceaaed.
Hi Public notice
is hereby given
to all persons having
claims
and
demands
against
the
Medelman, deceased, to present theestate
sameofforFriederich
athudication and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of January,
A.D. 1872, being the first dav thereof.
DOROTHEA RINGLEB. formerly
DOROTH EA 5IEDELMAN, Administratrix.
James B. Kradwell, Att'y for Estate.
Chicago, Nov. 18, 1871.
6-11
ESTATE OF SUSAN A. LOYD, DECEASED.
Public notice is hereby given to all persons
haing claims and demands against the estate of
Susan A. Loyd, deceased, to present the tome for
adjudication and settlement at a regular term of
the County Court of Cook county, to be holden at
the Court House in the city of Chicago, on the first
Monday of January, A. IX 167'2, being the fourth
day therof.
ALEXANDER T. LOYD. Administrator.
Jas. B. Bradwkll, Att'v for estate.
Chicago, Oct. 2f>, 1871.
3-8
D. E. K. STEWART,
Attorney, 181 West Madison Street.
sstate of peter zoller, deceased.
Public notice is hereby given to all persons
'ing claims and demands against the estate of
Peter Zoller. deceased, to present the same for ad
judication and settlement at a regular term of the
County Court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first
Monday of January, A.D. 1872, being the fourth
day thereof.
ELLEN ZOLLER. Administratrix.
Chicago, Nov. 11, 1871.
5-10p
hugh a. white,
Attorney, 165 Washington St.
COMMISSIONERS'
notice is hereKj by given, that we, NOTICE.-PubUc
the undersigned commissioners
appointed by tho County court of Cnok county. State
of Illinois, in the mutter of the petition for a ditch in
the towns of Evan?<ton and New Tfrier, in said county,
have made, and on the l*th day of November. A.D.
1871, filed onr report therein, in the clerk's office of
Raid court; and that we will apply to said court, on the
first day of the January term A . D. Is72, fur a confirma
tion of said report, at which time and place all persons
interested may appear and contest the confirmation
thereof.
WILSON
PHELPS,
E.
A. GAGE,
WELLS
LAKE.
Commissioners of Evan> ton and New Trier Di^cb.
Hugh A. Whitf. Att'y for Comm'rs.
7-*

LAW DEPARTMKNT,
Chicago University*
LECTURES were resumed in this institution on
Monday, Oct. SOth last, in the lecture room of
the Second Baptist Church, corner of Monroe and
Morgan streets. All the old advantages obtained
by students in this law school are again offered.
For information address
JOHN A. HUNTER,
Sec. Law Dept.
5-13
135 W. Monroe street. Chicago.
WARD, STANFORD & RIDDLE,
Attorneys, 183 West Washington St.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County
of Cook, as. Circuit Court of Cook county,
November term, A.D. 1871. Samuel Walker v.
Elizabeth Walker.In chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Elizabeth
Walker, defendant above named, having been
filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit Court
of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said
Elizabeth Walker that the complainant heretofore
filed his bill of complaint in said court, on the
chancery side thereof, and that a summons there
upon issued out of said court against said defend
ant, returnable on the third Monday of November
instant, 1871, as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Elizabeth Walker,
shall personally be and appear before said Circuit
Court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
on the third Monday of November, 1871, and
plead, answer or demur to the said complainant's
bill of complaint, the same, and the matters and
things therein charged and stated, will be taken
as confessed, and a decree entered against you ac
cording to the praver of said bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Ward. Stanford <fc Riddle, Compl'ts Sol'rs. 5-8
JAMES FRAKE,
Attorney, 115 West Madison Street,
testate ok william hurst, deceased.
J2i Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of William
Hurst, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the Coun
ty Court of Cook county, to be holden at the court
house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday
of January, A.D. 1872, being the first day thereof.
JOHN COMMACK, Executor.
Chicago, November 9, A.D. 1871.
James Frake, Att'y.
5-10
GILBERT & GARY,
Attorneys, 122 W. Washington St.
rWANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, Cook
\j County, ss. Suju'rior Court of Cook County,
December Term, A.D. 1871. George Strauchon v.
Edward G. Mason, Trustee,
Clark, and Annie
Maria Baker.In Chancery.
Affidavit of tthe non-residence of Annie Maria
Baker, defendant above named, having been filed
In the office of the Clerk of said Superior Court of
Cook County, notice is hereby given to the said
Annie Maria Baker that the complainant hereto
fore filed his bill of complaint in said Court, on
the chancery side thereof, and that a sum
mons thereupon issued out of said Court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of
December next (1871), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Annie Maria Baker,
shall personally be and appear before said Su
perior Court of Cook County, on the first day of a
term thereof, to he holden at Chicago, in sald county on the first Monday of December. 1871, and plead,
answer ordenmr to tho said complainant's bill of
complaint, the same, and the matters and things
therein charged and stated, will he taken as con
fessed, and a decree entered against you according
to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Gilbert & Gary Comp'ts Sol's.
6-9
NEWELL PRATT,
Attorney, 1124 Wabash Avenue.
pHANCEKY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
vv Cook. ss. Superior Court of Cook County. Feb
ruary Term. A. P. 1*7:.'. Peter Buchanan v. Ann Bu
chanan.In
Affidavit ofChancery.
the non-residence of Ann Buchanan, the
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook county,
notico
is hereby given
to th*1filed
said his
AnnhillBuchanan,
that
the
complainant
heretofore
of complaint
in said Court, on the chancery sia> thereof, and that a
MimnioiiH thereupon issued out of paid Court atrahwt
said defendant, returnable on the firft Monday of Feb
ruary next, (lt>72), as in by law required.
Now, unle-s you, the naid Ann Buchanan, shall per
sonally
said Superior
county, beonand
theappear
first daylefore
of a term
thereof, Court
to be ofljook
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
first
Monday
ruary, Js72, aud plead, answer or demur to theof Feb
said
complainant1*) bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed,
and ofa said
decreebill.entered against you
according
to the prayer
Augustus jacobson, cierk.
Newell Pratt, Comp'ts boIV.
6-9
RAE MITCHELL,
Attorney, 14 South Clinton Street.
C1HANCERY
Illinois,
countyDeof
f Cook, ss. NOTICE.-State
Superior Court ofofCook
county.
cember
term, 1871. Rachel Mix v. James B. Mix. In
Chuneery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of James R. Mix, de
fendant,
aboveof said
named,
having Court
been filed
in thecounty,
office
of the clerk
Superior
of Cook
notice is hereby given to the said James B. Mix that
the complainant heretofore filed her hill of complaint
in Bftid court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
snnmuuiB thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of De
cember next, 1871, as is by law required.
Now. unless
the before
said James
B. Mix, shall
sonally
be and you,
appear
said Superior
Courtperof
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to he
holden
at Chicago,
in said
county,
on the
first Monday
of December,
1S71. and
plead,
answer
or demur
to the
said matters
complainant's
bill oftherein
complaint,
the and
same,
and
the
and things
charged
stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Rae Mitchell. Comp'ts Sol'r.
6-9
A. B. BALDWIN,
Attorney, Room 6\ Lind Block.
instate of john b. gallaher. deckased.j Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
aud demands
against thesame
estate
John B. Gallaher,
deceased,
to presentthe
for of
adjudication
and set
tlement,
at
a
regular
term
ofthe
County
Cookof
county, to !>< holden at the Court House,Court
in theofcity
Chicago, on the first Monday of February, A. D., 1ST
being the fifth day thereof. A. B. BALDWIN, Att'v.
o, Nov. L'Tth. 1871.
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
S H O R T - H A N D W R I T E R.
Wckm Union TikgKqk Ofice, 554 Wabaeh A ir.

EDWIN GREENE,
Attorney, 45 Hubbard Court.
publication notice in attachment. Stat* of Illinois, Cook county, k. Circuit Court
of Cook county, November Term, A. D. 1871, William
E. K8tmau v. \Villin P. Collins, Jr., and Mary E.
Collim.
Public notice is hereby given to the said Willis P.
Collin*.issued
Jr.. and
Mary
Collins,
a writofolthe
attach
ment
out of
the E.office
of thethatClerk
Cir
cuit Court of Cook county, dated the Lhirtv-fimt day
of
October,
A.
D.
1671,
at
the
suit
of
the
said
William
E. Eastman, and against the estate of Willis P. Col
lins. Jr.,
Mary K. Collins,
for the sum
of fiveto hun
dred
audand
ninety-one
4ft-lno dollars,
directed
the
Sheriff of Cook county, which eaid writ has been re
turned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Willis P. Collins,
Jr., and Mary E. Collins, shall personally be and ap
pear before the said Circuit Court of Cook county, on
or before the lint day of the next term thereof, to be
holden at the Court House, in the city of Chicago, on
the third Monday of December, A. D. hJ71, give pedal
bail
andentered
plead toagainst
the saidyou,
plaintiff's
will be
and In action,
favor ofjudgment
the said
William
E.
Eastman,
and
so
much
thesaid
property
attached as may be sufficient to satisfyofthe
jndgnient and cot will be sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Edwin Gkki.nf. Attorney.
7-lup
SPAFFORD, McDAID & WILSON,
77 W. Madison.
f lHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
\-' Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook county. To the
December Term. A. D. Kl. Sciutry C. Lewis v. Fran
cis S. Lewis. In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Francis S. Lewis,
defendant above named, having been tiled in the office
of
the Clerk
of said
of CookS.county,
notico
Is hereby
givenSuperior
to the Court
said Francis
Lewis
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plaint in said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of December next (IS71), as is required by law.
Now, unless you, the said Francis S. Lewis, shall
personally
be and the
appear
of Cook county/on
first before
day ofasaid
termSuperior
thereof,Court
to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of
December,
Ltffl,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
said complainant's bill of complaint, the saute, and the
the
matters and things therein charged aud stated, will be
taken as contested, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
Spaitokd. McDaid * Wilson. Compl't's Sol'rs. 7-10
C. H. HARRIS,
Attorney, Monroe Street.
riHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
V7 Cook. ss. Circuit Court of Cook county, February
term, A. D. 1872. Alice Simons v. Edward Simons.
InAffidavid
Chancery.of the non-residence of Edward Simons,
defendant above named, having been filed in the, office
of the Clerk of said Circuit Court of Cook county, no
tice in hereby given to the said Edward Simons that
complainant heretofore filed her certain bill of com
plaint in said Court, on tho chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the third Mon
dayNow.
of February
as is bySimons,
law required.
unless you,next
tho(1873).
said Edward
shall per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit Court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day said
of February,
1^72, and
answer orthe
demur
to
the
complainant's
bill plead,
of complaint,
same,
and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the
prtfycr ofT.said
bill.
NORMAN
GASSETTE,
Clerk.
C. M. Harris. Sol'r.
7-10p
SMITH & KOHLSAAT,
Attorneys, No. (>2 South Canal St.
eestate
of cornelius
f. backu8,
dkceased.Notice
la hereby given
to all persons
having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
Cor
nelius F. Backus deceased; to present the same for
adjudication and settlement at a regular term of the
County Court of Cook county, to be holden at the
CourtHouse, In the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
day of February, A. D. 1S72, being the fifth day there
of.Chicago, Nov. 24th, A.EMILY
D. 1S71.BACKUS.
Administratrix.
Smith A Kohlaaat, Attorneys.
/-12
J. C. ft J. J. KNICKERBOCKER ,
Attorneys, 103 "West Washington, St.
Estateofmary ann^avanagh.ideceased
Public notice ishereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Mary Ann
Cavanagh.
deceased, toat present
theterm
sameoffortheadjudica
tion and settlement
a regular
County
Court
of
Cook
County,
to
le
holden
at Monday
the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first
of
February, A.D. mt. being the ">th day thereof.
JOHN
CORBETT,
J. C. A J. J. Kxickkrbockkk.
Administrator.
Attorneys for Estate.
6-11
JAMES FELCH,
Attorney,
/"1HANCERY NOTICE. State of Illinois, Cook
\/ County, ss. Sup< rior Court of Cook County. Jan
uary term, A. D., 1#72. Albert Hankins v. Mary Hankins.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Mary Hankins, de
fendant
aboveof named,
havingCourt
been offiledCook
in the
office
of the Clerk
said Superior
County,
notice is hereby given to the said Mum Hankius that
the complainant heretofore filed lilsbill ol complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereoi'. and that a
summons thereupon Issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on tho first Monday oTJan
uary next, ]-**72, as is by law required.
Now, unless
the said
sonally
be andyou,
appear
beforeMary
saidHankins
Superiorshall
Courtperof
Cook County, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, In said county, on the first Mon
day
of January,
1872, andbillplead,
answer orthe
demur
to
the said
complainant's
of complaint,
same,
and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will bo taken and confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to The prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
Jamks Ff.lch, Compl't's Sol'r.
8-11
BURKE & ALLEN,
18 W. Randolph Street.
ftHANCERY NOTICE.-State of rUiuoK Cook
\j County, ss. Superior Court of Cook County to
January term, A. D., 1872. Sarah J. Burdeck v. Mil
tonAffidavit
P. Burdeck.
Chancery. ofMilton P. Burdeck,
of the In
non-residence
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
oftheelerk of said Superior Court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Milton P. Burdeck
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint
in said court,
on the chancery
and
that a summons
thereupon
issued outsideofthereof,
said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Mon
dayNow,
ofJanuary
next,the1S72,
is by lawP. required.
nnless you,
saidasMilton
Burdeck hall
personally be and appear before said Superior Court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to
bo hold<Mi at Chicago, in said county, on the iii>t Mon
day of January, lwJL and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters
things therein
charged
and :tgainst
-tated,
will
be takenand
as confessed,
and a decree
entered
you according to the prayer ofsaid bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk,
Bitike * Allen. Compl't's Sol'm.

LAW

BOOKS.

Bourquin &

Welsh,

LAW BOOKSELLERS,
PUBLISHERS <6 IMPORTER,
No. 431 Walnut Street,
Philadelphia.
4-U

LAW

BOOKS.

OULE, THOMAS & WINSOR,

215 North Fifth St.,
ST. LOXJIS, Mo.,
Invite orders from lawyers in all parts of the
country.
Full stock of Reports and Elementary
Books constantly on hand.
SECOND-HAND REPORTS bought
and 6old on favorable terms.
m-PMCES LOW.
TERMS INVARIABLY CASH.
5-8

THE CHICAGO
LEGAL
NEWS
COMPANY.
PKI1MTIN OFFICK,
[15 North Jefferson Street ;
Office, lis West Madison Street,
CHICAGO.

BOOK AND JOB

Particular attention given to all kinds of

LEGAL PRINTING :
INCXUDl.NU
Attorney!!'' Abstracts,
Briefs and Dockets,
Boole*, Pamphlets and Reports.
Orders for this description of work will be execut
ed promptly in trie neatest style of the art.
Decrees, Orders,
Mortgages, Deeds, Leaset,
Checks, Notes, Drafts, Bonds,
Cards, Labels, Letter Headings,
Bilh of Lading, Bill Heads,
Insurance Policies, Circulars,
Receipt,", Hand-bills, etc., etc.,
I'rinted upon the shortest notice.
THOMAS I.. MclNTOSH. late head of the Book
and Newspaper department of the Lakeside Print
ing Company, is the superintendent of our Print
ing Department.

Chicago

56
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
ARTIN A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D ,
554 Wabash avenue.
M
FJ. 8EYBOLD, 497 Wabash avenue ; residence
, 140 South Green street.
MORRIS (ILL. I ATTORNEYS.
ANFORD, E. Special attention given to Col
14*
s lections and Real Estate.
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
HERNDON & ORENDORF,
Office west side square. 27*
MINNEAPOLIS (MINN.) ATTORNEYS.
SMITH & ORDWAY,
No. 11 Centre Block. Nicollet St. 51-11*
ST. LOUIS (MO.) ATTORNEYS.
ALFRED IUXSON.
Insurance Exchange Building.
LOQANSPORT (IND.) ATTORNEYS.
J.M HOWARD,
Attorney at Law.
5-16*
LAW PUBLICATIONS
OF
T. & J. W. JOHNSON & CO.,
OF PHILADELPHIA, PA.
A toll supply on band and for sale by
CALLAGHAX rf COCKCROFT,
AND
E. B. MYERS,
CHICAGO, ILL.

English Common I-aw Reports, from 1813

to I860. 116 Vols., J507 00
Index to Common Law Reports. 2 Vols., - 10 00
English Exchequer Reports, from 1824 to
1865. 47 Vol*.,
- 188 00
Digest of Exchequer Reports,
- 5 00
The " Law Reports" from 1803 to the pres
ent time, comprising:
<Jueen s Bench Reports. 5 Vols., - 25 00
Common Pleas Reports. 5 Vols., - 25 00
Exchequer Reports. 5 Vols., - - 25 00
Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Reports. 2
Vols.,
10 00
Probate and Divorce Reports. 1 Vol., - 5 00
Chancery Appeal Case*. 5 Vols., - 25 00
Equity Cases. (Vice Chancellors'). 10 Vols., 50 00
Any of the Reports of these several Courts can
be hail separately.
These are the rehvxar and a cthoritative Re
ports of the Courts in England ; they contain the
decisions in permanent and reliable shape, as
prepared by the Reporters of the Court, and in the
form in which those decisions are incorporated
into the body of English jurisprudence, cited by
authors, and referred to by the Courts.
Crabbe's District Court Keports. 1 Vol., - 6 50
Cranch's U. S. S. Court Reiwrts. 9 Vols, in 8, 30 00
Dallas' " "
"
4 Vols. - 25 00
Day's Connecticut Reports. 5 Vols.,
30 00
East's King's Bench Reports. 16 Vols, in 8, 30 00
Harris A McHenry's Maryland Reports. 4
Vols.,
16 00
McNaghtcn's select Cases in Chancery'. 1
Vol., - 2 50
Maddoeks' Chancer}' Reports. 6 Vols., - 15 00
Parsons' Equity Cases. 1 Vol.
- 5 50
Pennsylvania State Reports. By Barr &
Jones. 12 Vols.,
- 54 00
Peters' Circuit Court Reports. 1 Vol.,
- 6 50
Rawle's Pennsylvania S. C. Reports. 5 Vols., 40 00
Wallace. Jr.'s C. Court Reports. Vols. 2 and 3, 15 00
Washington's C. Court Reports. 4 Vols., - 30 00
Wharton's Pennsylvania 8. Court Reports.
6 Vols.,
48 00
Bacon's Abridgement. 10 Vols., - 55 00
Appleton on Evidence,
- 2 50
Adams' Doctrine of Equity, - 7 50
Bateman's Commercial LAW, - 5 50
Beaumont on Bills of Sale, - 1 50
Broom's Legal Maxims,
- 7 50
Browne's Civil and Admiralty I-aw. 2 Vols., 8 00
Bucknell on Criminal Lunacy,
- 1 50
Bunyon on Life Assurance, - 3 00
Burlemaqui's Natural and Politic Law, - 2 50
Byles on Bills and Notes. By Judge Sharswood,
6 50
Chitty on Carriers. American Notes,
- 4 00
Collier on Mines,

- 1 50
Curtis' Commentaries. U. S. Court*,
- 6 50
Ellis on Life and Fire Insurance, - 3 00
Fisher on Mortgages and Priority, - 4 00

Legal

Flanders on Shipping,
- 84 50
Fry on Specific Performance of Contracts, - 3 00
Grant on Banking,
- 3 50
Hill on Trustees. American Notes by Bispham, - 7 50
Hilliard on Sales. 3d Edition,
- 7 50
Jones on Land Office Titles in Penn.,
- 1 50
Kelly on Usury, - 1 50
Kerr on Actions at Law,
- 2 50
Law Library. A Collection of Valuable Ele
mentary Treatises on almost ever)' branch
of the Law. 31 Vols.,
- 93 00
Lewin on Trusts and Trustees,
- 5 50
Llndley on Partnership,
- 6 50
Lindley's Introduction to the Study of Jur
isprudence, - 3 00
Macnamarra on Nullities, - 1 50
Mayne on Damages, - 3 00
Moore on Abstracts of Titles, 1 50
Norman on Patents, - 2 60
Ordronaux's Jurisprudence of Medicine, - 4 00
Parsons on Wills,
1 50
Phillimore's International Law. 3 Vols., - 11 00
Powell on Evidence and Damages, - 3 00
Roscoe's Criminal Evidence, 7 50
Rose Leading Cases. 3 Vols.,
- 12 00
Smith's Leading Cases. 3 Vols., - 19 50
American Leading Cases. 2 Vols., - 15 00
Scribner on Dower. 2 Vols., - 15 00
Sergeant's Constitutional Law,
- 4 00
Sharswood's Legal Ethics. - 2 00
Sharswood's Law Lectures, - 1 50
mith on the Law of Contracts,
- 5 50
Smith on the Law of Landlord and Ten
ant,
- 4 00
Smith on Real and Personal Property, - 4 50
Spcnce's Equity Jurisdiction. 2 Vols.,
- 10 00
Sugden on Powers. 2 Vols., - 10 00
Starkie on Evidence. By Sharswood,
- 7 50
Vattel's Ijvw of Nations,
- 4 00
Westlake's ITIvate International Law, - 2 50
Wharton's Conveyancing, 3 00
White's Land Laws (of Texas. Mexico and
California). 2 Vols.,
- 10 00
Williams on Personal Property.
- 6 00
Williams on Real Property, - 5 00
Wills on Circumstautial Evidence, - 2 00
Woolrych on Waters and Water Courses, - 3 00
And many other of the most valuable Law Books
now in use and of authority, Catalogues of which,
containing full particulars, will be furnished upon
application.
6-9

News.
ADVERTISEMENT.

ATTORNEYS.
H. H. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.

STEVENS &HAYNES
GEORGE C. FRY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
54 West Randolph Street, formerly 86 LaSaMe Street,
Chicago.
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Ho. 113 West Madison Street, Chicago.
AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS,
Special Attention Given to Probate Matters.
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
ESTATES SETTLED.
" Set thine house in order ; for thou shalt die,
and not live."2 Kings xx. 1.
LONDON.
Law I*iil>llshev,

S. A. GOODWIN.
K. C I.ARNED.
H. S. TOWU.
GOODWIN, LARNED & TOWLE,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
foris in all Classes of Literature
Kb. 494 Waltaeh Aveime, Chicago.
SUPPLIED TO ORDER.
JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWARD G. MASON.
MATTOCKS & MASON,
ATTORN EYS AT LAW,
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and Kb. 523 Wabash Avenue, S. W. cor. Harmon Court,
Chicago, III.
Orders Promptly Filled.
W. H. WING,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
The Trustees and Officers of Public li
Elgin, III.
braries may rely upon the most
.'.-IS
Collections promptly attended to.
careful attention to their
Commissions.
BATES A HOlMHBsV,
Attorneys at Law, 13 W. Madison St.
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
By importing DIRF.CT from England, a consider
able saving is effected, especially in the Custom* duty,
from which Public Institutions in the United States are
CHARLES J. BISHOP,
exempt.
Successor to J. Frf.ewan Silke,
ACCOUNTANT AND EXPERT BOOK-KEEPER,
122 W. Washington St.. Chicago, III. 7-I8p
SUNDRY mistakes having been made
by our Foreign and Colonial Correspond
CET THE BEST.
ents in addressing their letters, we beg
to notify that the members of our firm
are Henry G. Stevens and Robert W.
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.
Hay'nes, the son and stepson of the late 10,000 Words and Meanings not in other Dictionaries.
Valentine Stevens, the eminent Law
I s 10
Quarto.
NEW LAW BOOKS Publisher. Since our father's death we 3.000 Engravings.
Price, HI*.
have continued to carry on the business
In Prewv and Preparation
FROM VICE-PRESIDENT COLFAX.
of Law Publishers. Booksellers and Export
Sotrrit Bend, Ind., Oct. 28. 1871.
ers, at the above address.
Messrs. G. and C. Merriam :
During his recent visits to the United
Dear Sirs,The hour I have just spent
LITTLE, BROWN & CO.
through your latest edition of that remark
States and Canada, Robert W. Haynes looking
able work, Webster's Dictionary, has impressed
me more than ever before, with the debt of grati
secured many Friends and Correspond tude
we owe to Noah Webster, for having " de
LAW OK JUDICIAL SALES. Svo.
ents; we are thus enabled to give refer spite a feeble constitution, and amidst obstacles
MORSE ON ARBITATIONS AND AWARDS. Svo. ences of the highest character in most and toils, disappointments, inlinnities and de
pressions, given thirty-live years of his life to the
LEADING CASES IN THE LAW OF REAL PROP
enormous labors incident to its preparation.
of the principal American cities.
ERTY. 2 vols. 8vo.
Scarcely
less valuable are the additions madetoit
LEADING CASES IN THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 3
We have no connection whatever with by the eminent writers who have so expanded the
text
in
Definitions
and Illustrative Citations, as
vols. Svo.
as in the Supplements of Synonyms, Phrases
LEADING CASES IN THE LAW OF TORTS. 2 vols. any other house of business, and to pre well
in
all
the
modem
languages
and their meaning.
vent
delay
and
miscarriage,
our
Corre
Svo.
of Pronunciation, etc. While the pub
LEADING CASES IN THE LAW OF PARTNER spondents abroad are respectfully re Principles
lishers, in the unsurpassed beauty of its typo
graphy, and the HUOu illustrations, which add so
SHIP. 8vo.
LEADING CASES IN THE LAW OF AGENCY. Svo. quested to plainly address their letters much of attractiveness and instruction to its
pages, have noblv done their part towards the
LEADING CASES IN THE LAW OF CORPORA to us as follows :
completeness of this great work of our century.
TIONS. Svo.
Whenever I wish to ascertain exact definitions I
BIGELOW'S OVERRULED CASKS. Svo.
consultYours
it, and
that is quiteSCHl'YLER
often.
STEVENS & HAYNES,
truly,
COLFAX.
BIGELOW ON ESTOPPEL. Svo.
A
necessity
for
evenintelligent
family, stu
PHILLIPS ON LIEN'S. Svo:
Bell
Yard,
Temple
Bar,
dent, teacher and professional man. What Libra
POMEROY ON HEMED1ES, Svo.
ry Is complete without the best English Diction
LONDON,
ary?
Nearly Ready,
AISO,
BISHOP'S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 2d Edition.
ENGLAND.
Webster's National Pictorial Dictionary.
2 vols. 8vo.
PERRY ON TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. Svo.
101O Paares Octavo, 600 Engravings.
MASSACHUSETTS DIGEST. Vol. III. Royal Svo.
Price 83.
STORY'S CONFLICT OF LAWS. Edited by E. H. Extract from " Report of Julivs Rosenthal, Esq., ' The'work is really a gem of a Dictionary, just
LIBRARIAN
TO
THE
PRESIDENT
AND
MEMBERS
OE
the thing for the million.American Educational
Bennett. ' Seventh Edition. Svo.
THE Chicago Law Institute." Kovember.l&iO.
Monthly.
Lately Published,
" To our collection of English Rei>orts a valuable Published by O. and C. MERRIAM, Springfield,
DANIEL'S PLEADING AND PRACTICE. Fourth addition
Mass.
has been made by the Importation of a
edition. Edited by Hon. .1. C. Perkins. 3 vols, t full and well
Sold by all Booksellers.
preserved set of the House of Lords
vo. S22..V).
Cases,
including
Clark's
Digest,
consisting
of
58
KERR ON INJUNCTIONS. Edited by W. A. Heirlck
volumes.
Esq. Svo. $7.50.
LANGDELL'S SELECT CASKS ON THE LAW OF " English books were imported directly free of
V I C K ' S
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the
CONTRACTS. Svo. $7.:>0.
REDFIELD AND BIGELOW S LEADING AND SE firm of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose
FLORAL
LECT AMERICAN CASES IN THE LAW OF diligence, promptness, and care in tilling our or
BILLS OF EXCHANGE, PROMISSORY NOTES ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
AND CHECKS, svo. $1.M.
GUIDE for 1872.
CURTIS'S AMERICAN CONVEYANCER. New Edl
Over OXE HUNDRED PAGESprinted
tlon, Crown. Svo. $2.2.j.
COOLEYS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ILLINOIS REPORTS. in Two Colors, on superb Tinted Paper.
Having no arrangement for the distribution of Vol. Four Hundred Engravings of Flowers,
Second Edition. Svo. (7.50.
53 Illinois Reports to lawyers in Chicago, and the list Plants and Vegetables, with Descriptions,
JOHN LYLE KING,
of subscribers in that city being lost, I desire to say to and TWO COLORED PLATES.Direc
such as wish the future volumes, that they will be dis tions and Plans for making Walks, Lawns,
Attorney, 76 Dearborn St.
ESTATE OF PATRICK GILLIGAN, deceased. tributed directly from my office to all who will send me Gardens,
&cThe handsomest and best
Public notice is hereby given to all persons their names. It is desirable I Bhould also have the
having claims and demands against the estate of address in the city, to facilitate the delivery. No ex Floral Guide in the World.All for Ten
Patrick Gilligan, deceased, to present the same for press charges are to be paid by purchasers. Vol. 53 is Cents, to those who think of '>>'"&
adjudication and settlement, at a regular term of
the county court of Cook County, to be holden at now being bound, and will be ready in a few days.
a quarter the cost200,000
the Court House in the city of Chicago, on the first Of the back volumes, I have from 47 to 52, both in Seeds.Xot
Monday in December, A. D. 1871, being the fourth clusive, delivered anywhere, at $.'> per vol. Express sold of 1871. Address
day thereof.
MATHILDA GLILIGAN,
JAMES VICK, Rochester, N. Y.
N. L. FREEMAN.
Administratrix with will annexed. charges prepaid.
6-Sp
Chicago, September 27, 1871.
l-7a Springfield, Nov. 16, 1371.

Qhicago

Jegal

]Mews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S71, by the Chicago Legal Njsws Company, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 9.

fje Courts.
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
Creighton v. Board of Supervisors of the City
and County of San Francisco.
MANDAMUS TO COMPEL BOARD OF SUPER
VISORS TO GRANT ORDER IN COMPLIANCE
WITH ACT OF LEGISLATURE.
1. Held, The Legislature as the sovereign power,
may exercise the same power over the moneys of
municipal corporations in the payment of claims
equitably due, that it does over the revenues of
the State, even though such claims may not be en
forceable at law.
2. This rule prevails except where certain rev
enues of a city or town are to be devoted to a
special purpose by the law creating them. Blandtng v. Burr 1:1 Gal., p. 351.
O.
Opinion delivered by Wallace, J.;
Sprague,
practUe, J., Temple, J., and Rhodes,
C. J. concurring.
Crockett, J., concurring specially upon
principles decided in Sinton v. Asnbury,
July term, 1371.
It appears by the petition here pray
ing a writ of mandamus against the
Board of Supervisors, that Creighton, in
April, 1861, entered into certain con
tracts in writing with the Superinten
dent of public streets and highways of
the city and county of San Francisco,
for the time being, to grade Union street,
from Taylor street to Larkin, and to
grade the crossing of Union and Jones
streets, according to specifications, in the
usual form in which such contracts were
accustomed to be made, under provisions
of the statute in that behalf ; and there
after, in due time and manner, he fully
performed the contract upon his part,
and the assessment roll and warrants
were thereupon delivered by said Super
intendent to the petitioner, whocollected
something less than twenty thousand
dollars assessments thereon, leaving a
balance of upwards of $13,000 of-said as
sessments still unpaid. He attempted to
enforce the payment of this aggregate
balance by actions brought against the
persons severally assessed, for their res
pective portions thereof. These actions
failed, however, because the resolution
of intention to do the work had not been
" presented to the President of the
Board for approval, according to the re
quirements of section sixty-eight of the
Consolidation Act." (Creighton v. Manson, 27 Cal., 029).
The petition further sets forth that he
thereupon made application to the Leg
islature of the State for relief in the
premises, and that that body having
made a careful and complete examina
tion of all and singular, the terms and
conditions of said contracts, and of all
the facts in connection therewith, there
upon passed an act for his relief. This
statute is set out in the petition (Chap.
210, p. 309, Acts 1869-70), and it enacts
that the Board of Supervisors are thereby
"authorized and directed to order paid
to Patrick Creighton the sum of $13,500,
with legal interest on the said amount
from July, A.D. 1862, until paid, in
United States gold coin, which said
amount of principal remainsdue and un
paid to the said Patrick Creighton on the
contract of grading Union street, from
Taylor to Larkin, including the crossing
thereof, in the city and county of San
Francisco, as per assessment on record
in volume 8 of street assessments, in the
office of the Superintendent of Public
Streets and Highways in the said city
and county of San Francisco." In a sub
sequent section of the act, the Auditor
of the city and county is directed to
audit thissum, with interest thereon, and
to issue his warrant therefor for Creigh
ton, and the Treasurer of the city and
county is directed, upon presentation of
such warrant, to pay the same, "as other
indebtedness of the said city and county
of San Francisco, in United States gold
coin, to the above said Patrick Creigh
ton," etc.
The Board of Supervisors, upon appli
cation made to them by Creighton for
an order directing payment to be made

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1871.

to him, as provided in the act, refused
and still refuse to order the payment.
To this petition of Creighton stating
substantially the foregoing facts, the
Board of Supervisors have filed a de
murrer and an answer.
The ground of demurrer is, that the
petition does not state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action.
The answer alleges that the act of the
Legislature was passed against the will
and consent of the city and county of
San Francisco ; that the sum of money
by the act directed to be paid to Creigh
ton never was atany time a claim against
the city and county, nor obligatory upon
it either legally or morally. The answer
futher sets up in defense of the action that
in and by the terms of the contracts for
street grading, alleged in the petition as
having been entered into by Creighton
with the Superintendent of Public Streets
and Highways, it was, in fact expressly
stipulated, that the said city and county
should not be liable for any portion of
the expense of the work, nor for any de
linquency of the persons or property as
sessed.
The power of the Legislature to appropiate the moneys ot municipal cor
porations in payment of claims ascer
tained by it to be equitably due to in
dividuals, though such claims be not en
forceable in the courts, has been uni
formly upheld ever since the case of
Blanding v. Burr (13 Cal., 351), in which
this court said: "The power of appro
priation which Legislature can exercise
over the revenues of the State, for any
Eurpose which it may regard as caleuited to promote the public good, it can
exercise over the revenues of a county,
city or town, for any purpose connected
with their past or present condition, ex
cept as such revenues may, by the law
creating them, be devoted to special
purposes."
The sovereign power of appropriation
of the public funds already in the treas
ury or to be raised by taxation, in favor
of individuals, is one, the exercise of
which must depend largely upon the
legislative conscience, and like most
of the great powers of government,
cannot be interfered with by us, unless
in exceptional cases. The most usual
cases in which this power has been ex
ercised are those, like the one under
consideration now, where an individual,
having no legal claim in the sense of
being capable ofenforcemi .; by judicial
proceedings against a muni ipal govern
ment, has, nevertheless, in equity and
justice, in the larger sense of those terms,
a right to indemnity or compensation
out of the public treasury. As was said
by Denio, J, (3 Kern. 149) : "The legis
lature is not confined in its appropria
tion of the public moneys, or of t he sums
to be raised by taxation, in favor of in
dividuals, to cases in which a legal de
mand exists against the State. It
can thus recognize claims founded in
equity and justice in the largest sense of
these terms, or in gratitude or charity.
1 ndependently of express constitutional
restrictions, it can make appropriations
of money, whenever the public wellbeing requires or will be promoted by it,
and it is the judge of what is for the
public good."
The admitted fact here that Creighton
had performed labor in the improve
ment of the public street, and of which
the municipal government and people of
San Francisco had the benefit, and that
he had been unable to obtain compensa
tion therefor, only because the principal
officer of the municipal government had
neglected to observe the statute requir
ing him to sign his name to the resolu
tion under which the work was done,
presented a case fully as persuasive in
its circumstances as most of those which
have been the subject of legislative re
lief in this State or elsewhere.
There is nothing in the circumstance
that the contract tinder which the work
was done contained a stipulation by

which it was provided that the city of

San Francisco should in no event, be
liable for any portion of the expense
thereof. The" legislature, in passing the
statute, have proceeded upon the equity
of Creighton to be relieved by reason of
matters occurring subsequently to the
making of the contract and not contem
plated by it or anticipated when it was
entered into. Besides, it would be diffi
cult to show that these parties, by the
stipulations of that contract, had, in
terms or by fair construction, limited or
taken away the constitutional power of
the legislature to deal with the public
creditors, or those it considers to be
such, as it may see fit ; and the exist
ence of such a power is all that we have
to inquire into here.
The writ must i&sue, as prayed for, and
it is so ordered.Pacific Law Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI.
March Term, 1871.
James M. Bryant et al. v. David L. Hawkins.
Appeal from ,SV. Louti Circuit Court.
LIABILITY OF ATTORNEYS FOR ACTS OF
EACH OTHER AFTER DISSOLUTION OF
PARTNERSHIP.
1. Where M. and H., both attorneys, in company
in the practice of the law, receipted for a note in
their joint names which was given to them for
collection, and afterwards sued by them, prose
cuted in their names as attorneys to judgment
and the money made on execution by the sheriir";
the firm being dissolved before all the money was
paid, and H. notified the sheriff' not to pay any
money on that account to M.; but M., notwithstand
ing, obtained the money, appropriated it to his
own use and ran away ; hcttl. that an action might
be sustained by the client against H. individually
to recover the amount so collected by M. and con
verted to his own use.
2. The court discusses the liability of one attor
ney to be sued Individually upon contracts en
tered into during the existence of the partnership,
in its name and for money collected after the dis
solution xi the firm by the oilier partner, upon
claims placed in the hands of the firm during its
existence.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the court by Wagner.
This was an action to recover of de
fendant money which it is charged he
collected, as an attorney at law for
plaintiff, upon two certain notes against
one John H. Stokes. The case shows
that defendant, in connection with one
Moore, constituted a law firm at Cape
Girardeau, under the name and style of
Moore & Hawkins, and as such they re
ceived the notes of the plaintiff for col
lection, and gave receipt therefor in the
name of the firm. Suit was instituted
upon the notes and duly prosecuted to
judgment. Execution was issued upon
the judgment and the money made by
the sheriff. Moore & Hawkins ap
peared as attorneys of record. The firm
was dissolved before all the money was
paid, and Hawkins notified the sheriff
not to pay any money on that account to
Moore. But, notwithstanding this warn
ing, Moore obtained the money, appro
priated it to his own use and is now a
non-resident. Thissuit isbrought against
Hawkins individually to recover the
amount so collected by Moore and con
verted to his own use. It is objected
that as the petition declares on a lia
bility against Hawkins, and as the evi
dence shows that the money was re
ceived and appropriated by Moore, that
therefore the judgment which was ren
dered for the plaintiff'should be reversed.
But we are of the opinion that the peti
tion is sufficient according to the<,ase as
made out. The firm was certainly liable
jointly and severally for the money col
lected. Under the statutes of this State
all contracts which are joint only, by the
common law, are to be construed as joint
and several, (1 Wag. St., p. 269, sec. 1);
and where a joint liability is incurred an
action will lie against one of the joint
contractors for the act of another. Moore
and Hawkins were jointly and severally
liable for all the contracts and undertak
ings arising in the prosecution of their
business. The dissolution of the part
nership, and the agreement between
them that Hawkins should wind up the
business, cannot affect the rights of the
plaintiff. And the fact that Hawkins
notified the sherifi' not to pay the money

Whole No, 167.

to Moore, will not exense him. It
might, under certain circumstances,
furnish a remedy against the sheriff,
but cannot in any wise impair' the ob
ligation of the defendant Hawkins to
the plaintiff.
The principle is universal, that no dis
solution of any kind will affect the rights
of third parties, who have had dealings
with the partnership, without their con
sent.
Parties may agree as thev please about
their joint property, and their agree
ments will be valid, so far as they do not
affect the rights of third parties; but if
they do have that effect, they will be
utterly and wholly void. The collection
of the notes was a partnership duty, and
it continued so far as the plaintiffs were
concerned, with such member after the
dissolution of the firm. The credit was
given to the firm, and the dissolution
did not operate as a release of the obli
gation. Something has been said about
part of the money having been paid to
Moore when he was acting with the
enemies of the government, but we can
not see on what principle that can be
invoked to prejudice the just claims of
the plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed. The other judges
concur.
[The Supreme Court of this State, in I
Smyth v. Harvie, reported 31 111., 02,
hold attorneys, after the dissolution of
the firm, to the same liability for the acts
of each other as laid dowrn in the above
opinion.Kd. Legal News.]
We are under obligations to the lawfirm of Bacon * WSifro*', of this^ity, for
the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OE ILLINOIS.
City of Chicago v. the People ex. rel Hiram
Norton, etal.
Appealjroni Superior Court of Chicago.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LIABILITY OF
CITY TO CONTRACTORS FOR NEGLIGENCE
IN MAKING.
L The relators agreed with'the City to macad
amize a street and to receive their pay when the
contract should be wholly completed, and when
the special assessment levied or to be levied should
be collected. At the time of making the contract,
about half the assessment had been paid iu to
the city authorities. S4.IKVi.S0 was assessed upon
the right of way of the North Chicago Railway Co.,
which was exempt from such levy ; that appellant
attempted to levy a new assessment for the defi
ciency, but failed to obtain a judgment ; that rel
ators performed their work according to contract :
held that the city was liable to pay them the bal
ance of the contract price which was not collected
from the assessment.
2. AUTHORITY to Levy New Assessment.That
under the facts as disclosed in this case the city
has no legal authority to levy a new assessment
upon property other than that of the Railway Co.,
upon which its due proportion of benefits had al
ready been assessed and jwtid.
3. Special AssessmentsEminent Domain.
That the source of power to make special assess
ments for benefits in such eases is the right of em
inent domain : that under the Constitution it can
be exercised by making compensation.
4. Promise to Pay when Assessment Collected.
That the property of the Railway Company was
exempt by the act of the city, the assessment upon.
it was invalid, the city had no lien upon it. the
amount was never due, the condition of the con
tract to pay when the assessment was collected
was impossible and void.
."). This clause ofthe charter, "Any personstak
ing any contract with the city, and who agree to
to he paid from special assessments, shall have no
claim or lieu upon the City in any event except
from the collection ofthe special assessments made
for the work contracted for," construed by the
court.
fi. Interest.The appellant being a municipal
corporation and there being no express agree
ment to pay interest, it is not liable to pay interest.
Ed. Le*;al News,
The opinion of the court was delivered
by McAllister, J.
This case arises upon demurrer to the
return of appellant to an alternative writ
ofmandamus awarded to compel the pay
ment to relators of a claim of s4,728.68alleged to be a balance due them as as
signees of George W. Travcrs & Co.,
upon estimates issued to the latter for
work done under a contract, for curbing,
filling and macadamizing Chicago Av
enue.
The demurrer was sustained and a per
emptory writ ordered against appellant,
requiring it forthwith to pay or cause

58
to be paid to relators the principal sum
of $3,915.38 with interest at the rate of
six per cent, per annum, on the several
estimates composing said principal sum
from the respective dates of the same,
amounting: to $557.41, making a total
amount oi' $4,072.79. From which judg
ment an appeal was taken to this court
and the points made for reversal are :
1st. That under the contract between ap
pellant and Travers & Co., the city was
not liable for the principal sum. 2ndly.
that interest was improperly allowed.
3dly. If the city is liable the order should
have been that it proceed to levy a tax
to pay the amount due instead oi' a per
emptory order to pay. Before the hear
ing below a stipulation between the par
ties was made by their respective attor
neys and tiled, to the effect, that if upon
the decision of the cause the court
should be of opinion that in any form of
action, ex contractu or ex delicto, in law or
equity, the relators or George W. Travers
<fc Co., either in their own name or in
their name to relators use would be en
titled to recover any sum of money or
have any relief of or from the respond
ents, then a peremptory writ of manda
mus might .issue for said amount, said
writ to be in such form as the court
might judge proper, waiving all objec
tions for want or misjoinder of parties.
This stipulation being binding upon the
parties, relieves this court from all con
sideration of the third point made by ap
pellant's counsel ; consequently the first
and second alone will be discussed.
First, then, under any view of the mat
ters disclosed by the record, by the al
legations of the writ not traversed, and
the facts stated in the return which must
so far as well pleaded, be taken as true,
would appellant be liable in any form of
action at law or proceeding in equity?
By the facts so admitted and stated it
appears that the ordinance ordering the
improvements and the levy of the assess
ment was passed May 3d, i8(>7, by which
the sum of SS2.5U3.43 was directed to be
assessed upon real estate deemed special
ly benefited by the improvement in pro
portion as nearly as might be to the ben
efit resulting thereto, and $21,048.45 be
chargeable to the city at large. On the
10th of June, 18(57, the assessment roll
was completed, and on the 17th, same
month, the assessment was confirmed by
the council ; and the warrant issued on
the 29th. That of the above sum assess
ed upon the property deemed benefited
the sum of $4,1*05.80 "was assessed upon
the right of way and property of the
North Chicago Railway Company as the
amount of special benefits resulting to
that corporation. That before Travers
& Co. entered into the contract in ques
tion one-half of the amount of the assess
ment upon property deemed specially
benefited had been paid into the city
treasury. On the 14th day of August,
1807, the contract was made between ap
pellant and Travers & Co., by which the
latter undertook to do the work, the de
tails of which it is needless to state, only,
that the appellant agreed to pav them
when the contract should be wholly com
pleted by Travers & Co., when the work
should be accepted by the Board of Pub
lic works and uhen the special assess
ments levied or to be levied should be
collected.
It is admitted that the work was com
pleted by Travers & Co. according to con
tract, and accepted by the Board, the es
timates assessed and assigned to the re
lators. But it also appears that appel
lant failed to collect any of the sum
assessed upon the propertv of the rail
way company, and failed to obtain a
judgment for "it, because the railway com
pany was wholly exempt from any such
levy. That subsequently appellant at
tempted to levy a new assessment for
the deficiency but failed to obtain judg
ment by reason, as is alleged in the al
ternative writ, of its gross negligence and
want of diligence in that behalf. The
allegations of negligence are specifically
denied by the return. This traverse,'we
think, is sufficient to raise an issue of fact
as to the negligence in regard to the new
assessment, and precludes the relators
from basing any ground of recovery or
relief upon it. Under the facts disclosed,
appellant had no legal authority to levy
a new assessment upon property other
than that of the railway company, upon
which its due proportion of benefits had
already been assessed and paid, not un
der the 30th Sec. of Chap. 7, because that
section confines the new assessments to a
particular class of property, viz., delin

Chicago

Legal

News.

quent property, Beygeh et al. v. The City Here it had the power, but was disabled
of Chicago (decided at this term), and if from exercising it by its own act.
If a person promised to pay a sum of
the other property had been assessed its
proportion, and paid it, there was no de money when he shall collect his de
mands
of another, then if it appear that
linquency. This is conceded by appel
lant's counsel. But he insists that it he had no demands, or if he had and
could be levied under the 35th section fail to use due diligence to collect them,
of same chapter, which declares: "If in in either case the promise may be en
any case the first assessment prove in forced as absolute. White v. "Snell, 5
sufficient, the Board of Public Works Pick. 325, S. C. 9, id. 10.
The counsel for appellant relies upon
shall make a second in the same manner,
and so on until sufficient monevs shall the provision of sec. 17, chap. 6 of char
ter
: "Any persons taking any contract
have been realized to pay for such public
with the city, and who agree to be paid
improvement."
It has been decided by this court that from special assessments, shall have no
the source of the power to make special claim or lien upon the city in any event,
assessments for benefits in such cases, is except from the collection of the special
the right of eminent domain. That un assessments made for the work contracted
der the Constitution it can be exercised for."
only by making compensation. That
This provision was not intended to
this compensation may be either in preclude the courts from determining
money or benefits, City of Chicago v. the legal effect of the contract, and the
Lamed, 34 Ills., 203, as to the last propo difficulty with the counsel's position is,
sition, the court, as then composed, as that where the city has no such assess
appears by the opinion in the case, did ment as it purports to have, the party is
not wholly concur, nor if it were a new to be deemed as not so agreeing. The
question would the court as now com condition is void and the promise single.
posed wholly concur in it. The ruling But it may be said that if the contractor
principle recognized in that case, and does not "so agree then his contract is
others in this State, is, that as assess void by the last clause of the section, viz:
ments are in the ratio of advantages or And no work to be paid for by a special
benefits, they are lawful ; that they are assessment shall be let except to a con
an equivalent for the increased value the tractor or contractors who will so agree.
poperty derives from the improvement. Here the contract is not declared void
The charter of the city designates the for want of compliance ; no penalty is
Commissioners of .the Board of Public imposed ; nor is the power affected.
Works and the Common Council, as con This clause is merely directory. The
stituting the tribunal to determine these . second and the last point questions the
questions in the first instance. They decision of the court below in allowing
have acted. The determination has been interest upon the estimates from the re
made; property-owners have acquiesced spective dates of their issues. This was
in it and paid "the amount, and if the error. There is no express agreement
matter has not technically passed in rem on the part of appellant to pay interest.
judicatum, it would still be as much against In such case, appellant being a munici
the established principles of justice to pal corporation, is not liable to pay in
allow it to bo overhauled by the Com terest. City of Pekin v. Revnolds, 31
missioners and Council, as if it had been 111., 530.
The clause of the contract providing
a case decided by a court of the highest
original jurisdiction in the State. It fol that the contractors should receive the
lows, from these views, that if appellant damages which the city might collect of
can be made liable absolutely to the ex the property owners to a certain extent
tent of this deficiency (and that consti is not equivalent to an agreement to pay
tutes the balance claimed as due), the interest.
For this error the judgment is re
liability must be placed upon other
grounds than negligence in making a versed.
Reversed and remanded.
new assessment.
By the act of the General Assembly
creating the railway company in ques [IYom Xorman L. Freeman. Ri'imter. to api>car in
oOrd lUinoi&i)
tion, that body was authorized to use the
Elizabeth Archer, Admin
streets only by permission of the Com Sextos E. Smith v. istratrix.
mon Council, and then in such manner Troverwhtiltrr it will lie. Where the cattle of
and upon such terms and conditions, and one person break into the enclosure of another,
with such rights and privileges as the and wit and destroy the growing corn of the lat
ter, his remedy is trespass. Trover will not lie.
Council might by contract with the rail even
though the owner of the cattle knew they
way company prescribe. Fnder this au were breach}-, and that they had been in the habit
thority a contract was made long before of committing such depredations.
any of the proceedings to improve Chi
Writ of Krror to the Circuit Court of
cago avenue, bv which the railway com Sangamon county ; the Hon. Benjamin
pany was wholly exempted from such S. Edwards, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of Trover, brought
an assesiment. The fact of the exist
ence of this contract was peculiarly at the regular term of the county court
within the knowledge of appellant ; but of Sangamon county, in March 1868, by
as it was not a public act Travers.& Co. Sexton E. Smith against Elizabeth Arch
are not chaigeable with notice of it, and er, administratrix of the estate of Wil
the return does not profess to assert any. liam Archer, deceased, to recover the
The effect of the contract was matter of value of corn belonging to the plaintiff,
law. If both parties were chargeable destroyed by the cattle of deceased, in
with notice of its existence no mistake his lifetime. It appears, from the record,
as to its effect, whether mutual or uni that the plaintiff owned a field of grow
lateral, would afford any ground for re ing corn adjoining the farm of deceased ;
lief in equity. But if Travers & Co. en that the deceased was the owner of a
tered into the contract to do the work in large lot of cattle, which, being breach}-,
ignorance of the dealings between ap broke into plaintiff's cornfield and
pellant and the railway company, and ate and destroyed large quantities of
upon the supposition that the assessment corn ; that it was notorious the cat
upon the property of the railway com tle were unruly and breachy, and that
pany was valid, as it would have been deceased knew their character, and had
but for the act of appellant exempting been repeatedly notified by the plaintiff
it, and were induced to agree to accept and others that they were breachy, and
the agreement of appellant to pay whin had broken down the fences around the
that assessment w:as collected, then the land of the plaintiff and others, and had
mistake would be one of fact on their destroyed their crops, and that deceased
part, which would operate as a surprise, had neglected and refused to keep the
and equity would relieve if they had cattle up and prevent them from com
taken the proper steps to disaffirm the mitting such injuries.
contract which it seems they did not do.
I'pon an appeal to the circuit court,
But there is still another ground upon the same state of facts was made to ap
which appellant would be liable abso pear, whereupon, at the request ofdefend
lutely. The property of the railway ant, the court gave the following instruc
company being exempt by the act of ap tion : " If the jury believe, from the evi
pellant, the assessment upon it was dence, that the cattle of William Archer,
invalid. The city had no hen upon it, during his life-time, broke and entered
the amount was never due, the condition the enclosure of the plaintiff, upon land
of the contract to pay when that assess then held by him under lease then ex
ment was collected was impossible and isting from Kendoll, and then and there
void, and the promise to that extent was consumed and depastured the crops of
single and absolute. That was the prin the plaintiff then growing on said land
ciple upon which the case of Maher v. and not matured, and that this is the
The City of Chicago, 38 111., 266, was de only injury complained of by the plain
cided, only this is a stronger case. There tiff, and that said William Archer died
the assessment, was void because of a before the commencement of this suit,
want of power in the appellant to make then the plaintiff can not recover for
the improvement by special assessment. such injur}- in this action." To the giv

ing of which instruction the plaintiff, by

his counsel, then and there excep'.ed ;
and thereupon, the jury rendered their
verdict in favor of the defendant.
The plaintiff thereupon sued out this
writ of error.
Messrs. J. C. & C. L. Conkung, for the
plaintiff in error.
Could an action of trover have been
maintained, under the circumstances,
against William Archer, if living?
If Archer had sent his servants into
the field oftheplaintiffand converted the
corn and oats growing there to his own
use, there could be no question as to the
right of Sexton to maintain the action.
For growing crops are personal property,
lieed v. Johnson, 14 111. 258; Pierce v.
Roche, 40 111. 292.
Trover can be maintained for growing
crops, by the owner of the crops. Simpkins v. Rogers, 15 111. 397.
There can be no distinction in princi
ple between the conversion of the prop
erty of another, by means of one's ser
vants or by his cattle. In this case,
Archer knowingly permitted his cattle
to carry away the corn and oats of Sex
ton. Any kind of an asportation is aconversion. " 2 Milliard on Torts, 101, note b;
Fouldes v. Willoughbv, 1 Dowl. p. 6, (N.
S.) 80.
A man is guilty of conversion, who in
termeddles with property of another, and
disposes of it. Stephens v. Elwell, 4 M.
and S. 261 ; Fuller v. Tabor, 39 Maine,
519.
Every unlawful taking of the chat
tels of another, which destroys or
alters the nature of the chattels, is a con
version. 2 Hilliard on Torts, 113.
It is contended that trespass would be
the proper form of action. But trover
may be maintained for property obtained
by trespass. Mathenv v. Johnson, 9 Miss.
232 ; Rogers v. Maw," 15 M. and W. 448
2 Hilliard on Torts, 101.
If a man's goods are taken by trespass
and converted into monev, he may main
tain trespass for the forcible injury ; or,
waiving the force, he may maintain tro
ver for the wrong ; or waiving the tort
altogether, he may sue for money had
and received. Rodgers v. Maw, 15 M.
and W. 448.
The instruction ofthe court was wrong,,
because it was based upon the idea that
the supreme court had reversed their for
mer decision, bv their opinion in the
case of Powell v.*Rich, 41 111. 467. This
opinion will not bear any such construc
tion. It decided only that until crops
are matured, they pass with the land,
when there is a conveyance without any
reservation in the deed. The court took
occasion to remark, that between a tres
passer and the owner of the soil, crops
are real estate. But in this case, the
question is between a trespasser and a
tenant, wdio has no interest except in the
crops. He has no title in the real estate,
to which the crops could attach. His
only interest in them, is that which per
tains to personal property. As to him,
the crops can not be considered in any
other light than personal property.
Messrs. Hay, Greene & Littler, for
the defendant in error.
Trover was not the proper remedy.
When an injury is done by animals of
vicious propensities, and the owner know
ing of such propensities, fails to take
proper care, the remedy is case. But
where such injuries are occasioned by
animals running at large, the remedy is
trespass. 1 Chitty on Pleading, 181.
In order to charge a party with a con
version, he must have had the goods in
his actual possession, or have assumed
the right to dispose of them. Fernal v.
Chase, 37 Maine, (2 Heath) 289 ; Fuller
v. Tabor, 39 Maine, (4 Heath) 519.
Now, it can scarcely be contended that
because Archer's cattle depastured the
growing crops of Smith, and consumed
a portion thereof in the very act of tres
passing, therefore Archer acquired the
possession of the goods of Smith, or that
when the cattle left the close, they "car
ried away" the chattels with them, and
thereby charged their owner with an as
portation.
Again, trover never lies, except where
the party charged has intended either to
destroy the goods of anotherto convert
them to his own use, or to deprive the
owner of them. The element of inten
tion always enters into the action, and
the defendant must intend to do some
act inconsistent with the; rights of
the owner. He may not !know who
the owner, is but he must clo some actinconsistent with his title, to be charged

Chicago
in this action. " Trover only lies where
some dominion is asserted by the defend
ant over the chattel which is the subject
of the action." Heald v. Can', 11 Com.
B. !193. " There must be an intention
of the defendant to take to himself the
property in the goods, or deprive the
plaintiff of it." Simmons v. Lilystone, 8
Exchequer, 442 ; Rogers v. Hine, 2 Cal.
581 ; Herron v. Hughes, 25 Cal. 5*51.
Mr. Chief Justice Bkeese delivered
the opinion of the Court :
The principles which govern the ac
tion of trover, can not be made to apply
to the facts in this case. The deceased
did not take and convert to his own use,
the corn of the plaintiff. Hiscattle were
breachy, and committed trespasseson the
plaintiff's cornfield, and destroyed much
of his corn. This was a trespass to real
estate, and if an action had been brought
against Archer, in his life time, on prop
er proof, a recovery might have been had
against him. It cannot be said, because
the cattle of Archer ate up the corn of
plaintiff, he, Archer, converted the corn
to his own use, or had assumed, at any
time, a right to dispose of the corn so
eaten.
It is, however, just and right that the
law should provide a remedy against the
estate of a deceased person, In a case like
this, and we trust the revisors of our
statutes will, in their report to the legis
lature, recommend an amendment to
sec. 132, of "Wills," to suit such cases.
As we regard the law, the instruction
of the court was correct, and the judg
ment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF ILLIXOIS.
Septembiu: Tkum, 1871.
William Zschacke v. The People.
Error to Criminal Court of Cook County.
THE STATUTE IN REGARD To THE FELONI
OUS CONVERSION OF WOODS, MONEY, Etc.,
BY A BAILEE CONSTRUED.
1. Where a constable levied an execution on
goods of the defendant, delivered them to the
plaintiff, and afterwards took them from him and
Mid them at private sale for tifty-five dollars,
which he converted to his own use, held that the
constable could not be properly convicted of lar
ceny for .stealing the money of the plaintiff: that
the levy of the execution and seizure would vest
a special property in the officer ; that the general
property would remain in the judgment debtor
until a sale was made according to law : that the
plaintiff in an execution acquires no property in
the goods by the seizure.
i That the specific money received by the
sheriff for property sold on execution is not the
propertv of the plaintiff in the execution until
paid to him.
3. That in this ease the goods were sold, not by
authority of law. but at private sale, and by such
abuse of authority the officer became a trespasser
from the beginning.
4. One man cannot, by ratifying a trespass com
mitted by another, obtain a legal right to the fruits
of such wrongful act.
5. That the law does not recognize even the
right to contribution between wrong doers, and
much less will it the relation of bailor and bailee,
from the mere fact that one is in the possession of
the fruits of the wrong.Eo. Legal News.
Opinion of the court by McAllis
ter, J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted in
the Criminal Court of Cook county, and
sentenced to two years' imprisonment in
the penitentiary, upon an indictment
charging him with having stolen divers
United .States notes and current bank
bills for the payment of fifty-five dollars,
and of that value of divers issues and
denominations to the grand jury un
known, the personal goods and propertv
of Matthias Eck.
There is no evidence in the record
tending to show that any money was
ever taken from the possession of Eck,
and the only question is whether there
is evidence sufficient to support a con
viction under Sec. 71 of the Criminal
Code (R. S., 102), declaring the felonious
conversion of money, goods, etc, by a
bailor to be larceny.
It appears that the accused holding
himself out to be a constable, and Eck
having an execution in his favor, issued
upon a justice's judgment, against one
Jacob Forsyth, delivered the writ to the
prisoner to be executed. That under the
execution the prisoner levied upon cer
tain goods of the judgment debtor, and
took them to Eek's house and put them
into his possession. That afterwards the
prisoner came and took the goods away
with Eek's consent, and sold them at
private sale, receiving therefor the fiftyfive dollars alleged to have been stolen,
which prisoner converted to his own use.
If the prisoner was a constable, as was
assumed on the trial, the levy and
seizure of the goods under the execution
would vest in him a special property in
them. The general property would' re

Legal

main in the judgment debtor until a sale

according tb law. The plaintiff in the
execution acquires no property in the
goods by the seizure. He could not
maintain an action of trespass or trover
against a wrong-doer. Such action could
be brought only by the officer. When a
sale is made under the writ pursuant to
law, then the general property of the
judgment debtor becomes divested, and
the proceeds of the sale remain in the
custody of the law until actually paid
over to the plaintiff. The specific money
in the hands of the sheriff is not the
property of the plaintiff in the execu
tion until paid over to him. Lightner v.
Steinagel, 33 Ills., 510. But in this case
the goods were sold, not by authority of
law, but at private sale. By such an
abuse of an authority given by law, the
officer became a trespasser ab initio. We
are at a loss to know how one man can,
by ratifying a trespass committed by an
other, obtain a legal right to the fruits of
such wrongful act. If Eck, knowing of
the wrongful act of the prisoner, hail re
ceived the money obtained, he would
have become a joint trespasser with the
prisoner. It cannot be the law that a
constable or sheriff, who becomes a tort
feazor in the manner described here,
holds the fruits of the tort as bailee for
the plaintiff in the writ; because the
plaintiff, by ratifying the act, becomes
himself a party to it, and then the result
would always follow, that one of two
joint tort feazors would become the
bailee of the other as to the proceeds of
the tort by virtue of the wrongful act it
self, simply because he happened to be
the first possessor. The law does not
recognize even the right to contribution
between wrong-doers, and much less will
it the relation of bailor and bailee from
the mere fact that one is in possession of
the fruits of the wrong. There is no
view of the evidence which will support
the position that the prisoner was the
bailee of Eck, as to the money received
upon the private sale of the goods. The
conduct of the prisoner merits severe
punishment ; but we cannot sustain this
conviction without disregarding all dis
tinctions between crimes.
The court below should have granted
the motion for a new trial, and it was
error to refuse it. For this reason the
judgment of the court is reversed and
the cause remanded. Reversed and re
manded.
Homer IHsiinell for appellant.
Charles II. Rekd for appellee.
UNITED .STATES SUPREME COURT.
The following cases have been decided
in the U. S. Supreme Court :
The Commonwealth of Kentucky, ex.
rel. Governor Leslie v. Boutwell, Secre
tary of the Treasury.Petition for man
damus. The petitioner seeks to compel
the Secretary of the Treasury to deliver
a warrant upon the Treasury for the
amount alleged to be di e from the
United States to Kentu. I.y for war
claims, under the act of July 27, 1801,
that officer having by his decision of Au
gust 2, 1871, determined that the troops
for whom the reimbursement is asked
were never mustered into the service of
the United States, nor called out at the
request of or under the authority of the
President or Secretary of War, and that
consequently the rule prescribed by
t Secretary Chase, when providing for the
j execution of theaet, is a bar to the claim.
Mr. Boutwell also took the view that
j Congress has since the enactment of
1801, twice given a legislative construc
tion to that act consistent with the rule
then established by Secretarv Chase,
and leaving no ground on which the
claim can be paid without the specific
authority of Congress. He also main
tains that it was his right and duty to
revise the decision. On behalf of the
State it is asserted that the legal right to
be reimbursed is established by the de
cision of the President, through the War
Department, sanctioned and sustained,
if it needed any other affirmance, by the
accounting officers of the Government.
The War Department decides that tiie
troops so raised by the State, and for
which the expenses asked to be reim
bursed, were incurred, had been em
ployed in aiding to suppress the rebel
lion against the United States, and the
facts were all in the military history of
the Government, which were peculiarly
within the cognizance and knowledge
of the War Department. To ascertain

News.

and present these facts and to determine

upon them in reference to this claim
were the high executive duties belong
ing to the President as Chief Executive
of the nation and the Commander-inChief of the military forces. In the per
formance of these duties the Secretary
of War and the department under his
charge are employed by the President,
and the lawful acts of this officer and
this department of the Government are
the acts of the President himself, under
all the authorities; and it would be a
strange anomaly if the President should
authorize, or the Constitution or laws
permit, one executive department to re
vise and reverse the decisions of an
other; still stranger, if that revising and
reversing department should be in mili
tary questions the Treasuryone whose
organization, machinery, and facilities
are totally unfitted to and without adap
tation for such purpose. A proper ex
amination and determination of these
questions involve militarv knowledge,
skill, and experience, which the Secre
tary of the Treasury could hardly be
presumed to have on this military de
cision. The accounting officers settled
the account, and the Secretary of the
Treasury has no discretion in the mat
ter ; and it is his duty to sign the warrant
and allow the payment to be made.
There is an ample appropriation made
by Congress to pay the claims, of which
the Secretary of the Treasury is the mere
custodian and trustee for the State. It
is contended on these facts that a man
damus is the only adequate and effectual
and therefore the only appropriate
remedy to enforce this right. The rule
is that where the law imposes a specific
duty either in positive terms or by rea
sonable construction, and there is no
other specific remedy, a mandamus will
be awarded.
On the question of jurisdiction it was
submitted that a State, being a party in
fact and in interest, this court has full
and complete jurisdiction to enforce by
the writ asked the legal right of the
State, by compelling the performance of
the legal duty of the Secretary of the
Treasury. On the merits of the case the
Government maintains the same ground
taken by the Secretary of the Treasury
in his decision, and the facts, department
rules, and statutes are examined at
great length to demonstrate its correct
ness. Concerning the question of juris
diction, it is contended that this court
has not original jurisdiction in all cases
in which a State is a party, but only in
"controversies between a State and citi
zens of another State." The second sec
tion of the third article of the Constitu
tion provides that the judicial power of
the United States shall extend to " con
troversies between a State and citizens
of another State." The next succeeding
clause of that section provides that " in
all cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, and those
in which a State shall be a party, the
Supreme Court shall have original juris
diction. In all the other cases before
mentioned the Supreme Court shall
have appellate jurisdiction." This latter
clause does not confer jurisdiction, it only
distributes that granted in the preceding
clause of the section, and the thirteenth
section of the Judiciary act follows this
distribution, and the present petition
does not, therefore, present a case for the
original jurisdiction of this court. This
is not a case against Mr. Boutwell as an
individual, a natural person, or any act
that he has done or has not done as
George S. Boutwell, but altogether in
his official capacity as Secretary of the
Treasury, and this court can have no
original"jurisdiction of such a case.
No 188. Shoemaker & Miller v. Kings
buryError in the Circuit Court of Kan
sas. This was an action against the
plaintiffs in error, as common carriers,
for alleged breach of contract of carriage
of Kingsbury over a portion of the east
ern division of the Union Pacific Rail
road. The judgment below was for the
defendant, and here it is reversed, this
court holding that the plaintiffs in error
were not common carriers, subject to all
the obligations resting upon such car
riers, but simply contractors for building
that division of the road, running a con
struction train to transport material, etc.
Under these, circumstances they were
private carriers for hire, and as such
were not insurers. It is also held that
the court erred in its instructions to the
jury, which led the latter to suppose

59
that the occurrence of the accident was
presumptive proof that the employees of
the road were destitute of proper skill
and qualifications. Mr. Justice Field
delivered the opinion.
No. 196. Hananer v. DoaneAppeal
from the Circuit for Arkansas. This
was an action to recover for goods sold
for the use of the rebel army. The court
below charged that if the goods were
sold in the common and ordinary course
of trade, and the only inducement to
the sale of the goods on the part of the
firm making the sale was the price to be
paid, then the side was legal and valid,
although the firm knew that Hananer,
the purchaser, expected to turn the
goods over to the rebel army. This
i ourt say that with whatever impunity
a man may lend money, or sell goods to
one who he knows intends to devote
them to a use which is only malum pro
hibitum, or of inferior criminality, he
can not do it without turpitude, when
he knows or has every reason to believe
that the monpj- or goods are to be used
for the perpetration of a heinous crime,
and that they were procured for that
purpose, and the judgment is reversed.
Air. Justice Bradley delivered the opin
ion.
No. 203. Townsend, Executor, etc. v.
Chapelle et al.Appeal from the Circuit
for Wisconsin.This was a bill to fore
close a mortgage and bond executed by
the appellees to Frederick Bronson, of
New York, executor of Arthur Bronson.
The question was whether a certain
party to whom installments had been
paid" was the agent of Bronson author
ized to receive them ; and it was found
below that he was, and the payments
were credited on the mortgage. This
court affirm a decree. Mr. Justice Swayne
delivered the opinion.
No. 220. United States v. Russell's
Appeal from the Court of Claims.In
this case Russel recovered below for the
use of certain steamers impressed into
the Government service. The court
held that there was not such an " appro
priation" of the property as prohibited
jurisdiction under the act of July 4, 1804,
but that there was such an employment
and use of the steamers as raised an im
plied promise to reimburse the claimant
formoneyexpendedby him in moving the
steamers, and also a reasonable compen
sation for their services. That judgment
is affirmed here. Mr. Justice Clifford
delivered the opinion.
No. 230. Cooly et al. v. O'Connor.
Error to the Circuit Court for South Car
olina.An action of trespass to try the
title to land in Beaufort sold for taxes
under the "Direct Tax Act." On the
trial the court held that the tax-sale cer
tificate, being signed by only two commis
sioners, was void, and also that the ad
vertisement was not such as required by
law. This court hold that the action of
the majority of the Board of Commis
sioners was the action of the board, and
that the court erred in excluding the
certificates, and the judgment is re
versed. It is said that an authority
given to several for public purposes may
be executed by a majority of their num
ber. Mr. Justice Strong delivered the
opinion.
No. 237. The United States v. Mynders et al.Survivor's certificate of divi
sion from the Circuit Court for the North
ern District of New York. The question
in this case was whether the distiller's
bond involved was, in its conditions, so
far a departure from the requirements
of the act of Congress as to render it
void, and the court consider it in the
negative. The opinion was rendered by
the Chief Justice.
No. 201. Vanslyke v. The State of Wis
consin, and No. 202. Bognall v. The
State of Wisconsin.Error to Supreme
Court of Wisconsin. These cases pre
sented the question of State taxation of
the national bank shares, the appellants
claiming that there was discrimination
between the State and national banks
in levying the tax. This court regard
the question settled by the case of Van
Allen, -and the judgment is affirmed.
The Chief Justice delivered the opinion.
Internal Revenue Record.
A London court has had a case before
it for forty vears, and every one con
cerned in it hut the defendant has died,
since its opening.

66

Chicago

Legal

Chicago Legal News. daily labor, there is no sufficient cause

for divorce on the ground of failure to
provide.2 Pttc. Law Rep., 190.
px %ittfit.
A Prisoner Tried in Irons.The same
court held where a prisoner was brought
CHICAGO, DECEMBER 9j 1871.
to the bar to stand his trial in irons, and
permission to have his manacles removed
published every saturday by
The Chicago Legal News Company, was refused, that this was an error on
the part of the court, prejudicial to the
at 113 madison street.
rights of the defendant, and a sufficient
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
cause for a new trial.2 Pac. Law Rep.,
190.
Terms :
Municipal CorporationsTheir Lia
Two Dollars per annum, in advance. Single cop
ies Ten CenM.
bility in Case of Fire.The borough of
We call attention to the following Erie was authorized by the Legislature
"to make and establish a sufficient num
opinions reported at length in this issue : ber of reservoirs to supply water in case
Power op the Legislature over Mon of fire,'' and the Supreme Court of Penn
eys op Municipal Corporations.The sylvania, in Grant v. City of Erie, held
opinion of the Supreme Court of Cali it to be a mere discretionary authority,
fornia, delivered by Wallace, J., hold and that the borough was not liable for
ing that the Legislature as the sovereign its negligence in allowing the reservoirs,
power may exercise the same power for want of care, to become insufficient
over the moneys of municipal corpora and useless for the purpose for which
tions in the payment of claims equitably they were constructed. 19 Pitts. Leg. J.,
due that it does over the revenues of the 54. The same doctrine is laid down by
State, even though such claims may not the Supreme Court of Ohio, in Wheeler
be enforceable at law. This, in some re v. City of Cincinnati, reported 2 Am.
spects, is an important case. The claim Rep. 3<>8, and 19 Ohio St. The court says
ant had performed labor in the improve a city is not liable for a neglect of duty
ment of a public street, and of which the on the part of fire companies, or their
municipal government and people of officers charged with the duty of extin
San Francisco had the benefit, and he guishing fires. The power of the city
had been unable to obtain compensa over the subject is that of a delegated
tion therefor only because the principal qttoM sovereignty, which excludes re
officer of the municipal government had sponsibility for the neglect or non
neglected to observe the statute requir feasance of an officer or agent charged
ing him to sign his name to the resolu with the performance of duties. The
tion under which the work was done, case differs from that where the corpora
and the court held that the Board of tion is charged by the law with the per
Supervisors could be compelled by man formance of a duty purely ministerial in
damus to grant an order of payment in its character.
compliance with the act of the Legisla
Compromise with Creditors.In the
ture.
case of Elfelt et al. v. Snow, tried before
Partnership Liability of Attor Sawyer, C. J., and Deady, D. J., in the
neys. The opinion of the Supreme TJ. S. Court for the District of Oregon,
Court of Missouri, delivered by Wagner, reported 2 Pacific Law Rep. 197, Deady,
J., holding where a client placed a note J., in delivering the opinion of the court,
in the hands of a firm of attorneys for says a debtor who seeks a compromise
collection, and they sued the note and with his creditors, must act in good faith,
appeared of record as the attorneys of and if he induce his creditors to agree to
the plaintiff, and after the dissolution of his discharge by false representations or
the fiim one of the attorneys received fraudulent concealments, the agreement
the money of the sheriff and ran off, is void.
that the other attorney could be sued
Common CarriersCustom as to De
individually by the client and compelled livery.The Supreme Court of Penn
to pay the money.
sylvania, in McMasters v. The Pennsyl
Special Assessments Liability of vania Railroad Company, 19 Pitts. Leg.
City to Contractors.The opinion of J., 40, held that the liability of common
the Supreme Court of this State, deliv carriers is subject to modification byered by McAllister, J., in regard to the usage or custom ; that upon proof of a
power of the City of Chicago to make custom on the part of a railroad com
special assessments, and the liability of pany to deliver goods at a way station
the city to pay contractors for street im on their platform without warehousing or
provements when, through its negli giving notice of their arrival to the con
gence, it fails to make a valid assess signee, such delivery was sufficient, and
ment.
an exoneration of the carrier from dam
Arbitration Submission Award. ages for their subsequent loss.
The opinion of the Supreme Court of
this State as to what constitutes a valid
A GENEROUS DONATION.
submission so as to have a judgment of As will be seen by the following letter
court rendered upon the award when from Governor Hoffman, New York gen
made.
erously gives to the Chicago Law Insti
Felonious Conversion of Goods, etc. tute a copy of her Reports, Digests
The opinion of the Supreme Court of and Statutes. To a lawyer it is not nec
Illinois, delivered by McAllister, J., essary to say that this is a magnificent
construing the statute in relation to the gift. The members of the Chicago Lawfelonious conversion of goods by a bailee Institute will ever cherish the most kind
and discussing several interesting ques ly feelings for Governor Hoffman and
tions as to the liability of a constable to the State of New York :
be punished criminally for converting
State of New York,
goods levied upon to his own use.
Executive Chamber,
Albany, Dec. 4, 1871.
Gentlemen :I received yesterday
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
morning your letter of the first instant,
Cause for Divorce.The Supreme relative to supplying in part the great
Court of California held in Ryecraft v. loss sustained by "the Law Institute and
Ryecraft, where the wife earns sufficient the legal profession of Chicago, by the
of Oct. 8th and S)th.
for her support from business carried on fireI have
made arrangements this morn
by her, and the husband has but his ing with Banks & Bros., law booksellers,

News.

to forward to the Institute without delay

a complete set of the Session Laws and
Revised Statutes of this State, together
with the State Reports from the begin
ningthe Digests, and the last edition
of Kent's Commentaries. They will be
forwarded by express in a few days,
charges paid. I have preferred not to
wait for authority from the Lcsislature,
deeming a prompt response to your re
quest important. I have no doubt my
action will be approved, and I bog the
Law Institute of Chicago will accept the
books as a gift from the State of New
York. If your rooms are not ready,
please notify me how long you wish de
livery delayed.
Yerv truly vours,
John T. Hoffman.
Messrs. Thomas Hoyne, Chairman,
Melville W. Fuller, H. N. Hibbaed,
Committee.
MAYOR ItEDILL'S MESSAGE.
We have read Mayor Medill's Message
to the Common Council on last Monday
evening, with real pleasure. It contains
many valuable recommendations, and
means economy and reform. If it is
the intention of the Mayor, by his sug
gestion in regard to special assessments,
to entirely uproot and overturn the for
mer unjust and oppreasive system by
which special assessments have been
levied and our citizens robbed, then
he has our warmest support, but if
it is intended to reflect upon the Su
preme Court of our State for holding
that, when the city seeks to take the
property of a citizen or levy a charge
upon it, it shall do so in accordance
with the laws of the land, then upon
this question we must disagree with our
worthy Mayor. Often in the past when
the authorities thought an improvement
was needed, without any regard to the
wishes of the[property owners and some
times against their protest, they would
levy an assessment amounting in many
instances to two or three times what the
improvement would cost, collect the
money and keep it a year or two in the
City Treasury without commencing the
improvement. When the improvement
was completed, and the money had been
subjected to several tolling mills, the
property owner would receive back
from 10 to 50 per cent, of the amount
originally paid in. The city, of course,
pays no interest on the money paid in
by the property owner, notwithstand
ing the fact that the property owner
may have mortgaged his land and paid
interest at the rate of 10 or 15 per cent,
to raise the money. The recent decisions
of our Supreme Court hold when the cityasks for judgment on a special assess
ment, that it will be refused if it appears
the city has not complied with the lawrelating to special assessments or that the
assessment is unjust or for too great an
amount. This is in accordance with the
principles of our government and the
Constitution of our State. If these deci
sions relieve us from the fat jobs of dis
honest contractors and over-estimates
in assessments for improvements, they
will prove a great benefit to our citizens,
and the court rendering them should re
ceive the thanks and support of every
honest citizen.
The following is that portion of Mayor
Medill's message relating to special as
sessments :
The Comptroller also estimates the amount of
taxes that will be due under the present assess
ment, after making rebate for loss of property by
fire at S-j,2S2.(XXi, from which couiderable deduc
tions must be made for delinquencies and resist
ance of payment. A class of property-holders
have acquired the bad hnbit of contesting in the
courts the payment of all taxes, and harassing
the city with appeals, injunctions and other liti
gious devices based on alleged informalities in
assessment or judgment, whereby the city is de
frauded out of large sums of money justly due it.
His no longer safe to reckon on an estimated
amount of revenue from a given valuation of
property and per cent, of taxation. Some remedy
must be devised to correct this growing evil,

which is nurtured and spread by a class of special

pleading, technical attorneys, said to bo compen
sated by contingent fees, and who meet with re
markable favor in the courts, especially of late,
in the work of sapping and mining the revenues
of the city.
In this' survey of the present condit ion of our
municipal government I nave not included one
very important matter. I refer to the system of
making improvements by special assessments on
the property benefited. This system is as old as
the city itself, and under it the money has been
procured for opening and widening of streets
and alleys, and improving streets, and building
sidewalks, to the extent of many hundred miles.
How many millions of dollars nave been raised
bysjiecial assessment and exjiended under the
direction of the Board of Public Works lor these
objects I am not prepared to state, but it must ex
ceed twenty millions.
But the Supreme Court of the State, since its
re-organizatinn under the New Constitution, has
made decisions overruling all its former decisions,
which carried to their ultimate sequences, work
a perfect revolution in the 6ystem of special
assessments, and. indeed, overthrow them totally.
The Corporation Counsel gives it as his opinion
that these late decisions of the Supreme Court
have so unsettled the law of assessments as to
render it impossible for the city to continue its
improvements under the present charter, unlets
it is desired that the cost hereafter of all street
openings, widening, or improvements and side
walk building shall be paid by general taxation..
The court has so constructed the law that there
seems to be no possible way of making a special
assessment to pay the cost of an improvement
that may not be defeated by any interested party
who resists payment. The worst feature of these
revolutionary decisions is the predicament in
which they place cither the city government or the
contractors lor work already done but not paid for.
There is not far from a million of dollars due to
contractors for work done and materials furnished,
under the provisions of the charter authorizing
special assessments, and these claimants are al
ready threatening the city with suits for the
amounts due them from the persons whose prop
erty received the special benefit from the im
provements. I have a list of uncollected assess
ments which loots up the large sum of fcT'JO.164.11. Of this amount, all except &G2,4-)9.58 is
pending in the courts, cither by injunction or ort
appeal to the Supreme Court, principally to the
latter. Some now on appeal arc reassessments,
amounting, perhaps, to lo0,<iou. This added to
the S2V2,44!i, makes the sum about S412.449, which
have been decided adversely to the city, on the
application for judgment upon the original or
first assessment If the "Beygeh" decision is
adhered to by the court, this amount w ill be lost,
either by the city or the contractors, and this will
be only'the nrst'installment of the losses that will
fall on the civy or contractors.
A brief statement of the points decided bv thecourt will convince your honorable body that I
have not magnified or over-stated the grave con
sequences that must How from the change of views
held by that court.
In trie recent case of Rich v. The City, the court
has decided that the finding of the Appraisement
Commissioners is not eonehmve, but that it is only
a means devised by the Legislature to get parties
into court; and that upon the application for
judgment a party objecting to judgment; mayshow that he is assessed too much tor benefits:
that he is not allowed enough damages for the
property condemned : in fact that he may show
anything meritorious or technical which tends to
show that the assessment ought not to be collected
from him.
The court also now holds that the objector is
entitled to a jury trial, and, of course, a right of
appeal from its verdict to the Supreme Court,.thus
entailing endless litigation and delay on the citv.
The Rich case was upon a condemnation proceed
ing, to wit : widening Michigan avenue.
Following the Rich case, the Supreme Court
have decided the case of Creote v. City, Roe v.
City, and one or two others, affirming those named
in which the rule laid down in the Kieh cose, is
applied to the improvement ofstreets, except that
the court has not decided that the objector in an
improvement proceeding is entitled to a jury trial,
leaving that point still open.
The charter requires that an assessment shall be
made for benefits and in the proportion of benefits
conferred. But there happens to be no provision
in the charter which directs the court, if it finds
that the party is assessed too high, or not enough,
to recaxt the assessment and have the proportion
maintained; but the effect of these late decisions
is. that if the assessment upon one lot is defeated,
the whole assessment necessarily falls. Even if
the court should modify their opinion so as to
hold that the assessment is defeated only as to the
party succeeding in sustaining his objections, it
will leave the city in an unenviable position as to
its assessments. In the determination of the ques
tion of benefits there will be no fixed rule or basis
to act upon. It will be impossible for any Com
missioners to assign benefits that the judge and
Jury will agree with as toeach and even- umouni
assessed or valuation made.
In September last the Supreme Court, under its
new organization, delivered another opinionnot
yet publishedwhich seems to knock the last
prop from under1 the city, in regard to making
special assessments. It is the case of Beygeh v.
City, iii which the two former decisions oi' that
court, in the Ward and Laflin cases, are directly
ovcrrulcd and reversed. The court now holds
that if the first assessment is invalid for any
reason, technical or otherwise, no new or reassess
ment can be made. A petition for a rehearing
was made in both the Rich and Beygeh cases,
and granted in the Rich, but not yet in the Beygeh
cose.
The same court, last September, in the case of
the City v. Norton, I am informed, made a decision
that the city was liable for a part of the assessment,
assessed upon property not liable by law to be as
sessed, and used language intimating a general
liability of the city to the contractor for all work
done,
including
special
assessment
work. that has
It is the
intimation
of this
last decision
caused the contractors to threaten suit against the
city for special assessment work. The court seems
to place the city in this dilemma ; By reversing
it* former decisions it renders it impossible for the
city to make a valid assessment that will stand its
tire, and then intimates that the contractor may
collect his claim from the city, because the assess
ment
not properly
madeto! contractors is thus
The was
liability
of the citv
stated in section 17, chap. 6, of the charter: "Any
person taking contracts with the city, and who
agrees to be paid from special assessments, shall
have no claim or lien upon the citv in any emit,
except from the collections of the speci&l assess
ments made for work contracted for ; nndnowork

Chicago
to be paid for by a special assessment, shall be let
txeept to a contractor, or contractors, who will no
agree."
The language of the law seems to be plain, ex
plicit and peremptory, but the contractors expect
to circumvent it under the new doctrine laid down
by the court, and that, too, in tile face of their own
written contracts, in which " they agree to make
no claim against the city on account of special
assessments, except from the collections of the
name according to section 17, chapter 0, of the re
vised charter ot said city."
In view of these recent decisions, the only safe
recommendation I can make to your honorable
body is, to direct all contracts revoked involving
special assessments, and to recall all warrants out
standing for the collection of special assessments,
and to put a stop at once to all improvements be
ing made on account of such assessments. Let us
ascertain to a certainty the exact liability of the
city in all condemnation proceedings for the
widening, extending or improvingof streets, alleys
and sidewalks. No other case is safe or justifiable,
at this time, in the face of the recent and unlookedfor decisions of the Supreme Court.
When the property-owners hereafter desire to
have new streets laid out. or streets extended or
widened, or graded, macadamized or block-paved,
let them be required to enter into an agreement
with the city, waiving right of appeal, stay of
judgment, or any claim on the city for damages in
connection with such Improvements. Require
them also to make contracts, directly, with the
contractors for the work to be done and materials
furnished for improving their streets, allevs, and
sidewalks, in order that the contractors shall have
no pretense of claim against the city for work done
for the special benefit of individuals.
I
There are no funds in the Treasury now, nor
likely to be, for a long time, with which' to pay for
street extensions or wldenings. or pavings,'and the
city is prohibited from borrowing money and add
ing to the municipal debt, for these or any other
purposes. It will be all the city can possibly do to
Jceep the present improved street* in repair and
clean all the streets In this wide-spread city.
RESIGNATION OF CHIEF JUSTICE
HOWE.
Hon. J. H. Howe has resigned as Chief
Justice of the .Supreme ( 'ourt of Wyom
ing Territory, which position he has
filled with great ability. He will long
be known as the pioneer Judge who first
presided in a court where the grand and
petit jurors were composed of women as
well as men. The Judge has returned
to his old home at Kewanee in this State.
The Independent of that place says :
We copy the following article com
menting upon the resignation of Judge
Howe from the Wyoming Tribune of the
7th inst., and our people will be glad to
learn that the Judge will immediately
open an office, and resume the practice
of the law in this place, in response to nu
merous and urgent solicitations on the
part of his friends. Indeed we are as
sured that these solicitations have had a
great influence in determining Mr. Howe
to resign his position as Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of Wyoming Terri
toryespecially so, as for years to come
Wyoming did not promise to be such a
place as would be desirable as a resi
dence for his family, and he was. there
fore, reduced to the necessity of relin
quishing his position there or exile him
self from his home and family. He de
cided upon the former, and to return to
his old home, which, surrounded as it is
by friends and the ties of long associa
tion, is to him the dearest spot on earth,
where it is hoped he may long continue
to receive the kindest regards which he
is sure to deserve.
" Identical with the growth, prosperity,
justice and good order of the Territory
of Wyoming is the name of Chief Jusr
tice Howe associated, and it is with feel
ings of regret that we are called upon to
chronicle his resignation of the Chief
Justiceship of our Territory. Coming
among us when crime and lawlessness
held high carnival, his excellent legal
judgment, his rigid adherence to princi
ples of right, his good decisions unbiased
by friend or foe, and his firm determin
ation to punish criminals at any hazard,
lias made the name of Chief Justice
Howe " legion " among all lovers of good
society in our Territory. True, he may
have rendered some decisions which to
the parties concerned seemed unjust,
but be not hasty to condemn. The posi
tion of Chief Justice of a Territory is a
trying one. A position never occupied
by the best jurist in the land without incuring the displeasure of a portion of the
people over whom he wields the sceptre
of justice. In our own Territory the
task is particularly difficult. There are
many conflicting elements with which a
judge has to contend, and certain things
have operated to make Judge Howe's of
ficial position in Wyoming probably the
most difficult and trying of any ever oc
cupied by a judge.
'"The successor of Mr. Howe is not yet
named, but we trust he will be a
man of our own Territory. Mr. H. re

Legal

News.

turns to his home in Kewanee, 111., where pursuant to such submission." (Gross
he will resume the practice of law. Our Stat., 51.)
The submission under which the award
best washes go with him in all his future
was made is not in conformity with the
walks of life."
statute. It was not attested by any wit
ness, nor does it contain any agreement
OUR LEGAL EXCHANGES.
that a judgment shall be rendered upon
the award made pursuant to such sub
(Continued.)
The Internal Revenue Record.This mission. All that it contains on that
is this: "And it is hereby fur
is one of our most useful exchanges. It subject
ther agreed and understood by and be
is published weekly by W. C. and F. P. tween the said parties, that this submis
Church, at No. 39 Park Row, New York, sion shall be made a rule of the Circuit
and furnished to subscribers for So pet- Court within and for the county of Kane
This is not equivalent to an
annum in advance. It keeps its readers aforesaid."
agreement that a judgment shall be ren
well posted upon all matters relating to dered upon the award made pursuant to
the Internal Revenue and the Customs. the submission. A submission executed
It will save any attentive reader, be he with the formalities, and containing, in
what is required by the stat
merchant or lawyer, many times the sub substance,
ute, was indispensable to the jurisdiction
scription price in the course of the year. of the Circuit Court to render the judg
We felt like welcoming an old friend to ment. Low et al. v. Nolls, 15 111., 308.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is
our sanctum to-day as the expressman
Reversed.
brought in ten neatly bound volumes of reversed.
James Coleman for plaintiff in error.
the Record, the gift of the publishers.
Botsford & Barry for defendants.
The Pacific Law Reporter.The Re
porter is published weekly by Wm.
LIII. ILLINOIS REPORTS.
Ayres & Co., at San Francisco, Califor
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman
nia. Subscription price S9 per annum L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following
in advance. It is edited by eleven dif head-notes to cases to appear in the 53d
ferent gentlemen, most of whom have volume of Illinois Reports:
distinguished themselves on the bench
CONTRASTS.
or at the bar. J. A. Woodson is the
1. Obligation to pay money collected, to a
office editor. The Reporter publishes third person.A soldier placed his dis
the opinions of the Supreme Court of its charge in the hands of an attorney, for
purpose of collecting his bounty,
own State, and many of those of the the
which, when collected, and after deduct
Federal Courts upon the Pacific Coast, as ing the attorney's fee, was to be paid to
well as notes to leading cases through the wife of the soldier, as appeared from
attorney's receipt. Afterwards, and
out the Union. The Reporter is ably the
before any money was paid over, the
edited, deserves well of the profession, soldier obtained a divorce from his wife,
and ought to be taken by every lawyer and entered into a contract with her,
west of the Rocky Mountains. We whereby he transferred to her his claim
for bounty, in consideration of her un
know the peculiar circumstances that dertaking'
to take charge of their chil
have surrounded the Reporter, and the dren : Held, the attorney, having no
powerful monopoly and ring it has had notice of such contract of transfer, would
to contend against, and sympathize writh be protected in paying the money to the
after the contract was made.
it and hope it will succeed. The editor husband,
(Opinion bv Lawrence, J.) Sxeartz v.
of the Reporter has kindly sent us a com Earls, p. 237'.
plete file to replace those lost by the fire.
REVOCATION.
2. Of authority to pay money to a third
The Pittshvrgh Legal Journal.
attorney, receiving a claim
James W. Murray is the editor and pro person.An
for collection, stated in his receiptthereprietor of the Journal. It is now in its for that the money, when collected, was
19th year and is as well known as any to be paid to a third person. This was
other of the weekly law journals. Its held to be merely an authority to the at
to dispose of the proceeds of the
subscription price is three dollars per torney
claim in that manner, and such author
annum. Much of its space is occupied ity could at any time be revoked.lb.
with the opinions of the Supreme Court
PLEADING.
of Pennsylvania and the Federal Courts
Certainty as to identity of tlie person, in a
of that State. The matter for its columns plea of former recovery.In an action of
is selected with good judgment. No debt on a recognizance, the defendant
a plea of former recovery, in
Pennsylvania lawyer should be without interposed
which it wasaverred that the people "im
it. Mr. Murray has our thanks for a pleaded the said defendant in a certain
beautifully bound copy of the new series. plea of scire facias, in the words and
figures following," setting out the writ
By the kindness of James Coleman, of at length, by which it appeared the de
was named and impleaded with
the Elgin bar, we have received the fol afendant
certain other person, who was his colowing opinion :
obligor in the recognizance : Held, it ap
peared with sufficient certainty in the
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
plea, that the defendant was the same
Opinion filed Nov. 4, 1871.
person who was impleaded in the scire
Joseph Moody v. Henry Nelson ct al.
facias. (Opinion by Walker, J.)
Ermr to Kane.
Mur]>hy v. The People, p. 239.
ARBITRATIONSUBMISSION.
WARRANTY.
That a submission executed with the formalities,
and containing, in substance, what is required bv
machineryof repairs thereto.On
the statute, is indispensable to the jurisdiction of theOfsale
of a steam boiler, the vendor
the Circuit Court to render the judgment; that
these words in a submission ; " And it is hereby warranted it of a certain capacity ; but it
further agreed and understood by and between proved defective, and the vendor re
the said parties, that this submission shall be made
a rule of the Circuit Court w ithin and for the paired it. Afterwards, he took the note
county of Kane aforesaid," is not sufficient, and is of the vendee for a balance due on the
not equivalent to an agreement that a judgment purchase money, not including the cost
shall be rendered upon the award made pursuant of
the repairs : Held, the yjndor was not
to the submission.Ed. Leoal News.
entitled to pay for the repairs. He had
Per Curiam.
This is a writ of error to the Kane warranted the boiler; and the fact of
county Circuit Court, to bring up for re taking the note without including the
repairs, tended to show he did not con
view a judgment entered in that court sider
himself entitled to pay for them.
upon the award of arbitrators. The first
section of the statute under which this (Opinion by Lawrence, J.)Sears et al.
proceeding was had is as follows: "All r. Crozier et al., p. 245.
SUBMISSION TO ARBITRATION.
persons having the requisite legal ca
pacity may, by an instrument in writing,
1. Effect thereof upon pending suit.In
to be signed and sealed by them and at a suit in chancery, a reference was made
tested by at least one witness, submit to to the. master, and pending such refer
one or more arbitrators any controversy ence, the parties mutually agreed tosubexisting between them not in suit ; and mit the matters in difference to three
may in such submission agree that a persons as arbitrators, upon whose award
judgment of any court of record compe the court should have power to enter a
tent to have jurisdiction of the subject decree. The arbitrators made their
matter, to be named in such instrument, award, that the bill should be dismissed.
shall be rendered upon the award made At the next term of the court, an order

61
was entered discontinuing the suit, for
the reason that the matters in dispute
had been submitted to arbitration. This
was proper. The submission of the
pending suit operated as a discontinu
ance thereof.(Opinion bv Brekse, C.J.)
p. 252.
2. Questioning the validity of the award.
The validity of the award could not be
questioned in that suit, because, by the
fact of submission, the cause was out of
court. But the dismissal of the suit did
not determine the validity of the award.
That was still open to attack, and might
be shown, in a proper action, not to be
binding, and therefore no bar to another
suit on the same cause of action.lb.
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
3. When necessary.In case of the dis
continuance of a cause upon the ground
that the parties had submitted the mat
ters in dispute to arbitration, if it is de
sired to question the fact of submission,
the evidence in respect thereto should
be preserved in a bill of exceptions. In
the absence of proof to the contrary, it
will be presumed the court below de
cided correctly, that there was a submis
sion.lb.
MISTAKE.
Corrected in chancery.A party owning
two forty-acre tracts of land, sold one of
them and executed a deed therefor. The
purchaser, from a mistaken idea that the
deed was not for the tract he bought, re
fused to receive it, and thereupon the
vendor conveyed the other tract. The
vendee then discovered that the deed he
had received was for the wrong tract,
and that first executed was correct.
Upon the vendor refusing to correct the
mistake, it was held, the error being the
result of misapprehension on both sides,
the vendor, on receiving back the title
he had made, would be compelled, in
equity, to convey the land really em
braced in the contract.(Opinion by
Lawrence, J.)Parker v. Benjamin, p.
255.
ABSTRACTS AND BRIEFS.
1. Necessity thereof.In this case, theplaintiff in error failed to comply with
the rules by filing an abstract or a print
ed brief, and the cause was dismissed on
account of such omission.(Opinion by
Walker, J.) Holden et al. v. Herkimer
el al., p. 258.
APPEALS.
2. And writs of error to inferior courts.
In the absence of statutory provision,
this court has no authority to hear writs
of error directed to inferior courts, or to
hear appeals from such courts.lb.
3. Of rerieiuing decisions of the common
pleas court of tlie city of Mattoon.So this
court has no jurisdiction to hear a writ
of error directed to the common pleas
court of the city of Mattoon, there being
no law authorizing causes to be brought
from that court to the supreme court, on
error or by appeal.lb,
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
How far the former is liabls for the un
authorized acts of the latter.Where a city
ordinance authorized the Mayor, by pro
clamation, to order all persons within the
city limits,to confine or securely muzzle
their dogs, and the city marshal to carry
into effect the provisions of the ordinance,
under the Mayor's proclamation, em
ployed an agent, directing him to destroy
all dogs found running at large and not
properly muzzled ; Md, the marshal
would not be liable for the wanton, will
ful or negligent act of such agent in kill
ing a dog not within the terms of the or
dinance and proclamation(Opinion by
Walker, J.)Pritcliard v. Reefer, p. 1 1 7.
Pcterbaugh's Practice.The second
edition of Judge Puterbaugh's Practice
is entirely exhausted. The Judge is now
engaged upon a third edition, which will
consist of two volumes instead of one.
The second was a great improvement
upon the first edition.
A jury was brought into court in order
that one of their number might be in
structed upon the following pointof law :
" If I believe that the evidence was one
way, and the other eleven believe dif
ferent, does that justify any other jury
man in knocking medown withachair?"
The judge answered in general terms.

Chicago

62

Legal

News.

JANES B. BRADWELL,
American Leading Cases. 2 Vols., - S15 0-)
Attorney.
Scrlbner on Dower. 2 Vols., - 15 00 administratrix'
real
estate.
Sergeant's Constitutional Law,
- 4 00
By virtu*1 of arf ordersale
ami of
decree
of the
County
Court
of
Cook
county.
Illinois,
made
on
Die
petition
of
Sliarswood's
Legal
Ethics.
2
00
Barber and Laekner. W West Lake street.
(IF
the
undersigned,
Dorothea
Ringlet),
formerly
Dorothea
Sharswood's
Law
Lectures,
1
50
Medelman,
administratrix
of
the
estate
of
Friedrich
Barker, J. C, 77 West Madison street.
Medelman,
deceased,
for leave toterm.
sell A.theD.real
estate
ot
Smith on the Law of contracts,
- 5 50 said
Bates &. Hodges, 113 West Madison street.
deceased,
:it the
December
1js71,
of said
Smith
on
the
Law
of
Landlord
and
Ten
court,
to
wit.
on
the
sixth
day
of
December,
A.
P.
Is71,
BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street.
T. & J. W, JOHNSON & CO.,
on Monday,
theat23dpublic
day ofsale,
January,
1S72,
ant,
1 00 atI shall,
11 o'eloek
a. ni\ sell
at the A.
east1>. door
Burgess, W. T., 185 W. Wahlngtou.
Smith
on
Real
and
Personal
Property,
4
50
of
theCourt
House,
on
ciurk
street,
in
the
city
of
Chi
OF
PHILADELPHIA,
PA.
Bonney, Fay & Griggs, 120 West Washington St.
in said Cook county, and State of Illinois, the
Spence's Equity Jurisdiction. 2 Vols..
- 10 00 cago,
Bentley, Bennett, UUmau & Ives, 37<> Wabash av.
real estate described as follows, to wit : the northeast
Sugden
on
Powers.
2
Vols.,
10
00
quarter
of the northeast quarter of section twentyBarker Waite, 10 East Harrison street.
(23), in township thirty-six (36), range thirteen
Starkie on Evidence. By Sharswood,
- 7 50 three
<
IX).
east
of the 3d P. M-. ill the town of Bremen, in
Brotise, 0. E., 400 Wabash avenue.
A full supply on hand and for sale by
Vattel's Law of Nations,
- 4 00 Cook county. State of Illinois, containing forty acres,
Brown & Riekerts, 114 West Madison.
on the following terms, to wit : cash ou delivery of the
Westlnke's
Private
International
Law,
2
50
Canniehael, D. L., S4o Prairie auenue.
deed.
DOROTHEA RINGLKB,
Medelman.)
- 3 00 Administratrix of(Formerly
Carter, Becker & Dale, 00 Canal, 350 Wabash av. CALLAOHAN COCKCROFT, Wharton's Conveyancing, the estateDorothea
of Friedrich
Medelman,
White's
Land
Laws
(of
Texas.
Mexico
and
deceased.
Chase, F. L., 38C Wuhash avenue.
10
IHI
J.\>ics
B.
BBADWKLl,
Att'v
for
Estate.
9-14
California'!.
2
Vols.,
Clarkson ,t Van Schaack, No. 4.">1 Wabash Ave.
AXD
6 00
Williams on Personal Property.
Condon, Wm. H., 34 Canal street.
JONES
&
GARDNER,
5 00
"Williams on Real Property. Dcane & Cahlll, room 7, Lind's Block.
Attorne'ys, lli-l West Madison St.
E. . M YERS,
2 00 rpitl'STEE'S
Wills on Circumstantial Evidence, SALE.Whereas,
the twenty-fifth
Dent & Black, 710 Wabash avenue.
JL
day of October.
I-iTo, Amos F, on
Tompkins
executed
::
00
Woolrych
on
Waters
and
Water
Courses,
Ewing & Leonard. 4S7 Wabash avenue.
to
the
undersigned,
ids
trust
deed
of
that
date, of the
CHICAGO, ILL.
And many other of the most valuable Law Books real estate hereinafter described, which was
recorded
Ellis, B. W., 115 West Madison street.
on tie-ofsixth
of Deroinber,
now in use and of authority, Catalogues of which, office
Felker, Win. S., 371 State street.
Cookday
county,
Illinois, in1170,
bookin.'i7.'<theofrecorder's
deeds, at
containing full particular.-, will be furnished upon page 171, which trust deed was given to secure two
Goudy A Chandler, 391 Wabash avenue, branch
promissory notes of said Tompkins, of even date with
f.-9 said
application.
office. 64 South Halsted street.
trust deed, payable to the order of Joseph Harris,
English Common Law Reports, from 1813
each for the sum of thirty-seven hundred and lifty dol
Harrison and Whitehead. 143 W. Madison street. to 1865. 110 Vols., $507 00
lars, with interest thereon at eight per cent, per an*
Hervey, Anthony & Gait, 356 Wabash avenue.
mini, payable semi-annually, said notes being payable
Index to Common Law Reports. 2 Vols., - 10 00
respectively
one and two
yearsofafter
date, andinbeing
Hopkins, Wm., 40 East Harrison.
English Exchequer Reports, from 1824 to
for part of thein purchase
money
the premises
saiil
trust
deed
described;
aud,
whereas,
default
has been
Herbert & Quick. 529 SUto street.
1865. 47 Vols.,
- ' - 188 00
made
in
the
payment
of
the
interest
due
on
said
notes
Hoyne, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michi Digest of Exchequer Reports.
for the six months ending ou the twenty-fifth day of
- 5 00
October, 1B71, aud in the payment of the note first due.
gan and Wabash avenues.
L AIW
BOOKS. except
The " Law Ketop.ts" from 1868 to the pres
the
sumsaidof note
four hundred
dollars,to apply
paid aud
Hoyne, Horton and Hoyne, 267 Michigan av.
dorsed
upon
as of its* date,
on en
the
ent time, comprising :
principal
of
said
note;
and,
whereas,
the
legal
bolder
Hitchcock, Dupee it Evarfcj, corner Wells and Queen's Bench Reports. 5 Vols., - 25 00
of
said
notes
has
requested
the
undersigned
to
make
Monroe streets.
sale of said real estate, as authorized by said trust
Common Pleas Reports. 5 Vols., - 25 00
deed, tois hereby
pay saidgiven,
notesthat
and interest
: Now.
therefore,
Howe & Russell. 475 Wabash avenue.
Exchequer Reports. 5 Vols., - - 25 00
notice
virtue
of the
Isham, Edward S., 554 Wabash avenue.
power and authority
given under
by saidand
trustby deed,
and
for
Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Reports. 2
the
purpose
of
paying
tile
notes
and
interest
aforesaid,
Iugersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
and on tfie thirteenth day of January, Is, 2, at ten
Vols.,
10 00
Jenkins, Robert F.., 18 East Harrison street.
in the forenoon of that day, ut the premises in
Probate and Divorce Reports. 1 Vol., - 5 00 Bourquin & Welsh o'clock
saiil trust deed described, (being also known as No. 447
King, Scott & I'ayson, 037 Wabash avenue.
Chancery Appeal Cases. 5 Vols., - 25 00
West
Washington
street.) in proceed
the citytoofsell,
Chicago.
In
Knickerbocker, J. C. and J. J. 163 W. Washington. Equity Cases. (Vice Chancellors';. 10 Vols., 50 00
the state toof the
Illinois.
atthepublic
auction,
highestI shall
cash bidder therefor,
said
Learning & Thompson, 109 West Randolph street. Any of the Reports of these several Courts can
real estate, (2<>i,
to wit:
the numbered
east half live
of (.">.
lot innumbered
LAW BOOKSELLEUS,
twenty-six
in block
Malcom
Leary, D. James, 159 West Madison.
be had separately.
McNeill's subdivision of blocks numbered six (fi),
Lyman & Jackson, 79 W. Madison street, room 3. These are the regular and authoritative Re
seven (7) and eight IS), in Wright's addition to Chica
go, in the city of Chicago, comity of Cook and state of
McClelland, Thos., S., 46 S. Canal, room 0.
ports of the Courts in England; they contain the
Illinois, and
Merriam, Alexander and BoLster, 149 W. Wash decisions in PERMANENT and reliable shape, as P UBLTSHERS & I3IPOR TERS, conveyed
to meallbvtheMaidright,
trusttitle,
deed.interest ill the same
Dated Dec. 7, 1(171, GEO. GARDNER, Trustee.
prepared by the Reporters of the Court, and in the
ington street.
Jones
aGAitnxr.n.
Aft'ys.
9-13
Miller, Frost & Lewis, 303 Michigan avenue.
form in which those decisions are incorporated
No.
431
Walnut
Street,
Moore & Caultield, 8. E. cor. State and Madison. into the body of English jurisprudence, cited by
Newcomb, G. W, 214 Warren avenue.
authors, and referred to by the Courts.
LAW BOOKS.
Norton, Jesse O,. 386 Wabash avenue.
Crabbe's District Court Reports. 1 Vol., - 6 50
J. IS. McDIVITT,
Nissen & Barnuni.126 W. Randolph, and 370 State Cranch's V. S. S. Court Reports. 9 Vols, in 8, 30 00
Pliiladelpliia.
Otis, E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Dallas
"
4 Vols. - 25 00
81 MSMI STREET, NEW YORK.
4-16
Paddock & Ide, 419 Wabash avenue.
Day's Connecticut Reports. 5 Vols.,
- 30 00
No Law Soots sold at Cost for the next six
Perkins, K.C.,479 Wabash av.,cor. F.ldridge court. East's King's Bench Iicjxirts. 10 Vols, in 8, 30 00
months.
Second-hand
Law Books Bought. Sold and Ex
Palmer, L. L., 481 Wabash avenue.
Harris & Mcllenry's Maryland Reports. 4
changed.
6-19
10 00
Pflrshing. Jos. 47 Peck C't, bet. Wabash and State Vols.,
DEANE & CAHILL,
Reynolds, Wm. C, 176 West Washington street. McNaghten's Select Cases in Chancery. 1 ,
Attorneys,
Lind's
Block.
2 50 CHANCERY NOTICE. State of Illinois, Cook
Rich & Thomas, 945 Michigan avenue, and 40$ Vol.,
County, ss, Superior Court of Cook county. DeMaddocks' Chancery Reports. 0 Vols.,
15 00 'mlier
Wabash avenue.
term. A. D |<71. Deano C. Galloway v. Rosa
THE CHICAGO
Roberts, R. Biddlc, room 7, 43 So. Canal.
5 50 alloway.
Parsons' Equity Cases. 1 Vol.
Affidavit ofIntheChancery.
non-residence of Rosa Galloway, de
Rorkc, M. A. & Son, 151 Halsted street.
Pennsylvania State Reports. By Barr &
fendant
above
named,
having
been
tiled
in
the
otflct
51 00 theic Clerk ofsaid
of said Superior Conrt
Court of crook
Cook county, no
i
Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, Masonic Building, S Joues. 12 Vols.,
tice is hereby given to the said Rosa Calloway that the LEGAL
NEWS
6 50 complainant
\V., cor. Randolph and Halsted and 350 Wabash av. Peters' Circuit Court Reports. 1 Vol.,
heretofore filed his hill of complaint in
Court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
and
that
a
Rawle's Pennsylvania S. C. Reports. 5 Vols., 40 00 said
Roys, C. D., 077 Wabash avenue.
COMPANY.
thereupon issued out of said Court against
Wallace, Jr.'s C. Court Reports. Vols. 2 and 3, 15 00 summons
Sawin & Wclis, 59 West Madison street.
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of De30 00 comber
next,
1M71.
as
Is
by
law
required.
Scammon, MoCagg and Fuller, 389 Wabash av. Washington's C. Court Reports. 4 Vols.,
Now, unless
the said
Wharton's Pennsylvania S. Court Reports.
Scoville. George, 30 South Clinton street.
sonally
be andyou.
appear
beforeRosa
saidGallowav
Superiorshall
Courtperof PRINTIISTG OFFICE,
'ook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
48 00 Jholden
Sheldon & Waterman, 300 Michigan avenue
6 Vols.,
at Chicago, in said county, on the first Mon
15 North Jeffep.son Street ;
55 00 day of December,
Bacon's Abridgement. 10 Vols.,
Sherman, E. B., 153 W. Madison.
1.-71. and plead, answer or demur to
the said
complainant's
bill
of
com
plaint,
the
same,
and
2 50 the
Sleeper .v. Whlton, 441 Wabash avenue.
Appleton on Evidence,
matters
and thingsand
tliera indecree
charged
and against
stated, will
7 50 be taken
Small and Ingalls, 481 Wabash avenue.
Adams' Doctrine of Equity, as confessed,
entered
you Business Office, 115 Teat Madison Street,
of said bill
5 60 according to the prayer
Snowliook *fc Gray, 85 W. Monroe St., cor. JeQ'er- Bateman's Commercial Ijnv, APG I'STrs JACOBSON, Clerk.
CHICAGO.
1 50 Dunk Cahill, Compl't's
Beaumont on Bills of Sale,
son.
Sol'r.
y-I2
7 50
Broom's Legal Maxims,
Story and King, 1 19 West Washington street.
SMALL & INGALLS,
Browne's Civil and Admiralty Law. 2 Vols., 8 00
Tenny, McClellan & Tenny, 454 Wabash ave.
Attorneys.
1 50 ftHANCERY NOTICE.State
Bucknell on Criminal Lunacy,
Thomas, Sidney, 95 East Harrison street.
of Illinois. County of
BOOK AND JOB
8 00
Cook, ss. Circuit Court of Cook County. FebruBunyon on Life Assurance. Van Buren, E. & A., 194 West Madison street.
ary Term, A. D. IS72. Charles
Fargo,
Mary
J*
2 50 and
Burlemaqui's Natural and Politic Law,
Vallette, H. F., 59 West Madison street.
O'Connor. John
Henry S. Monroe Marv I.. Korsytbe,
Byles on Bills and Notes. By Judge SharsPatrick
O'Connor, Jeremiah O'Connor ihn
Waterman, A. N., 135 West Monroe street.
O'Connor and Davis
I'.
II.
Smith
aud
Mary
White, Hugh A., 165 West Washington street.
wood, ------ 6 50 O'Neil,
In
Chancery.
J.
Crocker,
administrators,
ec
of the non-residence of John O'Connor, one
1 00 ofAffidavit
Whiteliouse, Wm. F., 188 West Mudison, late Tri Chitty on Carriers. American Notes,
defendants above named, having been filed in
Collier on Mines,

1 50 thethe
une building.
office of the Clerk of said Circuit Court of Cook
is hereby ^iven
to the said
Curtis' Commentaries. U. S. Courts,
t 50 county,
Williams & Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
Particular attention given to all kindvof
nor thatnotice
the complainants
heretofore
filedJohn
theirO'Con
bill of
S 60 complaint
Ellis on Life and Fire Insurance,
Walker, Dexter & Smith, 792 Wabash avenue.
in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
that a summons tbereupou issued outof said conrt LECtAL PRIIVTIIVG :
400 and
Fisher on Mortgages and Priority, Wilson. Perry 4 Sturges, 47!) Wabash avenue.
gainst said defendants, returnable on the third Mou... 4 50 da'v
Windett, Arthur W., 562 Wabash ave.. and room Flanders on Shipping,
of February
1S721.John
as is O'Connor,
by law required.
Now,
unless you,next
the
shall per
-' j( said
i
Fry
on
Specific
Performance
of
Contracts,
5
00
6 Lind's Block.
mcLiDQre
sonally
be
and
appear
before
said
Circuit Court of
a
apL
Grant on Banking,
...
- 3 50
k county, on the first day of a term tthereof, to bo
Waughop, J. W., 401 Wabash avenue.
-widen
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
third
Mon
Attorneys'
Abstracts,
Hill on Trustees. American Notes by Bispday of February. 1S7L'. aud plead, answer or demur to
ham, ------ 7 50 the said complainants' bill of complaint, the sauie. and
Briefs and Dockets,
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
matters and things therein charged and stated,
7 50 the
Milliard on Sales. 3d Edition,
bo tAken as confessed, and a decree entered against
Booh, Pamphlets and Reports.
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
1 50 will
Jones on Land Office Titles in Penn.,
you according to the
prayer
of
said
bill.
T. GASSETTE, Clerk. Orders for this description of work will be execut
150 Small & Ingalls,NORMAN
Western Union Telegraph Office, 5.51 II'abash Ave. Kelly ou Usury, Compl'ts'
Sol'rs.
9-12
2 50
Kerr on Actions ut Ijtw,
ed promptly in the neatest style of the art.
Law Library. A Collection of Valuable Ele
THEO. SCHTNTZ,
Scale of Advertising Rates.
Attorney, 122 West Randolph St.
mentary Treatises on almost every branch
Decrees, Orders,
state
august
of the Law. 31 Vols.,
- 93 00 I
Notice isokhereby
givenschiller.
toall personsdeceased.having claims
Space. ; 1 w. , 2 w.| 3 w. j lm. | 3m. | 6m. J 1 y. Lew
E
Mortgages, Deeds, Leases,
against the
estate
of August Schiller, nod
in on Trusts and Trustees,
5 50 aud demands
for adjudication
1 sq .' $1.00|8L75.S2.50!S3.25 ^JoToO, S15.00! 330.00 Lindlcy ou Partnership,
- 6 50 ceased,
incut uttoa present
regular the
termsame
of the
County Conrtandofs<i t ook
Checks, Xotex, Drafts, Bonds,
county, to he holden at the Court House, in the ci >' of
2.00 : 3.50 1 4.75 0.ii 15.75 30.00 ! 59.00 LiniUey's Introduction to the Study of Jur
,'beChicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
March,
A.
D.
187!
Cards, Labels, Letter Headings,
2 sq
isprudence, - 3 00 ing tile Ith dav thereof.
23.00', 44.00 87.00 Macnainarru on Nullities, SCHILLER, Administratrix.
2.80' 5.00 t;.5o
- 1 50 I Tiiko.MAGDELENA
3 sq
Bills of Lading, Bill Heads,
Schintz,
Attorney.
- 3 00 Chicago,
December;*,
A. D. IS71.
9-Ha
7.001 9.50 I12.001 30.00 59.00 ! 110.00 Mayue on Damages, >A col...
Insurance Policies, Circulars,
Moore on Abstracts of Titles, - 1 50 I.1STATE OF PHILIP F. W. PECK, DECEASED.
i^col....j 7.001 11.50 17.25|22.00 58.00, 108.001 210.00 Norman on Patents, Receipts, Hand-bills, etc., etc.,
- 2 50 J Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
demands against the estate of Philip F. \V. Peck,
Jurisprudence of Medicine, - 4 00 and
Icol '12.00)22.00 [31.001 42.00; 108.00, 210.00| 350.00 Ordronaux's
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
and
set
Printed upon the shortest notice.
Parsons on Wills,
- 1 50 tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
Ten lines of Agate make a Square.
to be holden at the court house in he city of
Advertisements must be iiid for in advance, Phillimore's International Law. 3 Vols., - 11 00 county,
Chicago,
ou
the
first
Monday
of
January,
A.D.
1372,
THO-Mao L. MclNTOSH. lote head o! iae Book
- 3 00 being the first day thereof^ ^^ t ^ ^
and when not so paid, 50 per cent, will be added. Powell on Evidence and Damages, and Newspaper departmc -i .^Reside lrmi
Legal Notices not included in the above.
P.oscoe's Criminal Evidence, - 7 50
FERD.
W.
PECK,
ing
is the superintendent of our rra
Leading Cases. 3 Vols.,
- 12 00
Administrators. ing Company,
Printed at the Chicago Legal News Press, 15 Rose
Department.
Chicago,
November
17,
A.D.
1371.
u-lla
Smith's
Leading
Cases.
3
Vols.,
19
50
North Jefferson street, Chicago.
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.

LAW PUBLICATIONS

Chicago
BANKRUPTCY XOTTCES.
ROBERT E. JENKINS.
Attorney, 18 East Harrison St.
in States,
thk for
district
courtDistrict
of the
united
the Northern
of Illinois.In
Bankruptcy. In the matter of Daniels. Hoffron. bank
rupt.
Notice ofis hereby
given that
a third
and tinal
eral meeting
the creditors
of said
bankrupt
willgenbe
heldatonNo.tht-is86th
of December,
at 2City
o clock,
m..
Ea.tdayHarrison
street, 1871,
in the
of Chip.
cago, before H. N.Hiuhark, Esq., Register, for the pur
poses named in the 2*th section of the Hankrupt Act of
March 2, 1867.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Assignee of said Bankrupt's Estate.
Chicago, Nov. 2\ 1871.
N. B.In the late tire all Proofs of Debt in the hands
cf the Assignee and Register in Bankruptcy were de
stroyed. It will be necessary for each Creditor to
make
anotherin the
proof.
you another
have already
one dividend
aboveIf case,
Proof received
will not
be required, a* the Assignee has preserved all dividend
orders, which show the claims allowed.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
^ 8-9
Assignee of said Estate.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
States, for the Northern District of Illinois.In
Bankruptcy. In the matter of Daniel S. Heffron,
Bankrupt. This is to give notice that I have filed my
linal
accounts
as assignee
the and
cstatothatofonDaniel
Heffron,
Bankrupt,
in said ofCourt,
the 2i>thS,
day of December, 1871. I shall apply to said Court for
the settlement of my said accounts and for a discharge
from all liability as assignee of said estate, in accord
ance with tho provisions ofthe 28thsection of the Bank
rupt Act of March 2d, 1867.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Assignee of said Estate.
Chicago, Nov. 25th, 1871.
8-9
VTOTICB IN BANKRUPTCY.-THIS IS TO GIYE
notice that on the 25th day of November, A. D.
1871, a warrant in bankruptcy w as issued against the
estate
of Orrin
Smith,
Jr., of Chicago,
county
of Cook,
and State
of Illinois,
who has in
beentheadjudged
abankrupt.on his own petition; that the payment ofany
debts,
andtodelivery
belonging
such
bankrupt
him, orofforany
his property
use, and the
transfertoofany
property
by
him,
are
forbidden
by
law;
that
a
meet
ing of the creditors of said bankrupt, to prove their
debts, and to choose one or more assignees of his es
tate, will be held at a Court of Bankruptcy, to be
holden at No. 18 East Hnrrison street, Chicago, before
Homer N. Hibbard, Esy., Register, on tho 2sth day of
December, A. D. 1871,1, at 10J o'clock a. m.
H. CAMPBELL,
U. S.B.Marshal,
Messenger.
8-10
DRISCOLL & PFIRSHING,
Attorneys, 47 Peck Court.
CHANCERY
Illinois.County.
County Toof
Cook, ss. NOTICE.State
Superior Court ofof Cook
December Term, A. I>. 1871. Lawrence Dreilmg v.
Theresa Drviling.In Chancery'.
Affidavit that Theresa Dreiliug, defendant, on duo
Inquiry cannot be found. aVove named, having been
filed
the office
of the
Clerk of
saidtoSuperior
of
Cookincounty,
notice
is hereby
given
tht- said Court
Theresa
Dreiliug that the complainant heretofore filed his bill
of complaint in said court, on the chancery side there
of, audagainst
that a summons
thereupon
issued out
of first
said
Court
said defendant,
returnable
on the
Monday of December next, 1*71. as is by law required.
Now. unless
the snid
Theresa
sonally
be andyou,
appear
before
said Dreiliug,
Superior shall
Courtperof
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to bo
holden at Chicago, In said count>, on tho first Mondny
of December, 1*71, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and tho
mattersas and
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
willyou
be
taken
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON,
Driscolt, A Pfirsiuno.
Oompl'tV
Sol'rs. Clerk.
S-llp
BONNEY, FAY & GRIGGS,
Attorneys, 120 AV. Washington St.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois, Cook County, ss. Circuit Court
of
Cook County'.
January Term. A. D. 1*72. Samuel
S. White
v. c. B. Stoddard.
Public
notice
is
givenissued
to the out
saidofC.the
B. Stod
dard that a writ of hereby
attachment
office
of
the
Clerk
of
the
Circuit
Court
of
Cook
connty,
dated
the third day of November, A. D. 1*71. at the suit of
the
said Samuel S. White, and against the estate of C. B.
Stoddard, for the sum of four hundred and eighty-tour
12-100
dollars,
directed
to
the
Sheriff
of
Cook
county,
which said writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you. the said C. B. Stoddard,
shall personally be and appear before the said Circuit
Court of Cook county, on or before the first day of the
next term thereof, to bo holden at the Court House, In
the
of give
Chicago,
on bail
the and
thirdplead
Monday
January,
A. D.city1*72,
special
to theofsaid
plain
tiffs
action,
judgment
will
be
entered
against
yon, and
in favor of the said Samuel S. White, and so much
of
the
maybebesold
sufficient
to satisfy
the
saidproperty
judgmentattached
and costsitswill
to satisfy
the same.
NORMAN
T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Bonxey. Fay Sl Griggs,
Attorney!
s-11
CLARKSON & VAN SCHAACK,
154 Wabash Avenue.
publication
in attachment.State of Illinois,notice
Cook County,
ss. Circuit Court
of Cook countv, December term, A. D., 1*71. .Matthew
C. Wilbur v. fl. E. Brown.
Public notice is hereby given to the said II.E. Brown
that a writ of attachment issued out of the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, dated the
twenty-ninth
day of C.November,
A. D..
1*7], atthetheestate
suit
of
the said Matthew
Wilbur and
against
of H. E. Brown, for the Bum of two hundred and thir
ty-three ninety-one one-hundreth dollars, directed to
theSheriffof Cook county, which said writ has been
returned
executed.unless you, the said H. E. Brown,
Now, therefore,
shall
personally
be andonappear
before(liethefirstsaid
Court of Cook county,
or before
dayCircuit
of the
next term thereof, to be holden ot the Court House, In
thecity of Chicago, on the third Monday of December,
A.D., 1*71, give special bail and plead to the said plain
tiff's action, judgment will be entered against you. and
in favor of the snid Matthew C. Wilbur, and so much
of the
attached
as may
to satisfy
the
saidproperty
judgment
and costs
will bebesufficient
sold to satisfv
the
same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Ci.arkson k Van Schaack, Attorneys.
8-11
BROWN & RICKETT6,
Attorneys, 114 Madison Street.
/CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county o
\j Cook, bs. Superior Court of Cook county. To De
Charles Zircher
v. Emelia Zircher.
cember Terni, 1*71. C"
"
In
Chancery.
Affidavit
of the non-residence of Emelia Zircher, de
fendant
named,
having
beenoffiled
officenoof
the Clerkabove
of said
Superior
Court
Cookin the
county,
tice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
Emelia
Zircher
that
complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaintthe
in
said
Court,thereupon
on the Chancery
sideofthereof,
and against
that a
summons
issued out
said Court
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of De
cember next, (1*71), as is by law required.
Now, unless
the said
Emelia
sonally
be, andyou,
appear
before
saidZircher.
Superiorshall
Courtperof
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,
in said
county^
on or
thedemur
first Monday
of
December,
1*71. and
plead,
answer
to tho
said
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
same,
matters ami things therein charged and stated, and
willthe
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered agaiut you
according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Brown ARkketts CompPts Sol'rs.
7-10

Legal

EDWIN GREENE,
Attorney, 45 Hubbard Court.
publication notice in attachment
Statecounty,
of Illinois.
Cook Term,
county,A.m.D. 1*71.
CircuitWilliam
Court
of Cook
November
E. Eastman v. Willis P. Collins, Jr., and Mary E.
Collins,
Public notice is hereby given to the said Willis P.
Collins,
Jr., and
Mary
Collins,
a writofofthe
attach
ment issued
out of
tho E.office
of thethatClerk
Cir
cuit Court ot Cook county, dated tho thirlv-tirst day
of
October,
A.
D.
1*71,
at
the
suit
of
the
said
William
E. Eastman, and against the estate of Willis P. Col
lins. Jr.,
Mary E. Collins,
for the sum of Jive hun
dred
andand
ninety-one
4<Mnt> dollars,
directed to tho
Sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been re
turned executed.
thepersonally
said WillisbeP. and
Collins,
Jr.,Now,
andtherefore,
-Mary E. unless
Collins,you,
shall
ap
pear
before
the
said
Circuit
Court
of
Cook
county,
or before the first day of the next term thereof, to on
bo
holden
the Court
House. In tho
cityIS71.
of Chicago,
on
the
thirdatMonday
of December,
A. 1).
give special
bail be
andentered
plead toagainst
the saidyou,
plaintiff's
will
and in action,
favor ofjudgment
the said
William
E.
Eastman,
aud
so
much
thesaid
property
attached as may bo sufficient to Satisfyofthe
judg
ment and costs will be sold to satisfv the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Edwin Greexe, Attorney.
7-10p
SPAFFORD, McDAID & WILSON,
77 W. Madison.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-Stato of Illinois, county of
Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook county, To the
December Term, A. D. 1871. Scimry C.Lewis v. Fran
cisAffidavit
S. Lewis.In
of the Chancery.
non-residence of Francis S. Lewis,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of
the
Clerk
of
said
of CookS.county,
notice is hereby givenSuperior
to the Court
said Francis
Lewis
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plaint in said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
against
said defendant,
on thoby first
of December
next (1871),returnable
as is required
law.Monday
Now, unless you, tho said Francis S. Lewis, shall
personally
be and the
appear
of Cook county,<on
first before
day ofasaid
termSuperior
thereof,Court
to be
holden at Chicago, In said county, on the first Monday
of December, 1871, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer
of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON. Clerk.
Sr-AFFOBD. McDaid it Wilson. CompPt's Sol'rs. 7-10
C. H. HARRIS,
Attorney, Monroe Street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of
Cook, ss. Circuit Court ofCook county, February
term, A. 1). 1S72. Alice Simons v. Edward Simons.
In
Chancery.
' Affidavid of the non-residence of Edward Simons,
defendant
named,
having
filed incounty,
the office
of tho Clerkabove
of said
Circuit
Courtbeen
of Cook
no
tice is hereby given to the said Edward Simons that
complainant heretofore filed her certain bill of com
plaint
said Court,
on the chancery
sideofthereof,
and
that a insummons
thereupon
issued out
said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the third Mon
day of February next (1*72), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Edward Simons, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit Court of
Cook
on theinfirst
of a term
to bo
holdencountv,
at Chicago,
saidday
county,
on thethereof,
third Mon
day
of February.
1872; and
answer orthe
demur
to
the said
complainant'bill plead,
of complaint,
same,
and the matters and things therein chargedaud stated,
will
taken astoconfessed,
andofa said
decree
you beaccording
the prayer
bill.entered against
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
C. M. Harris-. Sol'r.
7-10p
SMITH & KOHLSAAT,
Attorneys', No, 02 South Canal St.
"tikstate of cornelius f. backus, deXj ceased.Notice is hereby given to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate of Cor
nelius F. Backus deceased; to present tho same for
adjudication and settlement at a regular term of the
County Court of Cook county, to he holden at the
Courtof House,
in the
of Chicago,
the day
first there
Mondav
Februarv,
A. city
I>. 1>72,
being theontilth
of.
'
EMILY BACKUS.
.Chicago, Nov. 24th, A. 1>. 1*71. Administratrix.
^mitk & Kohlsaat. Attorneys.
7-12
J. C. & J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
Attorneys, 163 West Washington, St.
estateof
mary
annicavanaghjdeceased
Public notice
ishereby
given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Mary Ann
Cavanagh,
deceased,
to
present
theterm
sameoffortheadjudica
tion and settlement at a regular
County
Court
of
Cook
County,
to
be
holden
at Monday
the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first
of
February, A.D. bV72, being the Mb day thereof.
JOHN CORBETT,
J. C. & J. J. Knickerbocker.
Administrator.
Attorneys for Estate.
6-11
JAMES FELCH,
Attorney,
pHANCERY NOTH'E. -State or Illinois, Cook
V' Comity, ss. Superior Court of Cook County. Jannary term, A. D., 1872, Albert Hankins v. Mary nunkins.
Affidavit
of the
non-residence
of Mary
de
fendant
above
named,
having been
tiled Hankins,
in the office
of the Clerk of soid Superior Court of Cook County,
notice is hereby given to the said Mary Hankins that
the
complainant
heretofore
bill of and
complaint
in said
court, on the
chanceryfiledsidehisthereof,
that a
summons thereupon issued out of snid court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Jan
uary next. 1>72, as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Mary Hankins, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of
Cook County, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,
saidplead,
county,
on theorfirst
Monto
day of January,
1872,inand
answer
demur
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same,
aud
the
matters
and things
therein
and stated,
will
be vou
taken
and
confessed,
andcharged
aof decree
against
according
to the praver
said bill.entered
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
James Felch, Compl't's Sol'r.
8-11
BURKE & ALLEN,
18 W. Randolph Street.
pHANCEKY NOTICE. -State of Illinois, Cook
Ku, County, ss. Superior Court of Cook County to
January term. A. D.. 1872. Sfu-at. .:. Bnrdick v. Mil
tonAffidavit
P. Bnrdick.
Chancn ry.
of the In
non-resi
nej of Millon P. Burdick,
defendant above named I n* ing been filed in tho office
of the clerk of said Sop nor Court of Cook countv,
notice is hereby given t -the said Milton P. Burdick
that tli*' complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in soid court, mi tho chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
against said defendant, returnable on tho first Mon
day of January next. 1X72. ns is by law required.
Now. unless you, the said Milton 1*-. Burdick shall
personally be and appear before said Superior Court
of
on thekfirst
ot aonterm
be Cook
holdencounty,
at Chicago,
paid day
county,
tho thereof,
first Monto
day of January, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill ot complaint, the same, RTi-.i
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will
be taken astoconfessed,
decree
you according
the praverandof asaid
bill.entered against
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Ci?rk,
Burke & Allen, Compl't's Sol'rs.
fc-ll |

News.

JOHN WOODBRIDGE,
High School Building, Monroe St.
publication
in attachment.State of Illinois,notice
Cook connty.
ss. Circuit Court
of Cook County, NovciiiIht Term, A.D. 1671. William
P. Dickinson, William Dickinson, and Alfred Smith
.William H. Fitch, Jr.
Public notice is hereby given to the paid William H.
Fitch,
a writ
attachment
outcounty,
of tho
office ofJr.,t hethat
Clerk
of theof Circuit
Courtissued
of Cook
dated the eighth day of November, A. D, 1871, at the
suit of the said William P. Dickinson. William Dick
inson and Alfred Smith, and against the estate of Wil
liam
H. Fitch,toJr.,theforSheriff
the sum
of three
hundred
dol
lars, directed
of Cook
county,
which said
writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said William II.
Fitch, Jr., shall personally bo and appear before the
said Circuit Court of Cook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of
December, A. D. 1871, give special bail, and plead to
the said plaintiff 's action, judgment will be entered
against you, and in favor of the said William P. Dick
inson, ofWilliam
Dickinson
andasAlfred
and so
much
the property
attached
may beSmith,
sufficient
to
satisfy the said judgment and costs will bo sold to
satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
John Woodbridge, Biff's Att'y.
7-10
RUNYAN, AVERY, LOOMIS & COMSTOCK,
Attorneys,
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook county. To De
cember Term, A.D. 1871. Ellen Gushing v. John Cush
ing,In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of John Cushing, de
fendant above named, having been filed in the office of
the isClerk
said Superior
Court
Cook county,
no
tice
herebyof given
to the snid
JohnofCushing
that the
complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint in
said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said Court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of De
cember
next (1871),
required.
Now, unless
you, astheis by
saidlawJohn
Cushing, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of
Cook
connty,
on
the
first
day
of
a
to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, onterm
the thereof,
first Monday
of December, 1871. ami plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters aud things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Ruxtan, Avery, Loomis
& Comstock,
7-10
CoinprCs Sol'rfl.
CHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
Illinois,
County
Cook,
ss. A.D.
Superior
of ofStevenson
Cook
county,
Deof
cember
term,
1871. court
George
vs. ToSarah
J. Stevenson.In Chancery.
Affidavit above
of thenamed,
non-residence
Sarnh
defendant
having ofbeen
filedJ.inStevenson,
the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Sarah J. Stevenson
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons
thereupon
issuedonout
court
gainst
said defendant,
returnable
the of
firstsaidMonday
of December next, (1871,) as is by law required.
Now, nnlets you, the said Sarah J. Stevenson, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county( on the fli t day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,
county,
on the
first Monday
of December,
1*71, inandsaid
plead,
answer
or demur
to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, aud the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON.
Rt xYAN, Avery, Loomis
&, Comstock,
Compl'CsClerk.
Sol'rs.
8-11
HIGH & TRUMAN,
Attorneys, No. 487 Wabash Avenue.
estate
eli given
m, skinner,
Notice of
is hereby
to all personsdeceased.having claims
and demands against the estate of Eli M. Skinner, de
ceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
set
tlement at a regular term of the County Courtund
of Cook
county, toonbo the
holden
the Courtof House,
in the
Chicago,
firstatMonday
February,
A.D.City1872,of
being the fifth day thereof.
BETSEY SKINNER.
JEREMIAH S. CLOUGH,
Chicago,
Nov.
21,
1871.
Executors.
High & Truman. Attorneys.
7-12u
JAMES B. BRADWELL ft A. H. LAWRENCE,
Attorneys.
instate
enoch
j Notice isofherehy
givenh.to allstein,
personsdeceased.having claims
and demands against the estate of Enoch H. Stein,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term ot the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago,
theday
firstthereof.
Monday of February, A. D. 1872,
being theonfifth
FANNIE
STEIN.
WM.
A. BUTTERS.
Administrators, with the will annexed.
James B. Buapwkll & A. II. Lawrence,
Altoraevs for Estate.
Chicago, Dec. 7, A. D. 1871.
9-14
D. E. K. STEWART,
Attorney, 181 AVest Madison Street,
testate of peter zoller, deceased.
Vj rublic notice is hereby given to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate of
Peter Zoller, deceased, to present the same for ad
judication and settlement at a regular term of the
Countv Court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first
Monday of January, A.D. 1872, being the fourth
day thereof.
ELLEN ZOLLER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Nov. 11, 1S71.
_
5-10p
BENTLEY, BENNET, ULLMAN & IVES,
Attorneys, No. 376 Wabash Aye.
publication notice in attachment.State of Illinois. Cook County, ss. Circuit Court
of Cook County. February Terra. A.D. 1872. Willard
B. Johnson vs. John Spykor and Harm Van Spykor.
Public notice is hereby given to the said John Spy
ker and Harm Van Spyker that a writ of attachment
issued out of the office of the clerk of tho Circuit court
of Cook county, dated the fii>t day of December, A,D.
1871. at tho suit of the said Willard B. Johnson, and
against the estate of John Spyker and Harm Van Spy
ker.
thoofsum
of four
hundred
dollars, from
with interest
seven
per cent,
per annum
July 15,
at theforrate
l*7h, directed to the sheriff of Cook county, which said
writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore^, unless you, the snid John Spyker
and Harm Van Spyker. shall personally be and appear
before the said Circuit court of Cook county, on or be
fore the first day of the next term thereof, to be holden
at the court house, in the city o. Chicago, on the third
Mondayto oftheFebruary,
A.D. 1872,
give.judgment
special bail
plead
said plaintiff's
action,
willand
be
entered against vou, ami in fovor of the said Willard
11. Johnson, and so much of the property attached as
ntav
sufficient
to satisfy
the said judgment and costs
will bebe sold
to satisfy
the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Bextley, Bexxet, Ullmax & Ives, Atty's.
y-12

63
JAMES FRAKE,
Attorney, 115 West Madison Street.
estate of william hurst, deceased.
Notice is hereby given to nil persons having
claims und demands against the estate of William
Hurst, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and H'tllement at a regular term of the Coun
ty Court of Cook county, to be holden ut the court
hou.se. In the city of Chicago, on the first Monday
of January, A.D. 1872, being the first dav thereof.
JOHN COMMACK, Executor.
Chicago. November 1), A.D. 1871.
James Frake, Att'y.
5-10
GILBERT & GARY,
Attorneys. 122 W. AVashington St.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois-, Cook
County, ss. Superior Court of Cook County,
December Term, A.D. 1871. George Straitenon v.
Edward G. Mason, Trustee,
Clark, and Annie
Maria Baker.In Chancery.
Affidavit of ;the non-residence of Annie Maria
Baker, defendant above named, having been filed
in the office of the Clerk of said Su]>erior Court of
Cook County, notice is hereby given to the said
Annie Maria Baker that the complainant hereto
fore filed his bill of complaint in said Court, on
the chancery side thereof, and that a sum
mons thereupon issued out of said Court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday ot
December next (1871), as Is by law required.
Now, unless vou, the said Annie Maria Baker,
shall personally be and appear before said Su
perior Court of Cook County, on the first day of a
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said coun
ty on the first Monday of December. 1871, and plead,
answer ordemur to the said complainant's bill of
complaint, the same, and the matters and things
therein charged and stated, will be taken as con
fessed, and a decree entered against you according
to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Gilbert & Gary Comp'ts Sol's.
6-9
NEWELL PRATT,
Attorney, 1124 "Wabash Avenue.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Countv of
Cook, 88. Superior Court of Cook County. Feb
ruary Term, A. D. 1872. Pet Buchanan v. Ann Bu
chanan.In
ChanceryAffidavit ofthe
non-residence of Ann Buchanan, tho
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook county,
notice
Is hereby given to thefiled
said hiAnn
that
the complainantheretofore
> billBuchanan,
of complaint
In said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of eaid Court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Feb
ruary next, (1872), as is by law required.
Now. unless you, tho said Ann Buchanan, shall per
sonally
before
county, beonand
theappear
first day
of a said
termSuperior
thereof, Court
to be ofCook
holden
at Chicago, in said county, on the firnt Monday of Feb
ruary,
1872,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
the
complainant's hill of complaint, the same, and said
tho
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
Augustus jacobson, cierk.
Newell Pratt, Comp'ts sol'r.
. 6-9
RAE MITCHELL,
Attorney, 14 South Clinton Street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county oi
Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook county. De
cember term, 1871. Rachel Mix v. Jameu B. Mix. In
Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residcnco of James B. Mix, de
fendant,
aboveof said
named,
having Court
been filed
in thecounty,
office
of tho clerk
Superior
of Cook
notice is hereby given to the said James B. Mix that
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
in said court,
on the chancery
andngainst
that a
summons
thereupon
issued outsideof thereof,
said court
said
defendant,
returnable
on
the
first
Monday
of
De
cember next. 1871, as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said James B. Mix. shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to bo
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of December,
1871, and
answer orthedemur
the>
said
complainant's
billplead,
of complaint,
same,to and
the matters and things therein chairged and stated,
will be taken a.* confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
Raf. MITCHELL. Comp'ts Sol'r.
C-9SIDNEY THOMAS,
Attorney. 95 Harrison St.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
\v Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county, To Jan
uary Term. A.D. 1872. Charles A. Huwley vs. Caroline
Hawley.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Caroline Hawley,
defendant
named,
havingcourt
been filed
in thecounty,
office
of the clerkabove
of said
Superior
of Cook
notice
is hereby given
to the said
that
the
complainant
heretofore
filedCaroline
bis bill ofHawley
complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon iwmed out of said court against
said
on required.
the first Monday of Jan
uarydefendant,
next, (ls"2.;returnable
as is by law
Now. unli'S* you, the said Caroline Hawley, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of January, ls72. and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters aud things therein charged and stated,
will be taken a* confessed, and a decree entered
against vou according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Sidney Thomas. Compl't's Sol'r.
0-1 2
H. C. BENNETT,
Attorneys, 133 AV. Madison St.
CCHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois.
of
J Cook, ss. Superior
court of Cook
county.County
To Jannary
Term.
A.D.
1872.
Ann
Marshall
v*.
William
Marshall.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of William Marshall,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said William Marshall
that
filedside
her thereof,
bill of com
and
plainttheincomplainant
sniti court, onheretofore
the chancery
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the flrstMonday
ofNow,
January
nextyou,
(1^72.)
i*J>yWilliam
law required.
unless
theassail
Marshall, shall
personally be and apper before said Snperior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to bo
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of
March, 1872, and
answer orthedemur
complainant's
bill plead,
of complaint,
same,to the
and said
the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken n* confessed, and a decree entered against yon
according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
H. C. Bennett, Compl't's Sol'r.
'.'-12
SAMUEL STRAUS,
Attorney, 502 Wabash Avenue.
estate of gottlieb seber. deceased.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Gottlieb Seher, de
ceased,
present tho
for adjudication
ment attoa regular
termsame
of the
County Courtandofsettle
Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicntro,
on
the
first
Monday
of
February,
A.
D.
1872,
being the Mb dav thereof.
ELISAHKTHA SEBER, Administratrix.
Samuel Stravs, Attorney.
Chicago, December 8, A. D. 1671.
9-Ha

64

Chicago

Legal

News.

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
NEW LAW BOOKS.
MARTIN' A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D .
AD VERTISEMENT.
554 Wabash avenue.
J. SEYBOLD, 497 Wabash avenue ; residence AMERICAN LEADING CASES.
F. 140 South Green street.
t Fifth Edition. Enlarged unci Improved.
Being Selsct Decwonti of American Court.", with Espe
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
STEVENS &HAYNES
cial Reference to Mercantile Law, with Notes.
SANFORD, E. Special attention given to Col
lections and ReaJ Estate.
14* The whole work has been thoroughly revised, and
Law Publishers,
largely increased by the introduction of several en
tirely new heads of practical interest, by
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
Hon. J. I. C. HARE, and JNO. WM. WALLACE, Esq.
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
HERNDON" & ORENDORF.
Office west side square. 27*
lu 2 Vols., octavo, of nearly 1,000
MINNEAPOLIS (MINN.) ATTORNEYS.
Among the many subjects treated of and fully illus AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS.
trated in this edition, are:
QHnil & URDWAY
Conveyances, Voluntary and Fraudulent.
No. 11 Centre Block. Nicollet st. 51-11* Slander
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
and Libel, including the Question of Mer
cantile Agencies.
1nfancy.
ST. LOUIS iMO.) ATTORNEYS.
Application of Payments.
LONDON.
Bills
Notes.
T
P.
COLBY,
Form,anil
Time
and Mode of communicating Notice of
J
Counselor-at-Law, St. Louis. Mo.
Dishonor.
Negotiability of Instruments, Including the subject
ALFRED PAXSON.
of
Coupon Bonds, _'tc.
Insurance Exchange Building.
Power of one Partner to bind the Firm.
,
Beal Estate held by a Commercial Partnership.
Appointment of and Termination of Powers of Wtiiis in all Classes of Literatnre
LOGANSPORT (IND.) ATTORNEYS.
Agent.
Principal and Factor.
JM. HOWARD,
Domicile.
SUPPLIED TO ORDER.
,
Attorney at Law.
5-16* Guaranty.
Antecedent Debt.
Discharge of Surety.
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
Revocation of Will;*.
License.
PEPPER. WILSON A MARTIN,
of other States.
Boom 2 Bank Building.
9-20* Judgment
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, atid
Abandonment.
Constructive
and Total
Lo,**.
IiifuiriiMe
Interest
and
Forfeiture
of
Policy,
etc.,
Orders Promptly Filled.
R. BIDDLE ROBERTS,
etc., etc.
Attorney, Room 7, 4:i S. Canal St.
In 3 Vols., octavo. Law Sheep. $15.00 .
ESTATE OF JOHN WEISHAAB, DEt'EASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
The Truttcm and Officer* of Public li
and demands against the estate of .lolin Weishaar, deceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
braries may rely upon the most
ment at a regular term of tiio County Court of Cook WALLACE Jrs., C. C. REPORTS, VOL, 3.
careful attention to tbelr
county, to be hoiden at the Court House, in the city of
l'oiuni[**lou.
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. I>. Is72, be
Cases in tho Circuit Court of the United States, for
ing the fourth day thereof.
tho Third Circuit (being Decisions of the lnte Judge
E. B. WEISITAAR.
K. BIDD1.E ROBERTS.
Grier, 1nM-<'<2j, reported by J.No. Wm. Wallace, Esu..,
By impoiiiug DIRECT from Engbxnd, a consider
Chicago, December .% A. D. 1871. Administralors.
9-ltp Vol.3. Price, S7..W.
able saving is effected, especially in the Customs duty,
JUST PUBLISHED BY
from which Public Institutions in the United Stales are
THE CHICAGO LEGAL NEWS.
T. & .J. W.Johnson & Co., exempt.
AS A MEDIUM FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE
Law Booksellers and Publishers,
LAWS, DECISIONS AND LEGAL NOTICES.
SUNDRY mistakes having been made
535
Chestnut-st., Philadelphia, Pa.
Since the fire but few of the Attorneys
by our Foreign and Colonial Correspond
9-12
in the city have access to the session
ents in addressing their letters, we beg
laws ; we therefore reprint the following
to notify that the members of our firm
Announcement.
relating to the Legal News. The char
are Henry G. Stevens and Kodert W.
ter of the Chicago Legal JCr.ws Com
The undersigned lias in preparation the third edi IIayj.es, the son and stepson of the late
pany passed the Legislature, and was ap tion of
Valentine Stevens, the eminent Law
proved by Governor Palmer on the 29th
Puterbaugh's Pleadings and Practice,
Publisher. Since our father's death we
day of February, 1869, from which we in two volumes.
have continued to carry on the business
VOL. I.
take the following :
of Law Publishers, Booksellers and Export
COMMON
LAW
PLEADINGS
AND
PRACTICE.
" Section 5. Any notice or advertise
Revised, corrected and enlnrged.
ers, at the above address.
ment required by law, or the order of
VOL. II
During his recent visits to the United
any court, to be published in any news
Pre- States and Canada, Robert W. Haynes
paper, shall be as good and valid if pub CHANCERV
pared
tm
thePLEADINGS
same general AND
plait usPRACTICE.
the Common Law
>ared
(
w

lished in the Chicago Legal News, as in A'ork.

secured many Friends and Correspond
any Newspaper, and the certificate ofthe P'Mrin. III., Dec. , 1ST!. D. PITERBAVUH.
ents; we are thus enabled to give refer
President or Secretary, under the seal of
ences of the highest character in most
A. B. BALDWIN,
said company, of the publication of any
Attorney, Room (>, Likd's Block.
notice or advertisement, shall be suffi estate
of the principal American cities.
of
john
b.
gallagher,
deceased.
cient evidence of the publication therein
Notice Is hereby given to all persons having claims
We have no connection whatever with
and demands ngaiimt the estate ot John B. Gallagher,
set forth."
deceased,attoapresent
same
for County
adjudication
set any other house of business, and to pre
The following sections are from a law tlement,
regularthoterm
ofthe
Court and
of Cook
to be hoiden at tho Court House, in the city of
of this State, approved on the 11th of county,
Chicago, on the first Monday of February, A. D., 1S72, vent delay and miscarriage, our Corre
March, 1809 :
being "theSARAH
fifth day thereof.
GALLAGHER, Administratrix. spondents abroad are respectfully re
* Section 2. All laws of this State, and A. B. Baldwin,A.Att'y.
quested to plainly address their letters
all decisions of the Supreme Court of II- Chicago, Nov. 27th, 1871.
K-13 9-14
to us as follows :
inois, printed in the Chicago Legal
J. C. & J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
News, shall be and the same are hereby
Attorneys, 168 W. Washington St.
declared to be prima facie evidence of the pHANCERY NOTICE.Statfl of Illinois, County of STEVENS & HAYNES,
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook enmity, February
existence and contents of such laws and V'
A.D. IStt. Evan Davis vs. Emilie Wllth and
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
decisions, in all places and before all Term,
Charles Wirth.In Chancery.
Affidavit
thatbethefound,
defendants
abovetiled
named
due
courts of law and equity in this State.
inquiry cannot
having been
in theonoffice
LONDON,
the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
"Section 3. Anv change in the form of
notice is hereby given to the said Entitle Wirth and
of said Chicago Legal News shall not Charles
M irth that the complainant heretofore filed
ENGLAND.
effect the legality of anv legal notice, ad his bill of conipluiaut in said court, on tho chancery
sidesaid
thereof,
and
that
a
summons
thereupon
issued
out
vertisement, or other thing published in of
court against said defendants, returnable on
said paper ; and said Chicago Legal the third Monday of February next, (H72,) as is by law
News is hereby declared to be a news required.
Now, unless you, the said Emilie Wirth and Charles Extract from " Repout of Jcltcs Rosenthal, Esq.,
Wirth, shall personally be and appear before said Cir
paper, within the meaning and intent of cuit
Librarian to the President and Member* of
courtto of
, on the
first county,
day of aonterm
chapter three of the Revised Statutes of thereof,
the Chicago Law Institvte." November, 1870.
be Cook
hoidencount)
at Chicago,
in said
the
third Monday of February', 1S72, and plead, answer or " To our collection of English Reports a valuable
this State."
(lemur to the said complainant's bill of complaint, the
same, Bin! the mutters and things therein charged and
has been made by the importation of a
stated, will be taken as eonfessed, and a decree entered addition
fill1 and well preserved set of the House of Lords
against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
VRDERS OF THE FEDERAL
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk. Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58
J, C. a* J. J. Knickkbiiockf.k. Compl't's Sol'rs. y-12
COURTS.
volumes.
SMALL & INGALLS,
IN REGARD TO THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICES
" English books were Imported directly free of
IN THE LEGAL NEWS.
Attorneys, 481 Wabash Ave.
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the
(
1IIANGERY
NOTICE.State
of
Illinois,
County
of
The following order was entered in the \j Cook. ss. Circuit court of Cook county, February firm of Steve.ns and Haynes in London, whose
term, A.D. 1872. Charles Forgo vs. Patrick O'Neil. diligence, promptness, and care In ailing our or
United States District Court for the Mary
L. O'Connor. -Mary O'Connor, John O'Connor ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
and
Jeremiah
Chancery.
Northern District of Illinois, on the 28th Affidavit
of O'Connor.In
the non-residence
of John O'Connor,
oue
of
the
defendants
above
named,
having been filed
of July last:
in tne office of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook
county, notice is hereby given to the said John O'Con
" Ordered, that hereafter notices of nor that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
sales or other proceedings in bankruptcy complaint
that a summonsthereupon ifumed out of saidcourt
Attorney, 113 West Madison St.
and admiralty cases pending in this and
against said defendants, returnable on the third Mon ESTATE
OF
FRIEDERICH MEDKLMAN.deceased.
of February
as is (bylVutin"]-,
law required.
court may be published in the Chicago dayNow,
Public notice is hereby given to all persons having
unless you,next,
the(1872.)
nt\\t] .John
hhall per claims
and
demands
the estate of Friedericb
said Circuit
Cook Vb-deluiau, deceased, against
Legal News with the same eifect as if sonally beonand
to present tho same for adjudica
the appear
first daybefore
of a term
thereof,court
to boofhoiden
published in either of the other papers county,
and settlement at a regular term of the County
at Chicago, in said county, on the third Monday of tion
court of Cook county, to be hoiden at the court house
Februarj , 1*72. and plead, answer or demur to the said in
designated by the rules and orders of complainant's
the city of Chicago, ou the lirst Monday of January,
bill therein
of complaint,
this court for the publication of notices." matters and things
being tbe lirst
day thereof.
chargedthe
andsame,
stated,and
willthe
be A.D. li>72,DOROTHEA
KINGI.KD.
formerly
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you
A similar ord'er was also entered in according to the prayer of said bill.
DOROTHEA MEDEL.MAN, Administratrix.
the Circuit Court in regard to notices in
Jamks
Ii.
Ahadwem.,
Att'y
for
Estate.
NoltMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
6-U
Small & Ixoalls, Compl't's Sol'rs.
''-12 Chicago, Nov. 1371.
that court.

ATTORNEYS.
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,.
A'o. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.
52*
GEORGE C. FRT,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
54 West Randolph Street, formerly 80 laSalle Street,
Chicago.
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
A'o. 118 West Madison Street, Chicago.
Special Attention Given to Probate Matters.
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
ESTATES SETTLED.
"Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die,
and not live."2 Kings xx. 1.
S. A. GOODWIN.
E. C I.ARNED.
H. S. TOWLg.
GOODWIN, LARNED & T0WLE,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
A'o. 494 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWAP.D O. MASON.
MATTOCKS & MASON,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
No. 523 Wabash Arenve. S. W. cor. Harmon Court,
Chicago, III.
W. H. WING,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Elgin, m.
Collections promptly attended to.
5-1G
BATES dr HOOVES.
Attorneys at Law, 13 W. Madison St.
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
CHARLES J. BISHOP,

Successor to J. Freeman Silke,

ACCOUNTANT AND EXPERT BOOK-KEEPER,
122 H". Washington St., Chicago, III. 7-18p
J. R.Carroll
HOWLETT,
Law.irk,
Co., Winaiit,
POLICE
MAGISTRATE
NOTARY
PUBLIC.
Has tho same jurisdiction asAM)
any Justice
of the
Peace.
Prompt attention given to collections and vemittnm'eH.
CET THE BEST.
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.
10.O0O Words and Ucaningsnot hi other Dictionaries.
3,000 EiiBraTlnK*. i.s lo Paget Quarto.
Price, t>12.
FROM VICE-PRESIDENT COLFAX.
South Bend, Inc., Oct. 28. 1871.
Messrs. g. and C. Merriam :
Dear Sirs,The hour I have just spent
looking through your latest edition of that remark
able work, Webster's Dictionary, has impressed
me more than ever before, with the debt of grati
tude we owe to Noah Webster, for having " de
spite a feeble constitution, and amidst obstacles
and toils, disappointments, infirmities and de
pressions," given thirty-live years of his life to the
enormous labors incident to its preparation.
Scarcely less valuable are the additions made to it
by the eminent writers who have so expanded the
text in Definitions and Illustrative Citations, as
well as in the Supplements of Synonyms, Phrases
in all the modern languages and their meaning,
Principles of Pronunciation, etc. While the pub
lishers, in the unsurpassed beauty of its typo
graphy, and the 3TO0 illustrations, which add so
much of attractiveness and instruction to its
pages, have nobly done their part towards the
completeness of this great work of our century.
Whenever I wish to ascertain exact definitions I
consult it, and that is quite often.
Yours truly,
SCHUYLER COLFAX.
A necessity for every intelligent family, stu
dent, teacher and professional man. What Libra
ry is complete without the best English Diction
ary?
ALSO.
Webster's National Pictorial Dictionary.
1010 Pagres Orlavo. 000 Engraviup.
Price $3.
The work is really a grin of a Dictionary, just
the thing for the mi11 ion.American Educational
Monthly.
Published by G. and C. MERRIAM, Springfield,
Mass.
Sold by all Booksellers.
LAW DEPARTMENT,
Chicago
University.
LECTURES
were resumed
in this institution on
Monday. Oct. SOth last, in the lecture room of
the Second liiiptist Church, corner of Monroe and
Morgan streets. All the old advantages obtained
by students in this law school are again offered.
For information address
JOHN A. HUNTER,
Law Dept.
1SS Sec.
W. Monroe
street, CI]icago.__
P. McHUGH,
,,
Attorney,
E. cob.JESKE.
Randolph
ESTATE
OF S.AUGUST
DKCKAShl>.-f "
tied
is hereby
giventhetoeBtate
all persons
having
"'
and
demands
against
of August
,w^'ttie.
ceased,
toa regular
present
the
same
for County
adjudication
ilu,'f
inent
at
term
ot
the
Court
oi
., .00k,
county, to be hoMen al the Court House, in the l>ll(,.
Chicatro. on the lirst Monday of March, A. V. u>'*t
ing theANDREW
tth day thereof.
. . ,-.
E.NZENBACKER. Admuus!"""1'
P.
McHvc.u,
Attorney.
tl wa
Chicago, December s. A. D. 1371.

Qhicago

Jegal

^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871. by the CHICAGO Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington,
Vol. IV.No. 10.

Cfje Courts,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
James R. Smith. Appellant, v. George Mason,
Assignee of Frederick P. Sawyer et al.
Appeal from the Supreme Oiurt of the Didrict of Co
lumbia.
BANKRUPTCYASSIGNEE CANNOT OBTAIN
POSSESION OF PROPERTY CLAIMED BY A
THIRD PERSON BY PETITION, IN A SUM
MARY MANNER.
1. Petition by Assignee fok Delivery of
Fund.That|in this case the appellant claimed
absolute title to the matter in controversy between
him and the assignee of the bankrupt's estate, and
that the assignee also claimed absolute title to the
same, and on petition in the District Court ob
tainedthe
an fund
order should
on the not
appellant
why
be paidtoto show
him ascause
such
assignee, and it is field that special provision is
made for the revision in the Circuit Court of con
troversies like the one in this case, and that such
causes cannot be commenced by u petition for a
rule to show cause as in this case, nor be deter
mined in a summary way by the District Court
sitting in bankruptcy without due process of law.
2. Powers ok District Coi ht.That most mat
ters and proceedings in bankruptcy may be heard
and adjudicated by the District Court in a sum
mary way without process as by a rule to show
cause, but that general clause in the first section
which is referred to as supporting the unlimited
scope of that power and jurisdiction must be con
sidered in connection with all the other provi
sions of the bankrupt act, as is expressly required
by the preceding clause of the same section, in
which it is enacted that the District Courts shall
hear and adjudicate upon all matters and pro
ceedings in bankruptcy according to the provi
sions of the bankrupt act ; that superadded to that
general clause, and as an exposition of the same,
b another and more im[H>rtant clause in which is
given a specific enumeration of the cases and con
troversies to which that general jurisdiction ex
tends, and that the enumeration does not include
suits at law or in equity which may or shall be
brought by the ossigneein bankruptcy against any
person claiming an adverse interest, or by such
person against such assignee touching any prop
erty or rights of property of said bankrupt trans
ferable to or vested in such assignee, and on the
contrary* tin.1 third clauso of the se_.'vi ^wtjsux
expressly enacts that Circuit Courts shall have
concurrent jurisdiction with the District Courts of
all such suits at law or in equity, provided such
suit at law or bill in equity shall be brought with
in two years from the time the cause of action ac
crued.
3. Concurrent Jirlsdktion.That concurrent
jurisdiction in such case* is vested in the Circuit
and District Courts, and cither party, where the
proceeding is correct, may remove the cause in a
proper case, when it has proceeded to a final judg
ment, into the Supreme Court ior re-examination,
as provided in other causes outside of the bank
rupt act Ed. Legal News.
Mr. Justice Clifford delivered the
-opinion of the court.
Jurisdiction, power and authority in
cases in bankruptcy, when the bankrupt
resides in this district, are conferred
upon, and vested in, the Supreme Court
of the district, to the same extent and
subject to the same rules, regulations and
restrictions as are enacted and prescribed
in respect to the jurisdiction, power and
authority of the district courts of the
United States, where the bankrupt re
sides in any one of the judicial districts
within the several States. (14 Stat, at
Large, 541.)
By the terms of the act establishing
the Supreme Court of the district the
court consists of four justices, any three
of whom may hold a general term, and
any one of them may hold a Circuit
Court or special term for the purposes
and under the conditions therein pre
scribed, or may hold a District Court of
the United States, in the same manner
and with the same powers and jurisdic
tion as are possessed and exercised by
the Federal District Courts within the
several States. (12 Stat, at Large, 763.)
Enough appears in the record to show
that one Frederick P. Sawyer, of the firm
of Sawyer, Risher & Hall, was adjudged
bankrupt by the Supreme Court of this
district sitting in bankruptcy, and that
George Mason, the appellee in this case,
was appointed assignee of his estate by
decree of the bankrupt court. He com
menced the proceeding in this case by
the petition exhibited in the transcript,
in which he represents that George Tay
lor, as agent of that firm, had collected
from the United States the sum of four
thousand seven hundred and forty-four
dollars and nineteen cents for the firm,
and that other funds due to the firm, it

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1871.

was expected, would soon come into his
hands ; that Risher & Hall, the other
two members of the firm, prior to the
bankruptcy of the senior partner, made
an assignment of the claim, from which
that amount was realized, to George E.
Biddle & Co., as collateral security for
the payment of a certain indebtedness
of their firm to the said assignees, which
indebtedness the petitioner believes has
been paid ; that the assignees of the
claim afterwards made an assignment of
their interest in the same to James K.
Smith, as collateral security for their in
debtedness to him, which, as the peti
tioner believes, has also been paid :
wherefore he prayed that the said George
Taylor might be restrained, from payin ;
out said money, or any other money
which might come into his hands be
longing to the same firm, pending the
petition, and that the respondent might
be required, to give bond for the safe
keeping of the money and for its pro
duction in court when ordered.
Such an order was issued, and the
party holding the money was enjoined
and required to give bond as prayed.
Subsequently the petitioner presented
another petition to the same court, in
WTiich he represented that James R.
Smith also claimed an interest in the
fund in question, and prayed that an or
der might be made requiring him to
show cause on a day therein named why
the fund should not be paid to the peti
tioner. Smith appeared and filed an
answer to the rule, to the effect follow
ing: (1.) That the court had no jurisdic
tion to proceed against him in that mode.
(2.) That the money enjoined came to
him by regular assignment for a valu
able consideration before the senior part
ner of the firm was adjudged bankrupt,
and that he was, and is, the bonia fide
owner of the claim. (3.) That neither
the assignee of the bankrupt's estate nor
his creditors have any right to any part
of said funds.
Before the hearing, the other partners
of the firm, to wit, Risher <fc Hall, inter
vened, and alleged that the money en
joined rightfully belonged to them and
not to the respondent in the rule, be
cause the assignment of the claim, as
they represented, was made by the senior
partner of their firm merely as a security
to the said assignees, to be applied by
them to the payment of the deDt due by
their firm to those assignees; that it was
expressly understood that if the assign
ors paid the debt before the claim was
collected from the United States the
claim should revert to them, the assign
ors; that they paid their entire debt to
those parties before the claim was al
lowed at the Treasury Department, and
that they, as the representatives of the
firm eince the bankruptcy of the senior
partner, are entitled to the money :
wherefore they pray that an order may
be passed directing the depositary to
pay the same to them, or, if it be paid to
the said assignees, that it be so paid to
their use.
Evidence was introduced by the inter
veners tending to show that the indebt
edness of the original owners of the
claim to the assignees of the same had
been paid, and that the respondent in
the rule held the claim merely as collat
eral security for his assignors. On the
other hand the respondent in the rule
was examined, and he testified that he
obtained the assignment of the claim in
good faith and for value, without notice
that his assignors held it subject to any
conditions, or that it was not their prop
erty in case the indebtedness of their as
signors was discharged before the claim
was collected. He produced the assign
ment duly executed by the original own
ers, directing the depositary to pay
the amount to the assignees when col
lected at the proper department, and al
so introduced the deposition of the sen
ior partner of the firm to which the claim
was assigned, and he deposed that his
firm transferred and assigned the same

to the respondent in the rule with the

knowledge and consent of the original
owners ; that they, the assignees, took
the order or draft" at its date in the reg
ular course of business, and that they as
signed the same for value to the respon
dent, and that the accounts of the origin
al owners with his firm have never been
settled, but that they are still largely in
debted to his firm. Hearing was had,
but the court was of the opinion that the
respondent took the order or draft mere
ly as collateral security ;that he was not
a bona Jide purchaser of the same ; that
he was to credit the proceeds when col
lected to his assignors, and that they
were to credit the same to the original
owners.
Pursuant to that finding the court en
tered a decretal order that the depositary
of the claim should pay the net balance
in his hands to the assignee in bank
ruptcy for the benefit of the creditors of
the original owners. Immediate appli
cation was made by the respondent for
an appeal to the general term, which was
granted on the following day. Due ap
pearance was entered not only by the
appellant but also by the intervenors as
well as by the assignee in bankruptcy,
and they" were again heard before all the
justices of the court ; and the court being
of opinion that there was error in the
decree and that the intervenors, as the
solvent partners of their firm, were en
titled to the money, entered a decree dis
solving the injunction and directing the
depositary of the money to pay the net
balance in his hands to those parties as
the survivors of the original owners of
the claim : whereupon the respondent
appealed to this court.
Instituted as the proceeding was to
restrain the depositary of the claim from
paying out the money which he had col
lected, or any which might thereafter
come into his hands, it is quite clear that
the alleged purpose of the petitioner was
accomplished when the injunction was
granted as prayed in the petition, as the
party respondent in that proceeding
never filed any answer and testified in
the case that the order restraining him
from paying out the money was procur
ed by him so that he might not be re
quired to act without the directions of
the court.
Had the matters terminated there the
appellant would not have had any right
of appeal to this court, as he was an ut
ter stranger to the proceedings. He was
not made a party to the petition nor
was he served| with process, not did he
voluntarily appear. Whatever the pur
pose of the petition was or by whomso
ever the ^injunction was procured, the
proceeding was commenced and termin
ated witho"t the knowledge of the ap
pellant and before any steps were taken
by the petitioner or any one else to con
nect the appellant with the litigation.
More than a year and a half before
that petition was filed the original own
ers of the claim had assigned and trans
ferred the same to the assignors of the
appellant, and had directed, in writing,
the depositary in whose hands they had
placed it for collection to pay the same
when collected to their said transferees,
and the' record shows that the deposita
ry of the claim accepted the draft or or
der at the time and agreed to pay the
same as directed whenever the same
should come into his hands, less expen
ses and commissions. None of these
facts are contradicted, and the appellant
proved that the assignees of the claim,
within a few days after receiving the
same, assigned and transferred the same
to him for full value in the usual course
of business.
Beyond all doubt, therefore, the case
is one where the appellant claimed abso
lute title to and dominion over the mat
ter in controversy between him and the
assignee of the bankrupt's estate. Abso
lute title to the matter in controversy is
also claimed by the assignee in bank
ruptcy, as appears by his second petition.

Whole No. 168.

in which he prayed that the appellant
might be summoned to show cause why
the fund should not lie paid to him as
such assignee.
Suggestion may be made that the de
cree gives the fund to the intervenors,
but the court will at present re-examine
the case as between the parties first
made in the second petition, before the
solvent members of the firm to which
the claim originally belonged were per
mitted to intervene in the litigation, as
it is quite obvious that the whole proceed
ing subsequent to their intervention is
irregular and that the decree must be
reversed if it be held that the bankrupt
court had no jurisdiction to proceed and
determine the right of property as be
tween the assignee and the transferee of
the same for value in that mode of pro
ceeding.
Neither the depositary of the fund nor
the appellant claimed anything from the
estate of the bankrupt, "and the appel
lant contends that the bankrupt court
cannot take jurisdiction in such a case by
a rule to show cause, served on a
stranger to come in and answer in sup
port of his title or claim to such a fund
or to any other property over which he
claims absolute dominion.
Power and jurisdiction in all matters
and proceedings in bankruptcy are con
ferred upon the district courts, and those
courts as courts of bankruptcy are au
thorized to hear and adjudicate upon the
same according to the provisions of the
bankrupt act. Examined separately the
clause of the first section of the act,
which provides that the powers and jur
isdiction therein granted and conferred
may be exercised as well in vacation as
in term time, and that a judge sitting in
chambers shall have the same powers
and jurisdiction as when sitting in court,
would seem to afford some support to
the views of the assignee in this case,
that all the powers and jurisdiction of
the district courts, when sitting as courts
in bankruptcy, may be exercised in a
summary way without process, as by a
rule to show cause, as in a motion to set
aside a verdict in an action at commou
law, or in a collateral proceeding in a
suit in equity.
Most matters and proceedings in bank
ruptcy may doubtless be heard and ad
judicated "by the district court in that
way; but that general clause in the first
section, which is referred to as support
ing the unlimited scope of that power
and jurisdiction, must be considered in
connection with all the other provisions
of the bankrupt act, as is expressly re
quired by the preceding clause of the
same section, in which it is enacted that
the district courts shall hear and adjudi
cate upon all matters and proceedings in
bankruptcy according to the provisions
of the bankrupt act.
Superadded to that general clause, and
as an exposition of the samel is another
and more important clause, in which is
given a specific enumeration of the cases
and controversies to which that general
jurisdiction extends, and it is plain that
the enumeration does not include "suits
at law or in equity which may or shall
be brought by the assignee in bank
ruptcy against any person claiming an
adverse interest, or by such person
against such assignee touching any prop
erty or rights of property of said bank
rupt transferable to or vested in such
assignee." On the contrary, the third
clause of the second section expressly
enacts that circuit courts shall have con
current jurisdiction with the district
courts ofall such suits at law or in equity,
provided the suit at law or bill in equity
shall be brought within two years from
the time the cause of action accrued.
(14 Stat, at Large, 518. Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 Wall., 75.)
Controversies, in order that they may
be cognizable either in the circuit or dis
trict court under that act, must have re
spect to some property or rights of
property of the bankrupt transferable to,

66
Commissioners of Highways refusing to lay out
or vested in, such assignee ; and the suit, essary, as it as clear as anything in legal lowing provision in regard to the exemp the
road, the supervisors to whom the appeal is
whether it be a suit at law or in equity, decision can be that the intervenors tion of property :
taken, if they undertake to lay out and establish
" Eighth. The necessary tools and im a public highway. must proceed in all things the
must be in the name of one of the two could not claim to divest the appellant
as Commissioners of Highways, and the Su
parties described in that clause and of his interest in the funds by becoming plements of any mechanic, miner or same
pervisors have no higher orjgreater authority than
against the other, as appears by the ex parties to a rule like the one before the other person, used and kept for the pur the
Commissioners irum whom they obtain juris
press words of the provision. Such a court, nor in any other manner than by pose of carrying on his trade or business, diction.
and PlatRoad order.It is not
suit, whether at law or inequity, may be due process of law.
and, in addition thereto stock in trade 2. Survey
by the statute that the Commissioners or
commenced either in the district or cir
Objection is also made that the appeal not exceeding four hundred dollars in required
Supervisors, when they undertake to lay out a
public highway, should incorporate into their or
cuit court, at the election of the party is irregular, us having been prosecuted value."
establishing the road the whole of the survey
suing, and if in the former it is clear that from the Supreme Court of the district,
Exemption laws founded upon the hu der
or's report of the survey to be made by him to
the case, when it has proceeded to final but the regulations of the forty-ninth mane policy of making provision for them,
or the plat accompanying the same ; nor is
judgment or decree, may be removed section of the act afford a satisfactory the support of the poor man and his it necessary the order should show that the sur
veyor
signed his report. The surveyor's report
into the circuit court for re-examination answer to that objection, which is all family are to be liberally rather than
plat arc separate pupers pertaining to the road,
by writ of error, if it was an action at that need be said upon the subject. Want strictly construed. They should receive and
to be tiled in the town clerk's office. It is only
law, or by appeal if it was a suit in of notice of the appeal comes too late such fair construction as will best pro necessary to incorporate into the order so much of
the survey as indicates clearly the courses and dis
equity, provided the debt or damages after a general appearance, but the record mote the beneficent intention of the leg tances
of the route of the road and the land over
claimed amount to more than five hun shows that the appeal was duly claimed, islature.
which it passes.
3. Requirements of thestatctf_In such pro
dred dollars and the writ of error is and that the appellant filed his appeal
In argument, the counsel for the as
a substantial compliance with the pro
seasonably sued out or the appeal is bond in open court, and that the same signee contends that the order under ceeding
ol the statute is all that is ever required.
claimed and the required notices are was duly approved by the chief justice review is erroneous. 1. Because Jones visions
4. Evidence.In this case the order offered in
given within ten days from the rendition who presided at the hearing when the was a merchant and not a mechanic or evidence adopted the survey and plat made by
which was sufficient so far as the
of the judgment or decree. (Knight v. final decree was entered in the cause.
person such as is contemplated by the the surveyor,
itself is concerned, and it being pertinent
Strangers to the proceedings in bank Kansas statute above quoted. 2. Be order
Cheney, 5 N. B. R., 309.)
to the issue made by the pleadings, no reason is
None of those regulations, however, ruptcy, not served with process, and who cause conceding that Jones was entitled perceived by the Court wb y the jury ought not to
been permitted to consider it with the other
apply to petitions for revision under the have not voluntarily appeared and be to the exemption, the right although have
in the case.
first clause of the second section, nor come parties to such a litigation, cannot claimed before the sale, not having been evidence
5. Former Decisions.The cases of Wells et al
does the bankrupt act fix any precise be compelled to come into court under a recognized by the assignee or established v. Hicks, 27 Ills. 343, and Town v. The Town of
29 Ills. 137, citedjand approved.Ed.
limitation to the right of a party ag petition for a rule to show cause, as in by the court, is waived or lost. 3. Be Blackberry,
News.
grieved by the ruling, decision, or de this case ; nor is the exercise of such a cause the mortgage upon the stock in Legal
The facts are sufficiently stated in the
cree of the district court to file a petition jurisdiction necessary, as the third clause trade destroys the right to the exemption opinion.
for that purpose in the circuit court. of the second section of the bankrupt not only as against the mortgagee, but
Crawford & Beck & L. B. Cbooker for
Power to revise all cases and questions act affords the assignee a convenient, the assignee.
which arise in the district courts, in such constitutional and sufficient remedy to
Neither of these positions is well Appellants.
Bull& Follett for Appellee.
a proceeding, "except when special pro contest every adverse claim made by any taken. Jones, as a practical workman,
Opinion by Scott, J.
vision is otherwise made," is conferred person to any property or rights of prop not selling goods as merchants usually do,
This was an action of trespass quart
upon the circuit courts by the first clause erty transferable to, or vested in, such but manufacturing them for customers
of the same section, but the court is of assignee.
upon special orders, under his own su claumtm freyit instituted by the appellee
the opinion that the power conferred by
Decree reversed and cause remanded perintendence, is fairly within the lan against the appellants for alleged tres
that clause does not extend to any case for further proceedings in conformity to guage and clearly within the purpose of passes in the removal by them of certain
the local exemption statute. That he did fences from the premises of the appellee.
where special provision for the revision the opinion of this court.
of the case is otherwise made, as where
not do all the work himself, but employ Among other pleas the appellants tiled
ed workmen, makes no difference. In one in which it was alleged that the lo
it is provided that an appeal will lie from
Through
the
kindness
of
H.
M.
Her|
the District Court to the Circuit Court, or
the reverse he has met, he has need of cus in quo was a public highway duly laid
man
of
the
Leavenworth
bar,
we
have
the provision which the law makes as out within five years according to the
where a writ of error will lie from the
much as if he had done business on a form of the statute, setting forth the pro
Circuit Court to the District Court in the received the following opinion :
manner provided in the laws of Congreas U. 8. CIRCUIT COURT D. OF KANSA S scale so small that he did all the work ceedings for a highway, and that the ap
pellants acting under t he order of the
with his own hands.
allowing appeals and writs of error.
November Term, 1871 .
As to the second position of the as highway commissioners of the town in
(5 Ibid, 310.)
In re Jones, a Bankrupt.
signee, I remark that the exemption to that behalf as their servants, had remov
Special provision is made for the revi
sion in the Circuit Court of controver BANKRUPT ACT EXEMPTIONLOCAL STAT the amount of $400 is a fixed and deter ed therefrom the fence of the appellee,
minate right, and not dependent upon wrongfully and unlawfully standing in
sies like the one exhibited in this record, UTE.
1. A merchant tailor, who is a practical work the discretion of the assignee or court. and across said highway, as they lawful
and the court is of the opinion that such man
and
who
cut
and
fitted
garments
for
customcauses cannot be commenced by a peti era and superintended their manufacture, is enti The assignee ought to have recognized ly might, doing no more damage than
tion for a rule to show cause, as in this tled as against the assignee in bankruptcy to have this right when it was claimed by the was necessary.
exempt goods to the value of four hundred dol bankrupt before the sale, and the right
Issue having been joined on this and
case, nor be determined in a summary lars
under the statute of Kansas in force in 1864.
other pleas filed in the cause, a trial
way by the District Court sitting in bank
2. This is a fixed and determined right given by may be asserted against the proceeds of the
ruptcy, without due process of law. (Ex statute, and is not dependent upon the discretion the goods in the hands of the court for was hud which resulted in a verdict in
favor of the appellee for five hundred
of the assignee, and where it is claimed by the distribution.
parte Bacon, 2 Molloy, 441.)
bankrupt before the sale of the goods by the as
As to the other point: the mortgagor dollars. The court overruled the motion
Cases of the kind before the court fall signee
and illegally refused, it may be asserted
for
a new trial entered on behalf of the
directly within the third clause of the against the proceed, of the goods while in the would, as against the mortgagee, waive
of the court for distribution.
defendants, and rendered judgment on
the
exemption,
but
not
as
against
the
as
section under consideration, and must, hands
The effect of a chattel mortgage on the stock signee if there should be a surplus be the verdict. To reverse this judgment
in the judgment of the court, be deter in3.trade
upon the right to an exemption and what
mined by a suit in equity or an action at property falls within the phrase ," stock in trade" yond the amount required to pay the the appellants now prosecute their ap
law, as the case may be; and where an us used in the local exemption statute, considered. mortgagee's debt. The proposition that peal.
It appears from the evidence that ia
Petition for review under the eecond section the mortgage absolutely destroyed the
action at law is the proper remedy, the
parties are entitled to a trial by jury if of the bankrupt act.Jones, the bankrupt, exemption seems to have been the very October, 1867, a proceeding under the
the value in controversy shall exceed is a practical tailor, and for many vears one that was relied on in the district statute was instituted to lay out a public
twenty dollars. Concurrent jurisdiction had been engaged at Leavenworth, in court. But the record here discloses the highway four rods wide over the premis
appellee in the town of Troy
in such cases, it must be conceded, is this State, as a merchant tailor. That is, facts appearing in the statement, and it es of the The
Commissioners of High
vested in the Circuit and District Courts, he kept a stock of cloths on hand for is suggested that (he Leavenworth goods Grove.
ways refused to lav out the road and in
and it is equally clear that either party, the purpose of manufacture and not for did not sell for enough to pay the mort dorsed
the petition an order to that
where the proceeding is correct, may re sale.' His stock embraced some furnish gage debt, and hence there is no surplus effect. on
appeal from said order of the
move the cause, in a proper case, when ing goods. Jones himself cut and fitted as to those goods, and the Omaha goods HighwayAnCommissioners
was taken in
it has proceeded to final judgment or garments and superintended the manu having been out of the State, where the due form by two of the petitioners
decree, into the Supreme Court for re facture in the rooms over the store, as bankrupt was domiciled, cannot be con three Supervisors of LaSalle county. to
examination, as provided in other cases well as attended in the room below where sidered as any part of his stock in trade
It further appears that in January,
the goods were kept and the customers within the meaning of the local exemp
outside of the bankrupt act.
1868, the three supervisors selected by
Possession and control of the claim waited on. The value of the stock in tion act.
clerk to hear and determine the
It is true that the two stocks were mix the town
had been surrendered by the original Leavenworth at the time Jones was
according to the provisions of the
owners long before the senior partner of thrown into bankruptcy, was about $1,- ed, and that it is impossible now to as appeal
statute in such cases, met and proceed
the firm was adjudged bankrupt, and the 800, on w:hich there existed a chattel certain how much each portion brought ed
hear and determine the appeal, and
depositary of the same had duly accept mortgage to secure a debt to one Eaves, at the side. It does not appear from the on to
the hearing they made an order re
ed the order or draft transferring the for $1,400, which debt has since been record before me whether the mortga versing
the order "of the Commissioners
proceeds of the same to the assignors of proved up before the register. At the gee is entitled to a lien on the proceeds of Highways
and attempted by virtue of
the appellant, showing that the assignee time proceedings in bankruptcy were for the amount of his debt or not. But their authority
under the statute to lay
in bankruptcy had neither the posses commenced against Jones, he had a aside from these considerations, which out a public highway
over antfacross the
sion nor the right of possession to the branch of hisbusiness at Omaha, Nebras would lead to an affirmance of the or
of the appellee.
same at the timethe petition for the rule ka. The goods at Omaha were worth der of his honor below, I am of the opin premises
At the same time they assessed the
about $2,000, were taken possession of ion that the Omaha stock having been
was filed.
that appellee would sustain by
Independent of the injunction, which by the assignee, brought to Leavenworth, brought into this State and mixed with damages
of the construction of a highway
was granted without notice to the appel mixed with the other goods, and by an the other, without any fault of the bank reason
over and across his premises at the sum
lant, he was apparently entitled, and if order of the district court sold, and the rupt, the two should be taken as togeth
dollars.
the evidence he introduced is believed, proceeds, $2,700, deposited in that court, er constituting the stock in trade of the ofItfifty
further
appears that in November,
he was in fact entitled, to demand and where the money yet remains for distri bankrupt within the meaning of the lo 1868, the Commissioners of Highway3
to receive the whole fund as his own bution to those entitled. The goods at cal exemption statute, and that out of caused a written notice to be served on
Omaha were free from lien or mortgage. this stock in trade he is entitled to claim the appellee notifying him of the order
property.
Suffice it to say. without expressing Before the assignee made sale of the and hold as exempt the amount of $400 thus made laying out the road across
any opinion as to tne weight of the evi goods the bankrupt applied to have set in value.
his premises, and requiring him to move
The order complained of is affirmed. his fences from within the bounds there
dence, the appellant claimed the fund as off to him as exempt under the bankrupt
Britton for the assignee.
his own property,wid if his claim is just act and the law of Kansas, goods to the
ofThe
within
days. having elapsed ana,
Sherry & Helm for the bankrupt.
and legal, the possession of the deposi value of $400, which the assignee refused
timesixty
specified
tary was his possession, and if the as to do. After the sale, the bankrupt filed
the appellee refusing or neglecting toao
signee in bankruptcy would divest him in the district court a petition setting SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. so, the Commissioners of Highways a of the possession and control of the fund forth the foregoing facts and praying Opinion Filed at Ottawa May 22, 1871. rected the pathmaster, one of the appel
he must do it bv a suit at law or in that the sum of $400 be paid to him from
lants, to remove the fence. Acting un
ct. al., Appellants, v. Peter Pit- der
equity, as provided in the third clause of the proceeds of the goods. An order was ACGUsrcs Towerstick,
the order of the pathmaster, as tney
Appellee.
the second section of the bankrupt act. made to this effect^ to revise which the
i the
AppctU from the County Court of Lamlle County.
sav, the appellants did remove
t fenEquity would certainly have jurisdiction assignee has filed in this court the pres HIGHWAYSPOWERS AND DUTIES OF OFFI ces
of the appellee, and these are w
in such a case, as in that mode of pro ent petitioin.
CERS IN ESTABLIKHING-l'KOCEEDINUS ON
complained
of.
, u^
i
APPEAL TO SUPEIU'ISORSCONSTRUCTION trespasses
ceeding all the parties could be brought Opinion of the Court by Dillon, J.
On the trial
in the courtbelow.tne
OF STATUTE EVIDENCE.
In 1864 the laws of the State of Kan
before the court.
fendants offered in evidence under u
1.
Powers
of
Supervisors
on
Appeal.Held
Extended remarks in respect to the sas, in wich the bankrupt has his dom- that in a proceeding under the statute to lay out a plea, the order of the supervisors mat
decree in the case appears to be unnec icil, contained and still contains the fol public highway, on appeal from the order of the

Chicago

Legal

2. Poweii of Clerk to Alter Record.That the

clerk has no more right to alter the record of a
judgment in vacation or in term time, without
the direction of the court, than any other person,
and if he should do so he would be as criminal as
if another person had committed the forgery.
3. Ji'KLsdi'TION of Equity.That fraud isoi:>.' of
the heads of original equity jurisdiction, and to
alter and change the record of a judgment by in
creasing the sum for which it was rendered, with
out authority or consent, is a gross fraud although
it may also be a crime.
4. Power ok Court over Judgment.That
under the statute the circuit judge at Chambers
might order a stay of proceedings under the exe
cution until a motion to quash it could be heard
at the next term, but it is not clear that the cir
cuit court could correct the judgment on motion,
and if it could it is more satisfactory and complete
to grant relief in equity.
5. Satisfaction ok Execution.That the levy
upon personal property is only prima fticie evi
dence of a satisfaction, and while a prior levy re
mains undisposed of it is irregular to issue an or
dinary^, /a. The process should be a venditioni
t'rponax with a fl. fa clause if desired.
6. Sheriffs Fees.The fees of the sheriff for
guarding, etc., considered exorbitant.Ed. Legal
News.
Opinion of the court by Walker, J.
This was a bill in equity, filed by ap
pellant in the St. Clair Circuit Court,
against appellees. It alleges that on the
29th day of October, 18(>8, James McCamant obtained a judgment in the Cir
cuit Court of St. Clair county against ap
pellant for the sum of $179.54 and costs
of suit. That execution was issued
thereon, and levied upon about 85,000
growing fruit trees, worth $8,000. That
Stookey, as sheriff of the county, adver
tized the same for sale ; that on the 14th
day of April, 18li9, and after the day of
sale, the execution was returned by
order of McComant, and so indorsed.
That since the 14th day of April, I860,
the amount of the judgment was changed
and raised on the records of the court to
the sum of 271.84, all of which was
done without any notice to appellant or
to any person in his behalf and without
leave of the court, and after the case was
disposed of and had passed from the
doc ket and the case was not redocketed
at the March term, 1869, and the change
was made without the consent of appel
lant.
That afterwards an execution was is
sued on the judgment thus altered for
$271.84, and $91.35 costs, and that S75 of
the cost bill was charged by the sheriff
for watching the growing fruit trees,
levied upon under the former execution.
That on the 14th day of June, 1869, the
last execution was levied upon about
10,000 growing fruit trees, worth $2,000,
which were advertised for sale by
Stookey on the :30th of June, 1869 ; that
appellant owned the nursery of which
the trees levied on form a part. The
bill prays that on a final hearing the void
judgment execution, levy and sale be
perpetually staid, and McComant be en
joined from enforcing them.
To this appellees filed a demurrer
which was sustained by the court, and
the bill was dismissed, and from that
decree complainant appealed and brings
the record to this court, and assigns for
error the sustaining the demurrer and
the dismissal of the bill.
The dismissal of this bill must have
been because the court below doubted
the jurisdiction of a court of equity to af
ford relief. The demurrer admits that
the alteration of the judgment was made
without the consent of appellant to the
extent of $92.30. If this was done in va
cation without authority or consent it
amounted to a forgery, and even if done
with the consent ot appellant in vacation,
it would be void and unauthorized tam
pering with the records of the court.
It is only in term time and und.er
order of the Judge that such changes can
be lawfully made. The rights of all per
sons depend upon the inviolable securi
ty of the public records against such
forgeries. The clerk has no more right
to alter the record of a judgment in va
cation or in term time without the di
rection of the court than any other per
son, and if he should do so fie would be
as criminal as if another person had com
mitted the forgery.
We are under obligations to the law
Has equity jurisdiction to grant the re
firm of Snyder & Dill, of Belleville, lief sought by this bill ? Fraud is one of
the heads of original and undoubted eq
Illinois, for the following opinion :
uity jurisdiction, and to alter and change
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
the record of a judgment by increasing
Edwin F. Babcock v. James McCama.vt Vt al. the sum for which it was rendered with
out authority or consent, is a' gross and
Appeal from St. Clair.
ALTERATION OF JUDGMENT RECORDKQIIT- palpable fraud, although it may also be a
ABLE JURISDICTION.
crime. In the case of McJilto'n v. Love,
1. Alteration of Judgment.That if thisjudg111. 480, it was held that where a judg
ment was altered in vacation, without authority 13
or consent, it amounted to a forgery, and even if ment had been recovered in one of the
done with the assent of appellant m vacation, it courts of this State on the transcript of
would be void and unauthorized, tampering with the record of a judgment in another
the recordii of the court ; that it is only in term | State,
and the latter named judgment
time and under order of the Judge that such
j was subsequently reversed, equity would
changes can be lawfully made.

tempted to lay out the highway, which !

was objected to by the counsel of the
plaintiff on the ground, as stated in the
bill of exceptions, " that the survey
or's plat of the survey attached to and
incorporated in said record does not ap
pear to have been signed by the survey
or referred to in said report."
The court sustained the objection and
refused to allow the order of the Super
visors to be read to the jury. We do not
understand that this fact alone would
consititute any valid objection to the re
port of the supervisors if otherwise reg
ular, and no other objection seems to
have been taken to it at the trial.
If on an appeal the Supervisors under
take to lay out and establish a public
highway, they must proceed in all things
the same as Commissioners of Highways.
They certainly have no right or greater
authority than the Commissioners from
whom they obtain jurisdiction. The
statute distinctly defines the duty of the
Commissioners of Highways in such
cases. Gross Comp. 771, Sect. 58.
By the statute they are directed " to
cause a survey to be made by a compe
tent surveyor, who shall make a report
to them of such survey, accompanied
"with a plat particularly" describing the
route by metes and bounds, courses and
distances, and also the land over which
the road passes. They shall incorporate
such survey accompanied with a plat in
an order to be signed by them, which or
der, togother with the petition and re
port of the surveyor, shall be deposited
with the Town Clerk."
It would seem to be only neces.ry
under the provisions of this statute for
the Commissioners of Highwavs or the
Supervisors, when on an appeal they undertaketo lay out the road, to incorporate
so much of the survey as indicates clear
ly the courses and distances of the route
of the road and the land over which it
passes.
They are certainly not required to in
corporate the plat into their report. It
is provided that the plat is to accompany
the report and to be tiled in the Town
Clerk's ofiice. The same provision ap
plies to the surveyor's report. It is in
like manner to be tiled in the town
clerk's office as a separate paper pertain
ing to the road. The statute does not re
quire that the commissioners or super
visors, when they act, to incorporate the
whole of the surveyor's report into their
order.
A substantial compliance with the pro
visions of the statute is all that is ever
required. It is not necessary for the
commissioners or the supervisors to state
in their order laying out a road that the
surveyor signed his report which the
statute requires to be made to them.
There is nothing in the statute on that
subject. If the statute does not direct
them so to state in their order, then it is
not necessary.
We have been referred to the case of
Town v. The Town of Blackberry, 29 111.
137, as holding a different rule from the
one here stated. We have examined
that case and find it in entire harmony
with the views here expressed.
The report of the supervisors, which
attempted to establish the road, should
have been permitted to go to the jury for
their consideration.
The order adopted the survey and
plat made by the surveyor, and that was
sufficient so far as the order itself was
concerned. Wells et al v. Hicks, 27 111.
343.
The evidence was pertinent to the is
sue made bv the pleadings, and no rea
son is perceived why the jury ought not
to have been permitted to consider it
with the other evidence in the case.
For the error indicated, this judgment
must be reversed and the cause remand
ed.
Reversed and remanded.

News.

67

interpose to enjoin the collection of the the defendants, occasioned by the neg
judgment in this State. It has long been ligence of the company, the jury may
the practice in equity to enjoin the col i consider, in estimating the damages,
lection of a judgment that has been paid, whether the mental faculties of the plain
satisfied or it has otherwise become un tiff were impaired by the accident ; and
equitable to enforce, and our statute has this is a legitimate subject of inquiry
recognized the right to enjoin judgments. without reference to the question wheth
But it is urged that the remedy was com er the act was willfully done.lb.
3. And in such caseit is competent for
plete under the statute by applying to
the Circuit Judge at chambers to order a the physician who attended upon the
stay of proceedings under the execution plaintiff on the occasion, to testify on be
until a motion to quash the execution half of the plaintiff as to his opinion in
and levy' could be heard at the next respect to the effect of the injuries re
term. This may be true of the execu ceived by the plaintiff upon his future
tion and the levy, but it is not clear that condition.lb.
the Circuit Court could correct the judg
negligence.
ment on a motion. But even if it could
6.
Instruction.In
an action to recover
it is more satisfactory and complete to
injuries received by reason of the
grant relief in equity. The facts alleged for
negligenoe of the defendant, in a case
and admitted by the demurrer show where
latter should exercise the
gross fraud, and fraud is a matter of eq highest the
of care, the jury may
uity jurisdiction and that court did not properly degree
be instructed that the defendant
loose it by the statute conferring similar should have
exercised extraordinary
jurisdiction upon the courts of law. If care, as that does
not differ from the
then, under the, statute or the inherent phrase, greatest careutmost
carehigh
power of a court of law to correct its pro est degree of care.lb.
cess and records they could be corrected,
CARRIERS OF PA88ENOERS.
the judgment, still it would not deprive
7. I'roper time to leave a railroad train.
equity of jurisdiction.
Had the only relief sought been to Railroad companies must afford a rea
quash the execution and set aside the sonable time to passengers, whether
levy, the proper course would have been young or old, to leave the cars in safety,
to apply to the judge at chambers and and if the time tables do not allow suf
obtain an order staying further proceed ficient time for this purpose, and an in
ings until the hearing of the motion, but jury is thereby occasioned, the company
the relief sought goes to the judgment . will be liable "therefor. But the age or
decrepitude of a passenger will not de
itself and to relieve against a fraud.
The levy upon property is only prima termine the time of the stoppage of a
facia evidence of a satisfaction. And train on its arrival at a station.lb.
whilst the prior levy remained undis
[ MARRIED WOMEN.
posed of it was irregular to issue an or
1.
What
will constitute their separate
dinary fi.fa. The process should have
a party purchased land
been a venditioni exponas with a fi.fa property.Where
with his own money, and, without fraud,
clause if desired. The officer then would, procured
to be conveyed to his wife,
in obedience to the writ, have sold the it therebyitbecame
much her separate
property levied upon under the first ex property as if it as
been purchased
ecution^ and if it proved insufficient, then with money ownedhad
her before her
he would, as required by the writ, have marriage.(Opinion by
Breese, C. J.)
seized and sold other property sufficient Haines et al. v. Haines,by
p. 74.
to satisfv the judgment.
2. And upon a sale of the premises so
The charge of seventy-five dollars by vested
in the wife, the purchase money
the Sheriff for guarding trees standing
by her will also be regarded as
and growing in a nursery seems, unex received
property.lb.
plained, to be exorbitant and highly op her3. separate
Tsor will she lose her legal right
pressive, but that will be determined by thereto,
its avails, by placing it in the
the evidence on the hearing. A majority hands oforher
to use in the build
of the court hold that chancery had jur ing of a househusband
for her.lb.
isdiction to hear the case, and that the
4. But where, upon the sale of the
court below erred in sustaining the de
land, notes for a part of the pur
murrer and dismissing the bill, and the wife's
chase price were, with her consent, taken
decree of the court below is reversed and by her husband in his own name, and
the case remanded.
for his benefit, they will be treated as his
Snyder & Dill and Jonx Hinchcliffe property, not that of the wife.lb.
for Appellant.
EQUITABLE INTEREST.
Kase & Wilderman for Appellee.
5. In real estatePurchaser.A married
woman furnished to her husband money,
LIT. ILLINOIS REPORTS.
which was her separate property, to aid
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman in the building of a house for her, which
L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following was erected on a lot of ground owned by
Subsequently, the husband sold
head-notes to cases to appear in the 54th him.
the premises to a party who had notice
volume of Illinois Reports :
of the wife's interest: Held, the wife
depositions.
held an equitable interest in the prem
1. Notary Pnblic.In this State deposi ises, in the proportion which the money
tions in all cases may be taken before a she furnished bore to the entire cost
notarv public.(Opinion by Breese, C. thereof.lb.
6. The purchaser from the husband
J.) T. W. & W. R. R. Co. v. Baddeley, p.
did not incur any personal liability to
19.
the wife, on account of the money con
notice.
2. To take depositionsAs to the residence tributed by her in the erection of the
of the witnesses.A notice given by the building, but acquired a joint equitable
plaintiff to take his own deposition, to ownership with her.lb.
7. So, upon bill filed by her to enforce
be read in a suit at law commenced in
Champaign county, but then pending in her rights in the premises, the proper
Ford county, had the venue of the latter decree would be to direct a sale of the
county, and notified the defendant that property and divide the proceeds accord
the deposition would be taken at the ing to the respective interests of the par
residence of the plaintiff, at a place in ties, not to direct the payment to the
Champaign county. On the objection wife by the purchaser, of the amount
that the notice did not show the witness furnished by her.lb.
was a resident of a different county from
JUDGMENT IN EJECTMENT.
that in which the suit was pending, it 1. Of Us conclusiveness.While it is
was held, as the action was brought in true that a verdict and judgment in
Champaign county, it was a fair inference favor of the defendant in ejectment may
that was the county of the plaintiff's not in all cases be a bar to a future ac
residence, and it was a county different tion by the plaintiff, even under our
from the one in which the suit was pend statute, since such verdict and judgment
ing.lb.
may not have been rendered upon the
PRACTICE.
title, but merely because the defendant
3. Time of objecting to depositions.Ob was not in possession at the commence
jections to depositions should be taken ment of the suit, yet where the title is
and disposed of before the trial of the adjudicated, such judgment is as conclu
cause, so that, if defective, the party tak sive, as to the title established, between
ing them may have an opportunity to parties and privies, as would be the
remedy the defects, and for such pur judgment in a personal action, even
pose to ask a continuance.lb.
though the court finds the facts, a jury
having been waived.(Opinion by Law
MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
4. In an action for injuries resulting from rence, J.) Oetgen v. Ross et al., p. 79.
EJECTMENT.
negligence of defendant.In an action
against a railroad company for injuries to
2. Outstanding title.In an action of
the plaintiff, a passenger on a train of
Continued on page 70.

68

Chicago

L egal

Chicago Legal News. U. S. Circuit Court for the E. D. of Penn.

in the Scottish Bride vs. The Anthony
Kelly, reported 4 L. T. U. S. C. Rep. 225,
ULtx Vincit.
held that the failure to display the ex
act statutory light by a vessel at anchor,
CHICAGO, DECEMBER 16, 1871.
was not sufficient contributory negli
ges ce to prevent a recovery of damages
PUBLISHED EVERY SATCRDAY BY
for a collision occasioned by the reck
The Chicago Legal News Company, less navigation of another vessel.
AT 115 MADISON STREET.
Jurisdiction of U. S. Courts.Judge
Longyear, in the U. S. Circuit Court for
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
the E. D. of Michigan, in Crawford vs.
Terms :
Two Dollare per annum, in advance. .'Inglecop- Burnham, held that in ejectment suits
in the U. S. Courts, " the matter in dis
iesTen Cents.
pute," within the meaning of sec. 11 of
THE LEGAL NEWS OFFICE at 115 the Act of 1789, is the estate claimed in
Wot
Mrai The Prlmtlae the declaration ; and that to confer juris
Estal>Uxluant la at IS H. Jfffrrson St.
diction the value of the estate must
As the News goes to press this week appear in the declaration or by proof.
we leave for Washington, and before our 4 L. T. U. S. C. Rep., 228.
Life InsurancePreliminary Proofs.
return shall visit Philadelphia and per
The
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,
haps New York.
in North American Ins. Co. v. Burroughs,
We call attention to the following reported in the Legal Intelligencer, hold
opinions reported at length in this issue : that where a policy upon the life of a
person does not require the preliminary
BankruptcySummary Way by Peti proofs to give the mode and manner of
tion.The opinion of the Supreme death, but merely proof of the injury,
Court of the United States, delivered by and that the death was occasioned by
Clifford, J., holding where a party such accidental injury, the plaintiff may
claimed absolute title to the matter in recover, although the preliminary proofs
controversy between him and the as unwittingly ascribe the injury to a wrong
signee of a bankrupt's estate, and the cause.
^^^^^^^^^^^
assignee also claimed absolute title to the
LEGAL MATTERS IN CHICAGO.
same, that the assignee could not pro
ceed in a summary way by petition and
There has been but very little con
order to show cause in the District Court tested business disposed of by the
in bankruptcy without due process of courts since the fire. Some of our at
law, but should commence a suit at law torneys who had a good class of clients
or file a bill in equity. This is an impor before the fire, are still doing a good
tant decision, and settles several ques business, but it is safe to say that not
tions upon which the circuit and district more than one out of every ten is earn
judges have differed widely. We think ing a comfortable living. We have no
this opinion will effectually break up the doubt, as we have on a former occasion
catch-'em-quick practice which prevails stated, that as soon as the General
in some of the District Courts in the Assembly pass a law in regard to the
Southern and Western States.
restoration of our destroyed records, or
Alteration of JudgmentEquity Ju announces its determination not to do
risdiction.The opinion of the Supreme so, that legal business will at once com
Courtof this State, delivered by Walker, mence in good earnest. All we want is
J., holding where a judgment had been time, and our titles will come out all
increased by an alteration of the record right. Men are buying and selling real
in vacation after the issuing and levy of estate in the burnt district, and loan
an execution, and a second execution ing and borrowing money on the same,
was issued for the increased amount, that without difficulty. We hope our law
makers will not give us an allopathic
equity had jurisdiction.
Exemption under the Bankrupt Law. dose of law upon this question of lost
The opinion of the Circuit Court of records.
The question of fees is greatly agi
the United States for the District of Kan
sas, delivered by Dillon, J., defining the tating the minds of our citizens, and
rights of a bankrupt to hold certain particularly the office-holders. We be
property against the assignee in bank lieve in paying every officer (except
ruptcy as exempt under the statutes of judicial officers) a fair fee for every offi
Kansas, and construing the words " stock cial service, and punishing them severe
ly for every illegal fee they take. In
in trade" as used in those statutes.
reforming the fees, we should be just to
the office-holder and the tax-payer. No
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
one officer should be selected out, and
Bankers' Lien.Judge Longyear, of the others allowed to go on in the old
the U. S. District Court E. D. of Mich., ways.
held in re S. P. Warner et al. that a
We hear much said about cutting down
banker has no lien upon the moneys of the fees of Mr. Gassette, the clerk of the
a depositor for any separate debt which Circuit Court, but nothing about taking
the depositor may be owing him, hence a slice from the rich loaf ofMr. Gindele,
any amount on deposit, in the name of the clerk of the County Court. We have
the bankrupt, must go in as assets, and taken some pains to inform ourselves
the banker must prove his debt and upon this matter, and are sorry to say
take his dividends with the other credi that the fees which Mr. Grindele is tax
tors ; that when a banker, in accordance ing for the restoration of the records,
with his usual custom, charges his de are not only working oppressively up
positor in his deposit account, for the on the people, but are many of them ille
notes or other obligations as they fall gal and double what the law allows him.
due, the transaction is valid only as be We do not make the statement without
tween the banker and depositor, but in the ability to prove it, and can give the
the event of the depositor becoming names of the estates and an exact state
bankrupt, it might constitute an unlaw ment of the amount of illegal fees taxed.
ful preference under the bankrupt act. In one case $4.00 was taxed for record
5 N. B. R., 414.
ing when the legal fee was only $1.75.
AdmiraltyFailure to Display Stat We could go on and name many others
utory Light.Judge MtKennan, in the even worse than this one, where the il-

News.

legal fees taxed amounted to large sums.

There are two ways to reach such cases :
one is to move the court to re-tax the
costs, the other is to pay them and sue
the officer, under the statute to re
cover three times the amount of the fees
illegally taken.
The original bonds of all executors,
administrators and guardians that re
ceived letters from the Probate Court of
this county, from the organization of the
county down to the time of the fire, have
been destroyed, and it seems to us that
the only safe practice is for Judge Wal
lace to require all such officers who have
not fully performed their trust, to enter
into new bonds within a reasonable time
to be named by the court. The statute
contemplates that the Probate Judge
shall, of his own motion, see that the
bonds of such officers are good for it ;
makes it his duty, "on the first Mondays
of January and July, on the first day of
the term, in open court, to examine and
inquire into the sufficiency of the official
bonds of such executor, administrator
and guardian," and " to enter upon the
records of his court whether such bonds
are deemed sufficient or insufficient, as
the facts may justify."
SHALL WOMEN HAVE THE LEGAL
RIGHT TO FOLLOW ANY TRADE,
BUSINESS OR PROFESSION t
A bill was introduced in the House of
Representatives of this State in Febru
ary last by Mr. Haines of Lake, for the
purpose of giving to the women of Illi
nois the same legal right as men to follow
any trade, business or profession. It came
up in the House about ten days ago, and
was passed by a large majority. An
effort was made a few days afterwards
to reconsider it. Upon the motion to
reconsider, several members said that
although in favor of liberal laws for
women, they would be compelled to vote
against this bill because it was too sweep
ing in its provisions. Having great re
spect for the opinions of some of these
gentlemen, we thought, from what they
said of this bill, that it must have been
changed since we saw the original, as
their remarks could not possibly apply
to that bill, as it was altogether different
from what they represented the one un
der consideration to be. We according
ly sent for and obtained a copy of the
bill, and here it is :
A Bill for an act in relation to the right of
women to follow any trade, business or
profession.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the People
of the State of Illinois, represented in
the (General Assembly, That women of
lawful age, married or single, shall, sub
ject to the regulations, liabilities and
penalties prescribed for men, have the
same right as men to follow any trade,
business or profession, and wherever in
the laws of this State the masculine pro
noun is used in connection with the right
of any person to follow any trade, busi
ness or profession, it shall be deemed
and construed to apply to women, mar
ried or single, as welljas men.
Section 2. That all laws and parts of
laws in conflict with this act are hereby
repealed.
We have looked this bill over very
carefully, and we can't see anything in
it that is going to hurt anybody if it be
comes a law. It does not confer the
right of suffrage upon women, nor de
prive men of the exclusive right to sit
on juries and hold all the offices as they
have heretofore done, but simply pro
vides that" rich or poor women shall
have the same right to follow any trade,
business or profession that men have ;
that is, to earn an honest living by hon
est toil. Who will take the responsi
bility of saying they ought not to have

this right ? There are quite a number of

educated women who have been prac
ticing as physicians in this State for
years with great success, but the present
statutes of our State, as construed by
our Supreme Court, make a woman, if
she practices as an attorney, liable to be
sued and to refund three dollars for
every one she receives as fees. Who
will say that Miss Hulitt, who has spent
years in preparing herself for the bar,
or Miss Kepley, who, after years of
study, has graduated at the Law School of
the Chicago University, should not have
a right to receive a license to practice
law upon the same terms as men ? This
bill is carefully guarded. It gives wo
men no additional right except to follow
any trade, business or profession they may
choose upon equal terms with men. A
person opposed to allowing women to
vote or hold office may very properly
vote for this bill. We understand it
will come up for final action in the Sen
ate in a few davs.
itUcrnt publications.
American Leading Cases. Being Select
Decisions of American Courts in sev
eral Departments of Law, with espe
cial reference to Mercantile Law. With
Notes by J. I. Clark Hare and H. B.
Wallace. Fifth Edition, enlarged and
improved. With additional Notes and
References to American Decisions, by
J. I. Clark Hare and J. W. Wallace.
Vol. I. Philadelphia: T. & J. W.
Johnson & Co., Law Booksellers, Pub
lishers and Importers, 535 Chestnut
street. 1871. Sold by E. B. Myers,
Law Bookseller, Chicago.
We are much pleased with this edition
of Leading Cases. This work, from the
first edition to the present time, has been
received with favor by the American bar.
The present edition, in beauty of typo
graphical execution, in its rich, tinted
paper and tasty appearance, resembles
Fisher's Patent Cases, which are ac
knowledged to be the model American
Reports more than any other volumes
that have come under our notice. The
distinguished publishers are entitled to
the thanks of the bar for the superior
manner in which they have presented
these volumes. Leading Cases are too
well known to require any words of ours
in their favor. The cases are valuable,
but the notes appended to them are un
erring guides to the judicial wisdom of
England and America. These volumes
are almost a law library within them
selves. Certainly no lawyer who is able
to purchase them will be without them.
In reading these notes we almost seem
to speak with the judges of the past, and1
receive instruction from them in person.
Only those cases which from their im
portance may be termed leading cases,,
have been selected for this work, and
these only with a view of illustrating,
some great legal principle in the notes,
and testing it by a reference to all other
opinions upon the same subject. We are
told in the preface of the first volume,,
over date of December, 1871, that the ti
tle of Agency is exhibited in full in the
first volume in a series of cases ; that
owing perhaps to a peculiar state of so
ciety among us, it has happened that the
subject of the Contracts of Infants is ca
pable of being illustrated from the
American Reports with a copiousness of
examples, and a certainty in principles
which the English books do not exhibit,
and that there is a note upon that subject.
The topics of Interest, Domicils, and Ap
plication of Payments, are also fully dis
cussed ; and the subject of Slander, Li
bel and Malicious Prosecution, are treat
ed in a series of notes.

Chicago
THE ENFORCEMENT ACT.
We published the opinion of the
"United States Circuit Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, delivered
by Dillon, J., in IV Legal News, p. 50,
holding that the Governor of a State is
not an officer of election within the
meaning of section 22 0/ what is com
monly called the Enforcement Act. We
notice in the Arkansas State Journal the
argument of Wm. G. Whipple, U. S.
District Attorney, who assisted in the
trial of that cause. Mr. Whipple strong
ly combats the construction given to this
section of the act by Judge Dillon. His
argument occupies thirteen columns of
the Journal. Mr. Whipple, in a letter to
the editor of that paper accompanying
his argument, which had been requested
for publication, says:
The issues involved in this case are of
startling importance to the people, as
they concern nothing less than their
right to choose their own rulers ; in
other words, the purity of the ballot-box
and the right of self-government. And
if the law is as imperfect as the court in
this case holds, it is well that the people
be admonished, that they may demand
additional guaranties to their liberties
from further legislation.
It is for reasons such as these, I sup
pose, and not because of any special
merit in this argument, that you desire
this publication. And because of the
interest I feel that the people shall be
protected, if possible, in this regard, I
cheerfully comply with your request.
I have confidence in the line of argu
ment advanced, and herein, I think, sub
stantially stated. I believed, when I
drew the indictment, upon the finding
of the grand jury, as I contended at the
argument, that if there was no other de
fense for Clayton than that he was not
an " officer of election " when he gave
the certificate of election to Edwards, he
was guilty. And my opinion, humble
and insignificant as it may be, has not
been affected by the reasoning in the
opinion of the tribunal which decided
the case.
MILITARY OCCUPATION OF
CHICAGO.
We printed in 4 Legal News, p. 28,
the charge of Judge Williams, directing
the Grand Jury to pay no attention to a
letter published in the papers, said to
have been written by Governor Palmer
to State's Attorney Reed, in relation to
the indictment of certain persons for the
killing of Colonel Grosvenor. The fol
lowing correspondence relates to that
portion of Judge Williams' charge :
Sta\e of Illinois, Executive Dep't, \
Springfield, Nov. 10, 1871, j
Hon. Cluis. H. Reed, Stale's Attorney,
Seventh Judicial Circuit, Chicago, III. :
Dear Sir : It is reported in the de
spatches from Chicago this morning that
you told Judge Williams that you never
saw the letter addressed to you by His
Excellency, Governor Palmer, until it
was published. Will you please to inform
the Governor if you are correctly report
ed. Very truly yours,
E. B. Harlan, Private Secretary.
Chicago, Nov, 17, 1871.
Governor Palmer, Springfield, 111. :
Dear Sir : Last evening on my return
to my house I found the letter of Colonel
Harlan (your private Secretary) of the
10th inst. Why I did not receive it be
fore I know not. In it I am asked if I
am correctly reported by Judge Williams
in his charge to the grand jury in rela
tion to the letter written by you to me
concerning the killing of Colonel Gros
venor. Judge Williams asked me about
the letter, and I told him that the letter
was dated Oct. 30, and mailed Nov. 1, and
received by me on the 3d inst., and that
I had seen a statement in the newspa
pers that such a letter had been written
to me before I read it. I told him that
the newspapers contained references to
it before I read it, and that some private
parties told me they knew I had such a
letter before I showed it to anybody.
The foregoing is the substance of what I
told the Judge. Before I had shown the

Legal

letter to any one, except my wife, Mr.

Blakely, of the Evening Post, asked me
for the letter, and said to me that he
knew I had been written to, by you, on
the subject. He (Mr. B.) requested the
letter, and I allowed him to have it
copied. Any further information you
may desire will be cheerfully furnished,
if in my power. Ever your friend,
Charles H. Reed, State's Att'y.
State op Illinois, Executive Dep't, \
Springfield, Nov. 20, 1871. j
Chas. II. Reed, Esq., State's Attorney, etc. :
Sir: Your letter of the 17tn inst.
reached me a day or two ago, but I have
been too un veil until now to attend to
it. You will agree with me that your
statement contained in your letter is not
like that which Judge Williams stated
in his charge you made to him, and
upon the basis of this substantial differ
ence between the two statements, I
would like to ask you, in the name of
what I thought to be a pretty well es
tablished friendship, and if I was mista
ken in thatj in the name of common fair
ness, how is it that you stood by and
heard Williams make his statement of
what you told him with his manifest pur
pose to create prejudice against me,without correcting his report of what you told
him about the particulars of the letter?
The sting of Judge Williams' most singu
lar, though covered attack upon me, is
his insinuation that my letter to you was
published, without your knowledge, for
the purpose of creating prejudice in the
public mind, and yet you stood by con
scious that the Judge misapprehended
your statement to him, and yet did not
correct him. Now, how do you reconcile
that with justice and fairness ?
Respectfully,
John M. Palmer.
LT. S. DISTRICT COURT, D. OF
OREGON.
The following aie the head-notes to an
interesting opinion delivered by Judge
Deady, on the seventh of last month, in
regard to the citizenship and the rights
of a child born in Oregon Territory,
while that territory was, by articles be
tween the United States and Great Brit
ain, " free and open to the vessels, citi
zens and subjects of the two powers."
We regret that the length of the opinion
prevents us from printing it entire :
By the common law a child born with
in the allegiance of the United States, is
born a subject thereof, without reference
\0 the political status or condition of its
parents.
By article 3 of the Convention of Oc
tober 20, 1818 (8 Stat. 249) between the
United States and Great Britain, it was
agreed that the Oregon Territory should
"be free and open" " to the vessels, citi
zens and subjects of the two powers ;"
which Convention was continued in
force until the Convention of June 15,
1846 (9 Stat. 869) ; Held, that during the
period of such joint occupation the coun
try, as to British subjects therein, was
British soil and subject to the jurisdic
tion of the King of Great Britain, but as
to citizens of the United States, it was
American soil and subject to the juris
diction of the United States ; and that
a child born in such territory in 1823 of
British subjects, was born in the allegience of the King of Great Britain and
not that of the United States.
The Indian tribes within the territo
ry of the United States are independent
political communities, and a child there
of though born within the limits of the
United States is not a citizen thereof,
because he was born subject to its juris
diction.
The XIV Article of the Constitution
of the United States, com monly called the
XIV Amendment, is only declaratory of
the common law rule on the subject of
citizenship by birth, and therefore does
not include Indians or others not born
subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States.
In 1823 and prior thereto, the Chinook
Indians were an independent political
community inhabiting the Oregon terri
tory, at and near the mouth of the Co
lumbia river ; and in said year the plain
tiff was born at r'ort George (now Asto
ria) of a father who was an alien and a
British subject and a mother who was a
Chinook Indian : Held, that the plaintiff
is either to be deemed to follow the con

News.

dition of his father and considered a

British subject or that of his mother and
considered a Chinook Indian, but that in
either case he was not born a citizen of
the United States.
At an election held on June 6, 1870, at
East Dalles precinct under the laws of
Oregon, the plaintiff offered to vote, and
h is right to do so being challenged, offered
to take the prescribed oath as to his quali
fications as an elector, but the defendant,
then being one of the judges of election
at said polls, refused to administer said
oath to the plaintiff, as he was required
to do by the law of thje State, on the
ground that plaintiff was not a citizen of
the United States, but a half-breed In
dian : Held, that whether such refusal
was wrongful or not under*the State law,
the plaintiff not being a citizen of the
United States, is not within the purview
or protection of Article XV. of the Con
stitution of the United States or the act
of Congress, entitled " An act to enforce
the rights of citizens of the United
States, to vote in the several States of the
Union, and for other purposes " (16 Stat.,
140), and therefore cannot maintain an
action against the defendant on account
of such refusal, to recover the penaltygiven by section 2 of said act of Con
gress.
The Illinois Reports.Some arrange
ment should be made for re-printing the
volumes of the Illinois Reports that are
out of print. The actual cost of repro
ducing these will be much less than the
first edition, as the labor of the reporter
has been performed, and all the com
positor will have to do is to follow copy
no head-notesno table of cases or
index to be prepared. Those who have
no experience in reporting can not have
any adequate idea 0/ the vast amount of
labor to be performed before the copy
for a volume of Reports is prepared. The
thanks of the Illinois bar are due Mr.
Freeman for furnishing them through
our columns so many of the head-notes
to cases to appear in the 54th volume of
his reports. The head-notes in this
issue are more than usually important.
Our readers, in purchasing Illinois Re
ports, should not forget that Mr. Free
man has on hand of the back volumes
from 47 to 52, which he delivers any
where in Hie State for $5 per volume.
We are glad to note the fact that Mr.
Freeman has not advanced the price of
his Reports on account of the Chicago
fire, as some others have done.
INSURANCE CASES.
[From the Western Insurance Review.]
WARRANTY.
Marineaffected by usage.In a policy
of insurance on a vessel, the words "pro
hibited from the River and Gulf of St.
Lawrence between September first and
May first," constitute a warranty that the
vessel shall not enter those waters
within the time mentioned.
The words are to be construed in their
ordinary and popular sense, unless by
some known usage of trade they have a
different meaning. .
The usage or the construction given to
particular words in Boston, Mass., will
not affect a policy of insurance upon a
vessel, made at Rockland, Maine, con
taining the same words, unless a similar
usage or the same construction is shown
to exist at the latter place.S. C. Maine.
Cobb 1: Lime Rock F. & M. Ins. Co. (To
appear in 58 Maine Report*.)
condition.
Firefraud.When a condition in
dorsed on a policy of insurance provided
that in case the insured committed fraud
in the claim made for a loss, or made a
false declaration or affirmation in sup
port thereof, he should forfeit all benefit
under the policy, and under any other
policy granted him by the company on
other property. Held, that such condi
tion was to be construed as an express
part ofthe contract.Geehauser v. North
British Ins. Co. (To appear in 6th Nevada
Reports.)

69
about New York are to receive attention
from the bar association, who have ap
pointed a committee to investigate any
charges that have been made concern
ing the official conduct of such persons.
If the committee will do their duty
thoroughly, they will find facts enough,
to entertain the association for one even
ing at least. We hope the inferior courts
will receive a visit, and that considerable
notice will be taken of these officials not
always incorruptible, yclept constables,
marshals and deputy sheriffs.
E. M. Barnes, one of the grand jurors
in Judge Busteed's court, in the Middle
District of Alabama, dissented from the
other members of the jury in regard to
the power of the court to execute the
laws, and wrote to the Judge: " I pro
test against any portion of the report
which intimates that the court is unable
to execute the laws of the country."
THE CHICAGO LEGAL NEWS.
AS A MEDIUM FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE
LAWS, DECISIONS AND LEGAL NOTICES.
Since the fire but few of the Attorneys
in the city have access to the session
laws ; we therefore reprint the following
relating to the Legal News. The char
ter of the Chicago Legal News Com
pany passed the Legislature, and was ap
proved by Governor Palmer on the 29th
day of February, 1869, from which we
take the following :
" Section 5. Any notice or advertise
ment required by law, or the order of
any court, to be published in any news
paper, shall be as good and valid if pub
lished in the Chicago Legal News, as in
any Newspaper, and the certificate ofthe
President or Secretary, under the seal of
said company, of the publication of any
notice or advertisement, shall be suffi
cient evidence of the publication therein
set forth."
The following sections are from a law
of this State, approved on the 11th of
March, 1869 :
" Section 2. All laws of this State, and
all decisions of the Supreme Court of IIinois, printed in the Chicago Legal
News, shall be and the same are hereby
declared to be prima facie evidence of the
existence and contents of such laws and
decisions, in all places and before all
courts of law and equity in this State..
" Section 3. Anv change in the form
of said Chicago Legal News shall not
effect the legality of any legal notice, ad
vertisement, or other thing published in
said paper ; and said Chicago Legal
News is hereby declared to be a news
paper, within the meaning and intent of
chapter three of the Revised Statutes of
this State."
ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS.
IN REGARD TO THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICES'.
IN THE LEGAL NEWS.
The following order was entered in theUnited States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, on the 28th
of July last :
" Ordered, that hereafter notices of
sales or other proceedings in bankruptcy
and admiralty cases pending in this
court may be published in the Chicago
Legal News with the same effect as if
published in either of the other papers
designated by the rules and orders of
this court for the publication of notices."
A similar order was also entered in
the Circuit Court in regard to notices in
that court.

The Legal News Job Printing Office.

We would remind our friends of the
legal profession and others, that we are
prepared to execute, neatly and prompt
ly, in the most approved style, all kinds
of Job Printing : Cards, Letter and Bill
Heads, Circulars, Decrees, Orders, Mort
gages, Deeds, (Leases, Checks, Drafts,
Notes, Bonds, Books, Pamphlets and Re
The Albany Iaiw Journal says : The ju ports. We give special attention to
diciary and other public officers in and printing Attorneys' Briefs and Abstracts.

Chicago
Continued from page 67.
ejectment where the defendant deduces
title through a decree authorizing the
administrator of a former owner to sell
the premises, the question as to the val
idity of the decree and the sale under it
cannot arise, because, even if the decree
were void, it would leave the paramount
title outstanding in the heirs of the in
testate, who alone could dispSssess the
defendant.lb.
3. And in such case it is competent
for the defendant to prove possession
and payment of taxes by those under
whom he claims, for seven successive
years, even though the sale at which he
purchased was void, for such proof, if
met by no countervailing evidence,
would, at least, show a paramount title
in the heirs of the intestate, and posses
sion taken under such title, and that
would defeat the plaintiffs action, he
not beiug in privity with the heirs or
with the estate.lb.
EJECTMENT.
4. Against a tenantdeath of Hie landlord
purchaser at adm inistrator's sale.W here
an action of ejectment was brought
against a tenant in possession, whose
landlord was dead, and the administra
tor of deceased had notice of the pen
dency of the suit, it was held, that if the
administrator could be regarded as ever
having been the landlord of such tenant,
he ceased to be so after the sale of the
premises by him as administrator, and
notice to him could in no way prejudice
the rights of a purchaser at such sale
previous to the commencement of the
.suit.lb.
PARTNERSniP. "
1. Of the application of firm assets and
vf the separate proper!;/ of the individual
partners, to the payment of debts.As to the
order in which partnership debts, and
the individual debts of the partners
shall oe paid, the rule is, that no one
partner has a right or share in the firm
property, except the portion which re
mains after full payment of all the part
nership liabilities; and each partner has
a right to have the same applied to the
payment of all such liabilities before
any one of the partners, or his personal
representatives, or his creditors, can
claim any right to the same.(Opinion
by Walker, J.)Rainey et al. v. bance et
at, p. 29.
2. And as between the partners them. selves, there is a lien upon the partner
ship assets as the primary fund for the
payment of partnership debts, or at least
an equity, which may be enforced
through the partners, in favor of creditors
of the tirm, although it may not directly
attach in the creditors, by virtue of Uieir
original claims, in all cases.lb.
3. Though it is only in cases where
there is a dissolution by death, or bank
ruptcy of one partner, that the right of
the joint creditors can attach as a quasi
lien upon the partnership effects, as a
derivative, subordinate right, under and
through the lien and equities of the
partners.lb.
4. In equity, in case of insolvency or
death of a partner, thus terminating the
partnership, the joint creditors are enti
tled to a priority of payment out of the
joint fund, and the separate creditors to
a like priority out of the separate prop
erty ot the partners, unless specific liens
have been acquired on the respective
classes of property. But in case of a
surplus in either fund, not subject to any
specific lien, creditors of the other class
may participate in such surplus.lb.
5. One partner can not, as against his
copartners, give to his individual credi
tor, by mortgage, pledge, or otherwise, a
specific lien upon his interest in the firm
property, to the exclusion of creditors of
the fimi who have not acquired such a
Jien.lb.
6. Nor can a judgment creditor of one
partner, by a levy upon the debtor'sTinterest in the firm property, acquire a lien
superior to the rights of the other part
ners, or of the partnership creditors.
Such a levy would only operate to give
a lien prior to that of other separate
creditors of the individual partners upon
their respective portions of the fund
remaining after the payment of firm
debts, and satisfying the claims of other
partners.lb.
7. Where a jierson becomes a member
of a firm, purchasing an interest in a
mill and the ground upon which it
stands, and there is a prior incumbrance
by mortgage upon the premises, which
the former owners agreed to remove,

Legal

and also a mechanic's lien of which the

purchasing partner hud no notice, the
real estate becomes partnership proper
ty, and upon an adjustment of the rights
of the partners, and partnership credi
tors, and creditors or individual part
ners, the purchasing partner, as against
the separate creditors of the partners,
will be considered a creditor of the firm,
and as such, entitled to be reimbursed
out of the joint fund, to the exclusion of
such separate creditors, to the extent of
those prior liens which had been satis
fied on a sale of the firm property.lb.
LEVY L'POX LAND
8. In a foreign countyduration of the
lien.Where #n execution is issued to a
foreign county, and there levied upon
land, and a certificate of the levy duly
filed, the lien of the levy will continue
for the period of seven "years from the
time when the judgment became a lien
in the county in which it was rendered.
lb.
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
Barber and Laekner. 61 West Ljike street.
Barker. J. C, 77 West Madison street.
Bates & Hodges, US West Madison street.
BRADWELL, J. B., Hi Wet Madwon street.
Burgess, W. T., lt">5 W. Wahington.
Bonney, Fay & Griggs, 120 West Washington st.
Bentley, Bennett, Ullman & Ives, 376 Wabash av.
Barker Walte, 46 East Harrison street.
Brouse, O. R., 100 Wabash avenue.
Brown & Rickcrts, lit West Madison.
Burke and Allen. 18 W. Randolph.
Carraichael, D. I,., 845 Prairie aucnue.
Carter, Becker & Dale, 60 Canal, 350 Wabash av
Chase, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue.
Clarkson * Van Schaack, No. 151 Wabash Ave.
Condon, Wm. H., 31 Canal street.
Deane & Cahill. room 7, Lind's Block.
Dent & Black, 740 Wabash avenue.
Ewing <t Leonard. 487 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. W., 115 West Madison street.
Felker, Wm. S., 371 State street.
Goudy & Chandler, 391 Wabash avenue, branch
office. 61 South HaLsted street.
Harrison and Whitehead, 113 W. Madison street.
Hervey, Anthony & Gait, :i50 Wabash avenue.
Hopkins, Wm.. 46 East Harrison.
Herbert & Quick, 529 State street.
Hoyne, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michi
gan and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne, Horton and Hoyne. 207 Michigan av.
Hitchcock. Dupee & Evarts, corner Wells and
Monroe streets.
Howe & Russell, 175 Wabash avenue.
Isham, Edward S., 554 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, 0. P., 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
King, Scott & Payson. 637 Wabash avenue.
Knickerbocker. J. C. and J. J. 163 W. Washington.
Learning & Thompson. 109 West Randolph street.
l,eary, I). James, 159 West Madison.
Lyman & Jackson. 79 W. Madison street, room 3.
Magruder, B. D.. 181 W. Madison.
Mattocks and Mason, 523 Wabash ave,
McClelland, Thos., S., 45 S. Canal, room 6.
Merriam. Alexander and Bolster, 119 W. Wash
ington street.
Miller. Frost < Lewis, 363 Michigan avenue.
Moore & Caulfield, S. E. cor. State and Madison.
Newcomb, G. W., 21 1 Warren avenue.
Norton, Jesse O,. 386 Wabash avenue.
Nissen & Bamum,126 W. Randolph, and 376 State
Otis. E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Paddock & Ide, 419 Wabash avenue.
Perkins, N.C., 479 Wabash av.,eor. Eldridgc court.
Palmer, L. L., 481 Wabash avenue.
Pfirshlng, Jos. 17 Peck C"t, bet. Wabash and State
Reynolds, Win. C, 176 West Washington street.
Rich & Thomas, 945 Michigan avenue, and 468
Wabash avenue.
Roberts. R. Biddle, room 7, 43 So. Canal.
Rorke, M. A. & Son, 154 Halsted street.
Rosenthal, Pen ce & Moses, Masonic Building, 8
W.. cor. Randolph and Halsted and350 Wabash av.
Roys. C. D.. 677 Wabash avenue.
Sawin & Wells, 59 West Madison street.
Scammon, McCagg and Fuller, 389 Wabash av.
Seoville, George, 30 South Clinton street.
Sheldon & Waterman. 360 Michigan avenue.
Sherman, E. B., 153 W. Madison.
Sleeper it Whiton, 4U Wabash avenue.
Small and Ingalls, 181 Wabash avenue.
Snowhoolc & Gray, 85 W. Monroe St., cor. Jeffer
son.
Story and King, 149 West Washington street.
Tenny, McClellau & Tenny, 454 Wabash ave.
Thomas, Sidney, 95 East Harrison street.
Van Buren, E. & A., 19-1 West Madison street.
Vallette. H. F., .V.I West Madison street.
Waterman. A N.. 135 West Monroe street.
White. Hugh A.. li>."i West Washington street.
Whltehouse, Wm. F 188 West Madison, late Tri
une building.
Williams >fc Thompson. 554 Wabash avenue.
Walker, Dexter & Smith, 7!>2 Wabash avenue.
Wilson, Perry *fc Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
Windett. Arthur W., 662 Wabash ave., and room
6 Lind's Block.
Waughop, J. W., 401 Wabash avenue.

JL.A.W

News.

DEPARTMENT,

L AW
BOOKS.
Chicago University.
LECTXRES were resumed in this institution on
Monday. Oct. 30th last, in the lecture room of
the Second Baptist Church, corner of Monroe and
Morgan streets. All the old advantages obtained
by students In this law school are agaiu offered.
For information address
JOHN A. HOTTER.
Sec. Iaw Dept.
Bourquin & Welsh
5-13
135 W. Monroe street, Chicago.
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
A. H. LAWRENCE,
Attorney, 308 State St.
IEXECUTOR'S SALE OK REAL ESTATE.-In the
J County court of Cook rouuty. Mute of Illinois.
(Jeorge It. 8purr, executor of the estate of ('liurloa M.
Kay, dec<-'iis<'(l, vs. Frances A. Kay, Ellcu 51. Daniels,
(ieorge K. Daniels ami Jennie II. Kay.Petition to sell
real
estate.
Public
uotico is lierolty givt n, that the undersigned,
I'Xemtor of the estate of Charles M. Kay, deceased, by
virtue ot an order and decree of the County court of
Cook i:'.unty, state of Illiuois. inadt' and entered at the
August term, toA.I>.
suid court,
petitionwill
of the
undersigned,
sell1S71,
realofestate
of saidondeeeated,
on
Monday,
January
l".',
Is72,at
l'-'o'clock
noouof
said
at the east door uf the court house, on Chirk street.day,
In
the
city ot Chicago,
in saidand
comity
Cook,forsellcash,
at pub
lic auction,
to the highest
best ofbidder
the
following described real estate, situate in said county
of Cook
and state
Illinois,intodivision
wit: lotoftwowest
of half
assess
or's
division
of lotofof
sixteen,
southeast
quarter
section '\, township
to north,of
range 13, assessor's
east of third
principal
lot
fourteen,
division
of westmeridian:
half of thealso,
south
east quarter of auction 23, township w north, range 13.
east
principal
meridian,
so much of
said of
lot the
as isthird
described
as follows,
to wexcept
it : commencing
in
the
north
line
of
said
west
half
of
siiid
uuarter
sec
tion,
point
Mi thence
feet easteii-tfrom
the fct.t
northwest
comeratofasaid
westItshalf,
1 to s.ju
to land
now or late of Susan C ise. thence south *t .viu feet by
aaid
CaseM.land,
west tobyland
landnownowor or
Charles
Kay thence
I In s-ln feet,
latelate
of M.of
L. Kimball, thence north by snid Kimball land H.;.">-l(t
feet to place of beginning. Said sale beins made for
the purpose of paying debts of said deceased.
GEORGE R. SIM KK, Executor of said Estate.
Dated Chicago. Dec. 16,1*71.
A. H. Law itr.sce, Att'y.
10-15
NEWELL PRATT,
Attorney, 1124 Wabash Avenue.
/"tHANCEKY NOTICE. -State of Illinois, County of
\V Cook. hb. Superior court of Cook county. To
January i\;rni, A. I>. 1*72. J uanna Stansello vs. Louis
F.Affidavit
tilan?elW*.--In
Chancery.
of thenamed,
non-residenc
of Louis
8tannelle,
defendant
above
having been
tiled F.huthe
office
of the clerk of paid Superior court of Coo.* county,
noticci is hereby given to the said Louis . Stanselle
that the complainant heretofore tiled lu-r bill of cumpluinta insummons
said court,
on ihe. chancery
hideofthereof,
and
that
thereupon
issued out
said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of January next, (1K72), as is by law required.
Mow, unlet** you, the said Louis Y. Stanselle, Khali
personally
be and
appear
court
of
Cook countyx
on the
rirst before
day of saidSupcrior
a term ihereot,
to be
holden at Chicago, in aaid county, on the first Monday
ofJanuary, l->7ibill
midofplead,
answer orthedemur
the said
complainant'"
complaint,
same,to and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charm
d
and
Ntated,
willyou
be
taken as confessed, and a decroe entered against
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGlSTt/S JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newem. Pbatt, Comp'ts sol'r.
10-13
Q. J. DRESSER,
Attorney, 114 W. Madison St.
C1HANCEHY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
' Cook. sb. Superior court of Cook county, January
Term,
A.I*. 1*71.'. Chancery.
Surah A. Rurlingamc vs. Lauriston
Burlingaine.In
Affidavit of the non-rer-idence of Lauriston Btirlingame, defendant above named, hnving been filed in the
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook coun
ty,
notice
given to heretofore
the said Lauriston
game
thatisthehereby
complainant
tiled herDurlinbill of
complaint in said court, on tin* chancery side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable ou the first Monday
of January next, U*72j us is by law required.
Now.personally
unless you,
the said
Uurlingame,
shall
be and
appearLauriston
before said
Superior
court of Cook county, on the first day of a term there
of,
to
be
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
first
31onday uf January, W7_', and plead, answer orthedemur
to the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same,
and the matters and things thereiucharged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AlGl SITS JACOllSON, Clerk.
[<]?,
G. J. Dressek, CoinpPt's Sol'r,
MAGEE & OLESON,
Attorneys, 105 W. Randolph St.
CIHANCERY NOTICE.-Ptate of Illinois, county ol
' Cook. sr. Superior court of Cook county. To
January Term, A.D. 1672. Helena M. Evenson vs.
Andreas Evcnson.In Chancery.
Affidavit of thenamed,
non-residence
of Andreas
defendant
huvingcourt
been
tiledCook
in Evenson,
thecounty,
office
of the- clerkabove
of said Superior
of
notice is h"reby given tothesaid Andreas Eycdpou that
the complainant heretofore filed her hill of complaint
in suid court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Jan
uary next, ( IS7L',) as is by law required.
Now, unless
the said
Kvenson,
shallof
personally
be andyou,appear
beforeAndreas
sjiid Superior
court
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to
be
holden at I'bicogo, in said county, on the first Monday
of January. 1>7^. and plead, anr-wer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, ami a decree entered against
you according to the praver of said bill.
AUGl'STUS JACUBSON. Clerk.
Maoee & Oleson. Comp'ts Sol'rs. _
_ J^i*
ESTATE
OK
HANS
BRISTUl'P,
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands aguinst the estate of Hans Bristrup. deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook countv, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of February, A.D.
172, being the fifth day thereof.
S. M. KROGNESS, Administrator.
Chicago. Doc. 11\ A.D. 1*71.
Markk <fc Oi.eson. Att'ya.
10-15*.
D. J. CROCKER,
Attorney, 48 S. Canal Street.
FESTATE OF CAROLINE HEINES, DECEASED.J Public notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims
demands
againstthethe.same
estate
of Caroline
Ileines, and
deceased,
to present
for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of
Cook
county,
Illinois,
to
be
holden
at
house in the city of Chicago, in said county, onthethecourt
first
Moudav of February, A.D. 1*12, being tno filth day
thereof.
JACOB HEINES, Executor.
D. J. Cno'_'KF.a, Att'y for Estate.
10-15

F UBL TSHERS & IMPOR TEBS,

No. 431 Walnut Street,
Philadelphia.
m

LAW BOOKS.
J. R. MeDIVITT,
81 UIUI STREET, NEW YORK.
No Law Books gold at Cost for the next six
months.
Second-hand Law Books Bought, Sold and Ex
changed.
6-19

THE

CHICAGO

LEGAL N E WS
COMPANY.
PRUNTIISTG OFFICE,
15 Xoktii Jefferson Street ;
Business Office, 115 West Madison Street,
CHICAGO.

BOOK AND JOB

Particular attention given to all kinds of

LEGAL jPRIIVTIIVG :
INCLUDING
Attorneys' Abstracts^
Briefs and Dockets,
Books, Pamphlets and Reports.
Orders for this description of work will be execut
ed promptly in the neatest style of the art.
Decrees, Orders,
Mortgages, Deeds, Leases,
Checks, Note*, Drafts, Bonds,
Cards, Labels, Letter Headings,
Bills of Lading, Bill Heads,
Insurance Policies, Circulars,
Receipts, Hand-bills, etc., etc.,
Printed upon the shortest notice.
THOMAS L. MpIXTOSH h>te head o* the Book
and Newspaper departm i ix.m i^aiceside Print
ing Company, ls the Mij-crhik-ndent of our Print
ing Department.
theo. schintz,
Attorney, 122 West Randolph St.
estate
of
at'ccst
schiller,
deceased
Notice
is hereby
given
to all ofpersons
having
claim*
and
demands
against
the
estate
August
Schiller,
de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at toa regular
of the
County
CooKot
county,
be hold-nterm
at the
Court
House,Court
in theofcity
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1S72, be
ing the MAGDELENA
4th day thereof. SCHILLER, Administratrix.
..
Theo.
Schintz.
Attorney.
Chicugo, December a, A. D. 1871.
9*14*
STATE isOF
PHILIP
W. persons
PECK, having
DECEASED
hereby
given F.to all
chums
Ei Notico
and
demands against the estate of Philip F. w. l*ec*'
ileceatfod,
to
prcsont
the
same
for
adjudication
tlement at a regular term of the County court or uoo*
county,
hoi.leu
the court
house in h.V.
hsc,1?
Chicago, toonbe the
first atMonday
of January,
m*.
b*-ing the first day thereof.CLARENCE I. PECK and
_.i
FERD. W.Administrator.
PECh,
6-lla
Chicago, November 17, A.D. 1871.

Chicago

Legal

News.

7i

DKISCOLL ft PFIRSHING,
EDWIN GREENE,
SIDNEY THOMAS,
JOHN W00DBRIDGE,
Attorneys, 47 Peck Court.
Attorney, 4o Hubbard Court.
Attorney, i5 Harrison St.
High School Building, Monroe St.
/CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of publication notice in attachment/
UIANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois, County of
\J Cook, Term,
s*. Superior
of Cook County.
notice in attachment.- Vj Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook
Statecounty,
of Illinois,
Cook Tefm,
county,A.m.D. W71.
CircuitWilliam
Court pvblication
county, To Jan
December
A. D. Court
1871. Lawrence
Dreilmg Tov. of Cook
November
Stateof
Illinois,
Cook county,
ss. 1871.
CircuitWilliam
Court uary Term, A.D. I(f72. Charles A. Hawley
vb. Caroline
Theresa Dreiling.In Chancery.
of
Cook
County.
November
Term,
A.D.
E.
Eastman
v.
Willis
I'.
Collins,
Jr.,
and
Mary
E.
Hawley.In
Chancery.
Affidavit
that Theresa
defendant,
on been
due Collins.
P. Dickinson, William Dickinson, and Alfred Smith Affidavit of the non-residence of Caroline Hawley,
inquiry
cannot
he found,Dreiling,
a*ove named,
having
.William
H.
Fitch,
Jr.
Public
notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
Willis
P.
defendaut
named,
havingcourt
been filed
In thecounty,
office
filed in the office of the Clerk of maid Superior Court of Collins, Jr.. and Mary E. Collins, that a writ of attach
Public notice is hereby given to the said William II. of
the clerkabove
of said
Superior
of Cook
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said Theresa ment issued out of the office of the Clerk of the Cir Fitch,
Jr.,thethat
a writ
of Circuit
attachment
issued
outcounty,
of the notice
is hereby given to the said Caroline Hawley that
DTeiling
that
the
eomplainantheretoforo
tiled
his
hill
office
of
Clerk
of
the
Court
of
Cook
cuit
Court
of
Cook
county,
dated
the
thirty-first
day
complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
of complaint in said court, on the chancery side.there
dated the eighth day of November, A. D. 1-71, at the the
D. I87L,
at thethesuitestate
of theof said
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
of, and that a summons thereupon issued out of said of
K. October,
Eastman,A.and
against
WillisWilliam
P. Col suit of the said William P. Dickinson, W illiam Dick summons
thereupon issued out of said court against
Court against said defendant, returnable on the first lins,
inson
and
Alfred
Smith,
and
aguinst
the
estate
ofWil
Jr.,
ami
Mary
E.
Collin1*,
for
the
sum
of
five
hun
said
returnable on the first Monday of Jan
Monday of December next, 1871, as iB by law required. dred and ninety-one rt-im dollars, directed to the liam H. Fitch, Jr., for the sum of three hundred dol uarydefendaut,
next,
(KS72,) as is by law required.
Now.
unless
you,
the
said
Theresa
Dreiling,
email
per
lars,
directed
to
the
Sheriff
of
Cook
county,
which
said
Sheritl
ol
Cook
county,
which
said
writ
bos
been
re
Now,
unless
you,
the said Caroline Hawley, shall
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of turned executed.
has been returned executed.
be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook
on theinfirst
of a, on
term
to be Now, therefore, unless you, the said Willis P. Collins, writ
Now, therefore, unless you, the said William H. personally
Cook
county,
on
the
day of a on
termthethereof,
to be
holdencounty,
at Chicago,
saidday
count}
thethereof,
first Monday
Mary
be and apon Fitch, Jr., shall personally be and appear before the holden at Chicago, in first
county,
first Monday
of December, 1*71, and plead, answer or demur to the Jr.,
pearand
before
the E.saidCollins,
Circuitshall
Courtpersonally
of Cook county,
Raid Circuit Court of Cook county, on or before the first of January, 1>72, and said
plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the or
the
tirst
day
of
the
next
term
thereof,
to
be
before
term
thereof,
to
be
holden
at
the
Court
day
of
the
next
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be holden at the Court House, in the city of Chicago, on House, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of said
thereinandcharged
andentered
stated*
taken a* confessed, and a decree entered against you the
third Monday of December, A. l>. 1871, give special December, A. D. I>71, give special bail, and plead to the
will matters
l>e takenandas things
confessed,
a decree
according to the prayer of said hill.
bail
aud
plead
to
the
said
plaintill's
action,
judgment
the
said
plaintiff's
action,
judgment
will
be
entered
against
you
according
to
the
prayer
of
said
bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
will
be
entered
against
you,
and
in
favor
of
the
said
againstWilliam
you, and Dickinson
in favor ofand
the said
William
Dickso
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Driscoll ft Pfirshixq. Compl't's Sol'rs.
t-llp William E. Eastman, and so much of the property inson,
Alfred
Smith,P.and
y-12
attached as may be sufficient to satisfy the said judg much of the property attached as may be sufficient to Sidney Thomas. Compl't's Sol'r.
BONNET, FAT ft GRIGGS,
satisfy the said judgment and costs will bo sold to
ment and costs will be sold to satisfy the same.
H.
C.
BENNETT,
satisfy the same.
Attorneys, 120 \V. Washington St.
Attorneys. 133 W. Madison St.
Edwin Greene, NORMAN
Attorney. T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
7-lup
NORMAN
T. GASSETTE, Clerk.7-10 pHANCERY
"PUBLICATION
IN ATTACHMENT.NOTICE.-State
of Illinois,
John Woodbruge,
PHTs Att'y.
X State of Illinois,NOTICE
Cook County,
ss, Circuit Court
Vj
Cook,
ss. Superior
court of Cook
county.County
To Janof
SPAFFORD.
McDAID
ft
WILSON,
of Cook County'. January Term, A. D. ls72. Samuel
uary
Term,
A.D.
1*72.
Ann
Marshall
vs.
William
S.Fublic
White v.notice
C. B.isStoddard.
RUNYAN, AVERY, L00MIS ft C0MST0CK, Marshall,In Chancery.
77 W. Madison.
hereby given to the said C. B. Stod CHANCERY NOTICE.-State
Affidavit of the non-residence of William Marshall,
of Illinois, county ol
Attorneys,
dard
that
a
writ
of
attachment
issued
out
of
the
office
above named, having been filed in the office
Cook,
ss.
Superior
Court
of
Cook
county.
To
the
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook county, dated December Term, A. D. 171. Scimry C. Lewi* v. Fran CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of defendant
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
the third day of November, A. D. 1871. at the suit of the cis
notice
is
hereby
given to the said William Marshall
S.
Lewis.In
Chancery.
Cook.ss.
Superior
Court
of
Cook
county.
To
De
said Samuel S. White, ana against the estate of C. B. Affidavit of the uon-resideucc of Francis S. Lewis, cember Term, A.D. la7i. Ellen Cushing v. John Gush that the complainant
heretofore filed her bill of com
Stoddard, for the turn of lour hundred and eighty-four defendunt
above
named,
having
been
filed
in
the
office
plaint
in
said
court,
on the chancery
sideofthereof,
and
ing.In
Chancery.
12-100
dollars,
directed
to
the
Sheriff
of
Cook
county,
that
a
summons
thereupon
issued out
said court
of
the
Clerk
of
said
Superior
Conrt
of
Cook
county,
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of
John
Cushing,
de
which said writ has been returned executed.
against
said
defendant,
returnable
on
the
first
Monday
notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
Francis
S.
Lewis
fendant
above
named,
having
been
filed
in
the
office
of
Mow,personally
therefore,beunless
you, the
said the
C. B.saidStoddard,
January
nextyou,
(1^72.)
is byWilliam
law required.
the complainant heretofore filed bis bill ol com the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook county, no* ofNow,
Bhall
and appear
before
Circuit that
unless
theassaid
Marshall, Bhall
plaint iu said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and tice
is hereby given to the said John Cushing that the personally
Court
of
Cook
county,
on
or
before
the
firBt
day
of
the
bo
and
apper
before
Superior court of
that
a
summons
thereupon
issued
out
of
said
Court
complainant
heretofore
filed
her
bill
of
complaint
in
next term thereof, to be holden at the Court House, in against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a Cook countyt on the first day ofsaid
a
term
thereof, to be
the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of January,
at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
December next (1871), as is required by law.
summons thereupon issued out of said Court against holden
A. D. 1872, give special bail anil plead to the said plain ofNow,
of
March,
1S72,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to the said
unless
you,
the
said
Francis
S.
Lewis,
shall
said
defendant,
returnable
on
the
first
Monday
of
De
tiff's action, judgment will be entered against you, and
be and appear before said Superior Court
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
next (1871), as is by law required.
in favor of the said Samuel S. White, and so much of personally
of Cook county,'on the first day ofa term thereof, to bo cember
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
John
Cushing,
shall
per
the property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy the holden
at Chicago, In said county, on the first Monday sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of taken as confessed, and a decree entered against yon
said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the same. of December,
i -71, and plead, answer or demur to the Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be according to the prayer of paid bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk. said complainant's
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
of complaint, the same, and the holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
Bonnet. Fay ft Griog8. Attorneys.
s-l 1 matters und things bill
therein charged und stated, will be of
9-12
December, lis J, and plead, answer or demur to the II. C. Bennett, Compl't's Sol'r.
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you
said
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
same,
and
the
_ CLARKSON ft VAN SCHAACK,
according to the prayer of said bill.
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will
be
SAMUEL
STRAUS,
154 Wabash Avenue.
JACOBSON.
Clerk.7-10 taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
Attorney, 562 Wabash Avenue.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.- Spafkord. McDaidAUGUSTUS
it Wilson. Compl't's
Sol'rs.
according to the prayer of said bill.
Statecountv,
of Illinois,
Cook term,
County,
Circuit
Court
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk. estate of gottlieb seber, deceased.
of Cook
December
A. ss.
D., 1171.
Matthew
C.
H.
HARRIS,
RUNYAN,
AVERY,
LoOMIS
&
COHSTOCK,
Notice
is hereby given to all persons having claims
C- Wilbur v. II. E. Brown.
and demands against the estate of Gottlieb Sober, de
7-10
Compl'Cs Sol'rs.
Attorney, Monroe Street.
Pnblic notice is hereby given to the said U.K. Brown
ceased, to present the same for adjudication aud settle
NOTICE.-State
of
Illinois,
county
of
that a writ of attachment issued out of the office of the pHANCERY
at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
KJ Cook, ss. Circuit Court of Cook county, February /CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of ment
Clerk of the Crrcuit Court of Cook Couuty, dated the term,
holden
the Court
House, in the
of
A. D. 1672. Alice Simons v. Edward Simons.
Cook, ss._ Superior court of Cook county. To De county,
twenty-ninth day of November, A, D., 1871, at the suit
Chicago,toonbethe
first atMonday
of February,
A. D.city1872,
Chancery.
cember
term,
A.D,
1*71.
George
Stevenson
vs.
Sarah
ofthe said Matthew C. Wilbur and against the estate InAffidavid
being
the
.1th
day
thereof.
of
the
non-residence
of
Edward
Simons,
Stevenson.In Chancery.
of H. E. Brown, for the sum of two hundred and thir
ELISABETHA SEBER, Administratrix.
above named, having been filed in the office J.Affidavit
of thenamed,
non-residence
Sarah
ty-three ninety-one one-hundreth dollars, directed to defendant
Sthaus,
Attorney.
of the Clerk of said Circuit Court of Cook county, no defendant
above
having ofbeen
filedJ.inStevenson,
the office Samuel
the
Sheriff
of
Cook
county,
which
said
writ
has
been
Chicago,
December
8, A. D. 1871.
9-Um
given
to
the
said
Edward
Simons
that
tice
is
hereby
of the clerk of Baid Superior court of Cook county
returned executed.
complainant heretofore filed her certain bill of com- notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
Paid
Sarah
J.
Stevenson
Now,
therefore,
unless
you,
the
said
It.
E.Brown,
JANES B. BRADWELL,
in
said
Court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
and
shall pei-sonally be and appear before tho said Circuit pluint
that
the
complainant
heretofore
filed
his
bill
of
com
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
Attorney.
Court
of Cook
county,
or before
theCourt
first day
of the
said defendant, returnable on the third Mon that a summons thereupon issued out of said court ADMINISTRATRIX'
next term
thereof,
to beonholden
at the
House,
in against
sale of real estate.
of February
next
(1872),
as
is
by
law
required.
against
Baid
defendaut,
returnable
on
the
first
Monday
the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of December, dayNow,
By virtue t if an order and decree of the County
unlet}* you, the said Edward Simons, shall per of December next, (1*71,) as is by law required
A.D.,
1871,
give
special
bail
and
plead
to
the
said
plain
Court
of
Cook
county,
Illinois,
made on tho petition ot
sonally
be
and
appear
before
said
Circuit
Court
of
tiff's action, judgment will be entered against you, and Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be Now, unless you, the said Sarah J. Stevenson, shall the undersigned, Dorothea Rlngleb,
formerly Dorothea
in favor of the said Matthew C. Wilbur, and so much holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon personally be and appear before said Superior court of Medelman, administratrix of the estate
of Friedrich
Cook
countyt
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to
be
of
the
property
attached
as
may
be
sufficient
to
satisfy
Medelman,
deceased,
for
leave
to
sell
estate ot
day
of
February,
1872,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
the raid judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday said deceased, at the December term, A.theD.real
said .
same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk. and the matters and things therein charged and stated, of December, 1*71, and pleud. anvwer or demur to the court, to wit. on the sixth day of December,1871.'of
D. 1871,
Clarkson ft Van Schaack, Attorneys.
8-11 will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against said complainant's bill ofcomplaint, the same, and the I shall, on Monday, the 22d day of January, A.
A.
D.
1872,
matters and tilings therein charged and stilted, will be at 11 o'clock a. nv, sell at public sale, at the eaBt door
you according to the prvyor of said bill.
as confessed,
and of
a decree
entered against you of the Conrt House, on Clark street, in the city of Chi
BROWN ft RICKETTS,
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk. taken
according
to the prayer
said bill.
cago, in said Cook county, and State of Illinnis, the Attorneys, 114 Madison Street.
C.
M.
Harris.
Sol'r.
7-lop
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON.
real estate described as follows, to wit: the northeast
CHANCERY
NOTICE.State
of
Illinois,
county
o
Rlnyan, Avery, Loomik & Comstock, Compl't'sClerk.
SoTrs. quarter
of the northeast quarter of section twentyCook, ss. Superior Court of Cook county, To De
SMITH
&
K0HLSA
AT,
three (23\ in township thirty-six (36), range thirteen
cember Term. 1871. Charles Zircher v. Emelia Zircher.
Attorney^, No. 02 South Canal St.
(13).
ea*t
of theState
3d P.M.,
in thecontaining
town of Bremen,
in
In Chancery.
HIGH ft TRUMAN,
eestate of cornelius f. p.ackcs, deCook county,
of Illinois,
forty acres,
Affidavit
ot the
non-residence
of Emelia
ceased.Notice
is
hereby
given
to
all
persons
on
the
following
terms,
to
wit
:
cash
on
delivery
of
the

fendant
above
named,
having been
filed in Zircher,
the officedeof having
Attorneys,
No.
487
Wabash
Avenue.
claims and demands against the estate of Cor
DOROTHEA RINGLEB,
the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook county, no nelius K.
Buck us deceased; to present the same for estate of eli m. skinner, deceased.- deed.
(Formerly
Dorothea
Medelman.)
tice is hereby given to the said Emelia Zircher that the adjudication
and
settlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
Notiee is against
hereby given
to all of
persons
claims
of the estate of Friedrich Medelman, .
complainant heretofore Hied bis bill of complaint In County Court of Cook county, to be holden at the and demands
the estate
Ell M.having
Skinner,
de Administratrix
deceased.
said Court, on the Chancery side thereof, and that a Court House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon ceased, to present
theterm
sameof for
adjudication
and
set
Jamf.s B. Bradwell, Att'y for Estate.
9-14
summons thereupon issued cut of said Court against day
of
February,
A.
D.
1S72,
being
the
fifth
day
there
tlement
at
a
regular
the
County
Court
ofCook
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of De of.
EMILY BACKUS.
county,
to
be
holden
at
the
Court
House,
in
the
City
of
cember
next,
(1*71),
as
is
by
law
required.
DEANE & CAHILL,
Chicaco, Nov. 21th, A. D. ls"l. Administratrix. Chicago, on the first Monday of February, A.D. 1*72,
Now, unless you, the said Emelia Zircher, shall per
Attorneys, Lind's Block.
7-12 being the fifth day thereof.
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of Smith A Kohlsaat, Attorneys.
BKTSEY SKINNER.
Cook
countv,
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to
be
/
UIANCERY
NOTICE. - State of Illinoh . Cook
holden at Chicago, in said county; on the first Monday
J. C. ft J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
County,
ss,A. D
Superior
Court C.
of Cook
cour ty. DeChicago, Nov. 21, 1871. JEREMIAH S. CLOUGH,
Executors. cember
of December, 1871, and plead, answer or demur to the Attorneys,
terra.
1871. Duane
Galloway
v. Rosa
1GI) West Washington, St.
High A Truman. Attorneys.
7-12a Gallowav. In Chancery.
aaid complainant's bill ofcomplaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be TASTATEOF MARY ANN^AVANAGHJDECEASED
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of
Rosa
Galloway,
taken aa confessed, aud a decree entered againt you I i Public notice ishereby given to all persons having ! JAMES B. BRADWELL & A. H. LAWRENCE, fendant above named, having been filed in the officedeof
according to the prayer of said bill.
the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook county, no
claims anddeceased,
demands toagainst
Ann
JACOBSON. Clerk.
Attorneys,
tice is hereby given to the said Rosa Galloway that the
presentthetheestate
same of
forMary
adjudica
Bbown ft RicKETTgAUGUSTUS
Comprts Sol'rs.
7-10 Cavauagh,
complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint in
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County testate of enoch h. stein, deceased.- | said
Court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
Court
of
Cook
County,
to
be
holden
at
the
Court
Fi Notice
is hereby
all persons
having
JONES & GARDNER,
thereupon
issuedonout
saidMonday
Court against
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of and
demands
againstgiven
the toestate
of Enoch
ir. claims
stti 1 summons
said defendant,
returnable
theoffirst
of De
Attorneys, 1*14 West Madison St.
February, A.D. 1S72, being the .ith dav thereof.
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
and
set
cember
next,
l71,
as
is
by
law
required.
TRUSTEE S SALE.-Whereas. on the twenty-fifth
JOHN
COKBETT,
tlement ut a regular term ot theCounty Court of t'ook Now, unless you, the said Rosa Galloway shall per
J. C. it J. J. Knickerbocker.
Administrator. county,
day
of
October,
1*70,
Amofl
F.
Tompkins
executed
to
be
holden
at
the
Court
House,
iu
the
city
of
l>e ana appear before said Superior Court of
to the undersigned, his trust deed of that date, of the
Attorneys for Estate.
6-11 Chicago, on the first Monday of February, A. D. 1872, sonally
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
real estate hereinafter described, which was recorded
being the fifth day thereof.
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Mon
on the sixth day of December, 1870, in the recorder's
JAMES
FELCH,
FANNIE
STEIN.
day
of December,
is7l,and
plead, answertheorsame,
demurand
to
office of
county,
deeds,two
at
Attorney,
the said
complainant's
bill ofcomplaint,
page
174,Cook
which
trust Illinois,
deed wasin book
givenW3to ofsecure
Administrators,WJII.
withA.theBUTTERS.
will annexed. the
/UIANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of
Illinois,
Cook
matters
and
things
ther
in
charged
and
slated,
will
promissory notes of said Tompkins, of even date with V
James
B.
Braowell
A
A.
H.
Lawrence,
County,
ss.
Superior
Court
of
Cook
County.
Jan
be taken as confessed, and adecree entered againstyou
said trust devd, payable to the order of Joseph Harris, uary term, A. D., 1872. Albert Haukins v. Mury HanAltornevs for Estate. 9-14 according
to the prayer of said bill
each for the sum of thirty-seven hundred and fifty dol
Chicago. Dec. 7, A. D. 1871.
USTUS
Clerk.
AUGUSTUS
'
lars, witli interest thereon at eight per cent, per an kins.
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of
Mary
Hankins,
de
Dfaxe
A
Cahii.l
Compl't's
Sol'r.JACOBSON.
num,
num. payable semi-annually, said notes being payable fendant above named, having been filed in the office
10-13
D. E. K. STEWART,
respectively in one and two years after date, und being
oWng of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook County,
for
part
of
the
purchase
money
of
tinpremises
in
said
SMALL
ft
INGALLS,
Attorney,
181
West
Madison
Street,
notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
Mary
Hankins
that
trust deed described ; and, whereas, default has been tho complainant Heretofore filed his bill of complaint testate of peter zoller, deceased.
Attorneys.
made in the payment of the interest due on said notes in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois.
for the six months ending on the twenty-fifth day of summons
Ci Public notice is hereby given to all persons CCHANCERY
thereupon issued out of said court aguinst having
J Cook, ss. Circuit
Court of Cook
County.County
Februof
October, 1871, and in the payment of the note first due, said defendant,
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
returnable
on
the
first
Monday
ofJan
ary
Term,
A.
D.
172.
Charles
Fargo.
Mary
J.
except the sum of four hundred dollai-s, paid and en uary next, 1872, as is by law required.
Peter Zoller, deceased, to present the same for ad aud Henrv S. Monroe v. Marv L. O'Connor. FargoJohn
dorsed upon said note as of its date, to apply on the Now, unless you, the said Mary Hankins, shall per judication
and settlement at a regular term of the O'Connor, Jeremiah O'Connor. John Forsythe. Patrick
principal of said note; and, whereas, the legal holder sonallv
be
and
appear
before
said
Superior
Court
of
County Court of Cook county, to be holden at the O'Neil, P. H. Smith and Mary L. O'Connor and Davie
of said notes has requested the undersigned to make Cook County, on the first day of a term thereof, to be court
Crocker, administrators, etc.In Chancery.
nouse, in the city of Chicago, on the tirst J. Affidavit
sale of said real estate, as authorized by said trust
at Chicago, in said county, on the first Mon Monday
of the non-residence of John O'Connor, one
of January, A.D. 1S72, being the fourth of the defendants
deed, to pay said notes and interest: Now, therefore, holden
day of January, 18i2, and plead, answer or demur to day
above named, having been filed in
notice
is
hereby
given,
that
under
and
by
virtue
of
the
thereof.
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same,
the
office
of
of said Circuit Court of Cook
power and authority given by said trust deed, and for aud
7X)LLER, Administratrix. county, noticetheis Clerk
matters
and confessed,
things therein
charged
andentered
stated, Chicago. Nov.ELLEN"
hereby given to the said John O'Con
the purpose ofpaying the notes and interest aforesaid, will the
11,
1871.
_
5-10p
be
taken
und
and
a
decree
nor that tho complainants heretofore filed their bill of
and on the thirteenth day of January, 1*72, at ten against you according to the prayer ofsaid hill.
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
o'clock
the forenoon
that day,
the premises
in
BENTLEY, EENNET, ULLMAN St IVES,
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.8-11
Hnd that a summons thereupon issued out ofsaid court
said
trustin deed
described,of(being
alsoatknown
as No. 447
against said defendants, returnable on the third Mon
West W'ashington street,) in the city of Chicago, in James. Felcii, Compl't's Sol'r.
Attorneys,
No.
370
AVabash
Aye.
day of February next (1872). as is by law required.
the state of Illinois, I shall proceed to sell, at public
publication notice in attachment.- sonally
Now, unless
the said
Johnsaid
O'Connor,
BURKE ft ALLEN,
auction, to the highest cash bidder therefor, the said
be anayou,
appear
before
Circuit shall
Courtperof
State
of
Illinois.
Cook
County,
ss.
Circuit
Court
real
estate,
to
wit:
the
east
half
of
lot
numbered
18
W.
Randolph
Street.
Cook County, February Term, A.D. 1S72. Willard Cook county, on tne first day of a term thereof, to be
twenty-six (2*0, in block numbered five (:>) in Malcom CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Cook of
Johnson vs. John Spyker and Harm Yan Spyker. holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
McNeill's subdivision of blocks numbered six (6),
County, ss. Superior Court of Cook County to B.Public
notice Yan
is hereoy
given
toa writ
the said
John Spy day of February, 1872. and plead, answer or demur to
seven (7) and eight (8), iu Wright's addition to Chica January
term, A. D., 1&72. Sh.m:. . . Burdick v. Mil ker and Harm
Spyker
that
ofCircuit
attachment
the said complainants' bill of complaint, the same, and
go,
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
county
of
Cook
and
state
of
P. Burdick. Iu Chanc sr.
issued
out
of
the
office
of
the
clerk
of
the
court the
matters and things therein charged and stated,
Illinois, and all the right, title, interest in the same tonAffidavit
of thenamed
non-resit n. ni*
ofMillon
P.
Burdick,
of Cook county, dated the tirst day of December, A.D. will
be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
conveyed to me hv said trust deed.
defendant
above
ing
been
tiled
in
the
office
1871, at the
the estate
suit ofofthe
said
Willard
B.
Johnson,
and
you
according to the prayer of said bill.
Dated Dec. 7, IS7L GEO. GARDNER, Trustee. of the clerk of said Sup >ior Court ot Cook county, against
John Spyker and Harm Yan Spy
GASSETTE, Clerk.i
Jones A Gardner, Att'ys.
9-13 notice ii hereby given t the said Milton P. Burdick ker, for the sum of four
hundred dollars, with interest Small & Ixgai.ls,NORMAN
Compl'ts' T.Sol'rs.
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com at the rate of seven per cent,
per annum from July IS.
JAMES FRAKE,
plaint
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
and
directed
the sheriff
of Cook county, which said
R. BIDDLE ROBERTS,
Attorney, 115 West Madison Street, that a summons thereupon issued out ot said Court 1*70.
has been toreturned
executed.
against said defendant., returnable on the first Mon writ
testate of william huk>t, deceased. day
Attorney, Room 7, 43 S. Canal St.
Now,
therefore,
unless
you,
the said John Spyker
of
January
next.
IS72.
as
is
by
law
required.
JZJ Notice is hereby given to all persons having Now, unless you, tho said Milton P. Burdick shall and Harm Yan Spyker. shall personally be and appear TESTATE OF JOHN ^VEISHAAR. DECEASED.
the said Circuit court of Cook county, on or be Tj Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
claims and demands against the estate of William personally be and appear before said Superior Court before
fore the first day of the next term thereof, to be holden and
Hurst, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
demands against the estate of John \\ eishaar, de
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to
at
the
court
house, iu the city o. Chicago, on the third
for adjudication
tion and settlement at a regular term of the Coun of
be holden at Chicago, ir said county, on the first Mon
of February, A.D. 172, give special bail and ceased,
ment attoa present
regular the
termsame
of the
County Courtandofsettle
Cook
ty Court of Cook county, to be holden at the court day of January, ls72, ami plead, answer or demur to Monday
plead
to
1he
said
plaintiffs
action,
judgment
will
be
to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
the said complainant's bill ot complaint, the same, as i entered against you, and In favor of the said Willard county,
house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday the
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1S72, beand
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
of January, A.D. 1S72, being the fii>t day thereof. will matters
B.
Johnson,
and
so
much
of
the
property
attached
as
be taken us confessed, and a decree entered against may be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and costs ig th. fourth day Hereof, WFJgHAAR
JOHN COMMACK, Executor. you according
to the prayer of gald bill.
the same.
Chicago, November 9, A.D. 1871.
R. BIUDLK RUBKRTS.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, C rk,8-11 | will be sold to satisfy
NORMAN
GASSETTE,
James Frake, Art* y.
Bi'RKE & Allen, Compl't's
Sol'rs.
Bextlet, Bexset,
Ullham T.& Ives,
Atty's. Clerk.y-12 Chicago, December .'>. A. D. 1871. Administrators.
9-Hp

72
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
MARTIN A. O'BRENNA!*, LL.D ,
55-4 Wabash avenue.
FJ. 8EYBOLD, 497 Wabash avenue ; residence
, 140 South Green street.

Chicago

Legal

NewsATTORNEYS.

NEW LAW BOOKS.

AD VERTISEMENT.

H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Wo. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kama*.

GEORGE C. FRY,
AMERICAN LEADING CASES. STEVENS & HAYNES
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
54 Wed Randolph Street, formerly 86 LaSalle Street,
and Improved.
Chicago.
La-w Publishers,
Being Select Decisions of American Court*, with ExjxJAMES B. BRADWELL,
cial Reference to Mercantile Lav:, with Xotes.
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
The whole work has been thoroughly revised, and
No. 113 West Madison Street, Chicago.
largely increased by the introduction of several en
Attention Given to Probate Matters.
tirely new heads of practical interest, by
AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS, Special
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
Hon. J. I. C. HARE, ajid JXO. WM. WALLACE, Esq.
ESTATES SETTLED.
In 2 Vols., octavo, of nearly 1,000 pages each.
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
"Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die,
and
not
live."2
Kinos xx. 1.
Among the many subjects treated of and fully illus
LONDON.
trated in this edition, are :
S. A. GOODWIN.
E. C. LARNED.
H. S. TOWU,
Conveyances, Voluntary and Fraudulent.
Slander and Libel, including the uuetttion of Mer
GOODWIN, LARNED & TOWLE,
cantile Agencies.
Infancy. of Payment*.
Application
ATTORNEYS AT LAW".
k LFRED PAXSON.
Insurance Exchange Building.
Dills
Notes.
Form,and
Time
and Mode of communicating Notice of Works in all Classes of Literature
Ho.
494
Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
LOGANSPORT (IND.) ATTORNEYS.
'ishonor.
Negotiability of Instruments, including the subject
of
Coupon
Bonds,
etc.
JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWARD O.
M. HOWARD.
SUPPLIED TO OBDEB.
of oneheld
Partner
to bind the Firm.
5-16* Power
Attorney at Lavr.
Real
Estate
a Commercial
Partnership.
MATTOCKS & MASON,
Appointment
ofbyand
Termination
of Powers of
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
Agent.
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
Principal and Factor.
No. 523 Wabash Avenue, S. W. cor. Harmon Court,
Domicile.
PEPPER. WILSON * MARTIN,
Chicago. III.
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
Guaranty.
Room 2 Bank Building.
Antecedent
Discharge ofDebt.
Surety.
W.
H. WING,
Orders
Promptly
Filled.
Revocation of Wills.
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
License.
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
Judgment of other States.
Elgin, IU.
Abandonment.
5 16
Collections promptly attended to.
of
Public
uConstructive
and
Total
Loss.
Insurable Interest and Forfeiture of Policy, etc.,
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
etc.,
etc.
Attorney, 18 East Harrison St
BATES * HOBOES,
rN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
In a Vol... oelaio. Law
1
States,
for
the.
Northern
District
of
Illlnois.-In
Attorneys
at Law, 13 W. Madison St.
Bankruptcy. In the matter of Rowland Longinire
bankrupt. Notice ia hereby given that a second gen
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
oral meeting of the creditors of said bankrupt will be
By importing DIRECT from England, a consider
held on the 30tli day of December, 1871, at 2 o clock, p.
m at No. IS East Harrison street, in the City of Chi WALLACE Jrs., C. C. REPORTS, VOL. 3. able saving is effected, especially in tlie Customs duty,
CHARLES J. BISHOP,
cago, before H. N. Hibbahd. Esq.. Register, for the pur
Successor to J. Freeman' Silkh,
poses named in the 2Ttli section of the Bankrupt Act of Cases in the Circuit Court of the United States, for from which Public Institutions in the United States are
March 2, 1867. AssigneeROBERT
E.
JENKINS,
ACCOUNTANT
AND EXPERT BOOK-KEEPER,
of said Bankrupt's Estate. tli-* Third Circuit (being Decisions of the late Judge
122
W.
Washington
St.. Chicago, IU. 7-18p
Chica.co
D(*c
1"*
If?7l
N B In'the liite fire all Proofs of Debt in the hands Grier. 1864-41), reported by Jno. Wh. Wallace, Esq.,
of'the'Assignee and Register in Bankruptcy wore de Vol. 3. Price, #7.30.
J.
R.
HOWXETT,
stroyed, ft will be necessary ?or each Creditor to
SUNDRY mistakes having been made
Lanark, t'arrollAND
Co., NOTARY
Illinois, PUBLIC.
^akeAKOTHa PBOOr.^ g JEf)Krs3 AB,.gne0
MAGISTRATE
by our Foreign and Colonial Correspond POLICE
Has the same
jurisdiction as any Justice
of the Peace.
JUST PUBLISHED BY
Prompt attention given tocollections and remittances.
TN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
'. & .J. W. Johnson & Co., ents in addressing their letters, we beg
1 States, fortho Northern District of Illinois.-In
the matter of Addison A. Turner and Ellis C. Turner
to notify that the members of our firm
bankrupts. Notice is hereby given, that the under
Law Booksellers and Publishers,
BURKE & ALLEN,
are Henry G. Stevens and Robert W.
signed
assignee
of
said
bankrupts
estate,
will
sell
at
18 W. Randolph Street.
public, auction, for cash, to the lushest bidders, at No
Haynes,
the
son
and
stepson
of
the
late
fjHANCERY
NOTICE.-Stute
of Illinois.
or
535 Chestnut-st., Philadelphia, Pa.
1;. East Harrison street, in the city of Chicago, on Sat
y Cook.ss.
courtLane
of Cook
county,County
urdav,
3<>thforenoon,
day of December,
A.D. ISil, desper
at ten
Valentine Stevens, the eminent Law lerm.
A.D. 1*71.Circuit
Timothy
vs. Sylphyna
J.August
Lane.
o'clock the
in the
all the uncollectablo,
at.- and doubtful debts due on open account, promis
In Chancery.
Publisher. Since our father's death we Affidavit
of the non-residence ,.f Sylphyna J. Lane,
eory
judgments
and cboses
action, belonging
defendant above named, having been tiled in the office
to saidnotes,
estate,
the particulars
withinreference
to. which
A.
B.
BALDWIN,
have
continued
to
carry
on
the
business
of
the
clerk
said Circuit
courtSylphma
of Cook J.county,
no
Bee of the undersigned.
nay be learned at the office
uudert
Attorney, Room f>, Lind's Block.
is herebyofgiven
to the said
Lane that
ROBERT E. JENKIN:
of Law Publishers, Booksellers and Export tice
the complainant heretofore tiled bis bill of complaint
INSTATE
OF
JOHN
B.
GALLAGHER,
DECEASED.
Assignee of said Estate.
Est;
in said court,
on the chancery
andngainit
that a
j Notice 1b hereby given to all persona having claims
Chicago, Dec. 15. 1871.
summons
thereupon
issued outsidenfthereof,
said court
and demands against the estate of John B. Gallagher, ers, at the above address.
said defendant, returnable on the third Monday of
_.-THIS IS TO GIVE deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
-J^-OTICE
IN
BANKRVI
T(
V.
During his recent visits to the United September next, (|s7i.i us is by law required.
thatinoubankruptcy
the 25th day
November,
at a regular term of the County Court ofCook
Now, unless you, the said Sylphyna J. Lane, shall
1871. notice
a warrant
was ofissued
againstAD
the tlement,
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of States and Canada, Robert AV. Haynes personally
be onandtheappear
before
court
citato
of
Orrin
Smith,
Jr.,
of
Chicago,
in
the
county
riiicago,
on
the
flret
Monday
of
February,
A.
D.,
1S72,
Cook
first day
of asaid
termCircuit
thereof,
to beof
f Cook, and State of Illinois, who has been adjudged being the tilth day thereof.
secured many Friends and Correspond holdencounty,
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
third
Monday
abankrupt.on his own petition; that the payment ofany
SARAH
A.
GALLAGHER,
Administratrix.
of September, 1*71. and plead, answer or demur to the
debtr*. and delivery of any property belonging to such A. B. Baldwix, Att'y.
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
bankrupt
to him,
his use, and
any Chicago, Nov. 27th. 1871.
S-13 <1-H ents; we are thus enabled to give refer said
matters and thliias therein charged and stated, will be
property by
him, or
areforforbidden
by the
law;transfer
that a ofmeet
ences
of
the
highest
character
in
most
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
ing of the creditors of said bankrupt, to prove thei
J.
C.
&
J.
J.
KNICKERBOCKER,
debts
and tobechoose
morenfassignees
of histo esbe
according to the pravcr
of saidT.bill.
Attorneys, lf>3 \V. Washington St.
of the principal American cities.
will
held atonea orCourt
Bankruptcy,
NORMAN
GASSETTK. Clerk.
NOTICE.-Statn
of Illinois,
County
of
10-13
V.amt Harrison
Hnrrisnn street,
Htrnfit. Chicago,
ChicaifO. before flHANCEHY
lioTden at No. isid East
Burke
A
Allen,
Compl't's
Sol'rs.
We
have
no
connection
whatever
with
\^
Cook,
as.
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county.
February
day
of
N.
Hibbard,
Esq.,
Register,
on
the
28th
Homer
Term,
A.D.
1S72.
Evan
Davis
vs.
Emilie
Wirth
and
>er,A.D.187..a,10OMockHa.m.MpBELLi
any other house of business, and to pre
December
MOORE & CAULFIELD,
Charles
Wirth.In
Affidavit
that the Chancery.
defendant* above named on due vent delay and miscarriage, our Corre Attornrys, S. E. cor. State k Madison.
3.10
U. S. Marshal. Messenger. Inquiry
cannot
be
found,
having
been
filed
in
the
office
INSTATE
OK
MARY ANN TAYLOR. DECEASED,
of the dork of said Circuit court of Cook county, spondents abroad are respectfully re
il Public
notice
is hereby
given
all persons
notice is hereby given to the said Emilie Wirth ana
claims
and
demands
against
the toestate
of Maryhaving
Ann
Charles
Wirth
that
the
complainant
heretofore
filed
Taylor,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
quested
to
plainly
address
their
letters
his bill of complaiant in said court, on the chanceryami settlement at a regular term of the County
court
side thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out to us as follows :
of Cook county." to la- huMon in the city of Chicago,
of
against
said defendants,
returnable
on
on the first Monday of February
next. . Executrix.
.,_,thesaid
thirdcourt
Monday
of February
next, (1S72,)
as is by law
MARY BliOWN,
LEGAL NEWS PRINTING DEPARTMENT required.
Chlraso,
Dec.
1.1,1*71.
til
Now, unless you, the said Emilie Wirth nnd Charles STEVENS & HAYNES,
Wirth, shall personally be and appear before said Cir
ESTATE
HOMERgiven
HOPKINS,
DECEAS^Notice OF
is hereby
to all persons
tavlng
cuit
court
of
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
thereof, to be bolden at Chicago, in said county, on the
claims and demands against the estnt* oIS?
of February,
1S72. and
answerthe
or
Hopkins,
deceeased, toat present
theterm
sameofto!the^ouno
"dj"""
Briefs & Abstracts. third
tion and
settlement
ar
demurMonday
to the said
complainant's
bill ofplead,
complaint,
LONDON,
court
of Cook
county, toaberegu
holden
at the courthouse
same,
and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
in the city of Chicago, on the first Montho ot * cDru
stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to the prayer of said bill.
ENGLAND. ary.J' A.D. 1S72, being
the fifth
day thereof.
KITT1E
I..HOPKINS.Executrix.
NORMAN T, CASSETTE, Clerk.
The attention of Attorneys is called to our superior J. C. A J. J. Knickerbocker,
Compl't's Sol'rs. y-I2
Chicago,
Dec.
12.
A.D.
1S71.
,j
facilities for printing BRIEFS and ABSTRACTS.
J.
A. B. Baldwin. Att'y.
SMALL & TNGALLS,
B. HtoA KSpLOTJ***$|
Attorneys, 481 Wabash Ave.
Our prices are :
NoticeOFis CHARLES
hereby given
all perso.ns toolnJrom " Report of Jruvs Rosenthal, Esq E"iTATK
NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of Extract
and deceased,
demnnds toagainst
thetheestate
BRIEFS*
Per page,
8-1.2S /"1HANCERY
Librarian to the President and Members of claims
Cook. ss. Circuit court of Cook county, February
Haenssler,
present
sameofforL^'VJ.
adj
term,
A.D.
1872.
Charles
Fargo
vs.
Patrick
O'Neil,
tion
andsettleme.it
at
a
regular
term'
' i ,h1fr^S
the Chicauo Law Institute." .Yoremter, 1870.
ABSTRACTS.
- - 1.75 Mary L. O'Connor, Mary O'Connor, John O'Connor
court
of
Cook
county,
to
be
holden
at
the
mi
in J
Jeremiah
0*Connor.In
Chancery.
" To our collection of English Reports a valuable in the citv of Chicago on the first Monday ot
Orders left either at the office of the Legal News. andAffidavit
of
the
non-residence
of
John
O'Connor,
being 1IAENSSLEI1,
the fifth day thereof
.
,
US W. Madison St., or at the Printing Office, 13 North one of the defendants above named, having been filed addition has been made by the importation of a arv' ' A I).' 1S72,ANNA
Administratrix.
in tne office
clerk given
of saidtoCircuit
Cook full and well preserved set of the House of Lords Chicago, Dec. l.'c A.D.
.Jefferson St., will be promptly executed.
IS71.
uy.iaa
county,
noticeof isthehereby
the saidcourt
JohnofO'Con
nor that the complainant heretofore Hied his bill of Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58 Tueo. Schist/.. Att'y.
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out ofsaid court volumes.
Scale of Advcrtining Rates" English books were imported directly free of
against said defendants, returnable on the third Mon
dayNow.
of February
next,
Us72.)
as is O'Connor,
by law required.
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the
unless
you,
the
said
John
shall
per
sonally he nnd appear before said Circuit court of Cook firm of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose Space. 1 w. , 2 w. | 3 w. 1 m. 3 m.
53 ILLINOIS REPORTS
county, on the flret 'lay of a term thereof, to be holden diligence, promptness, and care in filling our or
Will be delivered to Chicago lawyers, on Tuesday, the at
Chicago, in said county, on the third Monday of
1 sq $1.0b'$1.75 S2.50 So\25
1Mb. inst.. by E. B. JI1EBS,
___
February, 1872, bill
and of
plead,
answer orthedemur
the said
complainant's
complaint,
same,to and
the ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
2.00 ",.50 : 4.7."> 6.00 15.75
2 sq
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
1022 Wabash Av.
as confessed, and a decree entered against you
He will also till orders from the Chicago Bar fur 17 taken
3
sq
of saidT,bill.
2.80j 5.00] 6.50 8.00 23.00
N. L. FREEMAN. according to the prayer
toSpringfield,
Mill
NORMAN
CASSETTE, Clerk.
Dec. 14 1871.
%
col....
Small A Inoai.ls, Compl't's Sol'rs.
9-12
james b. bradwell,
3.75!
7.00 j 17.25:22.00
9.501 12.00 30.00
1 have .1 few sets on hand of Scammon's Reports, 4
7.001 11.50
58.00
Attorney, 113 West Madison St.
P. McHUGH,
\i
col....
vols., Oilman's, 3 vols., Illinois, Vols II to 18 inclusive,
OF FRIEDERICH MEDELMAN.decoased.
at $**.<*) per vol. Also, various Vols, up to 16 in good Attorney, S. E. cor. Randolph it Canal. ESTATE
Public notice is hereby given to all persons having 1 col li00l22.00|31.0(l'42.00 108.00
order
at
reasonable
rates.
TESTATE
OF
AUGUST
JESKE,
DECEASED.-NOand demands against the estate of Friedorich Ten lines of Agate make a Square. &(lrancc.
Sfff- Second-hand Vols, of Reports and Digests Xj tice is hereby given to all persons having claims claims
Medelmnn. deceased, to present the same for adjudica
want,1-!, for which liberal prices will be paid.
and demands against tin1 estate of August Jeske, de tion
and settlement at a regular term of the County Advertisements must be paid lor }. ' adde(j.
A.
B.
MYERS.
ceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
and
settle
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house and when not so paid. 50 per cent, flay
10
Law Bookseller, 1022 Wabash Ave. ment at a regular term ot the County Court of Cook court
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of January, Legal Notices not Included In the i
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of A.D.
1S72,
being the first
day thereof.
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
March,
A.
D.
1872,
be
CHARLES DRTESSLEIN,
DOROTHEA
RINGLEB,
formerly
ing theANDREW
4th day thereof.
Printed at the Chicago Legal News Press, 15
DOROTHEA
MEDELMAN,
Administratrix.
ENZENBACKER.
Administrator.
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
James
B.
BVadwell,
Att'y
for
Estate.
North
Jefferson street, Chicago.
P.
McHcoh,
Attorney.
Chicago,
Nov.
IS.
1871.
o-11
Chicago, December 8, A. D. 1871.
9-14a
Western Union Telegraph Office, 504 Wabash Ave.

MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.

ANFORD, E. Special attention given to Col
lections and Real Estate.
M*
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
ERNDON & ORENDORF.
Office west side square.
H
MINNEAPOLIS MTNN.) ATTORNEYS.
SMITH & ORDWAY,
No. 11 Centre Block^Nlcollet st 5111*
8T. LOOTS (MO.) ATTORNEYS.
P. COLBYCounselor-at-Law. St. Louis. Mo.

Qhicago

Jegal

^ews.

Entered aecurdiiiK to Act of Congress, in the your 1*71, by tlie CHICAGO Leoal News Company, in the ofllce of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 11.

Cfje Courts.
SUPREME COVET OE THE UNITED
STATES.
The Phoenix Insurance Co., Plaintiff in Error, v.
W. A. Slaiiihtkk and Jacob Stewart, late part
ners as W. A. Slaughter & Co.
In error to the Circuit Court qf tlie United Ntalajbr
the Southern District 0/ Mbeissfppi.
INSURANCE IT)LICYCLAUSE IN RELATION
TO GUNPOWDER, ETC., CONSTRUED.
Mr. Justice Davis delivered the opin
ion of the Court.
This suit was brought to recover for a
loss by fire, and the only question pre
sented by the record for decision relates
to the sufficiency of the third plea, to
which the circuit court sustained a de
murrer. Whether the plea be good or
bad, depends upon the proper construc
tion to be given to one of the conditions
attached to the policy of insurance,
which the assured were required to ob
serve. This condition applies to the
keeping gunpowder on the premises. It
is contended by the insurance company
that keeping gunpowder in the store, in
any quantity, vacated the policy, while
the assured insist the policy is not
defeated if they did not keep more than
one barrel at a time. The clause of the
policy out of which this difference in
opinion arises isas follows : " Or if gun
powder, phosphorus, saltpetre, naptha,
benzine, benzine varnish, benzole, pe
troleum, or crude earth oils are kept on
the premises, or if camphene, burning
fluid, refined coal or earth oils are kept
for sale, stored, or used on the premises,
in quantities exceeding one barrel at any
one time, without written permission, or
indorsed upon the policy : then and in
every such case this policy shall be void."
If this clause were detached from oth
er parts of the instrument there might
be some question as to its proper i^rormnical construction. But such is not the
case. It is the last clause in the fourth
sub -division of the conditions em
braced in the body of the policy, and in
this sub-division a number of causes are
set forth which shall operate to avoid the
policy. These causes are all embraced
in separate clauses, each class being sep
arated from the others by a semicolon.
If there were in the clause in dispute a
semicolon where the word premises is
first used, it mav be, in view of the punc
tuation adopted in reference to the other
clauses, that this clause would be com
plete in itself, and exclude wholly from
the premises gunpowder, saltpetre, and
the other articles in the same class. But,
in the absence of the semicolon, it is
manifest that nogreater restriction can be
applied to gunpowder and saltpetre than
to camphene and burning fluid, and that,
therefore, the words " in quantities ex
ceeding one barrel at any one time" are
applicable alike to all the materials
which are specified in the clause in con
troversy. This construction is fortified
by the nature of the forbidden articles.
Saltpetre is not a dangerous substance ;
and yet, according to the view of the
counsel for the plaintiff in error, it is
prohibited altogether, while a barrel of
camphene and burning fluid, which are
inflammable, can be stored with impunity
A construction that would lead to such a
result cannot be adopted, unless the lan
guage employed leaves no other alter
native.
Besides, if the contract is as contended
for, it would impeach the good faith and
fair dealing of the insurance company,
for it would be deceptive, and calculated
to mislead those who are not. well in
formed on matters of this kind. It is
well known that the agencies of this
company are located in all parts of the
country, and that, in many places where
thev are established, housekeepers gen
erally keep on hand, for their own use,
in small quantities, gunpowder, saltpetre,
benzine, and perhaps other interdicted
articles. It would never occur to this
class of persons, on making application
at one of these agencies for insurance,

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1871.

that they were forbidden to keep these
things in their houses, and unless their
attention was particularly called to the |
subject, which would be an unusual oc
currence, they would take out their pol
icies in the belief that they could keep
and use the substances required for their
necessities as they had been in the habit
of doing ; and, if they should happen to
read over the schedule of conditions an
nexed to the policy, usually printed in
the smallest type, not being accustomed
to a critical examination of the structure
of sentences, they would naturally con
clude, as saltpetre and gunpowder are
classed together, and as saltpetre is com
paratively harmless, while camphene and
burning fluid are quite dangerous, that
the restriction at the end of the enumer
ated articles was intended to be applied
to all of them alike.
This, too, is the rational construction
of the clause in question, and we can
not suppose the company which framed
this policy intended it to be interpreted
differently.
If insurance companies do not mean
to take risks on property where gunpow
der, saltpetre, and the like substances are
kept, even for ordinary use, then good
faith to the assured requires that they
should declare their intention in terms
which cannot admit of controversy ; and,
in order to avoid just cause of complaint,
it would be better for them to employ
type, in relation to this important sub
ject, large enough to arrest the attention
of an interested party.
In our opinion the Circuit Court did
not err in sustaining the demurrer to the
third plea, and the judgment of that
court is, accordingly, affirmed.
The motion for damages is disallowed.
Josiah H.BissEi.i.,Reporter,has kindly
furnished us with the annexed copy of
the following important opinion of
Judge Blodcett :
U. S. DISTRICT COURT, N. D. OF
ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed Dec. 18, 1871.
In the matter of The Merchants' Insurance Co.
In Bankruptcy.
ACT OF BANKRUPTCYINSOLVENT INSUR
ANCE COMPANYAPPOINTMENT OF RE
CEIVER IN STATE COURTEFFECT OF.
1. Insolvent Insurance Company within the
Baskruit Law.That an insurance company is
one of that class of corporations intended to be
within the scope and provisions of the bankrupt
law.
2. The Bankrupt Law Suspends State Insol
vent Laws.That the object and intent of the
General Bankrupt Law is to place the administra
tion of the affairs of insolvent persons and corpo
rations exclusively under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Courts of bankruptcy, and the enactment
of the general bankrupt law now in force sus
pended all actions and proceedings under State
insolvent laws.
3. Appointment of a ReceiverEffect of.
That the appointment of a Receiver by a State
court is a "taking on legal process" within the
meaning oi the Stn clause of the 39th section of
the Bankrupt Act.
4. If the tact of insolvency exists, and the per
son or corporation is within the provisions of the
bankrupt law, the Federal courts sitting In bank
ruptcy have exclusive jurisdiction of his property,
and the tofact
that the
a State
lawfrom
does his
not debts,
purportcanor
attempt
relieve
debtor
not be urged as a reason why the State court
should hold the assets and administer them after
the proper proceedings in bankruptcy.
5. Dcty of Insolvent Corporations. That
when the corporation found itselfInsolvent, orwas
so certified by the State Auditor, and proceedings
were instituted for the dissolution of the corpora
tion, it was the duty of the corporation at once to
voluntarily tile its petition to be adjudged a bank
rupt in the Federal court.
6. Cases of Concurrent Jurisdiction. That
this is not a case of concurrent jurisdiction be
tween the State and Federal court; that in all
cases when the State and Federal courts have eoncurrent jurisdiction the court which first obtains
c mtrol of the parties and property by judicial pro
ceedings will retain it.
7. Payment of Rent an Ait of Bankruptcy.
That the payment of rent in full by an insolvent
corporation in order to prevent a valuable lease
from being forfeited, is a technical act of bank
ruptcy.ED. Leoal News.
Opinion of the court by Blodgett, J.
The petitioning creditor in this case,
The Singer Manufacturing Company,
seeks an adjudication in bankruptcy
against The Merchants' Insurance Com

pany, on an alleged indebtedness exist

ing upon a policy of insurance issued
by the latter company, upon wrhich loss
was sustained on the 9th of October last,
and the chief act of bankruptcy alleged
is, that said Insurance company, being
insolvent, did, on the 6th day of Novem
ber last, suffer its property to be taken
on lejjal process, under certain proceed
ings instituted by the attorney general
of this State in the Circuit court of Cook
county, pursuant to the 23d section of
the statute of this State, approved March
11, 1869, entitled, "An act to incorporate
and govern fire and marine insurance
companies, etc."
An answer is filed by the Insurance
Company, admitting the substantial facts
alleged in the petition, and submitting
to the court whether those facts consti
tute an act of bankruptcy within the
meaning of the law.
The facts thus alleged and admitted
are substantially these :
The respondent is a corporation, crea
ted under a special charter by the legis
lature of the State of Illinois in 1861,
and since 1863, up to about the 6th of
November last, said company has been
engaged in doing a fire and marine in
surance business, pursuant to the powers
granted in its act of incorporation, having
its principal office in the city of Chicago.
By reason of the losses sustained in the
great fire which occurred in this city on
the 9th of October last, said company be
came insolvent, and on the 31st of Octo
ber last, the people of the State of Illin
ois, by the attorney general of the State,
filed their bill of "complaint in the Cir
cuit court of Cook county, pursuant to
the 23d section of the law referred to,
alleging in substance that said company
had become insolvent, and unable to pay
its liabilities, and that its assets were
insftilL-ient to justify the continuance of
said company in business, and praying
that said corporation might be dissolved,
and that a Receiver might be appointed
to take charge of its assets ; and on the
6th of November last, the officers of said
company, fearing that judgments might
be obtained in certain suits then pending
against the company, and the plaintiffs
in such suits thereby obtain an undue
preference over other creditors, consent
ed to the appointment of a Receiver by
said court in accordance with said bill,
and W. E. Doggett, Esq., was accordingly
appointed such Receiver, and the com
pany has since delivered over to him all
its assets and property. No charge of
willful or intended fraud is brought
against the corporation or its officers ; it
being conceded that its officers and
managers are among the most upright
and capable of our citizens, and that the
present insolvency of the company re
sults from circumstances beyond the
control of those in charge of its affairs.
Upon these admitted facts we are
called upon to adjudicate. There can be
no doubt, or at least we have none, that
this corporation is one of that class of
corporations intended to be within the
scope and provisions of the general
bankrupt law. The 37th section declares
that " the provisions qf this art shall apply
to all moneyed business or commercial corporalionsand joint slock companies." The busi
ness of insurance, for the carrying on of
which this company was incorporated,
and in which it has been engaged, is
clearly included within the definitions
given by the statute.
The object and intent of the General
Bankrupt Law is to place the adminis
tration of the affairs of insolvent per
sons and corporations exclusively under
the jurisdiction of the Federal courts
of Bankruptcy ; and the enactment of
the general bankruptcy law now in
force suspended all actions and proceed
ings under State insolvent laws. See
A. L. R., 765 ; Perry v. Langley, 1 B. R.,
135 ; 7 A. L. R., 429 ; 2 B. R., 154 and 188 ;
7 Gal., 208.
It also seems clear to us that the ap
pointment of a Receiver by the State

Whole No. 169.

court to take possession of the property
and assets of a person, firm or corpora
tion, and apply the same to the payment
of debts, is a ' taking on legal process "
within the meaning of the 8th clause of
the 39th section of the Bankrupcty Act.
The Receiver of a court of chancery is
its executive officer, as much so, to all
intents and purposes, as a sheriff of a
court of law ; and the goods or property
in his hands are as much in the custody
of the law as if levied upon under an
execution or attachment. And the pur
pose for which the Receiver in this case
takes the property is the same as that of
a sheriff in making his levy, except that
the scope of the Receiver s warrant is
more comprehensive, he being required
to pay all debts, while the sheriff only
seeks the payment of the specific debt
mentioned in his execution or attach
ment.
Although I am not aware that this
particular point has ever before been
raised in this court, it has often been
decided elsewhere. See 2 B. R., 2 ; 2
Benedict's Reports, 292 ; 10 B. R., 367.
But it is objected that the proceedings
in the State court here complained of
being in accordance with a general stat
ute of this State and part of the organic
law by which the respondent exists, and
being predicated mainly upon the re
served right of the State to protect its
citizens against irresponsible insurance
companies, and the State court having
acquired jurisdiction of the parties ana
subject-matter, this court cannot now
interfere as a bankrupt court and take
charge of and administer the assets in
question, although the insolvency of the
respondent is fully conceded.
It seems enough to suggest in answer
to this position that, if correct, any State
could effectually defeat the operation of
any bankrupt law passed by Congress by
simply providing that any person or cor
poration, if deemed insolvent or inca
pable of doing business by a State officer,
might, under the power of exercising
and enforcing police regulations or en
actments by the States, be wound up
and its assets administered upon in the
State courts, notwithstanding such per
son or corporation might be insolvent
and guilty of all the acts of bankruptcy
provided for in the general bankrupt
law.
It is further urged that the proceeding
in question does not come within the
terms of the bankrupt act, because the
State law under which it is instituted is
not an insolvent law, inasmuch as it does
not purport to dis *harge the debtor from
its liabilities, but we fail to perceive how
the treatment the debtor may receive at
the hands of the State court "can avail to
sustain that court's control over the as
sets. If the fact of insolvency exists,
and the person or corporation is within
the provisions of the bankrupt law, the
Federal courts sitting in bankruptcy have
exclusive jurisdiction of his property, and
the fact that a State law does not pur
port or attempt to relieve the debtor
from his debts, cannot, it seems to us, be
urged as a reason why the State court
should hold the assets and administer
them after proper proceedings in bank
ruptcy have been instituted in the Fed
eral courts.
We might further answer this objec
tion by the suggestion that a discharge
of an insurance company's liabilities un
der this State statute and proceedings in
the State courts would be in the nature
of things superfluous and unnecessary,
for the reason that the main object of the
proceeding is to forfeit the charter and
franchises of the corporation, and why
assume to discharge from further liabil
ity a debtor whose legal entity is to be
dissolved ? If its corporate existence is
to be terminated, it matters little what
becomes of its unpaid balances.
It also seems clear to us that in so far
as a State law attempts to administer on
the effects of an insolvent debtor and
distribute them among creditors, it is to

Chicago

Legal

News.

all intents and purposes an insolvent make out a technical act of bankruptcy. on the contrary, had converted and dis
law, although it may not authorize a dis But no stress was laid upon it in the ar posed of it to his own use. The answer
charge of the debtor from further lia gument, as all parties seemed desirous was a general denial and in addition a
. of a decision upon the first charge.
bility.
special claim of title in the defendant
The expenditure complained of seems under the bill of sale from Dowe, TibWe have no doubt that the proceeding
in the State court, to forfeit the charter to have been judicious and made in good bits & Co. to him.
This suit purports to be one in equity,
and corporate franchises of this com faith, and this court would probably, on
pany, is entirely valid and within the the facts stated, have authorized it, but instituted for the purpose of enforcing
powers and jurisdiction of that court, this does not change the character of what is termed the equitable lien cre
ated in favor of the plaintiff by virtue of
perhaps exclusively so. The State having the act under the law.
the same instrument, denominated a
created the corporation may undoubtedly
The
Hon.
Thomas
Drummond,
Circuit
warehouse receipt. Such equitable right
dissolve it in its own way, consistent
Judge, sat with Judge Blodgett on the or lien of the plaintiff, it is claimed and
with the terms of the grant.
The fallacy of the respondent's argu hearing of this cause and concurred in insisted on his part, is not barred or
affected by the former judgment. It is
ment seems to us to consist in the the decision.
whatever may have been the
assumption that, because the State court
Eldridge & Tourtelotte for peti obvious,
rights of the plaintiff under the instru
had jurisdiction for the dissolution of tioner.
called a warehouse receipt, set out
the corporation, it can therefore hold
Scammon, McCagg A Fuller for re ment
in the complaint in this suit and given
jurisdiction under all circumstances for spondent.
in evidence by the plaintiff on the trial
the distribution of the assets. If the
fact of insolvency had not existed, the
Throngh the courtesy of the law firm of the former action as the foundation
State court would probably have had the of Carpenter & Murphy, of Milwaukee, of his claim and right to recover in that,
and which, from the averments now
right to administer the assets, if once
within its control, as an incident to the we have received the following opinion : contained in the complaint, appears ac
principal object of the proceeding, SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. tually to have been a warehouse receipt,
that all such rights might have been
which was the dissolution of the corpor
Clark shkperdson, Appellant, v. Anthony amply vindicated, and full and adequate
ation. But, as before stated, when insol
redress given, in the former action at
Green, Respondent.
vency intervenes so as to make the
JUDGMENT AS A BAR WHEN law. This is obvious in whatever light
debtor a proper subject for the operation FORMER
ESTOPPED BY IN EQUITY WAREHOUSE the instrument may be regarded, or
of the bankrupt act, the exclusive juris
RECEIPTSRIGHTS OK HOLDER OF.
diction of the bankrupt court attaches, 1. Legal and Evuitahi.e Remedies When whatever may be or might then have
and the State court, and those acting in one Forum a bar to action in Other.When been, considered its nature and effect,
and equitable remedies are concurrent and whether the rights of the plaintiff be
under its mandate, must surrender the the legal
eo-equal a final judgment in one forum will
at as legal or equitable, or both.
control of the assets, whatever may be and
be a bar to further agitation and controversy with looked
the final decree in regard to the contin respect to the same subject matter in the other ; If, for example, it be urged as a chattel
that if a mortgagee should bring replevin for mortgage, or a sale or assignment in the
uance of the corporation. AVhen the the
and be defeated in the action on
corporation fount! itself insolvent, or the property
ground that his mortgage was void or nature of one, thus giving the plaintiff
was certified to be insolvent by the State not a lien upon the property in the possession certain legal and equitable rights as
defendant he could not afterwards bring against the makers, Dowe, Tibbits <fc Co.,
auditor, acting under the State law, and of the
suit in equity and compel the defendant to
against others, the action at law was
proceedings were instituted for the dis his
litigate the same questions over again in that or
for the protection and enforce
solution of the corporation and the court upon the ground of his supposed equitable ample
title or lien. His entire right or title would be in ment of all such rights. Grant that the
administration of its assets, it was the volved
issue at law, and that decision remedy in equity existed by reason of
duty of the corporation at once to volun would beinre*theaujuflintta
in the court of equity ; that
lien and equitable right," and might
tarily file its petition to be adjudged a the same result would follow where the proceed the
ing
at
law
is
in
trover
or
form of action to have been resorted to before the action
bankrupt in the federal court, and its recover damages for theother
taking or conversion of at law was commenced, tried or deter
failure to do so, and its acquiescence in the property, and it is adjudged
against the plain mined, still the latter was, by reason of
the proceedings by which its assets were tiff on the merits that his mortgage is void, or that the
legal title and right at law, a remedy
he
has
no
title
to
or
lien
upon
the property as
placed under the control of the State against the dsfendant.
equal usefulness and efficacy. If
court, is in itself an act of bankruptcy. 2. That the instrument in question in this case of
is to be regarded as a mortgage, and the former equity will enforce the lien of the' mort
This is not a case of concurrent juris adjudication
and relied upon in the ans gage in such cases, and work out and
diction between the State and Federal wer as a barpleaded
is held good and suftlcient for that compel satisfaction of the mortgage debt
purpose.
courts. In all cases where the State and 3. Chattel MortoageStatute Construed from the property in the hands of the
Federal courts have concurrent jurisdic Former
Opinion Reviewed. The court construes mortgagor or other party holding it sub
tion, the court which first obtains con the statute of Wisconsin in regard to mortgages ject to the mortgage, or decree payment
upon
personal
and comments upon its
trol of the parties and property by judi former decision property,
in single v. PMpt, tf) Wis. 3U8, and of the debt by the mortgagor or such
cial proceedings will retain it, and the holds
that the instrument, if a mortgage, was un other party who has converted or dis
authorities cited by the counsel from the der the operation of the statute equally void as to posed of the property in fraud of the
defendant in equity as at law, for want of til
8 How. and later cases, are full in point, the
ing in the town clerk's office, or of possession of mortgagee or so as to deprive him of his
but we conceive they do not apply to the
property taken and held by the plaintilf un lien or right, the law, though upon
this case, inasmuch as' the court has ex der it ; that equity, no more than the law, can dis somewhat different principles and by a
regard
the positive provision of a statute.
clusive jurisdiction in cases of bankrupt
I. That there were but two other characters be different method, will accomplish the
cy.
sides as a mortgage in which effect might have same practical result and afford a no less
In our view, then, the admitted been given to the instrument In favor of the plain efficient and adequate remedy. The law: one was a bill of sale, the other a warehouse will do this by just such an action as
facts show the respondent guilty of the tiff
act of bankruptcy charged in the peti receipt.
.").
EsTOPrEP by JriKiMENT.That it is a familiar that first instituted by this plaintiff. It
tion, and nothing in the proceedings had principle
in the law of estoppel by judgment will give the mortgagee, provided as
that
the
is final, and concludes not only such he is entitled to recover against
before the State court, tends to oust this as to the judgment
matters
but as to all mnttcrs
court of its jurisdiction and authority to which the partiesdetermined,
might have litigated.and which the defendant at all, damages for the
adjudicate the respondent a bankrupt.
they might have had decided uuder the plead conversion of the property to the full
and issue joined in the action.
The precise steps by which the officers ings
6, Effect of Warehouse Receipt upon the extent or value of his lien upon or in
of this court shall hereafter obtain pos Property transferred by it.That the execu terest in the property. This is all that
tion and delivery by the warehouseman of the equity could do by adjudging compensa
session of the assets of the bankrupt recclpt,passess
the title and constructive posses tion to be made under the circumstances
need not now be indicated, as the action sion of the property
to the vendee, who, or the
of this court in that regard will be gov party claiming under him as the holder of the of t.'iis case. The remedy at law, there
is thenceforth ill eases free from fraud, or fore, founded on the legal title or right,
erned by circumstances as they may here itreceipt,
may be of mistake regarded as the owner of the
after arise.
property for all purposes, and the warehouseman is equivalent to that given in equity,
In thus announcing our conclusions as a mere bailee having the custody of it for the founded on the equitable title or lien.
of the vendee or other holder of the re
we do not consider that we are adopting benefitand
It is, in every case, co-extensive and
subject to his order and control, and
any new rule or making even a new ceipt,
such relation and the consequent rights and obli concurrent with the remedy in equitv,
application of an old one, as the path gations of the parties are held not to be affected and being so, it would seem necessarily
the statute m regard to mortgages of personal to follow that the judgment in an action
way we are treading appears to us to be by
at law would bar and estop the party
well beaten by precedents and authori property.Ed. Le*.al News.
Opinion of the court by Dixon, C. J.
ty. Nor should we have taken pains to
subsequently resorting to his suit in
The defendant answers the former equity upon the same subject or ground
so fully state our views, but for the fact
that the overwhelming calamity which judgment in his favor and the judgment of action, and rice verm. Indeed, it is
befell this city on the 9th of October last of affirmance in this court by the title of well settled that this is so. See Price v.
brought financial ruin upon a large num the case and volume and page of the re Kneeland, 9 Wis., ."3; Simpson v. Hart,
ber of Insurance companies doing busi port (Shepardson v. Green, -I Wis., 539) 1 John. Ch. R., 91. If the property be
ness here, and makes it seem desirable I setting out by way of exhibit annexed j in existence so that chancery can take
that a tolerably full exposition should be ! to the answer, the former record here I hold of and enforce satisfaction of the
given of the law governing the rights \ verbatim and at length, and insisting debt by a sale of it, there the mortgagee
| upon the same as a bar and absolute es or creditor has also his action of replevin
and duties of insurers and insured.
It is also proper to add that the peti toppel of the rights claimed by the plain- to obtain possession of the property at
tion in this case charges a further act of j till' in this suit.
law, and in that way to compel satisfac
This is the only question presented by tion. Under all circumstances, therefore,
bankruptcy, in that said Insurance
,
the
demurrer
to
the
answer.
Is
the
forCoinpanv, on or about the 31st day of
the legal and equitable remedies seem
October last, being then insolvent, paid I mer judgment a bar to the relief de- to be concurrent and co-equal and a final
I
manded
in
this
suit?
The
former
was
one of its creditors in full, thereby giv
judgment in one forum a bar to further
ing such creditor apreference over other ! an action at law by the plaintiff against agitation and controversy with respect
j
the
defendant,
to
recover
damages
for
to the same subject-matter in the other.
creditors. And it is admitted in the an
swer that after the company became the same lot of coal mentioned in the
If the mortgagee should bring replev
I
warehouse
receipt
set
out
in
the
comin for the property, and be defeated in
insolvent a large sum of money fell due
I
plaint
in
this
suit,
and
dated
November
the action on the ground that his mort
one Tuthill King for rent of the lot on
which the company had erected a valu j 1st, 1864. The complaint in that action gage was void or not a lien upon the
;
was
general,
as
in
such
cases,
averring
property in the possession of the defend
able building. And as this lease was
deemed a valuable asset, and would be j title and possession of the property in ant, it could not be tolerated that he
forfeited unless the rent was paid at ' the plaintiff on a certain day, and that might then bring his suit in equity, and
maturity, the company paid the same, ! it afterwards came to the possession of compel the defendant to litigate the
deeming that it was thereby subserving ; the defendant who, well knowing it to same questions over again in the court,
be the property of the plaintiff and upon the ground of his supposed equita
the best interests of its creditors.
We have no doubt but what the ad though often requested, etc., had not ble title or lien. His entire right or title
mitted facts applicable to this charge delivered the same to the plaintiff, but, would be involved in the issue at law

and that decision would be ret adjudicate

in the court of equity. And the same
result must follow where the proceeding
at law is in trover or other form of action
to recover damages for the taking or
conversion of the property, and it is ad
judged against the plaintiff on the mer
its that his mortgage is void, or that he
has no title to or lien upon the proj>erty
as against the defendant. For the rea
sons, therefore, regarding the instrument
in question as a mortgage, the former
adjudication plead and relied on in the
answer as a bar, must be held good and
sufficient for that purpose ; and for the
same reasons the authorities cited by
counsel for the plaintiff' are inapplicable.
This is not an equitable right which
could not be reached or redressed in the
action of law. It was as a mortgage that
the instrument was presented for the
consideration of the court in the former
action and the rights of the plaintiff urg
ed under it. It was as such that it was
treated, spoken and judged of by the
court, and held not to be valid against
the defendant, although he purchased or
paid for the property with notice of the
plaintiff 's claim. It was so held on the
language of the statute and on the author
ity of Single v. Phelps, 2(1 Wis., 398. The
statute declares that no mortgage of per
gonal property made after Its passa re,
shall be valid against any other person
than the parties thereto, unless posses
sion of the mortgaged property be de
livered to and retained by the mort
gagee or a copy thereof be filed in the
office of the town clerk where the mort
gagor resides.
It appeared in that ease as it does in
this, that the plaintiff had neither taken
nor retained possession of the property
under the instrument claimed to be a
mortgage, nor filed it or a copy of it, in
the town clerk's office, at the time the
defendant purchased and received pos
session of the property from the alleged
mortgagors.
But there is still another reason, re
garding the instrument as a mortgage
or in the nature of one, why this appli
cation in equity must prove unavailing.
If a mortgage, it was under the ope
ration of the statute equally void as to
the defendant in equity as at law, for
want of filing in the town clerk's office,
or of possession of the property taken
and held by the plaintiff under it.
Equity no more than the law, can disre
gard the positive provision of a statute,
and as relief in equity could not be grant
ed without overthrowing the statute, it
would follow that the suit must be dis
missed, even though there were no pre
vious adjudication standing in the way
of a recovery, and still more if there was
one.
There seems to be but two other char
acters, besides as a mortgage in which
effect might have been given to the in
strument in favor of the plaintiff'. One
was a bill of sale from Dowe, Tibbits &
Co. to him of the property left by him
in their possession and subsequently
bought ofthem or paid for by the defend
ant with knowledge of the rights of the
plaintiff'.
The bill of exceptions in the former
case transcribed into the answer in this,
showed that the defendant paid the full
amount of the purchase money to the
Merchants Bank and Juneaue Bank,
creditors of Dowe, Tibbits & Co., accord
ing to the terms of the bill of sale, after
he had notice of the claims of the plain
tiff. In that view- it might have been
said that the defendant was not a subse
quent purchaser in good faith and that
the plaintiff had the better title, unless
the defendant was entitled to stand in
the place of and represent the creditors
of Dowe, Tibbits & Co., for whose bene
fit the sale to him was made and to whom
he paid the purchase money. K. S. c.
107, #5. The transaction was not consid
ered in this light nor the effect of it as a
sale, either absolute or conditional, de
termined.
The other view which might have been
taken of the instrument, and which, un
der proper circumstances, might have
resulted beneficially to the plaintiff, was,
that it was a warehouse receipt. Such
was the form of the instrument and the
effect to be given to it according to its
words, and, as already observed, such
now, by the averments of the present
complaint, appears to have been the real
nature of it. It is now averred in the
complaint and admitted by the demurrer
that the makers, Dowe, Tibbits & <'o.,
were in fact warehousemen engaged i"

Chicago

Legal

the transaction of that business, as well that the execution and delivery to the
as coal and wood merchants. This fact warehouseman of the receipt, passes the
did not formerly appear, either by aver title and constructive possession of the
ment in the pleadings or by proof on the property to the vendee, who, or the party
trial. The facts then shown were, we claiming under him, is thenceforth in
quote from the bill of exceptions, " that cases free from fraud or bad faith, or it
they were dealing in coal, and from the may be of mistake regarded as the owner
time of its receipt by them, until taken of the property for all purposes, and the
by the defendant, they were engaged in warehouseman as a mere bailee having
-selling and delivering the same to their the custody of it for the vendee or other
customers in the usual course of their holder of the receipt, and subject to his
business, and receiving the proceeds order and control. The relation between
thereof, and appropriating them to their the parties and their rights and obliga
own uses and purposes." The fact that tions are considered the same as if the
they were warehousemen, assuming them vendee had purchased the property from
to have been such, was not then shown. some other owner and then placed it in
Proof of their character as such was the warehouseman's possession, taking
necessary in order to give effect to the his receipt in the same form. Such re
instrument as a warehouse receipt. The lation and the consequent rights and ob
court could not take judicial notice that ligations of the parties are held by the
they were warehousemen, nor presume decisions just referred to, even where
it as a fact from the mere issuing of the the sale is made as collateral security
receipt. Actual proof was necessary, in for the payment of a debt due from the
order to make an effectual transfer of the warehouseman, not to be affected by the
property in that way ; for otherwise it statute regulating the making and filing
would be competent for every person, of mortgages of personal property, nor
whether warehouseman or not, thus to by the act concerning warehouse receipts
dispose of personal property in his pos- I and bills of lading. Whether the same
session to the great embarrassment and effect would be ascribed to a bill of
deception ofsubsequent purchasers, cred lading or receipt by a common carrier of
itors and others. To uphold the receipt goods sold by him and left in his posses
as a proper warehouse document trans sion to be transported for the benefit of
ferring the title to the property and op the vendee and subject to his order, or
erating as a good constructive delivery of the order of the endorsee or holder of
it to the vendee, it must in all cases dis the bill of lading or receipt, it is unnec
tinctly appear that it was executed by a essary now to inquire. We know of no
warehousemanone openly engaged in case in which this point has been pre
that businessand in the usual course of sented and decided as it has been with
trade, without fraud or intention of fraud respect to the receipt of a warehouseman
or bad faith on the part of the person or wharfinger.
receiving and seeking to enforce title
Order affirmed and cause remanded.
under it.
Carpenter & Murphby, counsel for ap
In the former case, therefore, if for no pellant.
other reason, the plaintiff could not have
E. Mariner, counsel for respondent.
maintained title against the defendant
upon the instrument as a warehouse re
Through the kindness of H. E. Munn,
ceipt, because there was no proof of the
business character of the makers, or evi Clerk of the Court at St. Paul, we have
received the following opinion :
dence that they were warehousemen.
But in whatever light the instrument 17.5. CIRCUIT COURT, D. OF MINN.
might then have been examined, or on
October Term. 1871 .
"whatever ground the cause decided ad
Gas Light and Coke Co. v. Al
versely to the plaintiff, holding that he The Louansport
fred H. Knowles el al.
had no title to the property as agains ACTION' OX FOREIGN
JUDGMENTPROOF OK
the defendant, the judgment is now ARTICLES OK ASSOCIATION
SERVICE OK
equally a bar, and conclusive upon the SIMMONS.
rights of the plaintiff. Whether upon 1. Proof of Articles of Association. That
ls> nothing in the laws of Indiana requiring
the instrument as a chattel mortgage, there
an original certificate or articles of association
bill of sale, or warehouse receipt, the to
be filed in the office of the Secretary of State ;
title of the plaintiff was maintainable, that the word duplicate, although sometimes used
to express an original repeated, usually signifies a
the judgment now concludes him both copy
or transcript of an instrument, and that this
at law and in equity. Under the plead ordinary
definition of the word is to be given to it
ings and issue as presented, it was com in the Indiana
statute.
i.
That
the copy was certified to by the Record
petent for him to sustain his title on
er
of
the
county
when tiled, and accompanying it
either ground, if valid; and if, for want
certificate of the Secretary of State, that it
of proof of particular facts or for other isis aa correct
transcript of a certified copy in his
cause, or because the court took an erro office, and this is sufficient to allow it to oe intro
in evidence although not authenticated lu
neous view of the law, judgment went duced
accordance with the act of Congress of 1804, as
against him, and the title of the defend that
act does not exclude every other mode of
ant was decided to be superior, it is res authentication ; that when a copy of an instru
is certified to by the officer wnose duty it is
adjudicata, and cannot again be inquired | ment
law to keep the original on file in his oltice it
into or litigated in another suit between by
must be received as evidence ofthc original.
him and the defendant. It is a familiar 8. Service of Si mmons.The court comments
the manlier of serving summons in several
principle in the law of estoppel by judg upon
the States and in the Federal courts, and holds
ment, that the judgment is final, and ot
under the statute cf Indiana that the service of
concludes not only as to the matters de the summons in question was sufficient.Ed. Letermined, but as to all matters which the (JAL NEWS.
Opinion of the Court by Nelson, J.
parties might have litigated, and which
A jury trial is waived, and in accord
they might have had decided under the
pleadings and issue joined in the action. ance witli the Act of Congress, a stipula
Eastman y. Porter, 14 Wis., 48, 49. It is tion being on tile, the court proceeds to
the decision by a court of competent try the issue. This is an action on a
jurisdiction that the defendant had the judgment obtained in the Circuit Court
superior title, which binds, and it is im of Cass county, Indiana, on the 13th day
material what was the ground or what of December, 1870, for the sum ot seven
the reasons assigned by the court for thousand eight hundred and fifty dol
lars. The plaintiff, after introducing a
making it.
We cannot conclude our examination copy of the articles of association with
of this case or close our remarks upon it the certificates of the Recorder of the
without some observations upon the lan county and the Secretary of State at
guage of the opinion in the former case, tached, produced a certified copy of the
the effect of the judgment in which has record in the suit in the State court,
beeii the subject of consideration here. showing all the proceedings down to the
21 Wis., 541 , 542. The language of that final judgment, and rested.
The summons as appears in the record
opinion undoubtedly proceeds upon a
misconception or erroneous view of the is as follows : " The State of Indiana. To
law with respect to the effect of a ware the Sheriff of Cass county : You are
house receipt as an instrument transfer hereby commanded to summon John
ring the lejjal title and constructive pos M. Bain, Alfred H. Knowles and Thomas
session of the property to the holder of Harvey to appear in the Cass Circuit
it, and protecting him against a subse Court on the second day of the next
quent sale or transfer of the sanic prop term thereof to be held in the court
erty by the warehouseman even to a house in Logansport, on the fourth Mon
purchaser without notice, and against the day in February, 1860, then and there
creditors of the warehouseman who may to answer the complaint of the Loganssubsequently seize the property in his port Gas Light and Coke Co. Amount
possession in satisfaction of their de demanded $3000. And of this summons
mands.
make due return. Witness the Clerk
The law on this subject was correctly 1 [Seal] and seal of said court this 18th
held in Gibson v. Stevens, 8 How., 1 U. day of September, 1863. Horace M.
S., 384, in Gibson, Stockwell & Co. v. The Bliss, Clerk." The return of the sheriff
Chillicothc Bank, 11 Ohio St. R., 310, was in the following words : " I do here
and in Rice v. Cutler, 17 Wis., 351, to be by certify that I served the within writ

News.

on the 19th day of September, 1865, upon

Alfred H. Knowles and Thomas Harvey
personally, by reading the same to them ;
and I further certify that John M. Bain
cannot be found in my bailiwick. John
Davis, Sheriff Cass Co., by James Stan
ley, Deputy."
The defendants interpose several ob
jections to the reception of the copy of
the articles of association as proof of in
corporation, and also to a recovery upon
the record introduced.
I. They urge that the copy of the ar
ticles of association has not been prop
erly filed arid recorded under the law of
Indiana so as to create the plaintiff a
corporation.
I think this objection is not tenable.
The plaintiff, when the articles of asso
ciation were signed, was required by the
law to " file the same in the office of the
recorder of the county, which shall be
placed on record, and a duplicate there
of in the office of the Secretary of State."
This it has done, but it is claimed by the
defendants that the duplicate filed in
the office of the Secretary of State was a
certified copy, and not a duplicate orig
inal. There is nothing in the law passed
for the incorporation of companies, re
quiring an original certificate or articles
of association to be filed in the office of
the Secretory of State. 2 vol. R. S. Ind.
chap. CO. The word duplicate although
sometimes used to express an original
repeated, usually signifies a copy or tran
script of an instrument, and in my opin
ion this ordinary definition of the word
is to be given to it in this chapter.
II. The defendants further urge that
the copy offered is notauthenticated so as
to permit its reception as evidence. The
copy has been certified to by the record
er of the county when filed, and accom
panying it is a certificate of the Secretary
of State that it is a correct transcript of
a certified copy in his office. True, it is
not authenticated in accordance with
the act of Congress of 1804, but I do not
understand that this act excludes every
other mode of authentication, or abro
gates any principle of evidence previ
ously established. It is the settled rule
that when the copy of an instrument is
certified to by the officer whose duty it
is by law to keep the original on file in
his office, it must be received as evidence
of the original. 7 Peters, 53. The copy
offered here is indorsed with such a cer
tificate and is admissible under the
above rule.
III. The defendants make the further
objection that the record of the judg
ment does not show that the service of
the summons was made within the
jurisdiction of the sheriff by whom it
was made.
The proof of service of process issued
by any court, or any notice required to
be served, can be made by a certificate
of the sheriff, when served by him, and
it is not necessary for him to state the
time and place of service (R. S. Ind.,
vol. 2, sec. 292, p. 96). Section 34, page
35, enacts that the summons shall be
issued by the cleik, under the seal of the
court, and directed to the sheriff, and shall
notify the defendant of the action com
menced, the parties thereto, and the court
where pending. By section 35 the sum
mons may be served personally upon
the defendant, and section 36 provides
that no summons, or the service thereof,
shall be deemed insufficient if there is
sufficient substance about either to in
form the party served that an action is
instituted against him in court. These
provisions, it seems to me, fully answer
the objection raised as to the "jurisdic
tion of the court, which rendered the
judgment sued upon, over the persons
of tne defendants.
IV. The defendants also claim that
there should be no recovery, because the
record shows that the only summons
pretended to have been served upon the
defendants was one claiming $3,000, and
that judgment was rendered for a greater
sum. The complaint of the plaintiff,
which sets forth in detail the cause of
action against the defendants, claims
damages in the sum of ten thousand dol
lars, which is an amount larger than the
judgment obtained ; and under the pecu
liar practice in Indiana it appears that
the summons, though issued out of and
under the seal of the court, is regarded
as a mere notice to the defendants that a
suit has been instituted. By section 1,
R. S.
Ind., Vol. 2,*it "is
'page
that341,
in all
proceedings
* enacted,
in civil
actions the following forms may be used,
and are sufficient," etc. Form Ne. 37,

75
for " summons," is the same as set forth
in the record introduced, without a de
mand for damages. I think this section,
and the form given, in connection with
Bection 35, page 35, gave the court com
plete jurisdiction to render such a judg
ment as they have done, for there can
be no controversy about the jurisdiction
over the subject matter involved in the
suit.
Under the code practice in some of the
States a return of a sheriff, upon service
of the summons, such as was made in
thiB case, would not be good. The stat
utes of both New York and Minnesota
enact, that in case of service by the
sheriff the " certificate shall state the
time, place and manner of service."
In the Federal courts, under the stat
ute conferring jurisdiction, it has been
held necessary for the Marshal to set
forth in his return upon process, when
the service took place (1 Bl. Rep., p. 487,)
but in Indiana a return in the form set
forth in the record is good ; so in Ohio
and Iowa. 3 Ind. Rep., 316; 11 Ibid,
346; 13 Ibid, 536; 16 Ohio Rep., 371 . 7
Iowa Rep., 42.
In Indiana, also, upon failure to an
swer, the court may hear the proof, and
in actions founded on a contract, as
sess the damages, and render judgment ;
and the relief granted to the plaintiff, if
there be no answer, is limited only by
the relief demanded in the complaint.
R. S. Ind., Vol. 2, Sec. 380, p. 123.
In view of these provisions of the In
diana statutes, I think the plaintiff is en
titled to judgment for the amount
claimed in its complaint, to wit, eight
thousand two hundred and sixty dollars
and ten cents, with costs to be taxed.
Cornell & Bradley for plaintiff.
Bigelow, Flandrau & Clark, contra.
U. S. CIRCUIT COURT, D. OF KANSAS.
Opinion at November Term, 1871.
Markson, Assignee, v. Hobson et al.
Before Dillon and Delaiiay, JJ.
BANKRUPT ACTSUSPENSION OF PAYMENT
BY A BANKILLEGAL PREFERENCE.
A banker who allows his drafts to go to protest,
suspends payment and closes his doors against de
positors, proclaims to the world that he is insol
vent, and a creditor, who, with knowledge of these
facts, receives payment of hh* debt secures an ille
gal preference, and is liable to the assignee for the
amount thus received.
The plaintiff, as assignee in bankruptcy
of A. Thomas & Co., recovered at this
term against the defendants, in six ac
tions, verdicts for the sums severally re
ceived by them as creditors of A. Thomas
& Co. A motion was made by the de
fendants for a new trial, in overruling
which the following opinion was. de
livered.
Mr. Wheat, Mr. Britton, Mr. Royce
and Mr. Hoao for the assignee.
Mr. Wagstafk, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Wil
liams and Mr. Pratt for the defendants.
Dillon, Circuit Judge.These are ac
tions by the assignee under section 35, of
the bankrupt act, to recover against the
defendants moneys severally received by
them on the lOthday of November, 1869,
in payment of debts due them from the
late firm of A. Thomas & Co. The firm
of A. Thomas & Co. were private bankers,
doing business at Paola, in this State.
About the 1st day of November, 1869, a
" run " was made upon their bank, and on
the 2nd day of November, they were
obliged to close their doors, which
were not afterwards opened. In the
month of December following, proceed
ings in bankruptcy were instituted
against them. The defendants, all of
whom resided in Paola, were creditors
of Thomas & Co., some of them holding
protested drafts and others being depos
itors. All ofthe defendants as witnesses
admitted on the stand that they knew of
the suspension of Thomas & Co., and the
i losing of their doors at and prior to the
time they received payment. The im
mediate circumstances surrounding the
receipt of payment by the defendants
are these : After the doors of the bank
were closed, Thomas & Co., who held
considerable real estate, gave out that
they would be able to resume in a few
days, and that to this end they were ne
gotiating for, and were about to secure,
by mortgaging their real estate, a large
sum of money. On the Kith day of No
vember the negotiations for a loan to
them of $20,000 were closed, the business
being done in the office of Mr. Simpson,
an attorney. This loan was secured
by mortgage on a business block in Pa
ola, then not quite finished. Of the
Continued on page 73.

76

Chicago

Legal

News.

wind up such companies, it is their duty hands of his brother supervisors. It is regret to announce, died at Springfield
Chicago Legal News. t o voluntarily file a petition in the bank this practice we protest against, and do on the J 9th of this month. Senator
not belive our present lward will know Tincher was an honest man, a good
ruptcy court.
Christian, a wise, conscientious legisla
ILti Vintit.
ingly make it the rule of their action.
Formes Judgment Estoppel in Eq- ! The treatment persons alleged to be tor, and the place made vacant by his
uit yWarehouse Receipts.The opin insane are receiving pending trial calls death will not soon be filled by a man
CHICAGO, DECEMBER 23, 1871.
ion of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, not only for the immediate attention of possessed of all the good qualities of the
delivered by Dixon, C. J., holding that the Commissioners hut for a speedy deceased. No man seemed to enjoy
published every saturday by
when legal and equitable remedies are remedy. As soon as an affidavit is doing good and helping the needy more
The Chicago Legal News Company,
concurrent and co-equal, a final judg made that a person is insane a warrant than Senator Tincher.
at 115 madison street.
ment in one forum will be a bar to fur is issued for his arrest, and he is taken
ther agitation and controversy with re and locked up in the common jail of the
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
decent publications.
spect to the same subject-matter in the county, away from proper medical aid,
Terms:
other, and that if a mortgagee brought and with surroundings calculated to
Two Dollars per annum, In advance. Single cop
replevin for the mortgaged property and drive a sane man mad. In fact we have Reports of Cases at Law and in Ciiaxies Ten Cents.
cery Argued and Determined in the
was beaten in the action on the ground known several hopeful cases placed be
Supreme Court of Illinois. By Nor
that
his
mortgage
was
void
or
not
a
lien
OFFICE
U
at
US
THE UNU NEWS
yond all hope by temporary confinement
man L. Freeman, Reporter. Volume
Pristine upon the property in the possession of in this jail. More than half the persons
LIII. Containing the remaining ca
U m* 13 !. Jtlknti HI.
the defendant, he could not afterwards brought before the courts to be declared
ses decided at the September term,
1809, and a portion ofthe cases decided
bring his suit in equity and compel the insane are women, and if ever there was
at the January term, 1870. Printed
defendant to litigate the same questions a time when they needed careful, gentle
MERRY CHRISTMAS.
for the Reporter. Springfield, 1871.
We wish all our readers a merry over again in that court, on the ground treatment it is when reason is about to
The
LIII is in the usual style of Mr.
Christmas, plenty of turkeys and plenty of his supposed equitable title or lien ; take its flight and leave the mind a prey Kreeman's Reports and contains G23
that
his
entire
right
or
title
having
been
of money ; but above all things, good
to every distorted fancy of the imagina pages. The proceedings of the Supreme
health and contented minds. When we involved in the issue at law, the decision tion. A good capable woman should be court upon the death of Hon. David J.
look back over the year, and realize what rendered therein would be res adjudi- appointed bailiff, whose duty it should Baker, and the Rules of the Court adopt
we have lost, and how changed is our cata in the court of equity. There are be to assist in taking care of the insane ed at the September term, a. d., 1871, in
condition, we sometimes feel like repin also several interesting questions deci of this county pending their trial and relation to the examination of applicants
ing, but it is only for a moment ; life and ded in regard to the rights of the holder transportation to Jacksonville, and some for admission to the bar, are printed at
of a warehouse receipt, and the construc more comfortable place than the jail
determination are still left.
the commencement of this volume. The
If each of our subscribers would dur tion to be given to the statutes of Wis shonld be provided for them.
most important opinion is that delivered
consin
relating
to
chattel
mortgages.
ing the holidays get one of his neighbors
We have never been able to find the in the case of Mixer etal. v. Sibley etal.,
to subscribe for the News, it would aid
Proof of Articles of Association statute which allows Mr. Gindele to in regard to proceedings against parties
us to regain our loss, which may be re Service of Summons.The opinion of collect his fees in pauper insane cases while they were absent in the rebel
garded as total, our insurance being the United States Circuit Court for the from the county.
lines during the late rebellion. The ap
valued at less than seven cents on the District of Minnesota, delivered by Nel
praises in the estate of Jacob Straun,
dollar, and enable us to pass a happy son, J., in regard to the manner of prov
late of Jacksonville, who died worth
<JtMrituarr>.
New Year, and no one would be the ing articles of association, and what is a
$500,000, appraised his widow's award at
loser, as we believe the Legal News is sufficient service of a summons.
Daniel 11. Driscoll, a well-known $3813.00, and the Supreme Court, upon
worth much more than two dollars per
Illegal Preference.The opinion of member of the Chicago bar, died on objection being made to the same by
year.
the United States Circuit Court for the Thursday last, from accidental injuries three of the step-children of the widow,
District of Kansas, delivered by Dillon, received on Tuesday, the 20th inst. He held that it was reasonable, considering
We call attention to the following opin
J., as to what constitutes a suspension of was standing on the corner of State and the value of the estate and the condition
ions reported at length in this issue :
payment and an illegal preference under Twenty-ninth streets, waiting for the of the parties, and that the legislature
Insurance Policy Gun-Powder the bankrupt law.
arrival of a friend from the Stock Yards, intended by the word family, to include
Small Type. The opinion of the Su
when he suddenly dropped to the earth, such persons as constituted the family of
preme Court of the United States, de
his head striking upon a stone. A severe the deceased at the time of his death,
COOK COUNTY MATTERS.
livered by Davis, J., containing a clause
wound was inflicted above and a little whether servants or children, who had
in an insurance policy set in very small
The members of the Board of Cook behind the right ear, which bled pro attained their majority ; that it does not
type relating to the storage and use of County Commissioners are well-known fusely. He was taken up senseless, and include boarders but only the persons
gun-powder on the premises insured. citizens, and most of them, by the suc carried to his residence. A physician constituting the pri vate household of the
The learned judge evidently states the cess they have attained in the manage was summoned, and every attention deceased.
true rule. If insurance companies seek ment of their own affairs, have shown rendered which friends and medical
The LIII volume contains 114 cases,
to mislead parties who insure with them themselves to be men of business ca skill could suggest. He recovered his of these 57 were affirmed and 56 revers
by putting important clauses susceptible pacity. We have no doubt of their hon senses, and seemed to be improving un ed. There is one case of original juris
of two constructions in small type in an esty and of their desire to do whatever til Thursday. About noon of that day diction, four per curiam opinions. The
obscure portion of their policies they is] best for the whole people of the he was, for a few moments out of bed, opinions delivered by Chief Justice
must expect that courts will adopt the county, and we shall therefore speak and as his wife was about leaving the Breese affirm the judgments below in 18
construction most strongly against them. plainly to them. We believe, gentle room to perform some trifling service, and reverse them in 21. Those delivered
These special clauses in policies are get men, that you have made a mistake, and he complained of feeling worse, and re by Mr. Justice Lawrence affirm them in
ting to be a great evil. People pay their set a bad precedent by appointing one of quested her immediate return. She re 18 and reverse them in 15. Those de
money, insure their property, and sup your own members to an important of turned speedily, but only to find him livered by Mr. Justice Walker affirm
pose they are in a measure protected, fice, notwithstanding his evident fitness lying back upon his bed gasping for them in 18 and reverse them in 22 cases.
until it burns down, and they find they for the place to which he has been ap breath. He lived but a few moments We give the names of the judges who
are swindled out of their honest due by pointed. We have known Mr. Talcott, and never spoke again. It was the opin tried the cases in the courts below, and
a miserable little clause in their policy whom you have taken from your Board ion of his medical attendant, Dr. Russell, how they were disposed of in the Su
which they never knew had any exist and appointed Police Commissioner, for that he was first attacked by the heart preme Court : Charles Turner, 2 affirm
ence until they called upon the company over a quarter of a century, and are disease, of which he had previously ed 6 reversed ; S. D. Puterbaugh, 1 re
for payment of their loss.
pleased to be able to say that his honesty some symptoms, but that the immediate versed ; Wm. A. Porter, 3 affirmed 1 re
Bankrupt Insurance CompanyAi>- is unquestioned, and that he will do cause of his death was concussion of the versed ; Joseph E. Gary, 2 affirmed 5 re
versed ; B. R. Sheldon, ] reversed ; John
pointme t of Receiver, Effect of. whatever he undertakes with energy and brain.
The opinion of the United States Dis dispatch, and if he had not been one of Mr. Driscoll was born in Goshen, Or A. Jameson, 1 reversed ; Superior Court
trict Court for this district, delivered by your own number, we should have said ange county, New York, August 12, 1832. of Chicago, 3 reversed ; W. W. Heaton, 1
Blod<;ett, J., and concurred in by you had done well in making the ap His father was Luther Driscoll, a Bap affirmed ; Cook County Court, 2 revers
ed ; Charles D. Hodges, 3 affirmed 4 re
Drummond, J., holding that the appoint pointment.
tist clergyman of some prominence in
The practice of the old Board of Su that locality. The family moved to Kane versed ; Benjamin S. Edwards, 8 affirmed
ment of a Receiver by a State court, for
an insolvent insurance company, was a pervisors of appointing members of its county in this State, in the year 1887, 2 reversed ; Joseph Sibley, 3 affirmed 2
taking under legal process within the own body to office did more than any where the son spent his boyhood, em reversed ; Edward Y. Rice, 2 affimed 1
meaning of the Bankrupt law ; that the one thing to corrupt that body, and ploying his time profitably in working reversed ; A. J. Gallagher, 9 affirmed 5
payment of rent in full by such com bring it into disrepute with the people. on a farm in the summer, and attending reversed ; Hiram B. Decius, 1 affirmed 1
pany, in order to save a valuable lease, If a supervisor wanted to be appointed the district school in the winter. At the reversed ; C. L. Higbee, 3 affirmed 2 re
was technically an act of bankruptcy. County Agent, County Doctor, Warden age of sixteen he became a teacher in versed ; Joseph Gillespie, 1 affirmed 3
This opinion also settles several other at the Poor House, Superintendent of the country schools in the neighborhood reversed ; John M. Scott. 6 affirmed 7
interesting questions under the Bank the Hospital, or be placed at the head of of his home. He studied law in the reversed ; J. McRoberts, 1 affirmed ;
rupt law, and will undoubtedly have the an important school enterprise, he bent office of Julius Manning, of Knoxville. Monroe C. Crawford, 1 affirmed 2 revers
effect to put all the insolvent Insurance all his energies to that end, sold out the He was a successful criminal lawyer, a ed ; Charles Emerson, 1 reversed ; J"8Steele, 5 affirmed 2 reversed ; W. W.
Companies doing business in this city interests of the people who elected him, good speaker, and a close reasoner.
Craddock, 1 affirmed ; O. L. Davis, 1 af
into bankruptcy, as the learned judge and being inside the ring, in nine cases
firmed 1 reversed ; David J. Baker, 1 af
Hon.
John
L.
Tincher,
State
Senator
says, when the State authorities take the out of ten would beat the outsiders, and
necessary steps in the State courts to obtain the position lie desired from the from the 9th District of this State, we firmed 1 reversed ; Henry S. Baker, 2

Chicago

Legal

News.
77

affirmed 1 reversed ; Silas S. Bryan, 1 Book publishers, Des Moines, Iowa, a

MORTGAGE.
EXEMPTING INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORA
reversed ; S. H. Treat, 1 reversed.
TIONS FROM TAXATION.
pamphlet of 165 pages, containing the
7. Of taxes paid by an unsuccessful claim
Orders from the country should be report of Wm. H. Seevers, Wm. J. ant of the mortgaged premises. Whre a
1. As a rule, acts of the legislature ex
sent to Mr. Freeman at Sprinfield, in Knight and Wm. G. Hammond, Commis party purchased land at a government empting particular individuals or corpo
for which a patent was issued to
the city to E. B. Myers. Price $5.00, de sioners to revise the Statutes of that sale,
him, which was afterwards canceled by rations by name from the operation of
livered.
State. This is an able report and shows the land officers, in favor of one who en general laws, are not within the proper
the same land as a pre-emptor, af scope of the legislative power, and are
Cases Determined in the United States that the Commissioners have done well tered
ter the purchase by such patentee, the void. (Opinion by Dixon, C. J.)
Circuit Court for the Eighth Dis what they have undertaken.
taxes paid upon the land by the latter
trict. Reported by John F. Dillon,
ACT MAKING DISCRIMINATIONS.
would not become a prior lien to a mort
the Circuit Judge. Vol. L Daven
gage
execnted
by
the
pre-emptor
after
2.
An
act of this kind making discrim
Legal Printing.We wish to call the he made his entry.lb.
port, Iowa : Griggs, Watson & Day,
inations between the rights of different
Publishers. 1871.
attention of the members of the profes
suitors in courts of justice would be in
This work has just been issued from sion to the fact that we are doing all
violation of sec. 9, Art. I ofthe state con
WISCONSIN CASES.
the press, and we are pleased to kinds of job printing, including circu
say that it is such a volume as we lars, cards, letter heads, pamphlets,
The following are head-notes to opin stitution, which declares that " every
might expect to be prepared by a books, briefs and abstracts. Our prices ions recently filed in the Supreme Court person is entitled to a certain remedy in
the laws for all injuries or wrongs which
reporter of the ability and judicial ex are, for cash on delivery : Briefs, per of Wisconsin :
he may receive in his person, property,
perience possessed by Judge Dillon. page SI .25 for 25 copies, counting even
or character ; he ought to obtain justice
INCORPORATION OF RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. freely, and without being obliged to pur
It is dedicated to the Hon. George G. pages, covers rated as one page ; Ab
1. The statute relat ing to the incorpo chase it, completely and without denial,"
Wright, for many years the Associate of stracts, $1.75 per page ; alterations extra.
ration of religious societies must be at etc.
Judge Dillon upon the Supreme Bench
least substantially complied with, in or
of Iowa, as the first fruits gathered since
Under sec. 3> ch. 264, Laws of 1866,
L1V. ILLINOIS REPORTS.
der to create such a corporation.(Opin the3. party
their separation from Judge Dillon's new
prevailing in this court on
ion
by
Dixon,
C.
J.)Knklinski
et
al
r.
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman
field of labor as. United States Circuit
error or appeal is absolutely entitled to
costs.lb.
Judge. Thevalueof all reports depends, L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following Dambrotvski.
to a great degree, upon the ability of the head-notes to cases to appear in the 54th
ELECTION OF TRUSTEES.
ACT EXEMPTING CITY FROM PAYMENT OF
COSTS.
judges who render the opinions, and the volume of Illinois Reports :
2. It is of the substance of the pro
4.
So
much
of
ch.
107, P. and L. Laws,
importance and variety of the questions
pre-emption rights.
ceeding that notice of the election of
18(12, and ch. 298, P. and L. Laws of
decided. The judges of the Eighth Cir
1. Entry of government landswho may trustees be publicly given by a person of
1809, as provides that no costs shall be
cuit will compare favorably with those decide as to their validity. Under the pre having authority under the statute, and recovered
against the city of Janesville
of any other circuit in the Union, and emption laws passed by Congress, the on the Sabbaths named in it; otherwise in any action to set aside any tax, assessland officers have, by Implication, the
ment[ or tax deed, or to prevent the col
the questions coining before the judges right to decide all cases of contested pre it is as if no notice were given.lb,
lection of taxes or assessments in that
of this circuit for determination are emption, so far as they depend upon the
city, is voidlb.
PLACE OF ELECTION.
more varied, and perhaps as important, fact of prior settlement, and their find
3. It is also of the substance of the
ACTION BY ASSIGNEE.
as in any other. This circuit is bounded ing in that regard, has been held con
clusive by the courts, on the ground t hat proceeding that the election be held at
1.
In
an
action by K. (as assignee)
for nearly two thousand miles by the such
officerSj in these proceedings, act in
Mississippi river, traversed by the Mis a quasi judicial capacity, and within the the church or meeting-house, or other upon the covenants in L.'s deed to F., a
eviction of F. at the suit of E. is
souri, and contains six States, with a scope of their authority.(Opinion by place where the congregation statedly former
not of itself proof of E.'s paramount title
J.)
meet for divine worship ; and also that as
number of important commercial cen Lawrence,
against L.(Opinion by Dixon, C. J.)
2. And the land officers, having the three trustees l>e elected.lb.
Eaton v. Lyman.
tres, many tribes of Indians, and large p*wer
to adjudicate upon the facts vrhich
MINISTER as trustee.
TAX DEED.
tracts of government land. It is no give a pre-emption right, they have the
2. A tax deed to plaintiff, made after
wonder, then, that we should find in power when the right is contested by a
4. Whether the "Minister" of such a
claiming under a private entry,
the commencement of this action, is no
these reports opinions upon the Pre person
as well as when both claim under pre society is eligible to the office of a trus evidence therein of his title.Ib.
emption and Homestead acts, in Admi emptions.lb.
tee, and whether, if so, a statement in
3. A tax deed of earlier date, intro
ralty and Bankruptcy, and those relating 3. On theotherhand, when such officers the certificate that the minister was duced merely " for the purpose of show
to the rights of the poor Indian ; to Rail have undertaken to cancel a patent or a elected " president of the trustees" (two ing incumbrances," is not evidence of
of entry, for which a purchaser
plaintiff's paramount title.
way, Insurance, Revenue, Commercial certificate
has paid his money, either at their dis other persons having been chosen trus
4. Proof of moneys paid to remove tax
and Corporation law.
tees)
would
sufficiently
show
that
he
was
cretion or under some pretended regu
or other liens covered by L.'s covenants,
Repeating the substance of the opin lation of the department which the law- elected a trustee, quare.lb.
will only sustain a judgment for the
amount so paid, with interest, and not
ions at length in the head-notes, and did not authorize, or under some clearly
trustees
mere
agents.
construction of the laws of
one for the amount to which plaintiff
using the head-notes very slightly con erroneous
Congress, the courts have held them
5. The trustees of a religious society would have been entitled on showing
densed for an index, are among the selves not bound by such acts of the offi are mere agents to give effect to the will paramount title in himself.Ib.
greatest evils of reporting as practiced cers of the land department, because of the corporators, or a majority of them,
EVIDENCE AS TO VALUE.
at the present day. Judge Dillon in they were not exercising a judicial func as to all matters within the scope of the
1. In an action for tubing made and
within the limits prescribed by law.
his head-notes gives only the jwints or tion
put down by plaintiff, it appearing that
4. So where a party purchased a tract corporation.lb.
principles involved in the cases and of land at a government land sale, receiv
the article had an established market
REMOVAL OF CHURCH.
price, plaintiff was entitled to recover
actually decided by the court unless the ing the usual certificate of purchase, and
G. Qiuere, therefore, whether equity such price together with the usual charge
contrary be therein indicated. In the subsequently another was allowed to en
the same land as a pre-emptor,the for would interfere to restrain the removal for putting it down. (Opinion by Dixon,
preface the learned Reporter says to ter
mer contested the pre-emption claim be of a church building, at the suit of the C. i.)Althouse v. AUord.
some of the cases notes have been fore the register and receiver, who held
2. Evidence offered by defendant as to
added by him, and he trusts they will the claim good, and the first purchaser trustees, where it plainly appeared that the value of the timber of which the
was made, and the cost of mak
be regarded as worth the brief space appealed to the commissioner of the a majority of the corporators were in tubing
land office, who ordered the en favor of such removal, even though they ing, was immaterial and properly rejectthey occupy. We regard these notes as general
eellb.
try of the pre-emptor to be canceled, and
the most valuable portion of the volume, atonce issued a patent to the contestant. had not expressed their will at any legal EIJUITABLE INTERFERENCE WITH OFFICERS.
and would suggest in future volumes The party claiming the pre-emption then meeting of the society.lb.
1. The decisions of this court in Peck
they be more frequent. A rejwrt that appealed to the secretary of the interior,
BILL TO VUIT TITLE.
v. School District (21 Wis., 516), and
who
reversed
the
decision
of
the
com
gives the leading authorities upon ques missioner, decided the pre - emption
L Only he who has the possession f Whiting v. R. R. Co. (25 Wis., 167), as to
tions decided in the opinions will be claim to be valid, and ordered the pat* land (as well as the legal title I can main equitable interference with municipal
prized by the profession. This is the ent issued to the first purchaser to be tain a bill in equity quia timet, against officers, approved, and the present case
distinguished.(Opinion by Dixon, C.J.}
first volume of a proposed series, and we canceled : Held, in a suit between those any other person setting up a claim of Judd et al. t. Toim of Fox Ixike et al.
claiming
under
the
respective
parties,
hope Judge Dillon may live many that the decision of the land officers title.(Opinion by Dixon, C.J.)Lee v.
UNAUTHORIZED TAX.
years to carry out the plan he has so was final, upon the right of pre-emption, Simpson et al., imp.
2. Where an unauthorized tax is as
well commenced. Practitioners in the so far as it depended upon the fact of
sessed by town officers, moneys paid
2. One out of possession -.vho asserts thereon
under protest, or in consequence
Federal courts will find this volume of settlement.
an absolute legal title and right of pos of a levy or distress of personal prop
PRE-EMPTOK.
reports a valuable aid.
5. Of his right to convey the hind before session, must bring ejectment against the erty, may be recovered back at law.
Rules ok Practice in the I'ederal Courts receiving
A CLOUD.
a patent. Under that clause of party in possession, and cannot sue him
of Iowa, Supreme ( 'ourt of the United the twelfth
of the pre-emption in equity.76.
3. Where a tax, extended upon real
States, Supreme Court of the State of law of 1841,section
which declares that all
estate, is invalid for any reason not ap
Iowa, and the General Orders in Bank
and transfers of the right
3. Thus, where one count of a com parent on the face of the proceedings,
ruptcy of the District Court for the assignments
secured, prior to the issuing of plaint alleged plaintiffs absolute title in the owner mav, at any time after such
District of Iowa, to which is added thereby
the patent, shall be null and void, it is fee, under a conveyance from defend extension, maintain a suit in equity to
Directions, Forms, etc., for Removing only
assignment or transfer of the
remove the apparent lien of the tax as a
Causes to the Supreme Court of the right the
of pre-emption which was prohib ants (who were in possession), but that cloud upon his title.76.
United States, compiled for the pub itedit
was not the design of the act to defendants falsely pretended that such
4. But the mere fact that the voters at
lishers by Hon. George B. Corkhill,
the sale of land entered un conveyance was only a mortgage, and a town meeting have voted an illegal
Clerk United States Circuit District of prohibit
pre-emption claim, after the entry claimed the right to redeem : Held, on tax, is not sufficient ground for enjoin
Iowa. Des Moines, Iowa : Mills & Co., der amade,
and before the patent was
the town officers from assessing or
Publishers, Law Booksellers and Sta was
demurrer, that no ground of equitable ing
issued.lb.
collecting the tax.76.
tioners, 1871.
<>. So a mortgage executed by a party relief was shown.lb.
5. Equity will not interfere with pub
This volume contains 132 pages, and is who had entered the mortgaged premis
4. It is only where the different counts lic officers at the suit of a private per
neatly interleaved.
es as a pre-emptor, before ne received a
they have actually done some
therefor, was held not to be of a complaint state two or more good son,inuntil
violation of plaintiff's legal rights
Revision of the Iowa Statutes.We patent
within the prohibition, and was not void causes of action that a demurrer for mis act
or threatening him with irreparable in
have received from Mills & Co., Law under the act.Tb.
joinder or multifariousness will lie.76. jury.76.

78

Chicago

Legal

Continued from page 75.

that which would result from this prohi
iibove sum about $3,000 were deposited bition to creditors to run the race of vig
in the hands of a trustee to provide for ilance, and then to sustain payments made
the completion of the building, and $7,- by a known insolvent to local creditors
700 deposited on the same day by or for from importunity or personal consideraThomas & Co., not in their own bank, I tions. The bankrupt act must be so adminbut in the Miami savings bank in the I isteredasto suppress illegal preferences,
same place. AVhat was done with the or it necessarily operates as a fraud upon
rest of the money borrowed by Thomas the rights of the mass of creditors, who in
& Co., does not clearly appear, but they good faith refrain from seeking advan
never resumed business, nor did they tages contrary to its provisions and pol
attempt to do so. As stated, the borrow icy. Jf preferences cannot in general be
ing was completed on the Kith day of ett'ect ially suppressed, because of the
November, in Mr. Simpson's office, late sympathy of jurors in favor of the cred
in the day, and the money deposited in itor who has simply been vigilant, or
the savings bank. Most of the defend fortunate, in securing a just debt, and
ants had been pressing Thomas iV Co. their disinclination to render a verdict
for payment. When the transaction for which, while it makes such a creditor
the loan was consummated, Thomas & pay back the. amount, also disentitles
Co. being present, it was agreed that the him to prove his debt in bankruptcy or
S7,7O0 should be deposited in the savings receive dividends, the professional and
bank, and the checks were then and the popular voice will soon demand the
there drawn by Thomas & Co. on the repeal of the law, so as to allow, as be
savings bank in favor of various credi fore its enactment, creditors to strive for
tors, including the defendants, for the and hold if fairly obtained, the fruits of
amount of the $7,700. To recover pay their vigilance. " I have found jurors in
ment received on these checks the pres general somewhat disinclined to hold
ent actions were brought by the assignee. preferences to be such, and I found it
One of the checks so drawn was made necessary to prevent the bankrupt law
payable to Mr. Simpson, the attorney in from beinfj evaded, to state with clear
whose office the papers relating to the ness to juries, as I did in these cases, the
loan were executed, and was for the purpose of the law, and that no preju
sum of $3,450. This was done after dark dice against it or sympathy with defend
on the 10th day of November, and out ants should prevent them from fairly
of the proceeds of this cheek Mr. Simp and impartially applying its principles
son, being authorized and directed to do and provisions. Their verdicts in the
so by Thomas & Co., paid the debts of cases under consideration were not only
three of the defendants. Checks for supported by the evidence, but if they
the residue of the $7,700 were deliv had been otherwise, I should have re
ered to the other defendants and to garded it as my duty to have set them
one or two other creditors of Thomas aside. The motion for a new trial is in
& Co. on the next day and the money each case denied.
received thereon. All the defendants Judgment for the plaintiff.
knew when payment was received by
them that Thomas & Co. had suspended,
and that their bank was then closod,
and the circumstances are such that LEGAL NEWS PRINTING DEPARTMENT
those who received payment through
Mr. Simpson not only knew this, but
must have known that Thomas & Co. Briefs & Abstracts.
had no intention to resume business.
The defendants constituted and were
known to constitute but a small portion
of the creditors. Mr. Simpson was The attention of Attorneys in called to our superior
authorized to act for two of the defend facilities for printing BRIEFS and ABSTRACTS.
ants in thus receiving payment for them, Our pricee are:
and he assumed to act as the friend and BRIEFS, per pure,
- - SUM
attorney for the other, although without tlWTKA(T.t,
1.75
any express and specific authority in this
Orders
left
either
at
the
office
of
the
Legal
Njcws,
instance, but his act was ratified and
the money received. Of course the I IS W. Madison St., or at the Printing Office, 13 North
defendants thus receiving payment Jefferson St., will be promptly executed.
through Mr. Simpson are anfectea with
ARNOLD ft WATERMAN,
knowledge of the facts known to him
ATXORXEYH
respecting the manner the money was i"tUANCBY NOTICK.-State of* Illinois, county oi
V>
Cook,
sb.
Superior
Court of Cook county. To
obtained and disposed of by Thomas it .lauuary Term, A. D. 1872.
Co. A bank suspending payment and KlcctH A. Spi'iirw.In Chancery.Barton W. Spears t.
of the non-roBidence of Electa A. Sprars,
closing its doors against its creditors Affidavitabove
named, having been filed in the office
makes to the world a proclamation of its defendant
of
the
Clerk
of aaid
of Cook
notice
in
hereby
givenSuperior
to the Court
said Electa
A. county,
Spears
insolvency. The bank was thus sus that the complainant
heretofore
filed
his
bill
of com
pended and closed when each of the plaint in said Court, on the chancery Bide thereof,
and
that a summon* thereupon issued out of said Court
defendants received payment on the against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
checks drawn on the savings bank, and of January next (172), as in by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Electa A. Spears, shall
this fact was personally known to each personally
be and
appear
Cook county,
on the
first before
day of asaid
termSuperior
thereof,Court
to be
of the defendants. The payments were of
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
first Monday
not received in the usual course, but of January, l;872, and plead, answer or demur
to the
in checks drawn by bankers whose said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
and things therein charged and stated, will be
doors were closed upon another bank matters
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
of said bill.
in the same place. The jury have according to the prayer
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
properly found that payments thus Arnold *l Watkrman.
Compl't's Sol're.
11-1*
made and received are in violation of
Q.
A.
F0LLANSBEB,
the bankrupt law, because intended to
Attorney. No. 10 West Randolph St.
give, and, if sustained, would give a estate
friedkich
biermann,
depreference. The evidence fully con
ceasf-d. ofNotice
is hereby given
to all persons
having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
vinces us that Thomas it Co. did not Friedrich Biermann, deceased, to present the same
intend to resume business, and that they for
adjudication and suttienient at a regular term of
the Countv court of Cook county, to be holden at the
selected the defendants and a few others city
on the first Monday of February,
from the mass of their creditors to favor A.t). of\n~2,Chicago,
being the fifth (lay thereof.
*KNRY
BIERMANN, Aminiatrator.
or prefer them by paying them hastily
Dec. , A.D.
1871.
and secretly in "full out of the $20,000 Chicago.
G. A. Foli.ansbek,
Att'y.
Il-lfia
loan, and that the defendants, in receiv
F.
McHUGH
&
ANDREW
ENZENBACHER,
ing their pay, must have known and Attorneys, No. 30, West Randolph St
certainly had reasonable cause to believe / 1HANCERY NOTICE.- State of Illinois, county of
Vy Cook, M, Superior court of Cook county. To
that they were, thereby securing an ad January
Term, A.t). 1072. Anna Klelal v. Louis Uhe.
vantage over the other creditors. If In Chancer.
of the non-residence
of Louis
payments received under such circum antAffidavit
above named,
having Uen filed
in theUhe,
officedefend
of the
stances could be held against the as rlerkuf
said Superior court of Cook county, notice in
hereby given to the said Louis Uhe that the complain
signee, the bankrupt act ought to be ant
heretofore fib-it her bill of complaint in said court,
repealed, since its practical operation on the
chancery side thereof, and that a summons
thereupon issued out of said Court against said de
and effect would be to give to resident fendant,
returnable on the first Mouday of January
and favored creditors the very prefer next, (1872),
as is you,
by lawtherequired.
Now, unless
said Louis Uhe, shall per
ence which the act in so many of its sonally
be
and
appear
said Superior Court of
provisions professes to invalidate. The | Cook county, on the firstbefore
day
of a onterm
to be
holden at Chicago, in said county,
the thereof,
first Monday
act disarms the vigilance of creditors ;j of
January1
1872,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
generally by declaring that no vigilance ; said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
and things therein charged and stated, willthe
be
can be rewarded by a preference, if ob ij matters
taken
tm
and a decree entered againt you
tained contrary to its provisions within ! according confessed,
to the prayer of said bill.
JACOBSON. Clerk.
four months prior to filing of the petition P. MoHuutJ and AUGUSTUS
Andickw Enzknuaciiku. Compl'ts
in bankruptcy. It undertakes to dis | Sol'rs.
_ 11-11
able creditors from procuring prefer
CHARLES DRIESSLE1N,
ences within that period by attachment,
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
mortgage, or confession of judgment.
Wabash Ave.
What preference can be more unjust than j Waste n Union Telegraph Oflce,

LAW

News.

DEPARTMENT,

LAW

BOOKS.

Chicago University.
LECTURES were resumed in this institution on
Monday, Oct. 30th last, in the lecture room of
the Second Baptist Church, corner of Monroe and
Morgan streets. All the old advuntages obtained
by students in thin law school are again offered. Bourquin & Welsh
For information address
JOHN A. HUNTER,
Se<r. Law Dept.
5-1S
133 W. Monroe street. Chicago.
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
A. H. LAWRENCE,
P UBLISHERS <t- IMPOR TERS,
Attorney, 368 State St.
IEXECUTOR'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE.-In the
i County
courtexecutor
of Cookofcounty,
stateof of
Illinois.
the estate
Charles
M.
George
R. Spurr,
No. 431 Walnut Street,
Fay, deceased, vs. Frances A. Fay, Ellen M. Daniels,
George F. Daniels and Jennie B. Fay.Petition to sell
real estate.
Public notice is hereby given, that the undersigned,
Philadelphia.
oxecutor of the estate of Charles M. Fay, deceased, by
virtue of an order and decree of the County court of
Cook county, state of Illinois, made and entered at the 118
August term, A.D. 1*71, of said court, on petition of the
undersigned,
to sell'S&,real
of said deceased,
willday,
on
Monday, January
1*72,estate
at 12 o'clock
noon ofsaid
at the east door of the court house, on Clark street, in
the city of Chicago, in said county of Cook, sell at pub
lic auction, to the I.ighest and beat biddi r for chkIi. the
following
described
estate,
situate
of Cook and
tttate of real
Illinois,
to wit
: lot intwosaidof county
assess
or's division of lot sixteen, in division of west half of LAW BOOKS.
southeast quarter of section 23, township 10 north,
range 13, east of third principal meridian; also, lot
J. R. McDIVITT,
fourteen, assessor's division of west hall of the south
east quarter of section 23, township 40 north, range 13.
HI
NAJMAC
KTRF.ET, STEW YORK.
east
principal
meridian,
exceptcommencing
so much ot
said of
lotthe
as isthird
described
as follows,
to wit:
Second-hand
Law
Books Bought. Sold and Exin the north line of said west half of said quarter sec changed.
6-19
tion,
at
a
point
44.**
1-9
feet
east
from
the
northwest
corner ofsaid west half, thence east 1 10 s-jo feet to land
now or late of Susan Cise, thence south M3 Mil feet by
said
CaseM.land,
west tobyland
landnownowor or
Charles
Fay thence
140 s-10 feet,
latelate
of M.of
L. Kimball, thence north by said Kimball land KJ .V10
feet to place of beginning. Said sale being made for
THE CHICAGO
the purpose
of paying
debts of
said deceased.
GEORGE
K. SPURR,
Executor
of said Estate.
Dated Chicago, Dec. 16,1T1.
A. H. Lawbknck, Att'y10-15
LEGAL NEWS
NEWELL PRATT,
Attorney, 1124 Wabash Avenue.
COMPANY.
ClHANCKRY
of Illinois,
County To
of
J Cook, as. NOTICE.State
Superior court of
Cook county.
January Term, A. I). 1*72. Joanna Stanselle vs. Louis PRINTING OFFICE,
F.Affidavit
Stanselle.
In Chancery.
of the
non-residence of Louis F. Stanselle,
defendant above named, having been filed ln-ithe office
15 North Jefferson Street ;
of
the
clerk
of
said
of Cook
county,
notice is hereby givenSuperior
to the court
said Louis
F. Stanselle
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com Business Office, 115 West Madison Street,
plaint in said, court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon Issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
CHICAGO.
of January next, (W72), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Louis F. Stanselle, shall
personally
ls
and
appear
before
said
Superior
court
of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof to be
holden at Chicago,
said county,
on demur
the firstto Monday
ofJanuary,
1*72, andinplead,
answer or
the said
BOOK AND JOB
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
matters and things therein charged andsame,
stated,and
willthe
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newell Pratt, Comp'ts sol'r.
10-13
O. J. DRESSER,
Attorney, 114 W. Madison St.
ClHANCKRY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
> Cook,ss. Superior court of Cook county, January
Term. A.D. 1*72. Sarah A. Burllngame vs. Lauriston
Particular attention given to all kinds of
Burlinganie.In
Affidavit of tho Chancery.
non-residence of Lauriston Burlingame, defendant above named, having been filed in the LEGAL PRINTING :
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook coun
ty, notice is hereby given to the said Lauriston Burlin
ganie that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
INCLUDING
complaint in said court, on the chancery' side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
ttgaiust said defendant, returnable ou the first Monday Attorneys' Abstracts,
of January next, (1*72.) as is by law required.
Now. unless you, the said Lauriston Burllngame,
Briefs and Dockets,
shall personally be and appear before said Superior
court of Cook county, on the first day of a term there
Books, Pamphlets and Reports.
of, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first
Monday of January, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur
to the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, Orders for this description of work will be execut
and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
ed promptly in the neatest style o>f the art.
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk. Decrees, Orders,
G. J. Drksske, Compl't's Sol'r,
10-13
Mortgage)!, Deeds, Leases,
MAGEE & 0LES0N,
Attorneys, 105 W. Randolph St.
Checks, Notes, Draft*, Bonds,
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county ot
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
Cards, Labels, Letter Headings,
January Term, A.D. 1872. Helena M. Evenson vs.
Andreas
Evenson.In
Chancery.
Bills of Lading, Bill Heads,
Affidavit of the non-residence of Andreas Evenson,
defendant
named,
havingcourt
been of
filedCook
in thecounty,
office
of the clerkabove
of said
Superior
Insurance Policies, Circulars,
notice is hereby given to the said Andreas Evenson that
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
Receipts, Hand-bills, etc., etc.,
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
Printed upon the shortest notice.
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Jan
uary
(1*72.)you,
an istheby said
law required.
Now,next,
unless
Andreas Evenson, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of j THOAiAs I. MolXTOSH lute hear1 o! (he Book
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to bo
Newspaper department of the Lakeside Printholden at Chicago, in said county, on tho first Monday i and
of January. 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the lng Company, is the Mi|>erinUindent of our Print
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and ing Department.
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to theAUGUSTUS
prayer of said
bill.
McHUGH,
JACOBSON,
Clerk. Attorney, S. E.P. cor.
Randolph & Canal.
Magei: k Olkson, Comp'ts Sol'rs.
10-13 Estate of august jkskk,
deceased -No
tice
is
liereby
given
to
all
having
claims
ESTATE
OF
HANS
BRISTRUP,
DECKASKD.and demands against the estate,pontons
of August
Jeske.
deNotice
is
hereby
given
to
all
persons
having
to present thosanie. fur adjudication and settle
claims and demands against the estate of Hans Brist- i ceased,
ment at toa regular
term
ot
the
Connty
Court
of
Cook
rup, deceased, to present the same for adjudication and county,
be holden at the Court House, in tile city of
settlement
regular
termat of
County
Cook county,at toa be
holden
thethe
court
house,court
in theof i Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1572, be4th day thereof.
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of February, A.D. i! ing theANDREW
ENZENBACKEIt, Administrator.
1*72, being the fifth
thereof.
McHvau,
Attorney.
S. day
M. KROGNKSS,
Administrator. i P.
Chicago.
PwemliiT
x. A. D. 1*71.
9_rL**_
Chicago, Dec. 12, A.D. 1*71.
Maokk & Olkson, Att'y*.
10-1.'*
SMITH & KOHLSAAT,
D. J. CROCKER,
Attorneys, No. 62 South Canal St.
eestate
of cornelius
v. backus.
deAttorney. 48 S. Canal Street.
ceased.Notice
is hereby given
to. all persons
INSTATE
OF
CAROLINE
HEINES.
DECEASED.claims
and
demands
against
the
eetate
of
Cor
J Public notice is hereby given to all persons having having
nelius F. Backus deceased; to present the same for
claims and demands against the estate of Caroline adjudication
at a regular term of the
Heiues, deceased, to present the same for adjudication County Courtandofsettlement
Cook county, to be holden at the
and settlement at a regular term of the County court Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
of
Cook
county,
Illinois,
to
be
holden
at
the
court
the ttfth day therohouse in the city of Chicago, in said county, on the first day of February, A. D. 1K72, being
BACKUS,
Mondav of February, A.D. 1*72, beinsr the fifth day or.Chicago, Nov. 24th, A.EMIl.Y
u.
D. IS7I. Aduiiniatrati1-12
thereof..
JACOB HEINES, Executor.
10-13 Smith 4 Kohlsaat, Attorneys.
D. J. Cbockek, Att'y for Estate.

79
DRISCOLL & PF1RSHING,
Attorneys, 47 Peck Court.
/'CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook County. To
December Term, A. D. 1*71. Lawrence Dreiling v.
Theresa Dreiling. In Chancery.
Affidavit that Theresa Dreiling, defendant, on due
inquiry
cannot
be
found,
having beenof
filed
the
office
of the
Clerkabove
of
paidnamed,
Cookincounty,
notice
i - hereby
given
toSuperior
the said Court
Theresa
Dreiling that the complainant heretofore filed hi* bill
of
complaint
In
said
court,
on
the
chancery
Hide
of, andthat a summons thereupon issued out nfthere
Raid
Court against Raid defendant, returnable on the flint
Mouday of December next, 1*71. as in by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Theresa Dreiling, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,
count),
on the
first Mondny
of
December,
1*71, in
andsaidplead,
answer
or demur
to the
said
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
same,
matters and things therein charged and stated, and
willthe
l>e
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Drimcoll A Pfirbiiino, Compl't's Sol'rs.
8-1 lp
BONNEY, FAY ft GRIGGS,
Attorneys, 120 W. Washington St.
1PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENTStateCounty.
of Illinois,
Cook County,
Court
of Cook
January
Term. A.ss.D. Circuit
1872. Samuel
S. White v. C. B. Stoddard.
Public notice is hereby given to the said C, B. Stod
dard that a writ of attachment issued out of the office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook county, dated
the third day of November, A. D. 1*71, at the suit of the
said Samuel S. White, and against
the estate of C, B.
Stoddard, for the sum of four hundred and eighty-four
12-100
dollars,
directed
to
the
Sheriff
of Cook county,
which said writ has been returned executed..
Now, therefore, unless you, the said C. B. Stoddard,
shall personally be and appear before the said Circuit
Govt
of Cook
county,
or before
theCourt
first day
of the
next term
thereof,
to l>eonholden
at the
House,
in
the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of January,
A.
D.
1*72,
give
special
bait
and
plead
to
the
said
plain
tiffs action, judgment will be entered against you.and
In favor of the said Samuel S. White, and so much of
the proper13
maybeliesold
sufficient
to satisfy
the
wtid judgmentattached
and costsaswill
to satisfy
the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Bonnky, Fay a Grkhis, Attorneys.
8-11
CLAKKSON ft VAN SCHAACK,
154 Wabash Avenue.
publication notice in attachment.Statecountv,
of Illinois,
Cook term.
County,
Circuit
Court
of Cook
December
A. se.
D., 1s~1
. Matthew
C.Pnblic
Wilburnotice
t. H. isE.hereby
Brown.given to the said H.E. Brown
lhat a writ of attachment issued out of the office of the
Clerk
of the Circuit
Court of Cook
County,
the
twenty-ninth
day of November,
A, D.,
1*71, atdated
the suit
of the said Matthew C. Wilbur and against the estate
of H. E. Brown, for the sum of two hundred and thir
ty-three
ninety-one
one-hundreth
to
the
Sheriff
of Cook county,
which dollars,
said writdirected
has been
returned
executed,
Now,personally
therefore,beunless
you, the
saidthen. said
E.Brown,
shall
and appear,
before
Circuit
Court
of
Cook
county,
on
or
before
the
first
of the
next term thereof, to be holden at the Court day
House,
in
the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of December,
A.D.,
1
-7).
give
special
bail
and
plead
to
the
said
plain
tiff's action, judgment will be entered against you, and
tn favor of the said Matthew C. Wilbur, and so much
of the property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy
the said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the
T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
CUUMS A Van NORMAN
Schaack, Attorneys.
8-11
JONES ft GARDNER,
Attorneys, HM West Madison St.
TRUSTEE'S
SALE.-Whereas,
the twenty-fifth
day of October,
1*70, Amos K. on
Tompkins
executed
to the undersigned, his trust deed of that date, of the
real estate hereinafter described, which was recorded
on the sixth day of December, 1870, in the recorder's
office of Cook county, Illinois, in book S7j of deeds, at
page 174, which trust deed was given to secure two
promissory
notespayable
of saidtoTompkins,
of Joseph
even date
with
said
trust deed,
the order of
Harris,
Ti
for
fhe
sum
of
thirty-seven
hundred
and
fifty
lars,, with'-*
i i interest thereon at eight per cent, per dolan
num,
payableinsemi-annually,
saidafter
notesdate,
beingandpayable
being
respectively
one and two years
for part of the purchase money of the premises in said
trust
default
has notes
been
made deed
in thedescribed;
payment ofand,
thewhereas,
interest due
on said
for
the
six
months
ending
on
tho
twenty-fifth
day
of
October. 1*71, and In the payment of the note first due.
except the -urn of four hundred dollars, paid and en
dorsed upon said note as of its date, to apply on the
principal of said note : and, whereas, the legal holder
of saiu notes has requested the undersigned to make
sale of said real estate, as authorized by said trust
deed, to pay said notes and interest: Now, therefore,
notice
given,given
that under
virtueand
of the
power isandhereby
authority
by saidand
trustbydeed,
for
the purpose of paying the notes and interest aforesaid,
and on the thirteenth day of January, 1*72, at ten
o'clock
the forenoon
that day,
the premises
in
said trustin deed
described,of(being
alsoatknown
as No. 447
West Washington street.) in the city of Chicago, in
the state of Illinois, I shall proceed to sell, at public
auction,
to the
highest
the said
real estate,
to wit:
thecash
eastbidder
half five
oftherefor,
lot innumbered
twenty-six
(2*).
In block
numbered
(.1),
Malcom
McNeill's subdivision of blocks numbered six (fi),
seven (7) and eight (*), in Wright's addition to Chica
go, in the city of Chicago, county of Cook and state of
Illinois, and
conveyed
to meall bythesaidright,
trusttitle,
deed.interest in the same
Dated Dec. 7. 1*71. GEO. GARDNER, Trustee.
Jones t Gardner, Att'ys.
9-13
THEO. SCHINTZ,
Attorney, 122 West Randolph St.
instate
acc.rst
-i Notice isofhereby
givenschiller.
to all personsdeceasedhaving claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of August Schiller,
doceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settle
ment
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
Court
of
Cook
f-ounty,
holden
the Court
House,A.in D.the1*72,
citybeof
Chicago,toonbethe
first at
Mouday
of March,
ing the 4th dav thereof.
MAGDELENA SCHILLER, Administratrix.
THEO. Schintz.
Attorney.
Chicago,
December
*, A. D. 1671.
9-14a
ESTATE OF CHARLES R. HAEI'SSLER. Deceased.
is herebyagainst
given the
to estate
all persons
having
claimsNotice
and demands
of Charles
R.
Hueussler,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
conrt
county, toonbetheholden
at the court
house
in the ofcityCook
of Chicago,
first Mouday
of Febru
ary, A.D. 1672. being the fifth dav thereof.
ANNA
IIAEt'SSLER.
Administratrix.
Chicago, Dec.
i.\ A.D.
1*71.
Tuxo. SciiiXTZ, Att'y.
10-16*
ESTATE OF PHILIP F. W. PECK, DECEASED.
Notice Is hereby given to all pentons having claims
and
demands
againstthethesame
estateforofadjudication
Philip F. W.andPeck,
deceased,
to present
set
tlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
Cookof
county, to be holden at the court housecourt
in beofcity
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
January,
A.D.
1872,
Li ing the first day thereof.
CLARENCE I. PECK and
FERD. W. PECK,
Chicago, November 17, A.D. 1671. Administrators.
6-lla

BURKE & ALLEN,

18 W. Randolph Street.
pHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois,
^
Cook, ss. Circuit
court of Cook
county,County
Augustof
Term, A.D. 1*71. Timothy Lane vs. Sylphyua J. Lane.
Affidavit
In Chancery.
of the non-residence of Sylphvna J. Lane,
defendant above named, having been tiled in the office
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Sylphyua J. Lane that
the complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons
thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant,
returnable on the third Monday of
September next, (1*71.) as is by law required
Now, unless you, the said Sylphvna J. Lane, shall
personally be and appear before said Circuit court ol
Cook
on theIn
dav of aonterm
thereof,Monday
to be
I.Al.lnncounty,
Qirl.i^w...
.......
holden
at
Chicago,
in first
said county,
the
third
of September, 1*71, and plead, answer or demur to the
said coiiiplajnaut's bill of complaint, the same, and the
mattersasand
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
willyou
be
taken
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Bvrke A Allen, NORMAN
Compl't's Sol'rs.
10-13
jnHAKCERY NOTICE. State of Illinois, Cook
v7 County, ss. Superior Court of Cook County to
January term, A. D., 1*72. Sa.a.. . . Burdick v. Mil
ton P. Burdick. In Chauc ry.
Affidavitabove
of thenamed
non-resiI n . nc
of Milfiled
I on P.
Burdick,
defendant
ing been
in the
office
of
the
clerk
of
said
Sup
>
lor
Court
nl
Cook
county,
notice is hereby given t the said Hilton P. Burdick
that the complainant t.eretoforc filed her bill of com
plaint in saiu court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out ol said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Mon
day of January next. 1*72. as is by law required.
Now, unless
the. saidbefore
Miltonsaid
P. Superior
Burdick Court
shall
personally
be you,
and appear
of
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
thereof,
be holden at Chicago, it said county, on the first Monto
day of January, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill ol complaint, the same, a^
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill,
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON. (' rk,S-ll '
Bcrke Jt Allen. Compl't's
Sol'rs.
J. C. & J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
Attorneys, 163 West Washington, St.
estateof mart annicavanaghjdeceased
ishereby
given
all persons
claimsPublic
and notice
demands
against
thetoestate
of Maryhaving
Ann
Cavanagh, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court
ofin Cook
County,Chicago,
to be on
holdenfirst
at Monday
the Court
House,
the city
of
February.
A.D.
1*72,ofbeing
the .r>th the
day thereof.
JOHN
CORBETT,
J. C. A J. J. Knickerbocker.
Administrator.
Attorneys for Estate.
fc-ll
f 1HANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss.1*72.
Circuit court
of Cook
county,Wirth
February
Term,
Davis
vs. Emilie
and
CharlesA.D.
Wirth. InEvan
Chancery.
Affidavit that the defendants above named on due
inquiry cannot be found, having been filed in the office
of the clerk
of said
of CookWirth
county,
notice
is hereby
givenCircuit
to thecourt
said Emilie
and
Charles
Wirth
that
the
complainant
heretofore
filed
bis
bill
of
complaiant
in
said
court,
on
the
chaucery
side thereof, and that a summon* thereupon Issued out
of said court against said defendants, returnable on
the
third Monday of February next, (1*72,) as is by law
required.
Now, unless you, the said Emilie Wirth and Charles
Wirth, shall personally be and appear before said Cir
cuit court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
thereof, to bo holden at Chicago, in said county, on the
third Monday of February, 1*72, and plead, answer or
demurand
to the said
complainant's
of complaint,
the
same,
things bill
therein
charged
and
stated, willthe
be matters
taken asand
confessed,
and
a decree
entered
against you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T,Compl't's
GASSETTE,
J. C, A J. J. Knickerbocker.
Sol'rs. Clerk.*M2
A; B. BALDWIN,
Attorney, Room ti, Lind's Block.
TESTATE OF JOHN B. GALLAGHER, DECEASED.
Ej Notice is hereby given to all persons having claim:*
and demands against tho estate of John B. Gallagher,
deceased, to preeentthe same for adjudication and set
tlement,
Cookof
county, toatbea regular
holden atterm
theofthe
CourtCounty
House,Court
in theofcity
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
February,
A.
D.,
1*72,
being the fifth day thereof,
SARAH A. GALLAGHER, Administratrix.
A. B. Baldwin, Att'y.
Chicago. Nov. 27th, 1871.
6-13 9-H
INSTATE
HOMERgiven
HOPKINS,
DECEASED.
j Notice OF
is hereby
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Homer
Hopkins, deceeased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of Febru
ary, A.D. 1*72, being the fifth dav thereof.
KITTIE
L. HttPKl.VS. Executrix.
Chicago, Dec. 12,
A.D. 1*71.
A. B. Baldwin. Att'y.
Ift-lA
ELA & PARKER,
Attorneys, M< West Madison Street.
riHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
\j
Cook.se.
Court M.of Cook
JanuT.
ary Term,
A.D.Superior
1*72. Fanny
Band)county.
v. Oliver
Bandy, Jr.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence ofOliver T. Bundy. Jr.,
defendant
having been
filed incounty,
the office
of
Clerkabove
ofgiven
saidnamed,
no
ticetheis hereby
toSuperior
the saidCourt
OliverofT.Cook
Bundy. Jr., that
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
in said Court,
on the issued
chancery
thereof,
andagainst
that a
summons
thereupon
outside
of said
Court
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of
January next (1*72). as is by law required.
Now. unless you, the said Oliver T. Bundy. Jr.. shall
personally be and appear before said SuperiorCourt of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of January, 1*72. and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
of complaint,
thestated,
same, and
matters
and things bill
therein
charged and
will the
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Ela A Pakkkr. Compl't's sol'r.
_ ii-h
FRANCIS ROLLS.
Attorney, 'Mi Clyborne Avenue.
riHANCERY
NOTICE.-Stnt*
of Illinois,
of
\J Cook, ss. Circuit
Court of Cook
county,county
February
term, A. D. 1812, William Meinking v. Anna Meinking, In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Anna Meinking,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the Clerk of said Circuit Court of Conk county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Anna Meinking that
complainant heretofore filed his certain bill of com
plaint in said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the third Moudav of February next (1*72). as is by law required.
Now, unless
the said
Annasaid
Meinking,
sonally
be andyou,
appear
before
Circuit shall
Courtperof
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day
of February,
1*72, and
answer orthe
demur
to
the said
complainant's
bill plead,
of complaint,
same,
and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Francis Rollk, Cumpl't't Sol'r.
1M4

SIDNEY THOMAS,
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
Attorney, Oo Harrison St.
Attorney.
NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
4 dm1nistratrix' sale of real estate. ftHANCERY
V / Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county, To JanJ\. By virtue of an order and decree of the County nary
Term,
A.D.
1*72. Charles A. Hawley vs. Caroline
Court
of
Cook
county,
Illinois,
made
on
the
petition
of
Chancery.
the undersigned, Dorothea Riugleb, formerly Dorothea llawley.In
Affidavit ol the non-residence of Caroline Hawley,
Medelman,
administratrix
of
the
estate
of
Friedrich
named,
havingconrt
been filed
in thecounty,
office
Medelman. deceased, for leave to sell the real estate of defendant
the clerkabove
of said
Superior
of Cook
said deceased, at the December term, A. D. 1*71, of said of
notice is hereby given to the said Caroline Hawley that
court, to wit, on the sixth day ofDecember, A. D. 1*71, the
complainant
heretofore
bill of and
complaint
on Monday,
theat22dpublic
day ofsale,
January,
1*72, in said
court, on the
chanceryfiled
sidehis
thereof,
that a
atI shall,
11 o'clock
a. m*, sell
at the A.eastD. door
thereupon issued out of said court against
of the Court House, on Clark street. In the city of Chi summons
said
defendant,
returnable
on
the
first
Monday
of
Jancago, in said Cook county, and State of Illinuis, the nary next, ( 1*72,) as is by law required.
real estate described as follows, to wit : the northeast Now, unless >ou, the said Caroline nawley, shall
uarter of the northeast quarter of section twenty personally be and appear before said Superior court of
three
(23), iu township
thirty-six (36), range thirteen
reeeast
county, on the first day of a'term thereof, to be
m).
of theto 3d P. M.. in the town of Bremen, in Cook
(13),
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
Cook county. State of Illinois, containing forty acres. of
January.
1*72, andbillplead,
answer orthe
demur
the
on the following terms, to wit : cash on delivery of the said complainant's
of complaint,
same,to and
deed.
DOROTHEA RINGLEB,
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
(Formerly Dorothea Medelman.)
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
Administratrix of the estate of Friedrich Medelman, against
vou according to the pravcr nf said bill.
deceased.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
J ami s B. BradWell. Att'y for Estate.
9-14
Sidney Thomas. Compl't's Sol'r.
9-12
ESTATE OF FRIEDERICHMEDEI.MAN.deceosed.
Public
notice
is
hereby
given
to
all
persons
having
H.
C.
BENNETT,
claims
and demands
against
Attorneys, 133 W. Madison St.
Medelman.
deceased, to
presentthetheestate
same offorFriedericn
adjudica
tion
and
settlement
at
a
regular
term
the County
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois.
court of Cook county, to be holden at theofcourt
house pHANCERY
\; Cook, ss. Superior
court of Cook
countyCounty
. To Janof
In the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of January, uary Term. A.D. 1*72. Ann Marshall vs. William
A.D. 1*72, being the first day thereof.
Miirshall,In Chancery.
DOROTHEA MEDELMAN,
RINGLEB, formerly
Affidavit of the non-residence of William Marshall,
DOROTHEA
Administratrix. defendant
above named, having been tiled in the office
James B. Bradwkll, Att'y for Estate.
of
the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
Chicago, Nov. 18. 1S7I.
fi-il notice
is hereby given to the said William Marshall
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
JAMES B. BRADWELL & A. H. LAWRENCE, plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
Attorneys.
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
estate
of
enoch
h.
stein,
deceased.i
of
January
nextyou,
(1*72.)
is byWilliam
low required.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims Now,
unless
theassaid
Marshall, shall
and demands against the estate of Enoch H. Stein j personally
bo
and
apper
before
Superior court of
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set Cook county, on the first day ofsaid
a
term
to be
tlement at a regular term of the County Court of Cook holden at Chicago, in said county, on thethereof,
first Monday
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of of
March,
1*72,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
the
Chicago, on tho first Monday of February, A. D. 1K72, I complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and said
' matters and things therein charged snd stated, willthe
bo
being the fifth day thereof.
FANNIE STEIN.
taken as coifes^ed, and decree entered against you
WM.
A.
BUTTERS.
according
to
the
prayer
of
said
bill.
Administrators, with the will annexed.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
James B. Bradwkll A A. H. Lawrence,
H. C. Bknnbtt, Compl't's Sol'r.
9-12
Attorneys
for
Estate.
Chicago. Dec. 7. A. D. 1871.
9-14
DEANE ft CAHTLL,
Attorneys, Lixd'b Block.
RUNTAN, AVERY. LOOMIS ft COMSTOCK,
riHANCERY NOTICE. - State of Illinois. Cook
Attorneys.
Vj
County,
Superior Court of Cook county. De
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of cember term.ss,A. D..
1871. Duane C. Galloway v. Rosa
Cook,
ss.
Superior
court
of
Cook
county.
To
De
Galloway.
In
Chancery.
cember term. A.D. 1*71. George Stevenson vs. Sarah Affidavit of the non-residence of Rosa Galloway, de
J. Stevenson.In Chancery.
above named, having been filed in the office of
Affidavit of the non-residence of Sarah J. Stevenson, fendant
Clerk
of said
Court
Cook county,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office the
Itr hereby
givenSuperior
to the said
RosaofGalloway
that no
the
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, tice
complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint in
notice is hereby given to the said Sarah J. Stevenson said
Court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
and
that
a
that thein complainant
filedside
histhereof,
hill of com
thereupon issued ont of said Court against
plaint
said court, onheretofore
the chancery
and snmmons
defendant, returnable on the first Monday of De
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court said
next, 1871, as is by law required.
against
said defendant,
on the
first Monday cember
Now, unless you. the said Rosa Galloway shall per
of December
next, (1*71,)returnable
as is by law
required.
be andon appear
said term
Superior
Court
Now, unless you, the said Sarah J. Stevenson, shall sonally
Cook county,
the firstbefore
day ofa
thereof,
to beof
personally bo and appear before said Superior court of holden
at Chicago,1871.
in and
said plead,
county,answer
ou theorfirst
MontCook countv, on the first day of a term thereof, to be day of December,
demur
holden
at Chicago,
county,
on the
first Monday
complainant's
bill ofcomplaint,
thestated.
same,
mid1
of
December,
\s, l, inandsaidplead,
answer
or demur
to the the said
matters
and things therin
charged and
said complainant's bill ofcomplaint, the same, and the the
be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against j ou
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will
he
-of'said
said
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you according to the grayer
STUSbillJACOBSON.
Clerk.
AUGUSTUS
J.
according to the prayer of said bill.
10-13
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk. Dfaxk A Cahilt, Compl't's Sol'r. "
Ruxyax, Avert, Loomis A Comstock, Compl't's Sol'rs.
8-11
SMALL ft INGALLS,
Attorneys.
HIGH ft TRUMAN,
HANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois, County of
Attorneys, No. 487 Wabash Avenue. C Cook, ss. Circuit Court of Cook
County. Febru
ary
Term,
A.
D.
1872.
Charles
Fargo.
Mary J. Fargo
estate
of
eli given
m. skinner,
decea8ed.and Henry S. Monroe v. Mary L. O'Connor.
John
Notice
is
hereby
to
all
persons
having
claims
Jeremiah
O'Connor,
John
Forsythe,
and demands against the estate of Ell M. Skinner, de O'Connor,
P. H. Smith and Mary L. O'Connor andPatrick
Davis
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set O'Neil,
Crocker, administrators, etc.In Chancery.
tlement toat be
a regular
term
the County
Court
ofCook J. Affidavit
of the non-residence of John O'Connor, one
county,
holden
theofCourt
in the
of the defendants above named, having been filed in
Chicago,
on the
firstatMonday
of House,
February,
A.D.City11*72,of tho
office of the Clerk of Baid Circuit Court of Cook
being the fifth day thereof.
county, notice is hereby given to the sai'l John O'Con
BETSEY SKINNER.
nor that the complainants heretofore filed their bill of
JEREMIAH S. OLOUOH,
complaint in said court, on (he chancery side thereof,
Chicago.rai'MAN,
Nov. 21, Attorneys.
1871.
Executors. and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
HiohATi
7-12a against
said defendants, returnable on the third Mon
day of February next (1872), as is by law required.
BENTLET, RENNET. ULLMAN ft IVES,
Now,
unless
you. the said John O Connor, shall per
Attorneys. No. 37(! Wabash Ave.
sonally be and appear )efore said Circuit Court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to bo
publication
notice
in
attachment.State of Illinois. Cook County, ss. Circuit Court holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
of
County,
February
A.D. Van
1*72. Spyker.
Willard day of February. 1872. and plead, answer or demur- to
B. Cook
Johnson
vs. John
SpykerTerm,
and Harm
the said complainants' bill of complaint, the same, and
Public notice is hereby given to the said John Spy the matters and things therein charged and stated,
ker and Harm Van Spyker that a writ of attachment will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
issued out of the office of the clerk of the Circuit court you according to the prayer of said bill.
of
county,
firstWillard
day of B.December,
GASSETTE. Clerk.
1S71.Cook
at the
suit dated
of thethesaid
Johnson, A.D.
and Small A Tkoalls,NORMAN
Compl'ls' T.Sol'rs.
9*12
against the estate of John Spyker and Harm Van Spy
ker. for the sum of four hundred dollars, with interest CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
at the rate of seven per cent, per annum from July l.\
ss. Ciimit court of Cook county, February
1S70, directed
the sheriff
of Cook county, which said term,Cook.
A.D.
W72. Charles
Fargo vs. John
PatrickO'Connor
O'Neil,
writ
has been toreturned
executed.
Mary
L.
O'Connor.
Mary O'Connor.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said John Spyker mid Jeremiah O'Connor.In
Chancery.
and Harm Van Spyker. shall personally be and appear Affidavit of the non-residence of John O'Connor,
before
Cook
county,
on holden
or be one of the delendnnts above named, having been filed
fore thethefirstsaiddayCircuit
of thecourt
next of
term
thereof,
to bo
in
tne office
of thehereby
clerk given
ot saidto Circuit
Cook
at
the
court
house,
in
the
city
o.
Chicago,
on
the
county,
notice
the saidcourt
JohnofO'Con
Monday of February. A.D. 1K72, give special bailthird
and nor
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of
plead
to
the
said
plaintiff's
action,
judgment
will
be
in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
entered against you. and in favor of the said Willard complaint
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
B.
and tososatisfy
much the
of the
as against
said defendants, returnable on the third Mon
mayJohnson,
be sufficient
salaproperty
judgmentattached
and costs
day of February next. (1*72,) as is by Irw required.
will be sold to satisfy the same.
Xow. unless yon, the said John O Connor, shall NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk. Minally
appear Ik;fore said Circuit court of I "i U
Bknti.ey. Bf.nxrt, Ui.lman A Ivits. Atty's.
!M2 eount> . beonand
the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
at
Chicago,
in
said county, on the third Monday ol"
JAMES FELCH,
February . 1*72. and plead, answer or demur to the said
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
Attorney,
matters nnd things therein charged and stated, will be
pHANCERY
taken as confessed,
and ofa decree
County, ss. NOTICE.-State
Superior Court of of
CookIllinois,
County. Cook
Jan according
to the praver
said bill,entered against you
uary
term,
A.
D.,
1*72.
Albert
Hankins
v.
Mary
HanNORMAN T, CASSETTE, Clerk.
kins.
Small A Ixgalls, Compl't's Sol'i-s.
9-12
Affidavit of the non-residence of Mar> Hankins. de
fendant above named, having leen filed in the office
of the Clerk ofsaid Superior Court of Cook County,
R.
BIDDLE
ROBERTS,
notice is hereby given to the said Mary Hankins that
Attorney, Room 7, 43 8. Canal St.
the complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
testate
of john weishaar, deceased.
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
and
that
u
summons thereupon issued out of said court against -Fj Notice- is hereby given to all persons having claims
said defendant, returnable on the first Mondnv ofJan and demands against the estate of John Weishaar, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
uary next, 1*72, as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Mary' Hankins, shall per ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of county, to be holden at tho Court House, in the city of
Cook County, on the first day of a term thereof, to be Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872, be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Mon ing the fourth dav thereof.
day of January, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to
E. B. WEISHAAR.
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same,
R. BIDDLE ROBERTS,
and tho matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken and confessed, and a decree entered Chicago, December :>, A. D. 1871. Administrators.
9-14p
against you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
SAMUEL
STRAUS,
Jamf.8 Fklch, Compl't's Sol'r.
ji-ll
Attobney, o()2 Wabash Avenue.
~ MOORETft CAULFIELD,
gottliebto all
seber, deceased.
Attorneys, S. E. cor. State & Madison. estate
Notice
isofhereby
having
claims
ESTATE OF MARY ANN TAYLOR. DECEASED. and demands
againstgiven
the estate ofpersons
Gottlieb
Seber,
de
Public
notice
is
hereby
given
to
all
persons
having
ceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
and
claims and demands against the estate of Mary Ann ment at a regular term of the County Court ofsettle
Cook
Taylor, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
the Court
House, in the
and settlement at a regular term of the County court county, toonbethoholden
first atMonday
of February,
A. D.city1872.of
of Cook county, to be holden in the city of Chicago, Chicago,
being
the
'th
day
thereof.
on the firBt Monday of February next.
ELISABETHA
SEBER, Administratrix.
Samvkl Strai-s.
Attorney.
Chicago, Dec. l.\ 1871.MARY BROWN, Executrix.
10-li Chicago,
December
8, A. D. 1871.
9-U&

Chicago

Legal

News.

8
ATTORNEYS.
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
A D YER TISEMENT.
Barter aud Laclcner. 61 West Lake street.
H. M. HERMAN,
Barker, J. C 143 West Madison street, room 3.
ATTORNEY
AT LAW,
Bates & Hodges, 113 West Madison street.
.Vo. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.
BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street.
STEVENS & HAYNES
Burgess, W. T., 165 W. Wahington.
GEORGE C. FRY,
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
Bonne}', Fay & (iriggs, 120 West Washington St.
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Bentlcy, Bennett, Ullinan & Ives, 376 Wabash av.
L&-w I?u.t>lisliei-is,
ANFORD, E. Special attention given to Col
54
West
Randolph
Street, formerly 86 IxiSalte Street.
14* Barker Waite, 46 East Harrison street.
s lections and Real Estate.
Chicago.
Brouse, O. R., 400 Wabash avenue.
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
Brown & Rk kerb, 114 West Madison
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
Burke and Alleh. 18 W. Randolph.
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
HERNDON & ORENDORV.
Cannichael, D. L., 845 Prairie auenue.
Office west side square.
AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS,
JVo. 113 West Madison Street, Chicago.
Carter, Becker it Dale, 60 Canal, 350 Wabash av
Special Attention Given to Probate Matters.
MINNEAPOLIS (MINN.) ATTORNEYS.
Chase, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue.
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
Clarkson * Van Schaack, No. 454 Wabash Ave.
ESTATES SETTLED.
MITH & ORDWAY,
Condon,
Wm.
H..
34
Canal
street.
No. 11 Centre Block. Nicollet St.
"Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die,
and not live."1 Kings xx. 1.
Deane & Cahill, room 7, Lind's Block.
LON DON.
ST. LOUIS (MO.) ATTORNEYS.
Dent & Black, 740 Wabash avenue.
8. A. GOODWIN.
E. C. LABNED.
B. 8. TOWLB.
Ewing & Leonard. 487 Wabash avenue.
P. COLBY,Counselor-at-Law. St. Louis. Mo.
Ellis, B. W., 115 West Madison street.
GOODWIN,
LARNED
ft
TOWLE.
forks in all Classes of Literature
Fclker, Wm. S., 371 State street.
ALFRED PAXSON.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
Goudy & Chandler, 391 Wabash avenue, branch
Insurance Exchange Building.
office, 64 South Halsted street.
No. 494 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
Harrison and Whitehead, 143 W. Madison street.
LOGANSPORT (DID.) ATTORNEYS.
Hervey,
Anthony & Gait, 356 Wabash avenue.
JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWARD G. MASOM.
M. HOWARD,
5-10* Hopkins, Wm., 46 East Harrison.
Attorney at Law.
MATTOCKS & MASON,
Herbert & Quick. 529 State street.
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
Hoync. Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michi
No. 523 Wabash Avenue, S. W. cor. Harmon Court.
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
Orders Promptly Filled.
gan
and
Wabash
avenues.
Chicago. IU.
>EPPER. WILSON A MARTIN,
9-20 Hoyne. Horton and Hoyue, 267 Michigan av.
Room 2 Bauk Building.
W.
H. WING,
Hitchcock. Dupee A Evarts, corner Wells and
Trustees and Oflleera of Public 1*1ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Monroe streets.
bravrlea
may
rely
upon
the
moat
Elgin, IU.
Howe & Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
careful attention to their
NEW LAW BOOKS.
Collections promptly attended to.
5-16
Isham, Edward S., 554 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
BATES A MNM,
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
King, Scott & Payson, 637 Wabash avenue.
By importing DIRECT from England, a consider Attorneys at Law, 13 W. Madihon St.
AMERICAN LEADING CASES. Knickerbocker, J. C. and J. J. 153 W. Washington. able saving is effected, exp&iaUy in the Customs duty, GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
Learning & Thompson, 109 West Randolph street. from which Public Institutions in the United States are
I/Cary, D. James, 159 West Madison.
exempt.
| Fifth Edition. Enlarged and Improved.
CHARLES J. BISHOP,
Lyman & Jackson, 79 W. Madison street, room 3.
Successor to J. Fhf.iman Silki,
Being Select Decisions of American Courts, tmtk Espe
Magruder, B. D., 181 W. Madison.
cial Reference to Mercatdite Law, with Notes.
accountant and expert book-keeper.
Mattocks and Mason, 523 Wabash ave,
SUNDRY mistakes having been made
122 W. Washington St.. Chicago, IU. 7-18p
The whole work bait beeii thoroughly revised, and McClelland, Thos., S., 45 S. Canal, room 6.
by our Foreign and Colonial Correspond
largely increased by the introduction of several en
Merriam,
Alexander
and
Bolster,
149
W.
Wash
BANKRUPTCY
NOTICES.
tirely new heads of practical interest, by
ents in addressing their letters, we beg
ington street.
Hon. J. I. C. HAKE, and JNO. WM. WALLACE, Esq. Miller, Frost & Lewis, 363 Michigan avenue.
to notify that the members of our firm
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
,In 2 Vols., octavo, of nearly 1,000 pages each.
Attorney, 18 East Harrison St.
Moore & Caulfleld. S. E. cor. State and Madison. are Henry G. Stevens and Robert W.
tn
the
district
court of the united
Newuomb, G. W., 214 Warren avenue.
Haynes, the son and stepson of the late 1 States, for the Northern
District ofT.Illinois.In
Among the many subjects treated of aud fully illus
Bankruptcy.
In
the
matter
Rhodes aud
Norton,
Jesse
0,.
386
Wabash
avenue.
Valentine Stevens, the eminent Law Edward II. James, bankrupts.of Thomas
trated In this edition, are :
Notice ia hereby given
Nlssen
&
Bamum,126
W.
Randolph,
and
376
State
that
a
third
general
meeting
of
the
creditors
of said
Honveyances. Voluntary and Fraudulent.
Publisher. Since our father's death we bankrupt will be held on the 2uth day of January.
Otis, E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Slander and Libel, including the question of Mer
at 2 o'clock, p. m., at No. 13 East Harrison street,1872.
in
cantile Agencies,
have
continued
to
carry
on
the
business
Paddock
&
Ide,
449
Wabash
avenue.
the City
of purposes
Chicago, before
Esq., Regis
Infancy.
for Ihe
named If.iu N.theIIibiurd,
2*th section
of the
Perkins, N.C.,479 Wabash av.,cor. Eldridge court. of Law Publishers, Booksellers and Export ter,
Application of Payments.
Bankrupt Act ol March 2, l-t',7.
Bills
Notes.
ROBERT K. JENKINS,
Form,and
Time
and Mode of communicating Notice of Palmer, L. I,., 481 Wabash avenue.
ers, at. the above address.
Assignee of said Bankrupts' Estate.
Pfirshing,
Jos.
47
Peck
C't,
bet.
Wabash
and
State
Dishonor.
Chicago.
Dec.late
22, fire
1*71.all Proofs of Debt in the hands
Negotiability of Instruments, including the subject Reynolds, Wm. C, 176 West Washington street.
During
his
recent
visits
to
the
United
N.B.
In
the
ofPower
Couponof Bonds,
etc. to bind the Firm.
of the Register and Assignee were destroyed. It will
one Partner
Rich & Thomas, 945 Michigan avenue, and 468 States and Canada, Robert W. Haynes be
necessary for each Creditor to make akothek
Real Estate held by a Commercial Partnership.
proof.
one dividend
has already
received inas
Appointment of aud Termination of Powers of Wabash avenue.
secured
many
Friends
and
Correspond
the aboveIfcase,
another Proof
will notbeen
be required,
Agent.
Roberts,
R.
Blddle,
room
7,
43
So.
Canal.
the
Assignee
has
preserved
all
dividend
orders,
which
Principal and Factor.
ents ; we are thus enabled to give refer show the claims allowed.
Rorke, M. A. <fc Son, 154 Halsted street.
Domicile.
ROBERT
E.
JENKINS,
Guaranty.
ences
of
the
highest
character
in
most
Rosenthal,
Pen
cc
&
Moses,
Masonic
Building,
6
11-12
Assignee of said Estate.
Antecedent
W., cor. Randolph and Halsted and 350 Wabash av. of the principal American cities.
Discharge ofDebt.
Surety.
IN States,
THE for
DISTRICT
COURT
OF THE
UNITED
Revocation of Wills.
Roys,
C.
D.,
677
Wabash
avenue.
thetheNorthern
District
ofT. Illinois.In
We have no connection whatever with Bankruptcy.In
License.
matter
of
Thomas
Rhodes
and
Sawln & Wells, 59 West Madison street.
Judgment of other States.
Edward H. James, Bankrupts. This is to give notice
Abandonment.
Scammon. McCagg and Fuller. 389 Wabash av. any other house of business, and to pre that
I have filed my final accounts as assignee of the
Constructive and Total Loss.
vent delay and miscarriage, our Corre estate of said bankrupts in said court, and that on
Insurable Interest and Forfeiture of Policy, etc.
Scovllle, George. 30 South Clinton street.
Slith day of January, 1872, at 2 o'clock, p.m., I shall
etc., etc.
Sheldon & Waterman. 360 Michigan avenue.
spondents abroad are respectfully re the
apply to said court for the settlement of my said ac
In ft Tola., ortavo, Law Sheep. SI-VOO .
counts
a discharge
from with
all liability
as As
Sherman, E. B., 153 W. MadLson.
quested
to
plainly
address
their
letters
signee ofand
saidforestate,
in accordance
the provisions
Sleeper & Whiton, 441 Wabash avenue.
of
the
28th
section
of
the
Bankrupt
Act
of
March
2d,
to us as follows :
.uasiiTK.
JENKINS.
ROBERT
' Estate.
Small aud Ingalls, 481 Wabash avenue.
1*7
Assignee
of
said
Snowhook & Gray, 85 W. Monroe St., cor. Jeffer
11-12
Chicago, Dec. 22. 1871.
WALLACE Jrs, C. C. REPORTS, VOL. 3. son.
STEVENS & HAYNES,
Cases In the Circuit Court uf the United State*, for Story' and King, 149 West Washington street.
THOMAS H. MARSH,
thd Third Circuit (being Decision* of the late Judge Tenuy, McClellan & Tenny, 454 Wabash ave.
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
Attorney, 172 Park Avenue.
Grfer, 18M-62), reported by Jno. Wm. Wallace, Esq., Thomas, Sidney, 95 East Harrison street.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
ook, ss,A. D.Superior
Court ofT.Cook
county.v. Janu
LONDON,
Vol. .1. Price, $7.V>.
Van Buren, E. it A., 194 West Madison street
ary ITerm,
1872. Edward
Dickinson
Sarah
Vallettc. H. F., 59 West Madison street.
E.
Dickinson.In
Chancery.
ENGLAND. son.
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of
Sarah
E.IDickinWaterman, A. N., 135 West Monroe street.
JUST PUBLISHED BY
defendant above named, having been filed in tho
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook
Hugh A., 165 West Washington street.
notice
given to heretofore
the said Sarah
K.
T. & .J. W. Johiisou At Co., White,
Whitehousc, Wm. F 1S8 West Madison, late Tri- Extract from " Report of Jclics Rosenthal, Esq.. county,
Dickinson
thatisthehereby
complainant
filed his
bill
of
complaint
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
u
n
e
building.
Law Booksellers and Publishera,
thereof, ana that u summons thereupon issued out of
Librarian to the President and Members ok said
Williams & Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
court against said defendant, returnable on the
the Chicago Law Institute." November, 1870.
first IMonday of January next (1*72), as is bv law re
535 Chestnut-st., Philadelphia, Pa.
Walker, Dexter & Smith, 792 Wabash avenue.
" To our collection of English Reports a valuable quired.
Wilson, Perry & Sturges. 479 Wabash avenue.
you. the said Sarah E. Dickinson, shall
Now, unless
'.'-12
be and appear be lore said Superior court of
Windett, Arthur W., 562 Wabash ave., and room addition has been made by the importation of a personally
Cook
county,
on
the first day of a terra thereof, to be
flHANCERY NOTICE.-State or Illinois, county of 6 Lind's
full and well preserved set of the House of I-ords holden at Chicago,
saidplead,
county,
on theor first
Monto
Block.
v Cook. ss. Superior court ot Cook county. To
of
January,
1*72.inand
answer
demur
Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58 day
January Term, A.D. 1*72. Adda Paine v. Clinton J. Waughop, J. W.. 401 Wabash avenue.
the
said
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
same
.,'anii
Paine.In
Chancery.
volumes.
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
Affidavit that
the above-named defendant, Clinton
" English books were imported directly free of will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered again*!
J.
Paiue,
on
due
iuqlliry,
cannot
be
found,
so
that
pro
HAMMER
&
SMITH,
prayer of said
hill.
cess
can not
be served
havingcourt
been oftiled
in Att'ys, Hammer & Smith's Bl'k, Room 1. duty, and their purchase was attended to by the vou according to theAUGUSTUS
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
the office
of the
clerk otupon
suidhim,
Superior
Cook
NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of firm of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose Thomas H. Marsh, ComplTg Sol'r.
11-it
county, notice 1m hereby given to the said Clinton J. rtHANCKBY
Cook, el. Superior court of Cook connty. To diligence, promptness, and care in filling our or
Paine
that
the
complainant
heretofore
tiled
her
bill
of
.lanuar>
term,
A.D.
1S72.
George
W.
Bower
v,
Lydia
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, Bower. In Chancery.
Scale of Advertising Rates.
and
a summons
thereupon
iasued out
of said
Affidavit of the non-residence of Lydia Bower, de ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
courtthat
against
said defendant,
returnable
on the
first fendant
above
named,
having
been
tiled
in
the
office
of
Monday of January next (1872), as is by law required. the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, no
Space. 1 W.I Sw. 3 w. j 1 m. 3jn. j
WM. LAW, Jr.,
Now, unless
you,appear
the said
.1. Paine,
shallof tice is hereby given to the said Lydia Bower that the
Eersonally
be and
beforeClinton
said Superior
court
Madison
St.
Attorney,
145
W
$1.00$1.75 rLsoIiisus ~8jx>:
fsq^.
eomplaiuant
heretofore
tiled
his
bill
of
complaint
iu
ook county, on the first day of r term thereof, to be said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a rPO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.-Public ncholden
at Chicago,
thedemur
first Monda>
tice is hereby given that the undersigned, guardian 2 sq
thereupon iasued out of said court against ofX the
2.00; 3.50 4.75 0.00 15.75 30.0o| 59.00
of
Jauuarv,
1*72, andin said
plead,county,
answeron or
to the summons
estate of Wayne Wadhams. a minor, w ill make
defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Jau application
aald coiuplainaut's bill of complaint, the same, aud saiil
to
the
Circuit
court
of
Cook
connty,
Illi
uarv
next
'
1*721.
aa
is
by
law
required.
2.801 5.00 6.50j 8.00 23.00 44.00 87.60
the matters and things therein charged and stated, Now, nnlesH you, the said Lydia Bower, shall pcr- nois, at the January term. A. D. 1*72, to be holden at 3 sq
will be taken as confessed, and < decree entered again*! sonall)
court-house (High School building), in the city of
be anil appear before said Superior court of the
yon according to theAUGUSTUS
prayer of saidJACOBSON,
bill.
andState aforesaid, which said term % col.... 3.75 7.00 9.50^2.00 30.00 59.ooj now
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be Chicago, county
Clerk. Cook
ontothe
third following
Monday ofdescribed
January,real
A. osD.
holden at Chicago, In said count), on the first Monday commences
Nbwell Pratt. Conil't'* Sol'r.
1 1-H of
58.01); 108.00 210.00
1872,
for
leave
sell
January, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the tate, to wit : Lot No. the
^eol....
eight
l*),
in
the
west
two-thirds
said
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
same,
and
7.00 j 11.50 17.25i 22.00
NOTICE
IS
HEREBY
CIVEN
that
the
undersigned
(,?,)
of
black
two
(2)
of
canal
trustee's
subdivision
of
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will make application to the Honorable Connty will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter ot sec 1 col 12.00122.00 31.00 42.00 108.00; 210.001 350.00
Court
of Cook
Mondayterm,
of January,
thirty-three (11), township thirty-nine (3s), north
the prayer
of the bill.Clerk. tion
lines of Agate
make
Square.
1872, being
the County
first dayonofthethefirst
January
1*72, i f against you accordingto
range fourteen (ID, east of the third (3d) P. M., in Ten
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON,
Advertisements
must
beperapaid
forwillIn beaj'J<*'
aid county court, or as toon thereafter as counae
county, State of Illinois, for the purpose of in and
when
not
so
paid.
50
added.
11-14 Cook
can be heard, to be relieved from their liability us the IIammlr a- Smith, Comp't's Sol'rs.
vesting the proceed* of such property in such manner Legal Notices not included ineeut.
official sureties on the bond of Mrs. Itoxana VV. Parthe above.
.
as the court appointing the undersigned as such guar
J.
R.
HOWLETT,
melec. guardian for Wlllard A. and Bertha Smith,
dian
shall
direct,
or
for
such
other
legal
purpose
as
Lanark, Carroll Co., //linois,
minors.
Circuit
court
shall
direct.
_
Printed
at
the
Chicago
Legal
News
Txr*18
POLICE MAOIST KATK AND NOTARY PUBLIC. said
H. K. KSKINS.
HENRY S. AUSTIN.
the same jurisdiction as any Justice of the Peace. Dec. 23, 1*71.
C. II. IIKCKWITH. Has
11-13
Guardian, etc. North Jefferson street, Chicago.
Chicago. Nov. 22d U7I.
tl-ll Prompt attention given to collections and remittances. Wa. Law, Jr., Att'r.

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
ARTIN A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D .
554 Wabash avenue.
M
FJ. SEYBOLD, 497 Wabash avenue ; residence
, 140 South Green street.

Qhicago

Jegal

"Mews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 12.

fjc Courts.
Through the courtesy of II. W. Ten
ney, of the law firm of Tenney, MeClellan & Tenney, of this city, we have
received the following opinion:
V. S. DISTRICT COURT, D. OF CALI
FORNIA.
In re The City Bank ok Savings, Loan and
Discount, San Francisco.
WHAT CLAIMS MAY BE OFFSET L'NDEK
THE BANKKl'PT LAW.
1. What Debts may he offset.That under
the Bankrupt law, a creditor of an insolvent who
has reasonable ground to believe him to be such,
may assign his demand to a debtor of the insol
vent whose dobt is not yet payable, so as to enable
the latter to offset the demand so assigned to him
against the debt due from him to the insolvent.
2. Offset of Debts not Di e.That the provi
sions of the Bankrupt law for the allowance of
offsets, would in a great measure be defeated if
their operation were restricted to those debts
which at the time of the bankruptcy were not
only due but payable.
3." Acquisition of Claims.That had Congress
seen fit to prohibit the acquisition of such claims,
for the purpose of using them as onsets by a debt
or of a bankrupt who has reasonable cause to be
lieve that the latter is insolvent, it would have
been easy so to provide : that there is no such
provision, and the court, in the absence of such a
provision, has no right to assume the legislative
function, by first declaring the transfer ineffectual
and then fixing an arbitrary period after which
it shall be held valid,
4. Manner of Construing Bankrupt Act.
That the Bankrupt Act, being a special statute,
And to a certalu extent in derogation of rights
existing at common law or understate legislation,
ought not to be construed under suggestions of its
probable object, policy, or spirit, to embrace cases
not provided for by its terms.
5. Purchasing Claim to Offset not a Fraud.
That it is not a fraud under the Bankrupt law,
for a debtor of u bankrupt to set-oil' a debt due to
him from the bankrupt, if it was purchased by or
transferred to him before the filing of the petition.
Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the Court by Hoffman, J.
The question presented on the facts as
developed by the evidence taken by the
Register is, whether a creditor of an in
solvent who has reasonable ground to
believe him to be such, can assign his
demand to a debtor of the insolvent,
whose debt is not yet payable, bo as to
enable the latter to offset the demand so
assigned to him against the debt due from
him to the insolventthe latter debt
having become due and payable at the
time the offset is claimed.
The Register was of opinion that
the debts and credits which it sought to
offset against each other were not mu
tual" within the meaning of the statute,
inasmuch as at the time of the bank
ruptcy the debt owed by the Bank was
due and payable, while the debt to it was
not.
The question whether a debt payable
in fnturo could be set off against a debt
payable in prxsenti was one of the earli
est which arose under the English Bank
rupt Act. It was decided in the affirm
ative on the ground that though there
might not be debts mutually payable be
tween the parties, there ware mutual
credits, and that the case came within the
equity of the statute. { Ex parte Prescott,
1 Atk., 230 ; Dobson v. Lockhart, 5 T. R.,
133 ; Alsiign v. Currie, 12 M.and W., 751 ;
ex parte Wagstaff, 13 Ves., 05 ; Sheldon v.
Rothschild 8 Tamb., 156; Atkinson v.
Elliott, 9 T. R., 378 ; Robson's Law of
Bankruptcy, 265.)
The same question has received a sim
ilar solution in the United States, under
both the former and the present Bank
rupt Acts.
In Marks v. Barker it was held by Mr.
J. Washington that the acceptor or en
dorser of a bill of exchange, who has
paid the bill after the bankruptcy of the
drawer, may offset the same against the
bankrupt's assigneesthe case being one
of mutual credits given before the bank
ruptcy, although the money was not
paid until after. (1 Wash., C. C. R., 178.)
In the case of Caltin v. Foster, Mr. J.
Deady, after a careful consideration of
the whole subject, held that a party who
has acted under a deed of trust declared
void, as being contrary to the provisions
of the Bankrupt Act, may set ofT the
value of the services rendered by him

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1871.

under the deed against the claim of the
assignees for property of the bankrupt
received bv him. (3 Bank. Reg., 134.)
In Fort v. McCully (59 Barb. R., cited
in Am. L. Reg. for Sept., 1871) it was held
that deposits made with a private bank
er, subject to the call of the depositor,
are not to be deemed due until demand,
and therefore, if the banker trans
fers the depositor's notes before demand,
the latter, it seems, can not enforce a set
off against the holder, either at law or in
equity. But that where the banker be
ing insolvent, made a general assignment.'including the notes of the deposit
or whose deposit was not yet due, and
directed his assignee to pay his debts in
the same order and manner in which
the estate ofa bankrupt is required to be
used and applied for the payment of
debts proved and allowed under the pro
visions of the Bankrupt Act, the depos
itor was entitled to his set-off, and the
assignee could only recover the balance
after deducting the set-off.
These decisions seem to be not only the
unavoidable result of the express terms
of the Bankrupt Act, but necessarily re
quired by considerations of reason and
justice. By the 19th section, all debts
existing, but not payable until a future
day, may be proved" against the estate
(a rebate of interest being made when
no interest is payable), and by the
20th section, mutual debts and credits
are required to be set off against each
other -whenever the claim sought to be
used as a set-off is " in its nature a debt
provable against the estate and has not
been purchased by or transferred after
the filing of the petition," a claim, there
fore, for a debt provable against the es
tate, and transferred before the filing of
the petition, falls within the very terms
of the section.
The rule thus established seems indis
pensable to the attainment of justice.
Natural Equity" (says Lord Mansfield,
in Green v. Farmer, 4 Barr, 2214-20) " re
quires that cross demands should com
pensate each other by deducting the less
sum from the greater, and that the dif
ference only is the sum which can be
justly due. But positive law, for the sake
of the forms of proceeding and conven
ience, has said that each must sue and
recover separately in separate actions."
The civil law followed what Lord
Mansfield declares to be the dictate of
natural equity (2 Evans, Pot. on Oblig.,
No. 13, p. 98), and in Engl nd and most
of the States of the Union .--..tutesof set
off have been enacted, allowing cross
demands to be used as set-offs in specified
cases ; and even courts of common law
have long been in the habit of ;>llowing
judgments to be set off against each
other. But even in those eases where
the counter claim cannot be set up as a
defense pro tanto to the action, the party
holding it can sue and recover judgment
upon it. The refusal to allow him to use
it as a set-off leaves his right to enforce
his demand unimpaired.
But when a bankruptcy has occurred,
the creditors' right of action is suspend
ed. The whole estate of the debtor is
taken possession of by the court , and the
holder of an unsecured claim against it
is entitled merely to his pro rata share of
the assets. It would, therefore, be the
height of injustice to compel a debtor of
the bankrupt to pay to the assignee the
full amount of his debt, while, for a de
mand of equal or greater amount against
the bankrupt, he can only receive such
dividends as the assets may afford.
A similar injustice would be done to
the estate of the bankrupt (if offsets
were not allowed) where the creditor has
also become bankrupt. For the estate of
the creditor might receive dividends on
the debt due him, while it might be in
sufficient to pay dividends of like amount
on the debts due by him. To avoid these
results, liberal and comprehensive pro
visions for the allowance of offsets have
been made in the Bankrupt Acts of Eng
land and- America ; but their object

would be in a great measure defeated, if

their operation were restricted to those
debts only, which, at the time of the
bankruptcy, were not only due but paya
ble.
The objection therefore that the debt
of the debtor who seeks the benefit of
the set-off was not payable until after the
filing of the petition, must be overruled.
The second objection urged has more
force. It is contended that the transac
tion was, in its nature, a fraud upon the
Bankrupt Act, ; that its object and effect
was to ninder or defeat its operation
and to evade its provisions, by prevent
ing assets from coming into the
hands of the assignee, and by indirectly
enabling a creditor to obtain full satis
faction of his demand by selling to a
debtor of the bankrupt to be used by
him as a set-off.
That such may be the effect of this
transaction, if this set-off be allowed, I
am not prepared to deny. But I am un
able to see what authority this court has
to prevent it. By the terms of the act
all mutual debts and credits must be set
off against each other, and the balance
only allowed or paid subject to two con
ditions : first, that the claim is in its na
ture provable against the estate ; and
second, that it has not been transferred
or purchased by the debtor claiming the
benefit of it, after the filing of the peti
tion. This latter proviso contains an
obvious negative pregnant, and implies
a declaration that the claim may be used
as a set-off, if acquired even by purchase,
at any time before the commencement
of the proceedings.
Had Congress seen fit to prohibit the
acquisition of such claims, for the pur
pose of using them as set-offs by a debt
or of the bankrupt who has reasonable
cause to believe that the latter is insol
vent, it would have been easy so to pro
vide. -Sut there is no such provision.
And even if such a limitation upon the
right to acquire or use a demand as a set
off had been imposed, it is reasonable to
suppose that some period of time would
have been fixed after which the trans
action could no longer be questioned.
By the 35th section certain transfers in
tended to give a preference, or to hinder
or delay the operation of the Act, or to
prevent the property of the bankrupt
from coming into the hands of the as
signee, are declared void, provided they
have been made within four montlis and sir
months respectively before the tiling of
the petition.
But if the court should declare in this
case the transfer of the demand against
the bankrupt void, and unavailable to
the debtor as a set-off, for the reason that
it would have the effect togive a creditor
a preference, and to hinder and defeat
the operation of the Act, what period of
time is it to assign within which the
transfer can be avoided ? Is it to adopt
the period of four months, or six months,
or some other arbitrary limitation ? That
some period of time should be fixed
after which transfers analogous to this,
and which this Act pronounces void can
not be assailed, Congress has clearly in
dicated. It seems an unavoidable in
ference that if it had been intended to
prohibit transfers like that in the case at
bar, or rather to render them unavailable
for the object intended, the Act would
not only have so declared in explicit
terms, but a definite period would nave
been fixed within which its provisions
should operate upon them ; and that the
court, in the absence of any such pro
visions, has no right to assume the legis
lative function by first declaring the
transfer ineffectual, and then fixing an
arbitrary period, after which it shall be
held valid.
The Bankrupt Act, moreover, being a
special statute, and, to a certain extent,
in derogation of rights existing at com
mon law, or under State legislation, its
provisions ought not to be construed,
under suggestions of its probable object,
policy or spirit, to embrace cases not

Whole No. 170.

provided for by its terms. By the 1 W of
this State, and I presume of that of the
most of the States, the claim set up in
this case could be used by the debtor as
a set-off in action brought against him
by the bank. He who contends that it
is made unavailable by the Bankrupt
Act should point to some clear and un
mistakable provision to that effect in the
Act. It is also to be observed that by
the Amended Insolvent Law of Massa
chusetts, from which the provisions of
the Bankrupt Act are in great part de
rived, the benefit of off-sets acquired
under circumstances like those of the
case at bar was withheld.
Congress, therefore, in omitting to in
corporate that provision into the Bank
rupt Act may justly be deemed to have
intentionally declined to adopt it. It
would seem, on the cuntrarv, as if it had
been designed in this particular to fol
low the English Bankrupt Act.
The proviso in that Act is as follows:
" Provided that the party claiming the
benefit of the set-off nad" not, when such
credit was given, notice of an Act of
bankruptcy by such bankrupt commit
ted." Under this proviso it was held, in
an action brought bv the assignees of
certain bankers, that a party had a right
to set-off notes of such bankers, taken
by him after he knew they had stopped pay
ment, but before he knew they nad com
mitted an act of bankruptcy. (Hawkins
v. Whittier : 10 B. & Press, 217), Dickson
v. Cast (1 B. & Aid., 343). And the Act
of Bankruptcy must have been that on
which the adjudication was founded, or
one capable of sustaining it. Ex parte
Bickett, 2 Rose, 71 ; ex parte Sharp, 3 M.
D. & V., 490 ; 8 Jur., 1,012 ; Robson on
Bankruptcy, p. 272.
But a debtor of this bankrupt will not
be allowed to set-off a debt transferred to
him after the bankruptcy, for the debt is
to a third peri-Tji, and the creditor can
not, after the bankruptcy, by a transaction
with a third person, vary the relation in
which he stood to the bankrupt at the
time of the bankruptcy. Dickson v.
Evans, 6 T. R., 57 ; Marsh v. Chambers
(Strange, 1,234.)
The rule established by these cases
seems to have been adopted by Congress
in framing the provisions of the Bank
rupt Act with regard to off-sets. A debtor
of the bankrupt is allowed to set-off a
deDt due to him from the bankrupt,
provided it has been purchasi d by or
transferred to him before the filing of
the petition, i. e., before the bankruptcy.
I think that these provisions must re
ceive a similar construction to that given
by the English courts to the closely anal
ogous provisions of the English law.
The object ion is, therefore, overruled. It
is also objected that the transfer of the
debt sought to be set-off was not abso
lute, but conditioned on the debtor's be
ing allowed to avail himself of it. But I
see no ground for this suggestion in the
evidence. The claim of the depositor
seems to have been regularly and for
mally assigned to the debtor of the bank
rupt, and the latter appears to be the
legal owner and holder of it.
My opinion is that the off-set claimed
should be allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF IOWA.
Recent Opinion.
John Oliver, Appellant, v. James Bass.
Appeal from Hamiiton jyigtrict Court.
VENUE IN PERSONAL ACTIONS.
1. Held, it is the general rale that personal ac
tions must be brought in the county where the de
fendant resides.
2. That when, by the terms of a contract, it is to
be performed in a particular place, an action for
the breach thereof may be brought in the county
in which such place is situated.
3. The above rules apply alike to oral and to
written contracts.
The plaintiff, in his petition, states
that " on or about the 15th day of Novem
ber, 1869, he contracted orally with the
defendant for the purchase of eight hogs
for 7j cents per pound live weight, to be
paid therefor on delivery, and then paid
to the defendant one dollar as a part of

82
the purchase money of said hogs ; that
the defendant then promised to deliver
the same to plaintiff at his warehouse in
Webster City, in Hamilton county, Iowa,
on the 21st day of November, I860, there
to have the same weighed, and receive
his pay therefor in accordance with the
terms of sale," etc. The breach of the
contract is alleged, and damages claimed.
The defendant appeared and tiled an ap
plication for a change of venue from
Hamilton county, in which the action
was brought, based upon the fact that he
resided in Webster county. Motion sus
tained at the costs of plaintiff, who ex
cepted and appeals.
Charles A. Clark for appellant.
J. Skinner for appellee.
Opinion of the court by Miller, J.
The errors assigned are in sustaining
the defendant's motion, and making the
order changing the venue from Hamil
ton to Webster county. The general
rule is that personal actions must be
brought in the county where the defend
ant resides. Rev. Stats. 2797, Huntjv.Bratt,
23 Iowa, 1 73. An exception to the rule
is, that " when, by the terms of a con
tract, it is to be performed in any par
ticular place, an action for the breach
thereof may be brought in the county in
which such place is situated." Rev. Stilts.,
2798. The contract set out in the peti
tion was, " by its terms," to be performed
at Webster Citv, in Hamilton ccmnty.
There is wrhere the hogs were to be de
livered " by the terms " of the contract. A
failure to deliver at the time and place
agreed upon was a breach of the con
tract, and suit was properly brought in
Hamilton county therefor. The appel
lee urges that the section of the statute
referred to and relied on by the appel
lant contemplates only written contracts,
and that the contract sued upon in this
action being by parol the same was
properly changed. The language of the
statute is : " When, by the terms, a con
tract is to be performed in any particular
place," etc. Thus including all express
contracts, whether written or resting in
parol. No distinction is made by the
statute between oral and written con
tracts. All are alike embraced within
the language used. The order of the
District Court changing the venue to
Webster county is reversed.

Chicago

Legal

News.

plaintiffs premises untenantable. The ple of that case establishes that without I
defendant, soon after the fire, com an agreement the landlord would not be
menced to restore the building, but the bound to repair the roof, nor subject to
work was not completed till March, 17th an action for not doing so, but that the I
or 18th, and in the meantime the plain tenant might himself repair the roof as
tiff's goods were damaged, and he offered incident to the demise. The authorities
evidence to show that ne had suffered in upon w:hich this opinion of Rainsford,
his business.
J., was supposed to have been founded
The jury gave a verdict for the plain are disapproved in 1 Salkeld, 361, and I
tiff, but on appeal to the General Term are explained in note 1 above cited.
from the judgment entered thereon, the See, also, the dissenting opinion of
judgment was reversed and a new trial Twysden, J., in the above case, which
ordered, from which decision of the was considered by Saunders the better
General Term the plaintiff appeals to opinion, and which was sustained by the
this court, giving the usual stipulation.
Court of Exchequer Chamber.
The charge of the judge sufficiently
The case of Graves v. Bcrdan (2(i N.
appears in the opinion of the court.
Y., 498,) cited by the respondent, holds
Kapallo, J. This case appears to have ! that a tenant was not, even before the
been very fully considered at the Gen act of 1800 (chapter 345), bound to pay
eral Term ; and we concur in the con rent where he had no term in the land,
clusion then arrived at. The judge, for but only in rooms in a building, and the
the purposes of the trial, charged the support of his rooms, as well as the
jury, in substance, that it was the duty rooms themselves, were destroyed by
of the defendant, to proceed with dili fire. Such was not the case here ; but if
gence after the occurrence of the fire, to it were, that case only goes to the liabil
put on the roof and save the plaintiff's ity of the tenant for rent, and does not
property from the storms, and that he hold that the landlord would be liable in
was liable to pay the damage caused by damages, if he neglected to restore the
any improper delay in so doing. Unless support.
the law devolved this duty on the de
The second ground upon which the
fendant, bv reason of his demise to the respondent seeks to sustain the charge
plaintiff of the lower floors, or by reason is equally untenable. Independently of
of his ownership of the residue of the the objection that Trenor, the tenant of
building, this charge can not be sus the upper part of the building, was the
tained. The jury were not limited to an only party liable for any misuse of that
inquiry into the alleged misfeasance of part, at least from the 1st of February to
the defendant in making the repairs af the 19th, when the landlord entered to
ter he began to do so, or into the alleged make the repairs, the maxim "sic idere
promise made by him subsequently to tuo," etc., cannot be invoked in support
the fire, both of which allegations were of this charge. The judge instructed the
controverted, but they were positively jury that it was the duty of the defend
instructed, as matter of law, that it was ant to proceed with due diligence, after
his duty, immediately after the occur the Are, to put on the roof and save the
rence of the fire, to proceed with due defendant's property from the storm.
diligence to put on the roof, and that he The jury were, by the charge, authorized
was liable in damages if he neglected to to compensate the plaintiff for the dam
do so. The fire took place on the 1st of age caused by the simple omission of
February. At that time, one Trenor this supposed duty, and the consequent
was lessee of the upper part of the build want of protection to the plaintiff's
ing, and he continued to be such tenant, premises from the weather. The jury
and to pay rent, until after the repairs were not confined to injuries resulting
were completed. The repairs were be from acts done to the defendant's prem
gun on the 19th of February. The plain ises, or from negligence in the process
tiff occupied the rooms under Trenor's of making the repairs, or from any use
and the basement. The lease to the made by the defendant of his own part
plaintiff contained no covenant on the of the premises, or from injury caused
part of the landlord to repair, but did by any structure in that part of tfie prem
contain a stipulation that if the premises ises. It is to such cases that the maxim
should be so damaged by accidental tire applies. A man has no right so to con
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW
as to make them untenantable for more struct his building or to allow it to be in
YORK.
than thirty days, the rent shottTd cease, such a condition as to cause the water
John Doite, Appellant, v. Sidney C. Uenin, at the option of the plaintiff, until the which falls upon it to flow upon his
Respondent.
same should be repaired.
neighbor's premises ; he is bound to
Hdd, that where a building has been Injured by
It is not claimed that, if the plaintiff protect his neighbor against injury
fire, the landlord eannot be compelled to rebuild had
been the lessee of the entire build caused by his own structures or result
or repair it for the benefit of his tenant, unless he
has expressly covenanted to do so; and this rule ing, the defendant would have been un ing from his use of his own property.
applies as well to a tenant who has hired a portion der any obligations to repair ; there be But in the absence of a contract, there
of the building whieh is not directly injured by ing no covenant so to do. It is well is no principle upon which he can be
the tire, as to the lessee of the whole building or
of the part destroyed. Accordingly, where the settled that there would have been no held bound to erect any structure for
roof ana upper story of a building were partly such obligation. But it is claimed that the purpose of protecting his neighbor
destroyed by lire, and damages resulted to a ten in this case the duty arose from the fact from the imclemency of the weather, or
ant occupying the basement, by reason of the de
lay in repairing the roofheld, error to charge that the plaintiff's premises were ren to replace any structure upon his own
the jury that it was the duty of the landlord to dered untenantable bv reason of dam premises which has been destroyed, be
proceed with due diligence alter the tire to put on age to a part of the building not occupied cause while it existed it afforded such
the roof and protect the tenant's property from
the weather, and that he was liable for any deluy by him, and which served as a protec protection. There is no ground, there
In so doing. No such duty arises, either from an tion to his premises, and that there was fore, upon which the defendant can be
implied covenant, or from the principle that the an implied covenant that such protection held liable for the simple omission to
landlord, as the owner of the upper portion of the
building, must so use it as not to injure the base should continue, and also that, independ protect the plaintiff's property by repla
ment rented to the plaintiff.
ently of any obligation resulting from cing the roof. The plaintiff had the
(Argued February 16; decided Febru the lease, the defendant, as owner of the right to remove from the premises and
ary 21, 1871.)
part of the building not occupied by the ceased paying rent till they were re
Appeal from an order of the general plaintiff, was bound, according to the paired ; but he had no right to compel
term of the Superior court of New York, maxim, "sic utere too ut alienum non the defendant to protect him in remain
reversing a judgment entered at the ladas," to keep his part of the premises ing with his goods in the building in its
circuit, and ordering a new trial.
in such condition as to prevent injury to exposed condition. The judgment of
Action to recover damages for injuries the plaintiff's premises.
the General Term and the order grant
to the plaintiff's goods and loss to his
In so far as the plaintiff's claim rests ing a new trial must be affirmed, and
business from the omission of the de upon the supposed obligation of the de judgment absolutely entered against the
fendant to repair the roof of the prem fendant as lessor, it has no foundation in plaintiff pursuant to his stipulations,
ises occupied by the plaintiffs.
principle. When a building has been with costs.
The defendant demised to the plain injured by fire, the landlord cannot be
All concurred except Allen, J., who,
tiff, to be used in carrying on the uphol compelled to rebuild or repair it for the not having heard the argument, did not
stery business, the store and basement benefit of his tenant, unless he has so vote.
(except the right to the other tenants to covenanted. And he owes no greater
Judgment accordingly.N. Y. Trans.
use the basement stairs) of the premises obligation to one, the use of whose tene
No. 707 Sixth avenue, New York. There ment is impaired in consequence of the
We are under obligations to H. M.
was a provision in the lease that in case fire, than to one whose premises are de
the premises should be so damaged by stroyed, or directly injured by it. The Herman, of the Leavenworth bar, for a
accidental fire as to make them unten doctrine contended for by the respond copy of the following opinion :
able for more than thirty davs, the rent ent was once broached in the case of SUPREME COURT OF R'AXSAS.
should, at the option of the plaintiff, Pomfret v. Ricroft (1 Wins', Saunders, p.
Opinion Filed Nov. 16, 1871.
cease.
322, 4th ed.), where Rainsford, J., ex
Pacific Railway Company, Eastern
The upper part of the building was pressed the opinion, that "if a man de The UnionDivision,
vs. Lloyd Nichols.
under lease to a man named Trenor, and vise by deed a middle room in a
Jmm Sliauntcc Co.
was in his occupation. On February 1, house, and afterward will not repair the The I'nited Error
Express Company had the use
1867, a fire broke out in an adjoining roof, whereby the lessee cannot enjoy of a portion States
of the baggage ear on a passenger
building, and spread to the building in j the middle room, an action of covenant train of the llniou Pacific Railway Company,
Division, and their traveling agents, called
question, and destroyed the greater part j lies for him against his lessor." But the Eastern
messengers, were allowed to ride on this
of the roof, and otherwise injured the j judgment in the case in which that express
car without paying fare. Other passengers were
upper portion of the building, though j opinion was expressed was reversed in excluded thcrelroni. The plaintifi, by an arrange
with the express messenger and a local
that portion leased to the plaintiff was | the Hxchequer Chamber (1 Saund.,323); ment
of the express company, at the State line
uninjured.
and Sergeant Williams, in his note, (1 agent
went into this car for the purpose of learning the
The effect of the fire was to leave the Saund., 322,) considered that the princi route, so that lie might take the express tnesscii-

ger s place In his absence. The plaintiff was in

troduced to the conductor by the express messen
ger as an express messenger learning the route,
and afterwards he acted as such, assisting the
regular express messenger along the route. The
conductor allowed him to ride in the baggage
car without paying any fare. There was plenty
of room in the passenger care for him. He was
not in fact an express messenger, nor was he in
the employ of the express company in any
manner whatever. The baggage car w'as turned
over and the plaintiff injured. None of the
passenger curs were turned over, nor any person
m them injured. Hdd, in an action by the
plaintiff against the railway company for dama
ges for such injuries, that the plamtiif was not a
passenger, nor entitled to the rights of a passen
ger.
The opinion of the court was delivered
by Valentine, J.
In the court below, Lloyd Nichols was
plaintiff, and the I'nion Pacific Railway
Company, Eastern Division, was defend
ant. The plaintiff brought his action to
recover for injuries alleged to have been
committed by the said railway company.
The petition of the plaintiff sets forth
that there was a contract between the
parties ; that the defendant undertook
to carry the plaintiff as a passencer on
its road, in a car used among other
things for that purpose, from the State
line near Kansas City to and beyond
Monument station, for a certain hire and
reward, and that while so carrying the
said plaintiff, the said injuries were
caused, through the negligence of the
agents and servants of the defendant.
But the said petition was not true, and
there was no evidence to sustain some
of the most material portions of it. We
have all the evidence before us, and
from that it unquestionably appears that
there was no contract entered into be
tween the plaintiff and the railroad com
pany ; the plaintiff was not a passenger
within the true legal signification of the
term ; he did not get into or ride in any
passenger car, and he did not pay or
agree to pay any fine or reward for his
passage. The only connection that the
plaintiff had with the railroad company
was as follows: He went on the train
without purchasing any ticket, not into
any passenger car, but into the baggage
car, and into that portion of the baggage
car which was used and occupied exclu
sively by the United States Express
Company for their business, and re
mained there until he received the inju
ries of which he now complains. When
the conductor of the train met him in
the baggage car he did not offer to pay
his fare, but allowed himself to be intro
duced to the conductor by Porter War
ner, who had bfeen up to that time, and
was then in fact, the regular express
messenger for that train, as also an ex
press messenger. And Warner repre
sented to the conductor that he " was
learning the plaintiff the run." During
the trip the plaintiff acted as express
messenger, having the key and assisted
Warner in handling and delivering the
freight of the express company. The
conductor supposing the plaintiff to be
an express messenger, and therefore en
titled to ride in the baggage car, and to
ride free, or rather supposing that the
fare was paid or arranged for by the ex
press company in their contract with the
railroad company, allowed him to ride in
the baggage car", and collected no fare
from him. The conductor made no con
tract with the plaintiff, but allowed him
to ride on the contract made between the
plaintiff's supposed employer, the ex
press company, and the conductor's em
ployer, the railroad company. The con
ductor supposed that the plaintiff was
riding in the baggage car, and free, by
authority which the conductor had no
power to revoke. The conductor, there
fore, did not attempt to confer upon the
plaintiff any right to ride upon that
train, but simply left the plaintiff with
the right which he supposed the plaintiff
already had independent of any author
ity froin the conductor. But the plaintin
had no such right, nor any right there.
He was not an express messenger, nor
was he in the employ of the express
company in any manner whatever. He
was there simply by a private arrange
ment between himself and Warner and
one McNaughton, an agent of i"eliVi'
press company at the State line, tsa
billing and transferring and delivering
goods for the express company.
was there simply learning the route,
that he might be able to take the ph"6
of AVarner during Warner's abs*n";
But he was not there by any authorlt}^
the express company. Neither ar, i
or McNaughton, or both together, ne
any authority to put him there. but the President or Vice-Pres>denl "

Chicago
General Superintendent of the express
company had any such authority.
But the plaintiff did not even have
the authority or consent of the local
superintendent of the express company.
Therefore, he had no right whatever
on said train. Before proceeding fur
ther, perhaps it would be proper to state
that the said baggage car ran off
the track and was upset about three
miles east of Monument Station, be
cause of a " loose joint " in the rail, and
injured the plaintiff and one or two
others, that " none of the passenger
coaches went off the track so as to injure
the coaches or any passengers ; " that
there were only about twenty passengers
on the train during that trip, and that
" there was room in the passenger cars
for some fifty or sixty more passengers
than were on the train ; " that " the rules
of the company prohibit passengers
from riding in the express, mail or bag
gage cars ; that the plaintiff was so in
jured as to impair his mind, and that
the verdict of the jury and the judg
ment of the court was for $22,500. Now,
so far as the argument or the decision of
this case is concerned, it will be admitted
that all the rulings of the court below
were correct if the plaintiff had been a
passenger within the true sense of that
term. Also that a regular express mes
senger is a passenger entitled to receive
the same care as any other passenger, so
far as the same can be exercised towards
him, although nothing be paid for his
transportation, except what the express
company pays to the railroad company
for transportation generally of their
freight and agents. Also that any per
son may be a passenger, entitled to all
the rights and privileges of other passen
gers, without the payment of any fare,
if he be on the train with the consent of
the company or its officers, provided
said consent be obtained without any
fraud, or provided said company or its
officers have a full knowledge of all the
facts. Also that a regular passenger may
be allowed by the conductor the priv
ilege of walking through the cars, or
getting on the platform, or into the bag
gage car without forfeiting any of his
rights as a passenger. And also that the
obligations of common carriers of pass
engers do not rest wholly or even main
ly upon contract, but principally upon
the laws of the State in which such car
riers do business. But it will not be ad
mitted that any and every person who
may enter the car, or go upon a train, is
a passenger, or entitled to all the rights
and privileges of a passenger. The em
ployees of the railroad company are not
passengers, although they may do more
riding upon the road than any other
class of persons. (See the numerous de
cisions concerning the liability ef rail
road companies for injuries done to their
employees through the negligence of
other employees. 1 Redfield on Kailways, 520 to 537, and cases there cited.
Shearman and Redfield on Negligence,
101 to 127, chap, (i, and cases there cited.)
A person who enters the cars to see a
friend safely seated is not a passenger,
(Lucas v. New Bedford & Taunton Kailroad Company, 6 Gray, 04). A person
who rides upon the engine of a train
with the consent of the engineer, but
contrary to a rule of the company, of
which he is informed, is not a passenger.
(Robertson v. New York and Erie Kailway Co., 22 Barb., 91). And generally
whenever a person goes upon a train, or
on any part of the train, without author
ity, he is not a passenger. (Mars v.
Johnson, 22 111., 633). It is probablytrue that the obligation of a common
carrier of persons does not rest wholly,
or even mainly upon contract, but still
no person can become a passenger ex
cept bv a contract either express or
Implied. " A passenger is a person who
undertakes, with the consent of the car
rier, to travel in the conveyance pro
vided by the latter, other than in the
service of the carrier as such." (Shear
man and Redlicld 011 Negligence, 292,
sec. 262). It is true that whenever a
person who desires to become a passen
ger on a railroad does all that the law
and the rules of the company require of
him for that purpose, it will be pre
sumed that the company has given its
consent, and that the requisite contract
has been made, for in such a case the
company could not legally withhold its
consent ; but whenever it is shown that
such person has not done what is re
quired of him no contract will be pre
sumed. It will then devolve upon such

Legal

person to show, affirmatively, that a con

tract has been made to show affirm
atively that the consent of the company
has been given. In the present case
the plaintiff did not do what was re
quired of him in order that he might
become a passenger, he did not himself
make a contract with the railroad com
pany or any of its agents, and he had
no right to ride under the contract made
between the '.express company and the
railroad company. The consent ob
tained from the conductor was the con
sent that an express messenger might ride
in the baggage car, and without paying
his fare. Such consent did not apply to
the plaintiff. But if it be said that the
conductor applied it to the plaintiff, then
it may be answered that it was so done
under a misapprehension induced by
the plaintiff himself in allowing him
self to be introduced to the conductor
as an express messenger, and repre
sented to be such, when in truth and in
fact he was not such. This was a legal
fraud upon the conductor and upon the
railroad company, whatever may have
been the intentions of the plaintiff.
There was but little conflict in the evi
dence in the case,none upon the points
we have been discussing. Therefore,
whether the plaintiff was a passenger or
not was purely a question of law. If
he was a passenger he was undoubtedly
entitled to recover, for the railroad com
pany was unquestionably guilty of some
negligence in allowing the track of the
railroad to get out of repair. Whether
he was a passenger or not seems to have
been considered by the court below as
resting almost exclusively upon the
moral intentions of the plaintiff. If the
plaintiff honestly believed that he did
right in doing as he did, or if he hon
estly believed t.'iat the circumstances of
the case gave him the right to do as he
did, then, according to the view of the
court below, he was a passenger. But,
on the other hand, if he knowingly
practiced a fraud and deception upon
the conductor, whereby he was allowed
to ride in the baggage car, without the
payment of fare, he was not a passenger.
This theory seems to have run through
the whole charge of the court, and the
whole case seems to have turned upon
it. The court below, therefore, erred in
its chargein some of the instructions
that it gave, and in some of the instruc
tions that it refused. It made no differ
ence how honest the plaintiff was, nor
how ho viewed the said transaction in
its moral aspect.
For the reason that the court erred in
charging the jury, and for the reason
that there was no evidence to sustain
some of the material allegations of the
petition, the court erred in overruling
the defendant's motion for a new trial.
The judgment of the court below is
reversed, and a new trial ordered.
Kingman, C. J., concurring.
Brewer, J., not sitting in the case.
WISCONSIN CAi-J'JS.
The following are head-notes to opin
ions recently filed in the Supreme Court
of Wisconsin :
PATENT LAWSJURISDICTION OP FEDERAL
COURTS.
1. While the Federal courts have ex
clusive jurisdiction of all actions arising
under the patent laws, and of controver
sies relating to the validity of patent
rights, yet where an action is brought in
a State court upon a promissory note
given for a patent right, and the defense
is that there was no consideration be
cause the right was not useful for anybeneficial purpose, this court has held
that the State court may try the issue
thus presented. Rowe V. Blanehard, 18
Wis., 441. (Opinion by Cole, J.)Page
v. Dickerson.
JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS.
2. Whether that doctrine be correct or
not, the State courts have jurisdiction of
actions (like the present) where the con
tract of sale of a patent right is sought
to be rescinded because procured by
fraudulent representations of the vendor
as to the value and usefulness of such
right.Ib.
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT.
3. Plaintiff was entirely ignorant of
the business of making steel, and defend
ant represented that he was an expert in
that business, and had spent twenty
years in experimenting therein, and
that the method for which he had ob

News.

tained a patent was unknown to any

other person but one in the country, and,
where used, would increase the value of
all articles manufactured of steel, from
twenty-five to seventy-five per cent.
Plaintiff was induced by these repre
sentations to purchase an interest in said
right at a high price ; but said repre
sentations as to the novelty and value of
the defendant's process were false, and
the patent of very little value. Held,
that plaintiff was entitled to a rescission
of the contract of sale, and also to a re
turn of the personal property transferred
by him to defendant in payment, or to
the value of such property.Ib.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
1. Where the act of an agent varies
substantially, in its nature, extent or de
gree, from the authority conferred upon
him, it does not bind the principal.
(Opinion by Cole, J.)Meade v. Brothers
el al.
2. One authorized by a power of attor
ney to sell and convey certain real estate
entire or in separate parcels, for such
sum or sums of money as to him should
seem most to the advantage of the prin
cipal, conveyed real estate worth three
or four thousand dollars to his own
daughter for the nominal consideration
(expressed in the deed) of one dollar.
Held, that he was authorized to convey
for a valuable consideration only, and
not for a mere nominal sum ; and that
the deed might be treated by the princi
pal as a mere nullity.Eaton v. Smith, 19
Wis. 537, distinguished.
DAMFLOWAGK OF LAND.
1. In an action for flowage of plaintiff's
land by defendant's dam (which had
been maintained for eighteen years) it
was not error to instruct the jury that if
the dam had been maintained at a uni
form height for ten years preceding the
commencement of the action, or if no
greater injury had been occasioned bv it
to plaintiff's land at any time during
than before said period of ten years,
thev must find for defendant. Laws of
1862, ch. 184.(Opinion by Cole, J.)
Janssen v. Lammers et al.
2. It appearing that the stream, where
not affected by the dam, overflowed its
banks in high water, and that it was im
peded by drift-wood on plaintiff's land,
it was not error to charge the jury that
if any injury was occasioned to said land
by reason of the water being impeded
by said dam, then they should consider
the injury done to lands by the river
where not affected by the dam, and the
injury occasioned by" the driftwood, and
by the dam at the height at which it had
been maintained for ten years before
the suit, and should then estimate and
award the additional injury occasioned
by the raising of the dam.Ib.
CONFLICTING TAX TITLES.
1. A sale of land upon a junior levy
and assessment of taxes cuts off an earli
er tax deed.(Opinion by Cole, J.)
Eaton v. North.
2. The party holding a junior tax deed
(not being in possession under it) is un
der no greater obligation to pay taxes
thereafter assessed upon the land, than
one holding an earlier deed. Ib.
3. One who holds a tax deed, whether
valid or void, under which he has gone
into possession, may abandon all claim
of title under it, and acquire title under
a deed for taxes assessed upon the land
after he took such earlier deed.Ib.
TAX SALEINJUNCTION.
1. In an action to restrain town of
ficers from collecting certain taxes on
lands of the plaintiff, on account of ille
gal and fraudulent proceedings in the
assessment and valuation of the land,
neither the county nor its treasurer is a
necessary party," although the taxes
sought to be avoided include those levied
for county purposes.-(Opinion by Cole,
J.)Milwaukee Iron Co. v. Toum of Hub
bard et al.
VOID ASSESSMENT.
2. The omission to assess lands to the
owners or occupants when they are
known, or an excessive valuation there
of, intentionally made for the purpose of
compelling the owner to pay more than
his just proportion of the taxes, is a suf
ficient ground for declaring the assess
ment void.Ib.
3. Under our statutes, a tax upon land
(where the proceedings are not void upon
their face) is a lien thereon from the time
of the assessment ; and, if illegal, it con
stitutes a cloud upon the title before as
well as after the tax sale.Ib.

83
WHEN EQUITY WILL INTERFERE.
4. Equity will therefore interfere, not
only after the sale, to cancel the certifi
cate, but before a sale, to declare the as
sessment void, and restrain the collec
tion. Hamilton v. Fond du Lac (25 Wis.,
490) approved and followed.Ib.
5. The decision in Ch. & N. W. R. W.
Co. v. Fort Howard (21 Wis., 44) dis
tinguished and approved. The point
there decided was only that an injunc
tion would not be granted to restrain a
mere trespass (as by the sale of personal
property for an illegal tax), where the
plaintiff's reruedv was complete in an
action at law.16.
VOID ASSESSMENT.
1. Where an assessment roll and tax
certificate are void iqion their face for un
certainty in the description of the land,
they do not create any cloud upon the
title, and equity will not interfere for the
purpose of canceling them.(Opinion
by Cole, J.)Shtpardson r. 8u2>ervisors of
Mihraukee County.
2. It seems, however, that the assess
ment of the tax, the sale of the land,
and the issue of the certificate, consti
tute a setting up of a claim to the land,
within the meaning of Sec. 29, Ch. 141,
R. S., and that the owner in possession
might maintain an action under that
statute.lb.
CHAMPERTOUS AGREEMENT.
1. M. mortgaged to AV. land of which
defendant was in possession, as security
for the payment to W. of his fees as attorney-at-law in an action which he was
ts bring for M. against defendant to re
cover possession of the land. Held, that
these facts conclusively charge W. with
notice of any rights which defendant
had in the land.(Opinion by Cole, J.)
John v. Larson.
2. On foreclosure of said mortgage, the
land was sold to plaintiff, defendant be
ing present claiming to own the land,
and forbidding the sale, with the knowl
edge of plaintiff. Held, that plaintiff
took subject to defendant's rights.Ib.
3. This court having held that the
agreement between M. and defendant,
by which the latter obtained possession
of the land, was champertous and void,
but that, after the same was executed, it
would not aid M. (who was in pari delicto
with defendant) to regain possession (19
Wis., 463), it must now refuse similar aid
to the plaintiff, who has merely succeed
ed to M.'s rights, with notice of the de
fect in his title.Ib.
ACTION TO QUIET TITLE.
1. Under Sec. 29, Ch. 141, R. S., one
who has the legal title and possession of
land mav maintain an action to quiet the
title against any person who sets up a
claim thereto under any instrument
which might throw a suspicion upon his
title.(Opinion by Cole, J.) Moron v.
Ayers.
WHEN IT WILL LIE.
2. Thus, where land owned and pos
sessed by plaintiff was levied upon and
sold to defendant by the sheriff under an
execution against a third person, and a'
certificate of sale delivered to defendant,
who still holds it, and the duplicate filed
in the usual manner: Held, that defend
ant must be regarded as " setting up a
claim" to the land, within the meaning
of the Btatute, and the action will lie.
Ib.
3. Clark v. Drake (3 Chand., 252), Gam
ble v. Loop (14 Wis., 465), and Moore v.
Cord (id., 213), distinguished.
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF
BANKRUPTCY.
The London Law Times of the 9th in
stant says :
" The jurisdiction of the Court of
Bankruptcy in restraining actions to try
the right to the property of bankrupts
is undoubtedly important, but it is re
garded with some jealousy by the orofession, who conceive that the common
law courts ought to exercise jurisdiction
over such matters. The 72d section of
the Bankruptcy Act 1869 is in the widest
possible terms to the effect that, ' subject
to the provisions of this Act, every court
having jurisdiction in bankruptcy under
this Act shall have full power to decide
all questions of priorities, and all other
questions whatsoever, whether of law or
fact, arising in any case of bankruptcy
coming within the cognizance of such
court, or which the court may deem it
Continued on page 86.

84

Chicago

L egal

Chicago Legal News. and Geo. T. Deller (of the Bankrupt Reg
ister), New York, and Rev. W. S. Goodno,
of Philadelphia, we were able to accom
ILex Umctt.
plish all we desired in the way of busi
ness, and from the many kindnesses re
CHICAGO, DECEMBER 30, 1871.
ceived we came home with a firmer faith
in humanity, and a belief that " God
published every saturday by
had not forgotten the world."
The Chicago Legal News Company,
at 115 madison street.
We call attention to the following
opinions reported at length in this
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
issue :
Off-Sets under the Bankrrupt Law.
Terms :
Two Dollars per annum, in advance. Single cop- The opinion of the United States Dis
ies Ten Cents.
trict Court for the District of California,
delivered by Hoffman, J., holding that
THE LEOAL NEWS OFFICE la at MS
Wl Sfadlaon Street. The Printing a debtor of a bankrupt under the bank
Eatnbllahment la at 13 jr. Jefferson St.
rupt law may offset a claim against such
bankrupt if purchased at any time be
Thin is the last issue of the year, and fore the filing of the petition in bank
before we again reach our readers they ruptcy, even if not due and payable un
will, we hope, have enjoyed a happy til afterwards. This is an important
new year. The past has been to us an opinion, and if the doctrine here laid
eventful year. Last New Year's we down is sustained by the Supreme Court
little thought what we should have to of the United States, a person who owes
endure, and the difficulties we should one of these insolvent insurance com
have to meet and overcome. The Legal panies may, if he has sustained a loss on
News enters upon its fourth New Year's a policy issued by the company he owes,
full of hope and with a strong determin set it off against the debt he owes the
ation to improve in usefulness with each company, and thus get pay in full on his
succeeding year. The great fire came loss, while his poor neighbor, who was
down upon us like an avalanche, and insured in the same company, may not
came very near destroying us. We are get seven per cent, of the amount dua
striving to regain what we have lost. him.
We promised our subscribers, in our first
Negligence.The opinion of the Su
issue after the fire, that volume IV. of preme Court of Kansas, delivered by
the Leoai. News should bo fully equal to Valentine, J., in regard to the liability
any that have preceded it. If life and of a railroad company to a person not
health are spared, we shall keep our having paid his fare, who was injured
while riding in a baggage car pretending
promise.
We have, at considerable cost, pur to learn the route so that he might tako
chased new type and presses, and fitted the express messenger's place.
up a job printing oflice, and are now
Premises Destroyed by Fire. The
prepared to do neatly, and upon the opinion of the N. Y. Court of Appeals,
shortest notice, all kinds of job printing. delivered by Rafallo, J., in regard to
Our briefs printed for the Supreme Court the liability of the landlord to repair,
of the United States, and of this State, and the tenant to pay rent, where the
have given universal satisfaction. Our premises, or a portion of them, had been
prices, as will be seen from our adver destroyed by fire.
tisement in this issue, are reasonable.
Orders from the country are solicited.
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
Briefs received from a distance will be
Service of Process against a Corpora
printed and the proof carefully read.
Many subscriptions to the Legal tion.It was held by Pearsons in one of
News expire with the first of January. the District Courts of Pennsylvania, in
We are in need of money, and hope all Hughart v. The Redford and B. R. R. Co.,
who owe us for subscriptions, legal no under the statutes of that State, in a
tices or printing, will at once send us the transitory action against a corporation
service of process upon the proper offi
amount.
cer, was good wherever he might be
Some ten days ago we turned our back found within the state. 2 Leg. Opinion
upon (as some of our clergymen would 63SalvagePassengers' Baggage.The
say) "poor, dear, wicked Chicago," with
her twelve hundred acres of palaces laid English Court of Admiralty held in the
waste, and went flying over that grand recent case of the WUhem III. that a sal
old route, the Pennsylvania Central, vor's lien does not extend to personal
which is, we believe, one of the most baggage and effects belonging to passen
ably managed railroads in the United gers on board the vessel to which the
States. The rapid time made, and the services have been rendered, and that
most admirable arrangement in the the Court of Admiralty will order such
heating of the cars, make a journey effects to be released. 25 L. T. Rep., N.
even at this inclement season of the year S. 386.
Negligence.The N. Y. Court of Ap
partake largely of a parlor entertain
peals held in the recent case of Barker
ment.
We visited Washington, Philadelphia v. Savage, reported in the N. Y. Tramand New York, and only regretted that script, that to enter upon a street-cross
we were obliged to make so hurried a ing in a city where the moving vehicles
tripthat we could not see all of those are numerous, and a collision with them
who had so kindly remembered us by likely to produce serious injury, without
books, moneyed donations, and a wealth first looking in both directions along
of kind words,,sinee the late dire calam the street, to ascertain whether any are
ity. Waahington was enveloped in a approaching, and if so, their rate of
shroud of snow. The cold was so intense speed and how far distant they are from
in New York that everybody went hur the crossing, is negligence ; that footmen
rying along looking very like a Russian have no right of way at a crossing in a
bear. In Philadelphia we were drenched city street, superior to that of vehicles ;
in rain. Nevertheless, with the aid of that each have the right of passage in
such noble ones as the Hon. A. (i. Rid common, and in its use are bound to ex
dle, of Washington, Audley W. Gazzam ercise reasonable care for their own safe-

News.
i_
.

ty, and to avoid doing injury to others

who may be in the use of the right of
way with them ; that where the plain
tiff, a woman sixty-four years of age and
lame, was crossing Third Avenue, in the
city of New York, at ten o'clock in the
morning, and the driver of a cart, going
at the rate of four miles an hour, when
at a distance of twelve feet from the
plaintiff, called to her, which call was
heard by persons more distant from the
cart than the plaintiff, but the plaintiff
nevertheless, kept on, and was run over
and injured ; that an instruction to the
jury, to the effect that the plaintiff was
only required to look ahead along the
crossing, and if in so looking Bhe dis
covered no obstacle, then she was not
negligent in proceeding to cross, was er
roneous.
Sovereign Power When Bound by
the general words of a statute.
Judge Lowell in an opinion delivered
in the U. S. Circuit court for the District
of Mass., reported in 14 Internal Revenue
Record, 205, holds that the United States
and their debtors are within the general
words of the act of March 2, 1867, c. 180
(14 Stat, at Large, 543) : that in this
country there is no course of decisions
exempting the sovereign power by vir
tue of its prerogative from the operation
of any general statutes, except those of
limitations ; that the modern and rea
sonable tendency is to limit rather than
enlarge the sovereign prerogative, and
to construe statutes according to the in
tent, and by rules which really tend to
ascertain that intent, of which the rule
exempting the sovereign unless express
ly named is not one ; that prerogative
does not extend to matters of process
and remedy, excepting the statute of
limitations; that the act of June 6, 1789,
c. 49 (1 Stat, at Large, 561), authorizing
the Secretary of the Treasury to dis
charge any person imprisoned for a debt
due the United States is to be consid
ered cumulative legislation, and its sub
ject matter is embraced within the gen
eral laws respecting process and impris
oned debtors.
iUccmt ^publications.
The Law of Life Insurance. With
Chapters upon Accident and Guaran
tee insurance. By George Bliss, Jr.,
Counselor at Law.
New York :
Baker, Voorhis & Co., Publishers, 66
Nassau street. 1872. Sold by E. B.
Myers, Law Bookseller, Wabash ave
nue, Chicago.
Life insurance has done an untold
amount of good, and saved thousands of
families from want and the poor house;
but it cannot now be said to have been
fully tested. Twenty-five years ago it
was very rare to find a person who had
insured his life, now it is very seldom
that we can find a person, who is able,
that has not insured his life, and not
unfrequently for very large sums. With
in the next thirty years the great mass
of those now insured will have passed
away, and the drain upon the insurance
companies to pay the losses upon their
lives will reach a sum so great that the
very mention of it would not only
frighten policy-holders, but astonish the
officers of the companies themselves.
Policy holders should be more effectual
ly protected by legislation than they are
at the present time. Companies should
not be allowed to insure to the extent of
millions when they are not worth as
many hundreds. Let some terrible
disease, like the cholera, small-pox or
plague break out, sweep across the con
tinent, and be as violent and deadly as
it has been in some of the countries of

the old world centuries ago, and how

many of these life insurance companies
could stand the shock and pay their
losses. We predict that should nothing
unusual take place to increase our mor
tality list, of all the life insurance com
panies now doing business in the United
States, not one in ten will have an exisence in twenty-five years to come.
The book before us contains 771 pages.
It is printed with clear type, upon supe
rior paper, and in mechanical execution
it may be said to be faultless. There has
been no American work published since
1854 upon this subject that is entitled tobe dignified by the name of text-book.
Then life insurance was truly in its in
fancy, and there were but very few
decisions upon the many difficult ques
tions arising under this branch of the
law. Life insurance has within the last
eighteen years increased with a rapidity
unparalleled in the history of the world,
and as a consequence the decisions of
the courts relating to this branch of
business have not only increased in
number but in importance, and created
a pressing want for a text-book, in
which the substance of these decisions
should be given and commented upon
by an able writer. Mr. Bliss in his pre
face says he brings down the cases to
September, 1871, and refers not only
to the standard English and American
Reports, but to those of Scotland and
Ireland, which contain many instructive
cases ; that in treating those portions of
the subject which are common to the law
of Life and Fire Insurance, such as war
ranty, representation, agency and waiver,
he has referred freely to decisions in cases
of fire insurance. Mr. Bliss has showngread care and displayed good judg
ment in the preparation of this volume,
and has succeeded in presenting a trea
tise upon the law of Life Insurance,
fuller and vastly superior to any that
have preceded it. This volume will be
sent to any address, prepaid, upon the
receipt of the price, $7.50.
Aldermen Indicted.The Grand Ju
ry of the Criminal Court of this county
on yesterday found true bills against exAlderman Joseph A. Montgomery, Aids.
Herman O. Glade, John J. McGrath and
ex-Aid. James Walsh, for bribery. If on
the trial the evidence shall show these
parties guilty, they ought to be punished
to the very extent of the law. No ex
cuse can be offered for men who when
elected to office, sell their influence and
vote to the highest bidder. Would it
not be well for some tribunal of compe
tent iurisdiction to deal with some of
the officials of this county, who are
making use of their offices for the pur
pose of taking money from the pockets
of citizens in the shape of illegal fees?
Suppose we commence with the justices
and constables. It is notorious that
there are not more than two justices,
and we do not believe a single constable,
that pretend to do business for the fees
provided by law. Let those who take
these illegal fees be punished, and those
who do not bs justified.
Hon. James T. Mitchell.We are glad
to announce that the Hon. James T.
Mitchell, managing editor of the Ameri
can Law Register, has been elected District
Judge at Philadelphia. Mr. Mitchell is
a writer of marked ability, a lawyer of
extensive reading, and a man of good
judgment and sound sense. He will
make a popular judge, and we congratu
late the bar of Philadelphia upon his
elevation to the bench.

85
MANUFACTURE OF COINS.
INDIVIDUALS CAN NOT MAKE OF A CIIAKACTER TO BE USED FOR MONEY.
The following charge of Hon. John F.
Dillon on the manufacture of coins of
original design was recently delivered
to the Grand Jury in the United States
Circuit court for the District of Kansas :
Gentlemen of the Grand Jury : For
many years prior to 1864, there hud been
in force an act of Congress prohibiting
" the false making or counterfeiting of
any coin in resemblance or similitude of
the gold and silver coins, coined at any
mint of the United States." (Act of
March 3, 1825, sec. 20). Similar provision
was made respecting foreign coin cur
rent here.
In 1864 Congress passed a further act,
providing that " if any person, except as
authorized by law, shall make or pass
any coins of gold or silver or other metal,
or "alloys of metals, intended for the use
and purpose of current money, whether
in resemblance of the coins of "the United
States, or offoreign countries, or oforiginal
design, he shall be punished by fine not
exceeding three thousand dollars, or by
imprisonment not exceeding five years,
or both." (Act of June 8, 1864.)
The first statute prohibiting only the
making or counterfeiting of coin in the
resemblance, or similitude of the regular
coin of the United States, or foreign coin
current therein. The statute of 1864 is
much broader in its terms, and declares
it unlawful for any unauthorized person
" to make or pass any coins intended for
the use and purpose of current money,
whether in resemblance of the coins of
the United States or of foreign countries
or of original design."
The meaning of this provision is too
plain for controversy. In all countries
the subject of coinage is one of govern
mental regulation. It is so in this coun
try. It is not lawful for private individ
uals to make coin in the similitude of
the government's coin or of foreign coin
current here, even though it should be
as pure or worth as much ; nor under the
act of 1864 is it lawful for private per
sons to make any coins, whether resem
bling the government's coin or not, in
tended for the use and purpose of cur
rent money.
To make any coins of a character that
they are adapted to be used for the pur
pose of current money is absolutely pro
hibited by the legislation of 1864. If
coins, made without authority of the
government, are in shape, size and ap
pearance of a character that they are
adapted to be thus used, the intention
that they should be so used will and
should be inferred from the fact of mak
ing and disposing of them in this con
dition, so that they may be used for the
purpsse of current money.
Under the statute of 1864, prohibiting
the making of coins of original designs
for use as money, it is not necessary the
coins should be of the denomination, or
resemble the coins authorized to be
made and issued by law.
I have been shown by the district
attorney some coins of the character of
the one I here exhibit to you, and have
felt it to be my duty to express my views
respecting fhe meaning of the foregoing
statutes of the United States. The sam
ple here shown you, bears on the ob
verse side a female head, with thirteen
stars and date, 1871 ; on the reverse a
wreath with the words " Half dollar,
Cal."
This coin appears to be gold and is
doubtless made of an alloy of that metal,
and is intrinsically worth very much less
than a half dollar.
All of the gold and silver coin of the
United States of the present time are
900 thousandths fine ; that is 900 parts
fine metal and 100 parts alloy.
A sample of coin like that shown you
was recently assayed at the mint of the
United States, and found to contain only
520 parts in a thousand of pure gold, and
although purporting on its face to be
worth a half dollar, to be in fact of the
value of just seventeen cents in gold.
This coin is made in imitation of the
gold 'dollar, which is the smallest gold
coin issued by law, and is calculated, in
my opinion, to deceive and defraud the
public, since it professes to be a half dol
lar in money coined in California, and is
adapted to be used and circulated as
money; and it is illegal to make and issue

it in this shape, or even to pass it as

monev.
It is known to the court that you
have ignored bills at this term, charging
the offenses of making and passing
such coin in this State, and the court is
bound to suppose that in so doing you
were justified by the evidence before
you. I do not allude to the subject for
the purpose of questioning your action
as an independent tribunal ; but mainly
to prevent the unwarranted inference be
ing drawn by the public that coins of
the character I have mentioned can be
lawfully made or passed as money. I
have felt bound to say this in order that
it may be known that whoever engages
in business of this kind, whatever the
motives or purposes, or however other
wise respectable, violates the law of the
land, aud incurs the risk of prosecution
and punishment.
It is the duty of the district attorney
to .bring before grand juries all viola
tions of law of this character, and it is
one which he will doubtless perform ;
and after this explicit declaration of
what the law on the subject is, offenses
against it ought not to be viewed by ju
ries with favor or indulgence.
HEAD-NOTES TO A RECENT WIS
CONSIN CASE.
INSURANCENOTICEPROOF OF LOSS.
A fire insurance policy provided that
losses should be paid " sixty days after
due notice and satisfactory proofs of the
same, made by the assured and received
at the office of the company ;" that in
case of a loss the assured should " give
immediate notice thereof," and should
" render to the company a particular
account of said loss under oath, etc., and
should produce the certificate under seal
of a magistrate, notary public or commis
sioner of deeds nearest the place of the
fire, stating certain facts. Held,
1. That only the notice of loss, and not
the proofs, was required to be furnished
immediately. The most that the com
pany could claim was, that the proofs
should be furnished within a reasonable
time.(Opinion by Lyon, J.)Killips v.
Putnam Fire Ins. Co.
VERBAL NOTICE.
2. That a verbal notice of a loss to the
company's local agent was sufficient, un
der this policy.lb.
DEFECTS IN PROOF OF LOSS.
3. Where the company did not object
within a reasonable time (in this case
two months) that proofs of loss furnished
it were defective (as that they were not
furnished in due time, or did not contain
the proper magistrate's certificate), it
muBt be held to have waived all defects
therein.lb.
4. In an action on the policy, where
the company relies on defects in the
proofs of loss, the burden is upon it to
show that it notified the assured of such
defects within a reasonable time.lb.
ACTION WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS.
5. A clause in the policy limiting the
right of action thereon to twelve months
after the loss was valid, but the stipula
tion might be modified or waived by the
parties, or the company might be estopped
by its own acts from claiming the benefit
thereof.lb.
6. Where by any act or omission of the
responsible officers and agents of the
company the assured is induced to sus
pend for a certain length of time the
performance of acts required on his part
after a loss, such time should not be reck
oned as a part of the period to which the
right of action is limited.lb.
6. A general agent of defendant ob
jected to the proofs first furnished, with
out pointing out any specific objection,
and assured plaintiff's attorney that,he
would soon call on them in their place
of residence. After waiting several
months, during which they were fre
quently assured by the local agent that
said general agent was expected every
week, the attorneys again wrote to him,
and received a reply merely insisting
that the proofs were defective, but de
clining to point out the defect. Subse
quently, but more than a year after the
loss, new proofs were make out, one
copy of which was handed to the local
agent, and the other mailed to the secre
tary of the company at its principal
office. Held, that these facts had a ten
dency to prove that plaintiff was induced
by the conduct of said general agent to
suspend the making and furnishing of

his second proofs for a period equal to

that between the end of the twelve
months and the commencement of this
action ; and if the jury so found, a ver
dict for plaintiff would not be set aside
merely because the action was not com
menced within the time limited.lb.
NEAREST MAGISTRATE.
8. There was evidence that defendant's
general agent visited plaintiff shortly
after his loss, and that at his suggestion
and for his accommodation, plaintiff's
proofs were made out, not before the
nearest magistrate, but by one in the
nearest village. Held, that upon this
evidence the jury might have found that
the requirement of the policy in refer
ence to a certificate of the nearest magis
trate was waived.lb.
THE VERDICT.
9. Where a cause is submitted to the
jury without any instructions asked or
given, the verdict has the same effect as
if rendered under full and correct in
structions.lb.
10. The verdict here being for the
plaintiff, and no instructions having been
asked or given, the jury must be pre
sumed to have found that the proofs of
loss were furnished within a reasonable
time (if that was material) ; that defend
ant waived any defects therein ; and that
the action was brought within the period
of twelve months plus the time during
which plaintiff's proceedings were sus
pended through the fault of defendant's
agent.lb.
THE CHICAGO LAW INSTITUTE.
The Committee of the Law Institute,
composed of Thomas Hoyne, M. W.
Fuller and H. X. Hibbard, have per
formed a great amount of labor, and are
receiving many generous responses to
their appeal for books to restore the Law
Library. The following are some of the
letters received by them :
State of Connecticut,')
Executive Department, >
Hartford, December 11, 1871. J
Gentlemen : Your esteemed favor of a
late date has been received, suggesting
that perhaps the State of Connecticut
might be willing to contribute its laws,
digests and reports to the Chicago law
library now being re-established.
I think it quite proper for the State to
do so, and, though I hud no law to sus
tain me in it, I cheerfully comply with
your request, and take my chances on
the next Legislature's approving the bill.
I have, therefore, directed our State Li
brarian, Sir. Hoadly, to collect such as
the State has in its possession, which is
but a few volumes, and to purchase such
other sets and volumes as are not out of
print, which shall be forwarded to you as
soon as we can get them together and
properly bound. There may be some
forty or fifty volumes. Please give me
the address to which they shall be
shipped. I have the honor to be your
obedient servant,
Marshall Jewell.
To Thomas Hoyne. H. N. Hibbard, Melville W.
Fuller, Committee, Chicago, 111.
State of Georgia,")
Executive Department, >
Atlanta. Ga., December 20. 1871. )
Thomas Hoyne. H. N. Hibbard, Melville W. Fuller,
Committee Chicago Law Institute :
Gentlemen : Your communication,
without date, was received some days
ago. An earlier reply has bee-dclayed
on account of pressing official duties.
I have this day directed the State
Librarian to forward to you, express
charges prepaid, all the books that you
ask for which he has at his disposal,
and he has notified me that he will send
to the address of the Chicago Law Insti
tute, by to-morrow's express, the follow
ing books: Acts of the General Assem
bly from 1851 to 1870 ; volumes 30, 31, 35,
38, 39 and 40 of Georgia Reports ; one
volume Bacon's Digest ; one copy Code
of Georgia; one copy Journal of Con
vention of 1868 ; Journals of the Legis
lature from 1868 to 1870 ; one copy
Prince's Digest of Laws of Georgia ; one
copy Cbb's New Digest, and two copies
of Conley's Analysis. I regret that lam
not able to furnish you with a complete
set of Georgia Reports, but they are not
now available.
In the brave and noble struggle that
you, in common with all the people of
your once beautiful city, are making to
build up your fortunes once more, you
have my heartfelt sympathy, and I sin-

cerely regret that in place of the few

books that will be sent you, and instead
of a few words of encouragement and
sympathy offered, it is not in my power
to place at your disposal a more exten
sive and valuable collection of books
than your institute could boast of in its.
most prosperous days. Very truly yours,
Benjamin Conley, Governor.
State of Ohio,!
Executive Department, sCoLl'MBUS, December, 9th, 1871. J
Gentlemen ." I am this day in receipt
of your letter of the 6th, requesting, on
behalf of the Chicago Law Institute, cop
ies of the archives, statutes, Reports of
Ohio, to replace those destroyed by the
great \i\ re in October last. I take great
pleasure in complying with your request
so far as I have the authority and means
of doing so. Directions have been given
to transmit to you a collection of stat
utes and other official publications of
the State. When the General Assembly
meets three weeks hence, they will, be
yond doubt, promptly and gladly supply
the reports and other works belonging
to the State which are not under my
control.
Respectfully,
R. B. Hayes, Governor of Ohio.
To Thomas Hoyne, M. W. Fuller, H. N. Hibbard,
Committee.
PHOTOGRAPHS AS EVIDENCE.
The New York Court of Appeals, in
passing upon the weight to be given to
photographs when introduced * in evi
dence in the Ruloff murder case, said :
Objection was also taken to the admis
sion of the photographic likenesses of
the two persons found drowned. Evi
dence was given of the manner in, and
disadvantageous circumstances under,
which they were taken ; and the evi
dence was that they were not artistic
pictures, nor in all respects the most per
fect likenesses that could be taken. This
was fully explained by the artist, and
the reasons why they were not more
perfect stated. They were submitted to
the witnesses, not as themselves, and
alone sufficient to enable them to iden
tify the persons with entire certainty,
but as aids, and with other evidence, to
enable the jury to pass upon the ques
tion of identity. They were the best
portraits that could be had, and all that
could be taken. The persons were iden
tified by other circumstances, the clothes
they wore and the articles found upon
their persons, and their general descrip
tion ; and the photograpns were compe
tent, although slight, evidence, in addi
tion to the other and more reliable testi
mony. We are of the opinion that it
was not error, under the circumstances,
to admit them as evidence for what they
were worth. By themselves, they would
have been of but little value ; but they
were of some value as corroborating the
other evidence identifying the bodies.
The Supreme Court of Illinois.The
January term of this court will com
mence at Springfield on Tuesday next.
It is understood that a large number of
opinions will be filed during the term.
Frank J. Crawford, a prominent
member of the Ottawa bar, has opened
an office in our city, and may be found
in the Masonic Building, corner of Halsted and Randolph streets.
The Legal News.Parties who have
back volumes of the Legal News which
they will sell are requested to send us
their address and the condition and
price of the volumes.
No Jurisdiction. It is stated of
Michael Angelo, that in order to repay
some obnoxious official for some real or
imaginary insult, he introduced him into
that grand fresco of the Last Judgment
as standing in hell, ornamented with
asses ears and enveloped in the folds of
a serpent. Naturally indignant at the
use which had been made of his por
trait, the offended dignitary applied to
Paul IV, the reigning pope, demanding
that his picture be removed from that
place of endless torment; the pontiff,
probably relishing the design of Michael
Angelo," assured the plaintiff that al
though he had power to release from
purgatory, his authority did not extend
to the infernal regions, over which he
claimed no dominion.

86

Chicago

Legal

Continued from pago S3,

CHICA GO A TTORNE YS.
expedient or necessary to decide for the
purpose of doing complete justice or
making a complete distribution of prop
and Laokner. 64 West Lake street.
erty in any such case.' And by the same Barber
Barker, J. C, 113 West Madison street, room 3.
section the court is not to be restrained Bates
<fc Hodges, 113 West Madison street.
by any other court, and in the exercise BRADWELL,
B., 115 West Madison street.
of the equitable jurisdiction conferred Burgess, W. T.,J.165
W. Wahlngton.
by sees. 65 and 66, may restrain proceed
Bonney, Fay & Griggs, 120 West Washington st.
ings in other courts. An attempt to put Bentley,
Ullman & Ives, 376 Wabash av.
a limit to the jurisdiction given by sec. Barker * Bennett,
46 East Harrison street.
72 was made in Ex parte Cohen, re Brouse, 0.Waite,
R., 400 Wabash avenue.
Sparke (25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 473), where Brown & Rirkerts,
114 West Madison.
an action of trover by a mortgagee un
Burke and Allen. IS W. Randolph.
der a bill of sale against the trustee un
Carmiehael, D. L., 815 Prairie auenue.
der a liquidation was restrained by a Carter,
& Dale, 60 Canal. 350 Wabash av
county court judge. On appeal, it was Chase, F.Beeker
386 Wabash avenue.
held that the injunction was rightly Clarkson aL.,Van
No. 454 Wabash Ave.
granted, Lord Justice James expressing Condon, Win. H.,Schaack,
34 Canal street.
the opinion that this was just such a Deane & Cahill, room
T, Lind's Block.
case as was aimed at by the 72d section.
& Black, 740 Wabash avenue.
The transaction with reference to the Dent
Swing <fc Leonard. 487 Wabash avenue.
bill of sale was condemned as fraudu
B. W., 115 West MadLson street.
lent, and it was contended that the court Ellis,
Wm. 8., 371 State street.
of chancery would not restrain a court Felker,
D. jr., n. e. cor. Monroe and LaSalle.
of common law from trying a question Goodwin,
Goudy & Chandler, 391 Wabash avenue, branch
of fraud. But the Lords Justices con office.
64 South Habited street.
curred that as the question had relation
Harrison and Whitehead, 143 W. Madison street.
to the assets of the bankrupt, it was a Hervey,
Anthony *fc Gait, 356 Wabash avenue.
proper question for the court of bank
Hopkins, Wm., 46 East Harrison.
ruptcy. Lord Justice Hellish considered Herbert
& Quick, 529 State street.
that the 72d section gives the court of
bankruptcy the right to decide in what Hoyne, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michi
court anv particular case shall be tried, gan and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne, Horton and Hoyne, 267 Michigan av.
and an implied power to restrain pro
ceedings in other courts. Considering Hitchcock, Dupee & Evarts, comer Wells and
the extended jurisdiction of the county Monroe streets.
courts this is very important. Any Howe it Russell. 175 Wabash avenue.
county court may assume to decide most Isham, Edward S., 554 Wabash avenue.
important claims to property ; and, were IngersoU, O. P., 92 South Green street.
there not a free right of appeal, we Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
King, Scott tfc Payson, 637 Wabash avenue.
should consider such a power decidedly
dangerous. As it is, the policy of the Knickerbocker, J. C. and J. J. 163 W. Washington.
Learning & Thompson, 109 West Randolph street.
law is doubtful.
I/Cary, D. James, 159 West Madison.
Lyman &. Jackson, 79 W. Madison street, room 3.
Magruder, B. D., 181 W. Madison.
Mattocks and Mason, 523 Wabash ave,
McClelland, Thos., S 45 S. Canal, room 6.
LEGAL NEWS PRINTING DEPARTMENT Mcrriam,
Alexander and Bolster, 149 W. Wash
ington street.
Miller, Frost & Lewis, 363 Michigan avenue.
Moore & Caulfield, S. E. cor. State and Madison.
Briefs & Abstracts.
Newcomh, G. W., 214 Warren avenue.
Norton, Jesse O,. 386 Wabash avenue.
Nissen A Bamum,126 W. Randolph, and 376 State
The attention of Attorneys is called to our superior Otis,
E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
acuities for printing BRIEFS and ABSTRACTS.
Paddock <fc Ide, 449 Wabash avenue.
Our prices arc :
Perkins, N.C., 479 Wabash av.,cor. Eldridge court.
BRIEFS. - per page,
- 91.25 Palmer, L. L., 481 Wabash avenue.
ABSTRACTS,
M
...
1.75 Pflrshlng, Jos. 47 Peck C/t, bet. Wabash and State
Orders left either at the office of the Legal News, Reynolds, Wm. C, 176 West Washington street.
115 W. Madison St., or at the Printing Office, 13 North Rich <fc Thomas, 945 Michigan avenue, and 468
Wabash avenue.
Jefferson St., will be promptly executed.
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 So Canal.
Rorkc, M. A. & Son, 154 Halsted street.
Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, Masonic Building, S
ARNOLD 6 WATERMAN,
W., cor. Randolph and Halsted and 350 Wabash av.
Attorneys,
/CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of Roys, C. D.. 677 Wabash avenue.
VV Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook county, To Bawln it Wells, 59 West Madison street.
January
A. D.Chancory.
1S72. Barton W. Spears v.
Electa A. Term,
Spears.In
Scammon, McC'agg and Fuller, 389 Wabash av.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Electa A. Spears, Scovllle, George, 30 South Clinton street.
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the Clerk of said Superior Court uf Cook county, Sheldon & Waterman, cor IjiSalle and Monroe
notice is hereby given to the said Electa A. Spears
Sherman, E. B., 153 W. Madison.
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plaint in saia Court, on the chancery side thereof, and Sleeper & Whiton, 441 Wabash avenue.
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday Small and Ingalls, 481 Wabash avenue.
of January next (1H72). ft* is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Electa A. Spears, shall Snowhook & Gray, 85 W. Monroe St., cor. Jeffer
personally be and appear before said Superior Court son.
of Cook county, on the firm day ofa term thereof, to be Story and King, 149 West Washington street.
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of January. 1672, and plead, answer or demur to the Tenny, McClellan & Tcnny, 454 Wabash avc.
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the Thomas, Sidney, 95 East Harrison street.
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be Van Buren, E. & A , 194 West MadLson street.
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
Vallctte. H. F., 59 West Madison street.
according to the prayer of said bill.
Augustus jacobson, cierk.
Waterman, A. N., 135 West Monroe street.
Arnold & Waterman, ComplTa Sorrs.
11-U
White, Hugh A., 165 West Washington street.
O. A. FOLLANSBEE,
Whitehouse, Wm. F.. 188 West Madison, late Tri
Attorney, No. 10 West Randolph St. ll n e building.
estate
of
frederick
biermann.
deceased. Notice is hereby given to all persons Williams & Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
having claims and demands against the estate of Walker, Dexter & Smith, 792 Wabash avenue.
Friedrich
Biermann,
deceased, atto apresent
for adjudication
and settlement
regularthetermsame
of Wilson, Perry & Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
the County court of Cook county, to be holden at the Windett, Arthur W., 562 Wabash ave., and room
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
February,
6 Lind's Block.
A.D. 1672,, being tho fitth
filth day thereof.
IIEINRICH IHKIOIANN, Aministrator.
Waughop, J. W., 401 Wabash avenue.
Chicago. Dec. 20, A.D. 1*71.
G. A. Follansbee, AU'y.
11-16a
P. McHUGH & ANDREW ENZENBACHER,
THOMAS H. MARSH,
Attorneys, No. 30, West Randolph St.
Attorney, 172 Park Avenue.
/-tHANCEBY
-NOTICE.-State
of
Illinois,
county
of
pHANCEHY
NOTICE.-State
Illinois,
Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook county. To v> Cook, ss. Superior
Court ofT.of
Cook
county.county
Januof
January
Term,
A
I).
1172.
Anna
Kleist
v.
Louis
Uhe.
ary
Term.
A.
D.
1S72.
Edward
Dickinson
v.
Sarah
In Chancey.
Dickinson.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Louis Uhe, defend E.Affidavit
of tho non-residence of Sarah E.fDickinant
above
named,
having
been
filed
in
the
ofneo
of
the
son,
above named, having been filed in tho
clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, notice is officedefendant
of
the
of said Superior court of Cook
hereby given to the said Louis Uhe that the complain county, notice clerk
isthehereby
given to heretofore
tho said Sarah
E.
ant
heretofore
filed
hor
bill
of
complaint
in
said
court,
Dickinson
that
complainant
filed his
on the chancery side thereof, and that a summons bill of complaint in said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereupon
issued out
against
said de thoreof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of
fendant,
returnable
on ofthesaidfirstCourt
Monday
of January
said court against said defendant, returnable on the
next, (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Louis die. shall per first fMonday of January next (1S72), as is by law re
sonally be and appear before Baid Superior Court of quired.
you, the said Sarah E. Dickinson, shall
Cook county, on tho first day of a term thereof, to bo Now, unless
be and appear betore said Superior court of
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday personally
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
of January, 1S72, and plead, answer or demur to the Cook
at Chicago,
saidplead,
county,
on theor first
Monto
Mid complainant's bill of complaint, tho same, and the holden
day of January,
1S72.inand
answer
demur
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same.^and
taken as confessed, and a decree entered againt you the
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
according to the prayer of said bill.
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
JACOBSON, Compl'ts
Clerk. you according to the prayer of said bill.
P. McIIuoil and AUGUSTUS
Andrew Enzknhacher,
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Sol'rs.
11-11
Tuohas II. Maesh, Compl't's Sol'r.
11-14

News.

LAW
LAW

BOOKS.

DEPARTMENT,

Chicago University,
LECTURES were resumed in this institution on
Monday, Oct. 30th last, in the lecture room of
the Second Baptist Church, corner of Monroe and
Morgan streets. All the old advantages obtained Bourquin & Welsh
by students in this law school are again offered.
For information address
JOHN A. HUNTER,
Sec. Law Dept.
135 \V. Monroe street, Chicago.
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
PUBLISHERS & IMPORTERS,
A. H. LAWRENCE,
Attorney, 368 State St.
EXECUTOR'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE.-In the
County court uf Cook county, State of Illinois,
George
It. Spurr,vs. executor
Charles
M.
Fay, aecea.si.-il,
Frances ofA.the
Fay,estate
Ellenof M.
Daniels.
George E. Daniels and Jennie B. Fay.Petition to ell
realPublic
estate.notice in hereby given, that tho undersigned,
executor of the estate of Charles M. Fay, deceased, by
virtue of an order and decree of the County cuiirt of
Cook county, state of Illinois, made nod entered at the
August term, A.D. 1871, ofsaidconrt, on petition of the
undersigned, to sell real estate of said deceased, will un
Monday,
o'clockonnoon
said day,
at
the eastJanuary
door of21.1,thel72,at
court 12house,
Clarkofstreet,
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
in
said
county
of
Cook,
aell
at publiY auction, to the I.ighent mid be*t bidder for cash,
the
following described real estate, situate in said county
of Cook
and Male
Illinoisintodivision
wit ; lotoftwowest
of assess
or's
division
of lotofsixteen,
half of
southeast quarter of section 23. township Itj north,
range
13,
east
of
third
principal
meridian;
also,
lot
fourteen, assessor's division of west half of the south
east quarter of section 23. township 40 north, range 13,
east of the third principal meridian, except so much of
suid
as is line
described
follows,
in thelotnorth
of saidaswtft
halftoofwit:
said commencing
quarter sec
tion,
at
a
point
41^1-9
feet
east
from
thefeet
northwest
corner of wild west half, thence east 110 S-10
to land
now or late of Susan Cise, thence south S3 Mo feet by
said Cose land, thence west by land uow or late of
Charles M. Fay 140 8-10 feet, to laud now or late of M.
L. Kimball, thence north by said Kimball land S3 5-10
feet to place, of beginning. Said sale being made for
the purpose of paying debts of said deceased.
GEolEGE R. SPURR, Executor of said Estate.
Dated Chicago, Dec. 10,ls71.
A. H. Law rence, Att'y.
10-15
NEWELL PRATT,
Attorney, 1124 Wabash Avenue.
CIHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
'
Cook,
ss. Superior
of Cook
county.
To
January' Term,
A. D. ls72.court
Joanna
Stanselle
vs. Louis
F. Stimselle.In Chancery.
Affidavitabove
of thenamed,
non-residence
of Louis
Stanselle,
defendant
having been
tiled F.iuithe
office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Louis F. Stanselle
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of January next, (1872"), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Louis F. Stanselle, shall
personally
be and
appear
beforeof said
Superior
Cook
county,
on the
first day
a term
thereof,court
to beof
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
ofJanuary, 1872.
andofplead,
answer orthedemur
the said
complainant
s bill
complaint,
same,to and
the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newell Pratt, Comp'ts soPr.
10-13
pHANCEBY
NOTICE.-State
of
HUnols,
county
of
^ Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
January Term, A.D. 1872. Adda Paine v. Clinton J.
Paine.In Chancery.
Affidavit that the above-named defendant, Clinton
J. Paine, on due inquiry, cannot be found, so that pro
cess can not be served upon him, having been filed in
the office of the clerk oi said Superior court of Cook
county, notice is hereby given to the said Clinton J.
Paine that inthesaid
complainant
heretofore
bill of
complaint
court, on the
chanceryfiledsideherthereof,
and that a summons thereupon Issued out of said
court against said defendant, returnable on the first
Monday of January next 0-72), as is by law required.
Now, unless
you,appear
the said
J. Paine,
shallof
personally
be and
beforeClinton
said Superior
court
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,
thedemur
first Monday
of
January,
1872, andin said
plead,county,
answeron or
to the
said
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
same,stated,
and
the matters and things therein charged and
will
be
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newell Pratt, Coml't's SoPr.
11-14
MAOEE & OLESON,
Attorneys, 105 W. Randolph St.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county ot
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
January
Term, A.D. Chancery.
1872. Helena M. Evenson vs.
Andreas
AffidavitEvenson.In
of the non-residence of Andreas Evenson,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of
the isclerk
of said
of Cook
county,
notice
hereby
givenSuperior
to the saidcourt
Andreas
Evenson
that
the
complainant
heretofore
filed
her
bill
of
complaint
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
and
that
summons thereupon issued out of said court againsta
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Jan
uary next, (1872,) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Andreas Evenson, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of January, 1872. and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
bill oftherein
complaint,
the and
same,
and
the matters
and things
charged
stated,
will be taken as confessed, and adecree entered against
you according to theAUGUSTUS
prayer of said
bill.
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
Maoee & Olesox, Comp'ts Sol'rs.
10-13
ESTATE
OF
HANS
BR1STRUP,
DEOEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Hans Bristrup. deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of February, A.D.
1872, being the fifth
thereof.
S. day
M. KROGNESS,
Administrator.
Chicago, Dec. 12, A.D. 1871.
Maoek A Oleson, Att'ys.
______
10-15a
D. J. CROCKER,
Attorney. 48 S. Canal Street.
ESTATE OF CAROLINE 1IEINES. DECEASED.Public notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Caroline
Heines, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, Illinois, to be holden at the court
house
city of Chicago,
county,
the first
Mondayin tho
of February,
A.D. in
1S72,saidbeing
theonfifth
day
thereof.
JACOB HEINES, Executor.
D. J. Ceocker, Att'y for Estate.
10-15

No. 431 Walnut Street,

Philadelphia.
1-16

LAW BOOKS.
J. 1. McDIVITT,
81 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK.
Second-hand Law Books Bought, Sold and Exchanced.
6-19

THE

CHICAGO

LEGAL N E WS
COMPANY.
PRINTING OFFICE,
15 North Jefferson Street ;
Business Office, 115 West Madison Street,
CHICAGO.

BOOK AND JOB

Particular attention given to all kinds of

LEGAL PRINTING :
INCUTDIXG
Attorneys' Abstracts,
Briefs and Dockets,
Books, Pamphlets and Reports.
Orders for this description of work will be execut
ed promptly in the neatest style of the art.
Decrees, Orders,
Mortgages, Deeds, Leases,
Checks, Notes, Drafts, Bonds,
Cards, Labels, Letter Headings,
Bills of Lading, Bill Heads,
Insurance Policies, Circulars,
Receipts, Hand-bills, etc., etc.,
Printed upon the shortest notice.
THOMAo L. MclXTOSH lute head o! tne Book
and
Newspaperis department
of the Lakeside
J"11:"
ing Company,
the sujieriutendent
of our Print
ing Department.
McHUQH,
Attorney, S. E.P. cor.
Randolph & Canal.
Estate
of
august
deceased.--*^tice is hereby given to jeske,
all persons
having clal!fr
and demands against the estate of August *esjte'ie.
ceased, to present the same for adjudication ana 3<. " ,.
ment at toa regular
term
ot the
County
county,
be holden
at the
Court
House,Court
in tuootcm
Chicago, on the lirst Monday of March, A. D. ISA
ing theANDREW
4th day thereof
. . , .nr
ENZENBACKER, Administrator.
P. McHuoil, Attorney.
9-U
Chicago, December 8, A. D. 187L
SMITH
&
KOHLSAAT,
Attorneys, No. 62 South Canal ot.
ivestate of cornelius f. backus, jjjj
a
ceased.Notice
is hereby
given
all r*-oi ^r.
having
claims and demands
against
the toestate
nelins
F.
Backus
deceased
;
to
present
the
... a., toregular
r.m,iar
tprmsamsioio .
adjudication and
at
term
ofsettlement
Cook county,
be holden
.,
_a
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first i
day of February, A. 1). KTi. I'finn tho fifth da)
of."Chicago, Nov. 2tth, A.EMILY
. , .rlx
D. 1671.BACKUS,
Administrat"^
Smith 4 Kohlsaat, Attorneys.

Chicago
JONES & GARDNER,
Attorneys, 104 West Madison St.
TRUSTEE'S
SALEWhereas,
the twenty-fifth
day of October,
lf*7o, Anion F. on
Tompkins
executed
to the undersigned, his truHt deed of that date, of the
real estate hereinafter described, which was recorded
on the sixth day of December, ISTo, in the recorder's
office of Cook county, Illinois, in book 575 of deeds, at
page 174, which trust deed was given to secure two
promissory notes of said Tompkins, of even date with
said trust deed, payable to the order of Joseph Harris,
each for the sum of thirty-seven hundred and fifty dol
lars, with interest thereon at eight per cent, per an
num, payable seini-annuiilly, said notes being payable
respectively in one and two years after date, and being
for part of the purchase money of the premises in said
trust deed described; and, whereas, default has been
made in the payment of the interest due on said notes
for the six months ending on tins tweiily-tifth day of
October, 1*71, and in the payment of the note first due.
except the sum of four hundred dollars, puid and en
dorsed upon
saidnote;
unto and,
as ofwhereas,
its date, the
to apply
the
principal
of said
legal on
holder
of
bus requested
undersigned
to make
Balesaidof notes
said real
estate, as the
authorized
by said
trust
deed, to pay said notes and interest: Now, therefore. !
notice
is hereby
given,given
that by
under
virtueand
of the
power and
authority
saidand
trustbydeed,
fur
the purpose of paying the notes and interest aforesaid,
and
on
the
thirteenth
day
of
January,
1-ST2.
at
ten
o'clock in the forenoon of that day. at the premises in
aaid trust deed described, (being also known as No. 447 |
West
Washington
the citytoofsell,
Chicago,
in i
the state
of Illinois,street,)
I shallin proceed
at public
auction, to the highest cash bidder therefor, the said ,
real nty-six
estate, (2ii;,
to wit:
the numbered
east half five
of lot
in block
(:>), innumbered
Malconi
McNeill's
subdivision
of
blocks
numbered
(6),
seven (7) and eight (st . in Wright's addition tosixCbicaIcago,. county of Cook and state of
fot in the city of Chic*,.
Llinois, and
all bvthesaidright,
onTeved
to me
trusttitle,
deed.interest in the same
Dated Dec. 7, H>71. GEO. GARDNER, Trustee.
Jones A Gardner. Att'ys.
9-13
theo. schintz,
Attorney, 122 West Randolph St.
CHANCERY
County, w. NOTICE.
Superior -State
Courtof of
CookIllinois,
County. Cook
Jannary
term,
A.
D.,
Iti72.
Clara
Brosche
v.
Carl Grosse.
In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Carl Grosse, de
fendant above named, having been filed in the office
of
the Clerk
of said
Superior
CourtCarlofGrosse
Cook County,
notice
is hereby
given
to the said
that the
complainant heretofore filed her petition to be ap
pointed
guardian
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued outside
of
said court against said defendant, returnable on the
first Monday of January next, 1*72, as Is by law re
quired.
Now, unless you, the said Carl Grosse shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior Courtof
Cook
on theinfirstsaiddaycounty,
of a term
thereof,
to be
holdenCounty,
at Chicago,
on the
first Mon
day
of
January,
1*72,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
the said complainant's petition, the same and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you i
according to the prayer of said petition.
AUGUSTUS
Theo. Sciiintz, Compl't's
Sol'r.JACOBSON, Clerk.
12-15

Legal

BURKE & ALLEN,

18 W. Randolph Street.
pHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois,
of
^ Conk, sb. Circuitcourt of Conk
county,County
August
Term, A.D. 1871. Timothy Lane vs. Sylpbyua J. Lane.
In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Sylphyna J. Lane, |
defendant
named,
having
filed comity,
in the office
of
the clerkabove
of said
Circuit
courtbwn
of Conk
no
tice is hereby given to the mud Sylphyna J. Lane that
the complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons
thereupon
Issued out
of said
against
said defendant,
returnable
mi the
thirdcourt
Monday
of
September next, U*7l,) us is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Sylphyna J. Lano, shall
personally be and appear before said Circuit court of
Conk
on thein first
day nf aonterm
thereof,Monday
to be
holdencouuty,
at Chicago,
said county,
tlie third
of September, l-*7t, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant * bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and tilings therein charged and stated, will bo
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according tu the prayer nf said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Bi'hke A Allen, Compl't's Sol'rs.
10-13
~" J. C. & J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
Attorneys, Kt3 West Washington, St.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
Circuit
nf Cook
county.Wirth
February
Term.Cook,
A.D.bs.1.-72.
Evancourt
Davis
vs. Emilie
and
Charles Wirth. In Chancery.
Affidavit that the defendants above named on due
inquiry cannot be found, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Emilie Wirth and
Charles Wirth that the complainant heretofore filed
his
bill
of complaiant
insummons
said court,
on theissued
chancery
side
thereof,
that asaid
thereupon
of said
court ami
against
defendants,
returnable out
on
the third Monday ofFebruary next, 0*72,) as is by law
required.
Now, unless you, the said Emilie Wirth and Charles
Wirth, shall personally be and appear before said Cir
cuit court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
thereof,
to be holden
at Chicago,
county,
on the
third Monday
of February,
ls"2, inandsaidplead,
answer
or
demur to the said complainant's bill of complaint, the
same,
and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated, will be taken a confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to the praver of said bill.
NORMAN T, GASSETTE, Clerk.
J, C. & J. J. Knickeuhocker, Compl't's SoPrs. U-12
A. B. BALDWIN,
Attorney, Room (>, Lino's Block.
instate
johngiven
b. gallagher,
deceased.
J Notice of
is hereby
to all persons having
claims
and demands against the estate of John B. Gallagher,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
and
set
tlement, at a regular term ofthe County Court of Cook
county, to he holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of February, A. D., 1*72,
being the fifth dav thereof.
SARAH A. GALLAGHER, Administratrix.
A.
B. Baldwin.
Att'y.
Chicago,
Nov. 27th.
1871.
fi-13 9-14
I"ESTATE OF HOMER HOPKINS, DECEASED.
j
Notico
is
hereby
given
to
all
persona
claims and demands against the estate of having
Homer
Hopkins,
deceeosed, atto present
sameoffortheadjudica
tion
and settlement
a regulartheterm
County
conrt of Cook county, to be holden at the court houso
in the city of Chicago, on the first Mondav of Febru
ary, A.D. 1*72, being the fifth dav thereof.
L. HOPKINS, Executrix.
Chicago. Dec. 12,KITTIE
A.D. 1871.
A. B. Baldwin, Att'y.
10-15
ELA ft PARKER,
Attorneys, 11 <> West Madison Street.
ClHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
Cook, bb.
Court M.of Cook
JanuT.
ary' Term,
A.D.Superior
1S72. Fanny
Bundycounty.
v. Oliver
Bundy,
Jr.In
Chancery.
Affidavit ofthe non-residence ofOliver T. Bundy. Jr.,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of
Clerk ofgiven
said tottie
Superior
county,
no
ticetheis hereby
paidCourt
OliverofT.Cook
Bundy,
Jr.. that
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
in said Court, on the chancery Bide thereof, and that a
summons
thereupon
issued out
of said
against
said
defendant,
returnable
on the
firstCourt
Monday
of
January next 0*72), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Oliver T. Bundy. Jr., shall
personally be and appear before said Superior Court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,
first Monday
of January,
JS72, andin said
plead,county,
answeronorthedemur
to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
ACUI'STIS
Ei.a A Parker, Compl't's
sol'r.JACOBSON, Clerk.
11-14

ESTATE OF AUGUST SCHILLER, DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demands
against
of August Schiller,
de
ceased,
to present
the the
sameestate
for adjudication
and settle
ment
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
Court
of
Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872, be
ing the 4th dav thereof.
MAGDELENA SCniLLER, Administratrix.
Theo.
Scmintz,
Attorney.
Chicago,
December
8, A. D. 1*71.
9-14a
ESTATE OF CHARLES It. HAECSSLER. Deceased.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims
and deceased,
demands toagainst
Haeussler,
presentthetheestate
sameofforCharles
adjudicaR.
tion
and
settlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
court
couuty, toonbetheholden
at the court
house
in
the ofcityCook
of Chicago,
first Monday
of Febru
ary, A.D. 1872, being the fifth dav thereof.
ANNA
HAEUSSLER,
Administratrix.
Chicago, Dec.
15. A.D.
W71.
Theo. Sciiintz, Att'y.
10-16a
JAMES B. BRADWELL & A. H. LAWRENCE,
Attorneys.
estate
enoch
Notlce isofhereby
givenh.to allstein,
personsdeceased.having claims
and demands against the estate of Enoch If. Stein
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term ot the County Court ofCook
county, to be holden at the Court Home, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of February, A. D. 1872,
being the fifth day thereof.
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
FANNIE
STEIN.
Attorney.
Administrators,WM.
withA.theBUTTERS.
will annexed. administratrix'
sale
real
estate.
James B. Bramvell & A. H. Lawrence,
By
virtue
of
an
and of
decree
ofthe
County
Attorneys for Estate. 9-14 Court of Cook county.order
Illinois, made on the petition of
Chicago, Dec. 7, A. D. IflTI.
the
undersigned,
Dorothea
Ringleb,
formerly
Dorothea
Medelman, administratrix ofthe estate of Friedrich
HIGH & TRUMAN,
Medclman, deceased, for leave to Bell the real estate ol
Attorneys, No. 487 Wabash Avenue. said
deceased, at the December term, A. D. 1871. of said
estate
of
eli
m.
skinner,
deceased.court,
toonwit.
on the the
sixth22dday
Notice
is
hereby
given
to
all
persons
having
claims
I
shall,
Monday,
dayofofDecember,
January, A.
A. D.
D. 1871,
1872,
and demands against the estate of Eli M. Skinner, de at 11 o'clock
a.
m\
sell
at
public
sale,
at
the
east
ceased, to present the Bame for adjudication and set of the Court House, on Clark street, in the city of door
Chi
tlement at a regular term of the County Court of Cook cago, in said Cook county, and State of Illinnis, the
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the City of real estate described aa follows, to wit: the northeast
Chicago, on the first Monday of February. A.D. 1872, quarter of the northeast quarter of section twentythree (2.1), in township thirty-six (?'>), range thirteen
being the fifth day thereof.
(i:t), east of the :id P. M., in the town of Bremen, in
BETSEY SKINNER,
Cook county, State of Illinois, containing forty acres,
JEREMIAH
S.
OXOUGH,
Chicago, Nov. 21, 1871.
Executors. on the following terms, to wit : cash on delivery of the
DOROTHEA RINGLEB,
Hioh k Truman. Attorneys.
7-12a deed.
Medelman.)
Administratrix of(Formerly
the estateDorothea
of Friedrich
Medelman,
BENTLET, BENNET, TILLMAN & IVES,
deceased.
Attorneys, No. 37(i Wabash Ave.
James
B.
Bradwell,
Att'y
for
Estate.
9-14
Publication notice in attachment
State of Illinois. Cook County, ss. Circuit Court
OF
FRIEDERICH
MEDELMAN,deceased.
of Cook County, February Term, A.D. 1*72. Willard INSTATE
J Public notice is hereby given to all persons having
B. John^n vs. John Spyker and Harm Van Spyker. claims
and demands against the estate of Friedericn
Public notice is hereby given to the said John Spy Medelman,
deceased, to present the same for adjudica
ker
and
Harm
Van
Spyker
that
a
writ
of
attachment
tion and settlement at a regular term of the Comity
issued out of the office of the clerk of the Circuitcourt court
of
Cook
county, to be holden at the court house
of Cook county, dated the first day of December, A.D. in the city of Chicago,
the thereof.
first Monday of January,
1871, at the
the estate
suit ofof the
Willard
Johnson,
and A.D. 1872, being the firstouday
against
Johnsaid
Spyker
andB.Harm
Van Spy
DOROTHEA
RINGLEB,
formerly
ker.
theofsum
of four
hundred
dollars, from
with interest
MEDELMAN,
Administratrix.
at theforrate
seven
per cent,
per annum
July 15, JamesDOROTHEA
B. Bradwell, Att'y for Estate.
1670,
directed
to
the
sheriff
of
Cook
county,
which
said
Chicago,
Nov.
18.
1871.
6-11
writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the Raid John Spyker
WM. LAW, Jr., ~
and
Harm
Van
Spyker.
shall
personally
be
and
appear
Attorney, 145 YV. Madison St.
before the said Circuit court of Cook county, on or be TO ALL
WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.-Public no
fore the first day of the next term thereof, to be holden
tice is hereby given that the undersigned, guardian
at the court house, in the city o. Chicago, on the third of the
estate
Wayne Wadhams, a minor, will make
Monday of February, A.D. 1872, give special bail and application toof the
Circuit court of Cook county, Illi
plead to the said plaintiff's action, judgment will bo
at the January term, A. D. 1*72, to be holden at
entered against you, and in favor of the said Willard nois,
the
court-house
(High
School
building),
B.
and tobosatisfy
much the
of the
attached
as Chicaso, county and State
aforesaid,
whichin the
saidcity
termof
mayJohnson,
he sufficient
saidproperty
judgment
and costs
commences on the third Monday of January, A. D.
will be sold to satisfy the same.
1*72, for
leave
to sell
real es
tfORMAN
GASSETTE,
to wit
; Lot
No. the
eightfollowing
(*), in thedescribed*
west two-thirds
Bentley, Bennet,
Uli.man T.& Ives,
Atty's. Clerk.9-12 tate,
Cfj)
of
block
two
(2)
of
canal
trustee's
subdivision
the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter ot secof
"VTOTICE OF RKSIGNATION.-Public Notice is tion
CVD, township thirty-nine ch), north
-L> hereby given that the undersigned will offer to rangethirty-three
fourteenState
(H),ofeast
oftheforthird
(3d) P. M.,
the Hon. County Court of Cook County on Monday, Cook
county.
the purpose
of inin
the fifth day ofFebruary, 1*72, being thefirst day ofthe vesting the proceeds ofIllinois,
such
property
in
such
manner
February Term, 1872. thereof, or as soon thereafter as
the court appointing the undersigned as such guar
counsel can be heard, his resignation as Guardian of as
dian shall direct, or for such other legal purpose as
Bertram, Adrian and Amy Dickens, minors.
said
Circuit court shall direct.
J. LINTON WATERS.
Dec. 23, 1871.
HENRY S. AUSTIN,
Chicago, December 27th, 1871.
11-Hp Wm.
Law, Jr., Att'y.
11-13
Guardian, etc.

News.

FRANCIS ROLLE,
Attorney, 30U Cly borne Avenue.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of
Cook, bs. Circuit Court of Cook county, February
term, A. 1).Chancery.
1872. William Meinkiug v. Anna Meinking.In
Affidavit
of
non-residence
of filed
AnnainMelnking,
defendant abovethenamed,
having been
the office
of
the
Clerk
of
said
Circuit
Court
of
Cook
county,that
no
tice is hereby given to the said Anna Meinkiug
complainant heretofore filed his certain bill of com
plaint
said Court,
on the chancery
sideofthereof,
and
that a insummons
thereupon
issued out
said Court
against said defendant, returnable ou the third Mon
day of February next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Anna Meinkiug, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit Court of
Cook county, on the firBt day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day of February, l>72, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same,
aud the
matter*
and thingsand
therein
charged
andagainst
stated,
as eonfessi'if,
a decree
entered
will
be taken
you according to the
prayer
of
said
bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Fraxcib Roli.k, Compl't's Sol'r.
11-11
G. J. DRESSER,
Attorney, 114 W. Madison St.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. January
Term, A.D. 1872. Sarah A. Burlingame vs. Lauriston
Burlingame. In Chancery.
Affidavit
of theabove
non-residence
of Lauriston
game,
defendant
named, having
been filedBurlin
in the
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook coun
ty, notice is hereby given to the said Lauriston Burlin
game that the
complainant
filedBide
herthereof,
bill of
complaint
in said
court, onheretofore
the chancery
and
that
a
summons
thereupon
issued
out
of
said
court
against said defendant, returnable ou the first Monday
of January next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now. unless you, the said Lauriston Burlingame,
shall
be audoh appear
Superior
court personally
of Cook county,
the first before
day of said
a term
there
of, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first
Monday of January, 1*72, and plead, answer or domur
to
complainant's
of complaint,
thestated,
same,
audthethesaid
matters
and thingsbill
therein
charged aud
will be taken as confessed, and a di-cree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
G. J. Dresser. Compl't's Sol'r.
10-13
"V"OTICE
IS
HEREBY
GIVEN
that
the
undersigned
J.1 will make application to the Honorable County
Court of ('ook Couuty on the first Monday of January,
1872, being the first day of the January term, 1872, of
said
court, relieved
or as soon
thereafter
as counse
can
becount)
heard,
theirRoxaua
liability
the
official
suretiestoonbe the
bond from
of Mrs.
W.asParmelee, guardian for Willard A. and Bertha Smith,
minors.
H. K. ESKINS.
C. II. BECKWITH,
Chicago, Nov. 23d 1871.
11-14
SAMUEL STRAUS,
Attorney, ~*Cv> M'atxuih Avenue,.
INSTATE OF FRiEDRICH JAHN, (alias) YAHN,
Xj deceased.
is hereby
to allofpersons
having
claims andNotice
demands
againstgiven
the estate
Friedereich
John
(alias
i
Yahn,
deceased;
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
and
settlement
at
a
regular
term of the County Court of Cook County, to behold
en at the Court Houe. in the city of Chicago, on the
first Monday of March, A. D. 1*72, being the tth dav
thereof.
BE ItTII A J AUN,
Chicago, December 2Mb, 1-71,
Administratrix.
"Samuel Straus, Atty.
11-lAa
MOORE & CAULFIELD,
Attornrys, 8. E. cor. State & Madison.
INSTATE OF MARY ANN TAYLOR, DECEASED.
j Public notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Mary Ann
Taylor,
deceased,attoa regular
present the
forCounty
adjudication
and settlement
termsame
of the
court
of Cook county, to be holden in the city of Chicago,
on the first Mondav of February next.
Chicago, Dec. 15, 1871.MARY BROWN, Executrix.
10-15
THOMAS E. TURNER,
Attorney, ear. Canal and Madi.ont.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois. County of
Cook, ss. Superior court of (.'ook county, To_ Ft
ruary term, A.D. 1872. Alida Bothwell v. JohnFebR.
Bothwcll. In Chancery.
Affidavitabove
of thenamed,
non-residence
defendant
having of
beenJohn
filedR.in Bothwell,
the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said John R. Bothwell
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against
said defendant,
on the
first Monday
of February
next, (1*72.)returnable
as is by law
required.
Now, unless you. the said John R. Bothwell, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook
on thein first
of a on
termthethereof,
to be
holdenconntyt
at Chicago,
said day
county,
firBt Monday
of February. 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
same,
and
matters and things therein charged and stated, willthe
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
Thor. E. Ti'itNEit, CouipPt's
Sol'r.JACOBSON, Clerk.
I2-15p
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney, 18 East Harrison St.
tn the district court of the united
L States, for the Northern District of Illinois.In
Bankruptcy.
In thebankrupts.
matter of Thomas
Rhodesgiven
and
Edward H. James,
Notice isT.hereby
that
a
third
general
meeting
ofthe
creditors
of
said
bankrupt will be held on the 2uth day of January, 1872,
at 2 o'clock, p. m., at No. 18 East Harrison street, in
the City
of purposes
Chicago, before
Esq., Regis
ter,
for the
named H.in N.theHibbaud,
28th section
ofthe
Bankrupt Act of March 2. 1867.
ROBERT
E.
JENKINS,
Assignee of said Bankrupts1 Estate.
Chicago, Dec. 22, 1871.
N.B. In the late fire all Proofs of Debt in the hands
ofthe Register and Assignee were destroyed. It will
be necessary for each Creditor to make another
proof. If one dividend low already been received in
the above case, another Proof will not be required, as
the Assignee has preserved all dividend orders, which
show the claims allowed.
ROBERT
E. JENKINS,
11-12
Assignee
of said Estate.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
States, for the Northern District of Illinois.In
Bankruptcy.In the matter of Thomas T. Rhodes and
Edward
H. James,
Thisasisassigneo
to give notice
that I have
filed myBankrupts.
final accounts
ofthe
estate of said bankrupts in said court, and that on
the 20th day of January. 1872, at 2 o'clock, p.m., I shall
apply to said court for the settlement of my said ac
counts ofand
forestate,
a discharge
from all liability
as As
signee
said
Bankruptwith
Act the
of provisions
March 2d,
of the 28th
section
ofintheaccordance
1867.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Assignee of said Estate,
WMl.'.lwL.I^Lw^WWIWIW^WlillHI
J. R.C-arroll
H0WLETT,
Lanarl\
Co., NOTARY
JUinoit, PUBLIC.
POLICE MAGISTRATE
AND
Has the same jurisdiction ae any Justice of the Peace.
Prompt attention given to collections and remittances.

87
SIDNEY THOMAS,
Attorney, Sio Harrison St.
rAHANCERY
NOTICE.State
of Illinois,
v Cook, ss. Superior
court of Cook
county.County
To Janof
uary Term. A.D. 1872. Charles A. Hawley vs. Caroline
Hawley.
Affidavit InofChancery.
the non-residence of Caroline Hawley,
defendant
named,
havingcourt
been filed
in thecounty,
office
of the clerkabove
of said
Superior
of Cook
notice is hereby given to the said Caroline Haw ley that
the complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Jan
uary
( 1872,you,
i as istheby said
law required.
Now,next.
unless
Caroline Hawley, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook counts on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden m Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of January, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
against you according
to the
of said bill.
Al'Gl
STiprayer
S JACOBSON,
Clerk.
Sidney Thomab, Compl't's Sol'r.
9-12
H. C. BENNETT,
Attorney's, 133 W. Madison St.
pHANCERY" NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
\y Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To Jan
uary Term. A.D. 1872, Ann Marshall rs. William
Marshall.In
Chancery.
Affidavit of the
non-residence of William Marshall,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said William Marshall
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against Bald defendant, returnable on the first Monday
ofNow,
January
nextyou,
(1673.)
is byWilliam
law required.
unless
theassaid
Marshall, shall
personally be and apper before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,
said answer
county, orondemur
the firstto Monday
of March,
1872, and inplead,
the said
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
matters and things therein charged and same,
stated,and
willthe
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
H. C. Bennett, Compl't's Sol'r.
9-12
DEANE & CAHILL,
Attorneys, Lino's Block.
pHANCERY NOTICE. - State of Illinois. Cook
County, sb. Superior Court of Cook county. De
cember term, A. 1) 1*71. Duane C. Galloway v. Rosa
Galloway.
Affidavit ofIntheChancery.
non-residence of Rosa Galloway, de
fendant above named, having been filed in the office of
the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Rosa Galloway that the
complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint in
said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said Court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of De
cember
next. 1*71,
required.
Now, unless
you.astheis by
saidlawRosa
Galloway shall per
sonally
be anilon appear
Superior
Court
of
Cook county,
the firstbefore
day ofsaid
a term
thereof,
to be
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
ou
the
first
Mon
day of December, 1871, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill ofcomplaint, the same, and
the matters and things ther in charged and stated. wiU
be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against'you
according to the prayer
of said billJACOBSON, Clerk.
AUGUSTUS
Dfanf. A Cahii.l Compl't's Sol'r.
10-13
SMALL & IN GALLS,
Attorneys.
ClHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
J
Cook,
ss.
Circuit
Court of Cook
ary Term, A. D. 1*72. Charles
Fargo,Connty.
Mary J. Febru
Fargo
and Henry S. Monroe v. Mary L. O'Connor, John
O'Connor, Jeremiah O'Connor, John Forsythe, Patrick
O'Neil, I*. H. Smith aud Mary L. O'Connor and Davis
J. Crocker, administrators, etc.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of John O'Connor, one
of
defendants
aboveofnamed,
liaving Court
been of
filedCook
in
thethe
office
of the Clerk
said Circuit
county,
notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
John
O'Con
nor that the complainants heretofore filed their bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
third Mon
against
said defendants,
returnable
day
of February
next (1872),
as is byonlawtherequired.
Now, unless you, the said John O'Connor, shall per
sonally
bo andon appear
Court
Cook county,
tlie firstbefore
day of said
a termCircuit
thereof,
to boof
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day of February, 1*72. and plead, answer or demur to
the
complainants'
ofcomplaint,
same,
and
the said
matters
and thingsbill
therein
chargedtheand
stated,
will
be
taken
as
confessed,and
adecree
entered
against
you according to the praver of said bill.
GASSETTE, Clerk.
Shall A Inoallb,NORMAN
Comprts1T.Sol'rs.
9-12
ClHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois,
J Cook, bb. Circuit
court of Cook
county. County
Februaryof
term, A.D. 1*72. Charles Fargo vs. Patrick O'Neil.
Marv L. O'Connor. Mary O'Connor, John O'Connor
and Jeremiah O'Connor.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of John O'Connor,
one of the defendants above named, having been filed
in
tne office
of isthehereby
clerk given
of saidtoCircuit
Cook
county,
notice
the saidcourt
JohnofO'Con
nor tnat the complainant heretofore filed his bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon Issued out ofsaid court
against
said defendants,
returnable
third Mon
day of February
next, (1*72.)
as is byonlawtherequired.
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
John
0
Connor,
per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit courtshall
of Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to bo holden
at Chicago, in said couuty, on the third Monday of
February, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the said
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
willyou
be
taken asand
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T, GASSETTE, Clerk.
Shall & Ingalls, Compl't's SoPrs.
9-12
R. BIDDLE ROBERTS,
Attorney, Room 7, 43 8. Canal St.
estate
john
Notice i6ofhereby
givenweishaar,
to all personsdeceased.having claims
and demands against the estate of John Weishaar, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term ofthe County Court of Cook
county, toonbethe
holden
the Court
House,A.iuD.the1872,
citybeof
Chicago,
first at
Monday
of March,
ing the fourth day thereof.
E. B. WEISHAAR,
R. BIDDLE ROBERTS.
Chicago, December 5, A. D. 1871. Administrators.
9-Hp
SAMUEL STRAUS,
Attorney, 5(12 Wabash Avenue.
t7state of gottlieb seber, deceased.t-i Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Gottlieb Seber, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment
termat the
ofthe
County
Cook
county,at toa regular
be holden
Court
House,Court
in theofcity
of
Chicago, on the first Monday of February, A. D. 1*72.
being the tth day thereof.
ELISABETHA
Samtfl Stbai
s. Attorney.SEBER, Administratrix.
Chicago, December 8, A.D. 1871.

88

Chicago

Legal

News.

ATTORNEYS.
ADVERTISEMENT.
STEVENS AND SONS,
GEORGE C. FRY,
{Laic STEVENS & NORTON,)
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
LAW BOOKSELLERS, PUBLISHERS
51 West Randolph Street, formerly 86 LaSalle Street,
Oucago.
A> l> EXPORTERS,
119 CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, STEVENS &HAYNES 8. A. GOODWIN.
E. C. I.AHNED.
H. 8. TOWLK.
{formerly of Bell Yard. Linmln's Inn.)
GOODWIN,
LARNED
&
TOWLE,
Law 3?t*t>lisli.ei"s,
Have on Bale the largest Stock in England of SEC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
OND-HAND LAW REPORTS and TEXT BOOKS, at
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
CURRENT MARKET PRICES, All books supplied
No. 376 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
by S. & Sons are Warranted Perfeet, in Good
Lilrrary Condition, and the lift Editions.
EDWARD O. HA80H.
CATALOGUES and ESTIMATES forwarded GRA AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS, JOHN MATTOCKS.
MATTOCKS & MASON,
TIS to any address by return of post.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
The following is a small selection of Law Rooks on
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
No. 523 Wabash Avenue. S. W. cor. Harmon Court,
ALFRED PAXSON.
sale,
sent
post
free
by
return
mail
for
cash
remitted
Chicago, IU.
Insurance Exchange Building. with order :
LONDON.
Barnwell
and
Alderson,
King's
Bench.
3
vols.
W. H. WING,
LOGANSPORT (IND.) ATTORNEYS.
1817-22
$ 10.00
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Barnwell and Adolphus, King's Bench. ."> vols
M. HOWARD,
IrtUKM.
12.00
Elgin, IU.
5-16* Beavan's Reports. 96 vols. 183K-65. - - 250.00
Attorney at Law.
5-16
Bingham, Common Pleas. H> vols. 1.S22-.T4. - 27.U0 Works in all Classes of Literature Collections promptly attended to.
Bingham, Common Pleas, New Series. 6 vols, 2o.no
_
ALEDOJILLO ATTORNEYS.
H5H-40. and
BATES & HODOES.
Carrington
irrington
i Kirwan, Nisi Prius, 3vols. 15.00
t MARTIN,
PEPPER. WILS
81IPPLIED TO ORDER.
1843-00.
ilding.
Room 2 Bai
Attorneys
at Law, 13 W. Madison St.
Carrington and Payne, Nisi Priiis. y vols. 40.00
Ift23-1Land Finnellv,
...
GEOBGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
Clark
House of Lords.
12 vols
1831f6.
Coke,
King's Bench.
6 roll. 1*26. 2 vols.
- 1830-32
- - 185.00
20.00
NEW LAW BOOKS.
Cromptonand
Jervis. Excheijuer.
7.00 Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
CHARLES J. BISHOP,
Croiupton
and
Mer-iou,
Exchequer.
1
vols.
Successor to J. Freeman Silke,
1**2-3*.
10.00
Orders
Promptly
Filled.
ACCOUNTANT AND EXPERT BOOK-KEEPER,
De Gex, Macnagliten, and Gordon. Chancery.
vols.andIHS3-6M.
- - -4 vols.- 1458-61.
- - 854060
00
122 W. Washington St.. Chicago, PI. 7-18p
Do8 Gex
Junes, Chancery.
Gex
and
Smale,
Chancery.
<2 vols
1*46-52.
328 00
00 The Trnilrm and Officer, of Public li
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
AMERICAN LEADING CASES. De
Dow
and
Chirk.
House
of
Lords.
vols
1S27-32.
Haggard, Consistory Reports. 2 vols 1822 - 6 no
braries
may
rely
upon
the
mwl
SHORT
-HAND WRITER,
I Fifth Edition.
Jacob,
Chancery.
vol 1S21-2.
- -3 vols- 3 00
careful attention to tlielr
Macmtghten
and 1 Gordon,
Chancery,
HWestc-n Union Telegraph O/ice, 554 Wabash Ave.
1849-31.
12 00
Being Select Decision* of American Court*, with Espe
McCleland,
Exchequer.
1 vol ]1*24.
- - 4 00
cial Reference to Mercantile Jxuv, with Notes.
McClehmd
and
Young,
00
Ridgway, Irish
Appeal Exch.
Cases. 3volvols1825,1784-90- 4800
The whole work has been thoroughly revised, and Simons,
V.
C.
Courts.
17
vols.
]32ft-4y.
50
00 liy importing DIRECT from England, a consider PROPOSALS FOR SUPPLIES.
largely increased by the introduction of several en Simons, New Series. 2 vols 1860-52. - -600
StatkokorClekk
Illinois,
CountyCourt,
or Cook, ~\V
Offick
of County
Simons and Stuart. 2 vols. 1822-26.
- - 500 able saving is effected, espaially in Uie Customs duty,
tirely new heads of practical interest, by
West,
House
of
Lords.
1
vol
1839-41
4
00
Chicago,
Dec.
28, 1871.)
from
which
Public
Institutions
in
Uic
United
States
are
Hon. J. I. C. HARE, and JNO. WM. WALLACE, Esq. Vounge and ColIyer, V. C. Courts. 2 vols 1.-41-3. 6 00
In pursuance of instructions from the Board ofCom
Youugeand Collyur, Exchequer in Equity. 4
In 2 Vols., octavo, of nearly 1,000 pages each.
missioners
of
Cook
County,
public
notice
is hereby
vols 1833-41.
00
Toonge,
Exchequer
InExchequer.
Squlty. 1 vol
1S33.1826-30- 121000
400
given that sealed proposals will bo received at this of
Vounge
and
Jervis,
3vols
Among the many subjects treated of and fully Illus ,ordnr.
fice up to and including January IS, 1S72, for furnish
ctcd by himI
St. I.ronard's Di-iiHioiiH (corrected
SUNDRY mistakes having been made ing Cook county witli all blank books, stationery,
trated in this edition, are :
Ki'lf.i
ami
Coed.I.
1 vol.
:; Drury'
Drury
self.
IWarren.
I*l*.T.-M. I Lloyd
mid
vols.
;
Drury,
1
vol.
;
Jones
and
Conveyances,
Voluntary
and Fraudulent.
by our Foreign and Colonial Correspond printing, etc., also all the wood, coal, meat, provisions,
Lntouche, :tonvols.the
; together,
vols( oniimiv
Slander and Libel,
including
the question of Mer A<lfllMon
groceries, dry goods, boots 'and shoes, clothing, medi
Law of
cantile Agencies.
ents in addressing their letters, we beg cines,
Sisth
Edtion.
By
Lewis
W.
Cave,
of
the
In
etc., needed for the Insane Asylum, and Poor
Infancy. of Payments.
ner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Medium 8vo.
Application
to notify that the members of our firm House, county Hospital, and county Agent, for one
Iriotf
;
cloth..
9
01
Bills
and
Notes.
this li by far the beet book upon
Form, Time and Mode of communicating Notice of the"AtLawpresent
are Henry G. Stevens and Robert W. year, ending Dec. 31, 1372: to be delivered at such
tin- Profession,
and at such times as the county may direct.
Dishonor.
and it is aofContract
thoroughlypossessed
practicalbybook.
The sub
Haynes, the son and stepson of the late places
Negotiability of Instruments, including the subject ject
By January 2, 1872, exhibits showing the quantity
is one upon which every solicitor if daily
OfPower
Couponof Bonds,
etc.
consulted
;
there
is
no
book
in
his
library
so
oft
Valentine
Stevens,
the
eminent
Law
and quality ofthe various articles needed by the coun
Partner
to bind the Firm.
en resorted
to as itthis.
Nor is itItself.
to theItshould
practi
Real Estateonehold
by a Commercial
Partnership.
Publisher. Since our father's death we ty, also where same are to be delivered, can be seen In
only that
recommends
Appointment of and Termination of Powers of tioner
ofthe County Clerk.
form
a
part
of
the
course
of
reading
by
every
Agent.
have continued to carry on the business theTheoffice
law Htudent. He should peruse it. pen in hand,
exhibits are prepared by the different depart
Principal and Factor.
and
extract
tinprinciples
set
forth
in
the
text
Domicile.
of Law Publishers, Booksellers and Export ments, and owing to the great variety of articles enu
for the purpose of committing them to memory.
Guaranty.
merated in the exhibits, they have been classified and
The statement that n new edition has
Antecedent Debt.
ers, at the above address.
appeared, carefully edited by Mr. Cave, suffices,
Discharge of Surety.
numbered, and it Is expected that the bids will not only
of itself, to secure for it a place in every law li
Revocation of Wills.
designate
the article, but the Dumber of exhibit and
During his recent visits to the United
brary."Xaw
Times,
May
ft,
18*9.
License.
Arnoold on the Law ofMurine Iiiiui article, so that confusion on opening ofbids maybe
Judgment of other States.
States
and
Canada,
Robert
W.
Haynes
Maclachane.Fourth
Edition.
By
David
Abandonment.
avoided. All bids not in conformity with foregoing
i.an, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols. Royal Svo.
ConstructiveInterest
and Total
Insurable
andLoss.
Forfeiture of Policy, etc., Hrooni
1872. Cloth.
- CommenlarlM
- 13 0 secured many Friends and Correspond Instructions will be rejected.
and
Hadler'n
All bidders wilt be required to enter into bond with
tc., etc.
ents; we are thus enabled to give refer two
upon Hie Lauii or England. By Hkksureties, to be approved by the County Clerk, in a
In 2 Vols., octavo. I.hw Sheep. 015.00.
hkrt BROOM, LL. D., of tile Inner Temple.
ences of the highest character in most sum sufficient to guarantee the faithful performance
Barrister-at-Law, Render in Common Law to
the Inns of Court ; and Edwakd A. Hadley,
of the contract, the county reserving the right to re
of the principal American cities.
M. A., of Lincoln's Inn. Barrister-at-law, late
ject '.11 bids if deemed expedient to do so.
Fellow oi Trinity College, Cambridge. 4 vols.
We
have
no
connection
whatever
with
Payments to be made promptly in casli immediately
18W. Cloth.and Hadley have been unspar 18 0
WALLACE JR., C. C. REPORTS, VOL. 3. 8vo.
any other house of business, and to pre after the bills shall have been audited by the Board.
ing*" Messrs
in theirBroom
editorial labors. There are abun
Cases In the Circuit Court of the United States, for dant
All
proposals to be addressed to the County Clerk of
reference notes, so that the diligent stu
vent delay and miscarriage, our Corre
tli-* Third Circuit (being Decisions of the late Judge dent can consult the authorities if he is so dis
Cook county, and endorsed
posed.
Besides
the
table
of
contents,
there
are
spondents
abroad
are
respectfully
re
Grier, IBM-tig), reported by Jno. Wm. Wallace, Esq., an appendix and a copious Index to each vol
" Proposals for Supplies," \
" Kxhit.it .... Number . . .
Vol.3. Price, $1.30.
ume. Nothing that could be done to make
quested to plainly address their letters
the work useful and handy has been left unJOHN G. OIKDELK,
done."Law
Journal,of
Nov.theI!', Laws
1889. of EsBfl*to us as follows :
County Clerk.
Cruise's Digest
JUST PUBLISHED BY
All weekly papers in the city (excepting those having
land.-Fourth
Edition.
By II.calf.II. White. 7 14 0
vols.
Royal
Bvo.
1835.
Half
daily issues) please insert once.
T. & J. W. Johnson & Co., Cummln'H Manuel ef Civil Law : con
STEVENS & HAYNES,
taining a Translation and Commentary on the
WAITS ft CLARKE,
Fragments
of
the
XII
Tables
and
the
Insti
Law Booksellers and Publishers,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
Attorneys, Van Buren. St. bet. Wabash and Mich. Ave.
tutes of Justinian : the Text of the Institutes
T^STAYE
OF
HARRIET
E. GARFIELD,
DEofOaius
and
Justinian
arranged
in
parallel
535 Chestnut-st.. Philadelphia, Pa.
I a claims
ceased.andNotice
is hereby
given
all persons
hav
columns; and the Text of the Fragments of
LONDON,
demands
agaust
thetoestate
of Harriet
ing
I'lpian
and
of
Selections
from
Paul's
Beceptsa
E.
Garfield
deceased,
to
present
the
Bame
for
adjudica
Sententiie. By Patrick Cumin, M. A., Baliol
ENGLAND. tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
College, Oxford. Barrister-at-Law. Second
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the court
Edition, enlarged.
Kto, 1865;
cloth. - The 4(
IT MEETS AX URGENT WANT;
house in he city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
Danlell's
Chancery
Praeliee.
March, A.D. 1872, being the 4th day thereof.
Practice of the High Court of Chancery, with
Extract
from
"
Report
of
Julius
Rosenthal,
Esq.,
Chicago, DecemberCHARLES
.1i>th, A. D..B.IsTi.
some Observations on the Pleadings in that
KING, Executor
Librarian to the President and Members of Waite & Clarke, Attys.
By the late Edmund Rohert Daniei.l,
BUSS ON LIFE INSURANCE. Court.
12-I7a
Barrister-at-Law. Fifth Edition; with Refer
the
Chicago
Law
Institute,"
November,
1870.
ences to a companion volume of Forms and
A. W. ENOS,
Precedents. By Leonard Field and Edward
A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF LIFE INSUR
"
To
our
collection
of
English
Reports
a
valuable
Room fi, Lind'x Block,
Clensell Dunn, Barristers-at-Law, with the
addition has been made by the Importation of a EST\TEAttorney,
OF JAMES
DECEASED,
ANCE, WITH CHAPTERS ON ACCIDENT AND assistance ofJohn Diddle, oftheMasterofthe
Public notice
is herebyO'MALLEY,
given to all persons
having
Rolls"
Chambers.
2
vols.
Svo;
cloth.
IS71.
20
1
full
and
well
preserved
set
of
the
House
of
Lords
claims and demands against the estate of James
GUARANTEE INSURANCE. BY GEORGE Flslier's Digest ofine Reported Cases
Cases, Including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58 o'Malley, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
determined in the House of Lords and Privy
tion
settlement
at a toregular
term of
Council, and in the Courts of Common Law,
BLISS, Jr., Counselor-at-Law.
volumes.
Courtand
of Cook
County,
be holden
at the
thet.ounty
Court
Divorce,
Admiralty
and Bankrupt
" English books were imported directly free of House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday oi
cy,
from Probate,
Michaelmas
Term, 17'*>.
to Hilary
3~ THE PRESENT WORK HAS BEEN PRE
March, A.D. 1372, being the 4th day thereof..
Term, W70; with References to the Statutes
duty,
and
their
purchase
was
attended
to
by
the
PARED BY A LAWYER OK NEARLY TWENTY and
Rules of Court. Founded on the Analyt
3Uth. A.O'MALLEY,
D. 1*71. Administratrix.
.
firm of Stevens and Haynes In London, whose Chicago, Dec. ANN
ical Digest by Harrison, and adapted to the
YEARS' STANDING AT THE NEW YORK BAR, {resent
A. W. Exoa, Atty.
12-1 ' P
practice
ofthe
Law.
By
It.
A.
Fisher,
diligence,
promptness,
and
care
in
filling
our
or
of tlie Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law.
and is the direct outgrowth of his own professional 5 isu.)
large volumes,Mlilpplna;
royal Svo. ; cloth,
- 75 ' ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
HAMMER & SMITH,
Law manual.
practice. The author refers to all the decioions contain Oreenhow'N
Attys. Hammer & Smith's Bl'k, Room 1.
A
concise
Treatise
on
the
Law
governing
the
rjHAKCEBY
NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of
ed in the English and American Reportsas well as to Interests of Ship Owners, Merchants, Masters,
State
of
Illinois,
Cook
CHANCERY
v Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
and other persons connected with
.uirt of Cook couni
county, ss. NOTICE
Superior Court
county,. . Jeb- January
many unpublished decisionsAnd has covered the Seamen,
term, A.D. 1872. George W. Bower v. Lydia
British ships, together with the Actsof Parlia
Thomas
Hatton
v.
Sarah
ruary
term,
A.
D.,
1872.
ment, Forms, and Precedents relative to the
whole Subject of Life Insurance Law in a manner subject,
Hatton.
... Bower.In
Affidavit ofChancery.
the non-residence of Lydia Bower, debeing specially intended for popular
AffidavitIn ofChanc
the rynon-real,. tun of_ _Sar.vh. .Hatton
rendant above named, having been filed in the office of
useGBEERhow,
in Seaportofthe
Towns.
By
William
Thomas
which will satisfy the profession.
defendant
above
named
'

ing
been
filed
in
the
office
the
clerk
of
said
Superior
courtLydia
of Cook
county,
Middle
Temple,
Esq.,
Barofthe
Clerk
of
Baid
Sup
-nor
Court
ol
Cook
county,
tice is hereby given
to the said
Bower
that no
the
Blian on .Life Iiuarance is issued in a hand
risterat-)aw. In 1 vol. dro. ; cloth. 1862. - ftOO notice is hereby given to nor
the
said
Sarah
Hatton
that
thei

complainant
heretofore
filed
his
bill
of
complaint
we are not greatly mistaken, this work
the complainant heretofore filed his lull of complaint said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that iua
some volume, of nearly 800 pages, printed in the bent will"Ifsupersede
all
others
on
the
subject
of
mer
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
and
that
thereupon issued out of said court agafnst
marine law. It contains everytiling
a summons thereupon issued out of said Court against summons
style, on thick paper, bound in the best law sheep. cantile
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday o?Jan
that can possibly interest parties engaged in
said dcfendanl, returnable on the first Monday of uary
next
(1872), as the
is bysaid
law required.
Price $7.00. Sent by mail orjexpress, prepaid, upon re any way with snipping."LtrerpooJ Journal.
February
next.
1872,
as
is
by
law
required
Now, unless
Lydia Bower,
shall perof
Now unlcBS you, the said Sarah Hatton, shall sonally
be andonyou,
appear
before
Superior
S. & S. would draw attention to the facilities offered personally
ceipt of price.
be and appear before said Superior Court Cook county,
the
first
day of said
a term
thereof,court
to be
Cook
county,
on
tho
first
day
ol
a
term
thereof,
to
by the recent introduction of the money order system oi
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
first
be hold at Chicago, ii said county, on the first Slon- of January, 1872, and plead, answer or demurMonday
BAKER, VOOBHIS < Co.,
to
the
day
of February,
1S72, and
answertheorsame,
demurand
to said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
for transmission ofremittances to England.
the said
complainant's
bill otplead,
complaint,
the matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
LAW PUBLISHERS,
the matters and things therein charged and stated, will
be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against against
you according
to the praver
of the bill.Clerk.
60 Nassau St., N* Y. STEVENS & SONS,
'1 119 Chancery Lane, you according to the flfi"**}^ (,.rk,
AUGUSTUS
'JAC0BS0N,
11-14
*9* SOLD BY ALL LAW BOOKSELLERS.
Hahhrr
A
Smith,
Comp'fs
Sol'rs.
LONDON.
Newell Pratt, Oompl't's Sol'r.
12-15

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
J. SEYBOLD, 197 Wabash avenue : residence
F 140 South Green street.
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
SANFORD, E. Special attention given to Col
14*
lections and Real Estate^
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
ERNDON & ORENDORK,
Office west side square. 27*
H
ST. LOUIS (MO.) ATTORNEYS.
r. COLBY,Counsolor-at-Law, St. Louis.
.
Mo.

Qhicago

Jegal

^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 13.

Ebt Courts.
K S. DISTRICT COURT, E. D. OF
MICHIGAN.
The General Cass. Jn Admiralty.
Saginaw River, in the State of Michigan is pub
lic navigable water and within the admiralty Juris
diction of the District Court.
A vessel whose business or employment ap
pertains to travel or trade and commerce upon
the water is subject to admiraltyjurisdiction what
ever may be its size, form, capacity or means of
propulsion.
A lighter having no propelling power of its
own, and employed In Moating lumber over a bar
at the mouth of "a river to vessels lying at anchor
may be proceeded against in admiralty.
Admiralty jurisdiction is exercised by virtue
of the Constitution and the judiciary act of 1789
and independently of the navigation laws of Con
gress. It therefore lias no regard to registry or
enrolment and license.
A lien attaches for towage services performed
at the home port for the benefit of a vsssel en
gaged In the internal commerce of a State.
Libel for Towage, by George P. Feleher, owner of the tugs Challenge and Kate
Felcher.
The third article of the answer of
"William Mitchell, claimant and owner
of the scow, alleges, " That the said scow
is a mere float or lighter, has no means
of propelling, neither sails, anchors nor
chains, has never been enrolled or li
censed, and is employed solely in the
navigation of the Saginaw river to float
lumber thereon over the bar and shal
lows in tow of tugs and steamers," and
the jurisdiction of the court is therefore
denied.
Libellant excepts to the said third ar
ticle and moves to expunge the same.
Hearing upon the exception and mo
tion.
Mr. H. B. Brown, (Newberry, Pond
and Brown,) for libellant.
Mr. Wm. A. Moore, (Moore and Grif
fin), for respondent.
Lokgyear, J. The question of juris
diction raised by the third article of the
answer, is :
1. As to the waters upon which the
service was rendered, the Saginaw river
being a tributary merely, emptying into
the lakes but constituting no part of
them, or of their connecting waters.
2. As to the character of the craft, the
same being a mere float or lighter, with
no means ofpropulsion of its own, etc.
3. As to the necessity of enrollment
and license in order to bring a vessel
under the admiralty jurisdiction of this
court.
First. Since tide water has been ig
nored as the test of admiralty jurisdic
tion under the constitution and the ju
diciary act of 1789. The act of 1845 pur
porting to extend a limited jurisdiction
in admiralty over the lakes and their
connecting waters, no longer has any in
fluence in determining the extent of ad
miralty jurisdiction over the northern
and northwestesn lakes and rivers. The
test of such jurisdiction as to the waters
over which it extends, now is, that they
are public navigable waters. (The Gen
esee Chief, 12 How., 443 ; The Eagle, 8
Wall, 20 ; 2 Chicago Legal News, 105.)
Those waters are navigable in law
which are navigable in fact, and they
are public, navigable waters in fact when
they ar<i used or are susceptible of being
used in their ordinary condition, as
highways for commerce, over which
trade and travel are or may be conducted
in the customary modes of trade and
travel on water. (The Daniel Ball, 10
Wall, 557.)
That Saginaw river, from Saginaw City
to its mouth, upon which the towage
services are claimed to have been ren
dered, fully answers to the description
above given, there is and can be no dis
pute. It is therefore public navigable
water, and is clearly within the admiral
ty jurisdiction of this court.
" Second. I think the true criterion by
which to determine whether any water
craft, or vessel, is subject to admiralty
jurisdiction, is the business or employ
ment for which it is intended, or is sus
ceptible of being used, or in which it is

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, JANUARY 6, 1872.

actually engaged, rather than its size, sails, or of its being the mere invention
form or capacity, or means of propulsion. of man, to take the place of the free
(The Kate Treniain, N. Y. Transcript, winds of Heaven.
Mar. 30, 1871 ; S. C, 4 Am. L. T., 92 ; 1
The use of steam upon the water soon
Conk. Adm., 2730; Ben. Adm., Sees. wrought other innovations upon ancient
217221.)
use ; among which was the use of vessels
A similar test is to be applied here to commonly called barges, with no propel
that above applied in determining the ling power of their own neither the
extent of admiralty jurisdiction over the traditional masts and sails nor steam
waters upon which such vessels are used. having capacity merely, and none of the
If the business or employment of such means of navigation except the ordinary
vessels appertain to travel, or trade and steering apparatus, depending for loco
commerce on the water, it is sufficient, motion upon steam power, it is true, but
and the jurisdiction attaches. This test applied by means entirely outside them
is based upon principle, while any test selves. Commerce upon the lakes and
based upon size, form, capacity or means rivers of this country is now largely
of propulsion must, from the nature of carried on in this class of vessels, and ft
the case, be entirely arbitrary. The is perhaps safe to assume that nearly oneformer is also certain and reasonably half the vast carrying trade in iron, cop
well defined, and hence, if generally per, and lumber upon the great lakes
adopted, must have the same application and their tributaries, is now carried on
everywhere, while the latter admits of in them; and they are rapidly increasing
no well defined line of distinction, and, in numbers and capacity.
being arbitrary in its application, would
This character of craft was also a
be subject to the mere caprice of the dif stranger
the maritime family, and at
ferent judges by whom it should be ap first was in
also looked upon with distrust
plied.
the admiralty courts. But so prom
The lumber of the Saginaw Valley, as by
inent a place do these vessels now oc
an article of commerce, passing down cupy,
that like their progenitor, the
and out of the Saginaw river on its way
of which they are in fact, a
to the lumber marts of other States and steamboat,
mere excresence, they too must be, as
countries, constitutes one of the greatest thev
already in fact have been, taken in
interests of its kind in the world, and in and" domesticated
in the admiralty fold.
its transportation employs vessels of all And this jurisdiction
is maintainable on
sizes, forms and capacities, and all kinds principle, as well as
from necessity.
of propelling power, from the insignifi There is certainly no reason
why it is
cant scow, like the one here in question, not navigation all the same, whether
to the largest sized vessels and steamers vessel is propelled by a steam enginea
that float the lakes. The business and placed within her hull, or by the same
employment of each, irrespective of the
by means of a tow line. It is, in
accidents of size, form, capacity or pro engine
fact, one of the revolutions wrought by
pelling power, appertains equally to the.
use of steam, that it has abolished all
trade and commerce, and all are i here- distinctions
as to propelling power in
fore equally subject to the jurisdiction determining admiralty
jurisdiction.
of this court.
But
these
barges
and
scows upon
The largest sized vessels cannot pass Saginaw river, of which the
the
one
here in
out of Saginaw river with full loads on question is a sample, are equally
account of a bar or shoal at the mouth, gaged in a business or employment en
where it empties into Saginaw Bay. pertaining to commerce, and each apis
Such vessels, consequently, after taking equally dependent upon the same
on part of a cargo in the river, pass out
of locomotion. The service ren
over the bar and then complete their means
dered
each does not differ one iota
loading from these scows or lighters, in kind,bybut
only in degree or extent.
upon which it is brought to them. These The service being
as we have
lighters seldom belong to the vessels, seen, no criterion ofmaritime,
jurisdiction founded
but generally to either the lumber deal upon the mere accident
of the degree or
ers upon the river, orwhich is more extent of it can be recognized.
No such
often the case, and is understood to be line can be drawn without legislation,
the case here to persons who own however desirable it may be to rid the
neither vessel nor lumber, but who
of cases involving small amounts
make this species of transportaton their court
and concerning petty crafts. Hence, if
principal or sole business. They have jurisdiction
denied as to the scows, it
no propelling power of their own, but must be as toisthe
barges, and being rec
depend entirely upon being towed to ognized as to the latter,
we have seen
and from by tugs and steamers. The it is, it must be as to theasformer.
business and employment, therefore, of
Another consideration upon which
these scows, consisting as it does, in the
transportation of lumber, an article of some emphasis may be laid, arises out of
commerce, a part of the way on its road the fact that water craft of the descrip
to market, by water, clearly appertains tion here under consideration are rec
to trade and commerce, and thus far, at ognized by necessary implicat ion, as ves
least, they are clearly within the juris sels by, and as such subject to the navi
diction. But it is said that because they gation laws of Congress.
By the act of July 29, in 1846, (9 Stat.
have no propelling power of their own,
they are not themselves engaged in nav 38) "Canal boats without masU or steam
igation, and are therefore not within the I power," are expressly exempted from
jurisdiction. I do not think this proposi payment of the hospital tax required of
registered, or enrolled and licensed ves
tion a sound one, for various reasons.
The application of steam to navigation sels, and also from liability to attachment
has upset many of the old theories upon for seamen's wages. If such boats,
which admiralty jurisdiction was based, "without masts or steam power," were
and materially modified others. Before not included in the general provisions
this event, commerce upon the water de of law requiring the tax or of the mari
pended almost exclusively upon the time law making them subject to attach
utilization of the wind, by means of ment, what was the necessity of the ex
masts and sails. When this steam emption ?
By sec. 1, of the act of March 2. 1831,
power made its advent upon the water
it was as a stranger thrust in upon the (4 Stat., 487,) " Any craft, flat, boat or vessel
maritime family, and the admiralty of the United States, entering otherwise
courts looked at it askance, and hardly than by sea, at any port of the United
knew where to place it, or whether to States on the rivers and lakes on the
recognize it at all. But so rapidly did it western, northeastern and northwestern
gain in favor and so soon did it obtain a frontiers," are expressly exempted from
commanding position in the commerce levy of custom house fees from and after
of the world, that it was speedily taken a certain, then future date. If such craft
in and domesticated in the admiralty were not subject to such levy under the
fold, without further question, let or general laws in relation to vessels, then
hinderance, on account of its not being certainly there was no necessity for the
graced with the traditional masts and exemption, or at all events there would

Whole No. 171.

have been no sense in postponing such
exemption to a future day.
So, too, by a provision at the end of
the liability limitation act of March 3,
1851, (9 Stat., 636,) it is enacted that "this
act shall not apply to the owner or own
ers of any canal boat, barge or lighter, or
to any vessel of any description what
soever used in rivers or inland naviga
tion." Now, the general terms used
throughout the act are, "ship or vessel."
Here is a clear implication, therefore,
that Congress understood " ship or ves
sel" to include the craft named in the
proviso.
See also section 47 of the act of Feb
ruary 28, 1871, to "provide for the better
security of life on board of vessels," etc,,
(16 Stat., 454,) in the provisions of which
water craft of the kind here under con
sideration are expressly included. (See
also Gibbons vs. Ogdenj 9 Whea., 1 ; The
Kate Tremain above cited ; Ben. Adm.,
sees. 219, 220.)
I am aware that there has been some
wavering on the part of the courts upon
this question, and the court was cited to
several decisions, especially in the cases
of the Coal Barges (393,"4), and The
Farmer, ( Gilpin, 524 ), seeming to
bear against the conclusions above ar
rived at. In the case of the coal barges,
it is to be observed that the things which
were called "barges" were mere tempo
rary boxes, in which coal was to be trans
ported to its destination, and then to be
broken up and sold for lumber. They
were to all intents and purposes like
the bales or boxes in which goods,
wares and merchandise are ordina
rily transported, the only difference
being" in <-thjr mode in which the
boxes were carried, being towed
through the water by the vessel in
stead of being placed upon it. A very
different case from the present. And
in the case of the Farmer, it appears
that the learned Judge had announced
his decision before he wrote his opinion,
and from his acknowledged inability to
draw a line upon which to base his de
cision, and from the dissatisfaction ex
pressed by him as to his conclusions, one
can hardly read the opinion without
coming to the conclusion that if the
opinion had been written first, the de
cision would have been the reverse of
what it was. (See 1 Conk. Adm., 289.)
Numerous cases might be cited in
which the jurisdiction has been main
tained in cases in many respects similar
to this one. (See, especially, The D. C.
Salsbury ; The Flora, 3 Chicago Legal
News, 130; The Canton, 1 Spr., 439.) I
think the weight of the argument is en
tirely with this latter class of cases.
Third. Admiralty jurisdiction exists
and is exercised in the United States, un
der and by virtue of the Constitution and
the judiciary act of 1789, and indepen
dently of the navigation laws of Con
gress. It therefore has no regard to
registry, or enrollment and license.
The notion that upon the lakes and
rivers the jurisdiction depended upon
registry or enrollment and license, was
derived entirely from the provisions of
the act of 1845, by which the jurisdic
tion was expressly limited to vessels of
that character, and the clause of section
9 of the act of 1789 relating to "seizures
under the laws of impost, navigation and
trade ofthe United States," both of which
the said act of 1845, and the said seizure
clause, are now obsolete. (The Genesee
Chief. 11 How, 458 ; The Coal Barges,
3 Law Reg, 393-1. The Flora, 3 Chicago
Legal News, 130;".The Eagle, 8 Wall, 15 ;
2 Chicago Legal News, 105.)
It is therefore a matter of indifference
whether the scow in this case was enroll
ed and licensed or not, so far as the ques
tion of the jurisdiction here invoked is
concerned.
Another question was raised and dis
cussed at the hearing, which although not
involved in the exceptions and motion,
yet for the purpose of disposing ofall pre

9
liminary questions, will now be consid
ered.
The learned advocate for the respon
dent contends that the towage services
having been rendered in the home port
of the vessel she not then being engaged
in a voyage to a foreign port or to a port
in another State,nolien attaches, and that
therefore this court has no jurisdiction in
rem.
I do not consider the position a sound
one. So complete seems to have been the
acquiescense of the bar in the doctrine
that a lien for towage does attach under
such circumstances, that the question does
not appear to have been raised, or if rais
ed that t he decision of it does not seem
to have been considered of sufficient im
portance to be reported. It has been as
sumed, however, by high authority that
such lien does attach. (See 1 Conk. Adm.
28 note ; the Sarah Jane, 2 Law Rev., 455 ;
the Kate Tremain, X. Y. Trans. Mar. 30.
1871, p. 3 ; S. C. Am. L. T. 96.)
The inclination ofthe courts is not to cir
cumscribe the class of maritime contracts
on account of which a lien shall be held
to attach but rather to enlarge it. It is
now well settled that a lien attaches for
contracts in the home port, of allVeightment, for pilotage, for seamen's wages,
and for wharfage, and why not for towage ?
It has the same elementsas the other, and
the same tests are applicable to itit is
to be performed on maritime waters, and
in relation to a business appertaining to
trade and commerce. (The Canton, 1 Spr.,
439; De Lovio vs. Boil., 2 Gal. 408; The
Belfast, 7 Wall, 024-637; N. E. Mu. Ins.
Co., vs. Dunham, 3 Chicago LegalNews,
257-8.)
But, it is said, no lien attaches by the
maritime law to contracts for supplies and
repairs furnished in the home port, and it
is aaked,why should it attach to the con
tract for towage made in the home port.
The question is a pertinent one; but it may
be asked as well in regard to the contracts
of affreightment for pilotage and for sea
men's wages. The answer to the question
must be that there is no reason for the
discrimination. But I think that answer
furnishes an argument rather in favor of
abolishing that unjust discrimination
against contracts for supplies and repairs,
than for extending it tovjther subjects ;
and I expect, at no distant day, to see it
wiped out by act ofCongress or otherwise.
It is also said the amount involved is
small, and the vessel is a pettv craft, and
if this jurisdiction is entertained it will
bring upon the court a flood ofpetty cases.
I do not apprehend any serious embar
rassment from this source. Nevertheless
the full and complete answer to the sug
gestion is, as has been already intimated,
that no line can be drawn defining just
where jurisdiction shall begin and just
where itshallendin respect to thematters
named, without legislation.
The exception to the third article ofthe
answer is sustained, and the motion to
expunge the same is granted.
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY.
Opinion Delivered January, 4, 1872.
In the matter of;AMANDA B. Thompson. Hatieas
Corpus,
1. Acts of Officer de facto.That when a per
son exercises the duty of an officer, performing
the functions by color of office, he is an officer de
facto, and his right to the office cannot be ques
tioned collaterally.
2. That the petitioner having been committed
by Summerfleld, who was acting as a justice of
the peace, under color of office, the court refused
upon habeas corpus to determine the right to hold
that office, held the commitment not void and re
manded the prisoner.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the court by Rogers, J.
It appears by the petition for the writ
of habeas corpus filed by Amanda B.
Thompson, the return of sheriff to said
writ, and the copy of the mittimus under
which she was committed, that said pe
titioner was examined before John Sum
merfleld, acting as police magistrate,
upon a charge of larceny ; that she was
found guilty of the charge and held to
answer in the Criminal court, and, fail
ing to give bail, was committed to the
custody of the sheriff, by whom she is
detained in jail. Her discharge is sought
upon the alleged ground that Summerfield, at the time he examined the charge
and issued the mittimus, was not a jus
tice of the peace of Cook county. It
was agreed upon the hearing that Sum
merfleld was regularly elected and com
missioned police magistrate of the city
of Chicago some years ago ; that he was
not appointed a justice of the peace by
the Governor, under the Constitution,
and that at the general election, duly

Chicago

Legal

called and held in November, 1871, he

was elected a police magistrate for the
city of Chicago, took the oath of office
and gave bonds as such, but that the
Governor of the State has failed to issue
a commission to him as such police mag
istrate, and that the Common Council of
the city has designated him to act as
police magistrate for the south division
of the city.
It also appeared that he was acting in
that capacity at the time he issued the
mittimus, under which the petitioner is
held, although he signed it as "John
Summerfield, Justice of the Peace."
The question as to his right to the of
fice, whether he held an office dejure,
was the only one discussed by the learn
ed gentlemen appearing for and against
the petitioner, and seemed to be the
only one upon which a decision by the
court was desired. But in the view of
the case taken by me, I do not feel that
it is either right or proper that I should
undertake to decide that question. It is
not necessary to the disposition of the
case, and, as such a decision would not
settle the disputed right to the office, I
do not feel inclined to investigate it fully
or declare my opinion upon it.
There is more than one legal proceed
ing by which it can be finally and fully
detennined whether Summerlield is by
legal right a police magistrate or justice
of the peace. This proceeding is not one
of them.
John Summerfield, as it appeared by
the agreed statement of the facts, down
to the election held last November, a
police magistrate of this city, duly elected
and commissioned, was, at that election,
voted for and declared elected for an
other term, executed bond as such, took
the oath of office, and was subsequently
designated by the Common Council of
the city to act as police magistrate. He
acted in that capacity, professing to be
such officer.
It has often been held by the courts
of last resort, in several of the States,
and expressly so by the Supreme court
of this State, that when a person exer
cises the duties of an officer, performing
the functions by color of office, he is an
officer de facto, and his right to the office
cannot be questioned collaterally. Se#
Town of Lewiston v. Proctor, 23 Ills'. 534.
Also, the People on the relation of
Martin Ballou v. Mark Bangs, 24 Ills.,
184, in which it was decided that, al
though Judge Bangs was not Judge of
the Circuit court, dejurehis election
not being authorized by the constitu
tion, and therefore voidyet he had
color of office, and, acting as he did, un
der that color, his acts were valid.
The court, however, decided that he
did not hold the office of Judge de jure,
and ousted him. This was a proceeding
to determine who was really and legally
the Judge, and if it is desired to test the
same question so far as John Summerfield is concerned, the way is oj en and
clear.
In Maynard's case, 14 Ills., 419 the Su
preme court decided that holding office
under an old law, which did not
make him a Justice of the Peace, could
not be such Justice under the then new
constitution. That was a direct pro
ceeding to test the question of right,
and the court held that he w as not a
Justice of the Peace dejure. "But," says
the court, in referring to this Maynard
case, when deciding the Proctor case,
supra, "had he assumed to act under his
commission as a justice of the peace, it
by no means foilows that we should
have held his acts void."
These authorities are conclusive of
the question presented here. I am
bound by them, and whatever opinion I
may entertain upon the right of Sum
merfield to the office, I am decidedly of
opinion that his act under color of office
in committing the petitioner was not
void. Let the petitioner be remanded
to the sheriff, to be held in custody un
der the mittimus issued by Summerfield.
SUPREME CO URT OF PENNSYL
VANIA.
May Term, 1871.
Pou.Y Bochek et al. v. Cyrus Ream, Assignee of
Jacob Bucher.
Error to the Common 11ea% of Lancaster County.
When the wife has no separate estate, she can
acquire no separate property with her earnings
during coverture.
Opinion by Williams, J., Oct. 9, 1871.
This case was well tried in the court
below. The evidence complained of was

News.

profusely received. It tended to showthat the property in controversy belonged

to the husband and not to the wife.
And the court rightfully refused to sub
mit the question of the wife's ownership
to the jury. There was no sufficient
evidence that any portion of the prop
erty levied on was paid for with the
funds, or consisted of the products of
her separate estate. On the contrary
the evidence showed that the wife had
no separate property, or estate left, after
the insolvency and voluntary assign
ment of her husband in 1860, in which
she joined. The property levied on was
subsequently acquired, and as shown by
the evidence, was the first of their joint
labors and earnings. It is clear that
the hay in stock, and the wheat, oats
and potatoes in the ground belong
ed to the husband as tenant of the Giesenburger farmand it is equally clear
that the residue of the property also be
longed to him, for it was either paid for
with money acquired by the joint labor
of himself and wife, or with money bor
rowed by the wife for which he was res
ponsible : Hallowcll et. al. v. Horter 11
Casey 375; Rhodes v. Gordon 2 YVr. 277.
It is true that the wife is entitled to the
products and avails of her separate prop
erty, though the labor of her husband
may mingle in the production : Rush v.
Vought 5 P. F. Smith, 437 : and prop
erty purchased by the wife on the credit
of her separate estate or by her earnings,
derived from the management of it, is
protected from her husband's creditors:
Brown v. Pendleton, 10 P. F. Smith, 419.
But when the wife has no separate estate
she can acquire no separate property
with her earnings during coverture.
Her earnings belong to her husband,
and if she purchases property with bor
rowed money or on credit it belongs to
her husband, as it respects his creditors
and is liable for his debts : Raybold v.
Ravbold, 8 Harris, 311 ; Robinson & Co.
v. Wallace, 3 Wr. 129. To enable the
wife to mantain her claim to the property
in controversy, we should have to re
verse the rule laid down in Hallowcll v.
Horter and hold that property, purchas
ed and paid for with tlie joint earnings
of husband and wife, belongs to the wife
instead of being the exclusive property
of the husband and liable for his debts.
Whatever changes may hereafter be
wrought by the spirit of modern reform
i* has not yet so far changed the law as
to give the wife the ownership of her
own and her husband's earnings.
Judgment affirmed.Legal Opinion.
XXXIV. INDIANA REPORTS.
Our thanks are due James B. Black,
Reporter of the Supreme Court of In
diana, for advance sheets of the 34th Vol
ume of his Reports, from which we take
the following head-notes :
CUSTOM.
1. Certainty. Where, in attempting to
show in explanation of a contract of sale,
a local commercial usage that cash sales
were not made for cash in hand, but that
payment might be made afterwards and
the transaction still be regarded as a sale
for cash, the evidence was uncertain as
to the number of days given and whether
the time given was computed from the
date of the sale or the date of delivery,
and showed that the usage of giving
time ceased soon after the transactiou in
question ; Held, that the evidence was
insufficient to prove the custom.(Opin
ion by Downey, J.) Union R. R. et al. v.
Yeager et al.
SALE.
2. Delivery. Bill of Lading. A. pur
chased a quantity of flour to be manu
factured by a certain mill in St. Louis,
Mo., and a parol agreement was made by
A. and B. for the sale of the flour by the
former to the latter for cash on delivery.
Afterwards a freight company, which
owned no means of transportation, gave
B. an instrument styled a bill of lading,
dated before the flour had been manu
factured, by which said company ac
knowledged the receipt by it of the flour
from B. and agreed to transport it to C.
at Boston, Mass. A few days afterwards
the servants of a transfer company, an
organization engaged in carrying freights
across the river at St. Louis, took the
flour from said mill, conveyed it across
the river, and put it in the custody of a
railroad company for which said freight
company acted as agent, receiving a cer
tain percentage for all freights obtained

for said railroad, said transfer company

giving the superintendent of said mill
dray tickets for the flour, and receiving
from said railroad a bill of lading for the
flour to be delivered to C. at Boston.
The barrels had been marked at the
mill with B.'s brand without the knowl
edge of A. Before the flour was taken
from the mill B. drew on C. for a certain
amount to the order of the former,
chargeable to account of the flour, and
for value sold the bill of exchange to a
bank and transfered to said bauk the in
strument so given by said freight com
pany to B. the bank having no notice of
any claim on the flour in favor of A.
Hearing of the embarrassment of B.,
who a few days afterward became insol
vent, A. inquired of the superintendent
of the mill about the flour, recieved from
him said dray tickets, and the day after
the delivery of the flour to the railroad
company went with said tickets and a
bill for the flour to B . and requested
payment, which not being made, A. told
B. that he would keep the tickets and
make other disposition of the fllour, and
went to the railroad company with said
tickets and demanded a bill of lading,
which was refused. No order, oral or
written, was given by A. for the delivery
of the flour grom the mill, but t he agents
of the transfer company received their
orders from the agent of said freight
company, who received his authority
from B" Held, that A. was still the owner
of the flour and entitled to its possesion.
Held, also, that said instrument given by
said freight company to B. could not be
regarded as a bill of lading.lb
PLEADING.
1. Fraud. Fraud cannot be pleaded
without stating the facts constituting it.
(Opinion by Worben, J.)Ham v. Grev
and Others.
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY'.
2. Where one is about to take a note,
with surety, from a person whom he
knows to be insolvent, the mere fact
that the creditor does not, voluntarily
and without solicitation, announce to the
proposed surety the insolvency of the
principal, will not release the surety.
MISAPPLICATION OF PROMISSORY NOTE.
3. Where <ie is induced to sign a note
as surety, by the representation, made
to him for the purpose of bo inducing
him by the payee, that the note is to be
used in payment forgoods to be furnished
by the payee to the maker, and the note
is used to pay a pre-existing debt of the
maker to the payee, the person so sign
ing is not bound as surety.Jb.
4. Pleading. Evidence. Suit on a
promissory note by the payee. Answer
by surety, that prior to the execution of
the note, the maker was the proprietor
of a retail furniture store, which, includ
ing the stock, had been sold to him by
this defendant, to whom the maker was
indebted therefor in a certain sum, and
that it had been agreed between said
maker and this defendant that the latter
should hold a lien on said stock and all
additions thereto, to secure said indebt
edness, and that said maker was to exe
cute a mortgage on the same for that
purpose ; that the payee, who was a
wholesale furniture dealer in the same
place, knew of said indebtedness, and,
intending to deceive this defendant and
induce him to sign the note as surety,
represented to him that said maker was
doing a good business and getting along
well, but needed more stock, and that
the payee would furnish him some more
goods, if this defendant would become
surety on his note for the same ; that
this defendant, relying on said state
ments, and in consideration of the fact
that said goods were to be added to the
stock, thus augmenting his security, be
came surety on said note, believing at
the time that the note was given for
goods furnished by the payee to the
maker as aforesaid, whereas the payee
did not furnish the maker any goods,
but the whole consideration of the note
on the part of the maker was a prior in
debtedness of the maker to the payee, of
which fact the surety was at the time ig
norant ; that the maker was at the time
insolvent, and was not prospering in his
business, as the payee well knew ; that
the maker had never paid his indebted
ness to the surety, who never received
any consideration for his signature to
the note.
Held, that the allegations as to said in
debtedness of the maker to the surety,
and the agreement between them as to

Chicago
the lien and the execution of a mort
gage, did not add anything to the legal
effect of the other matters stated, and
there was therefore no error in refusing
to admit under this answer evidence in
relation to the agreement to execute the
mortgage.
Held, also, that evidence as to the in
solvency of the maker, at the time of the
interview between the payee and the
surety and the exucetion of the note,
was not admissible under this answer.
Held, also, that the facts set forth by
the answers were sufficient to release the
surety.
Held, also, that if at the time the sure
ty signed the note he was told by the
maker that it was to be used in payment
of a prior debt of the maker to the
payee, and if it was so used, then the
surety would be liable, notwithstanding
the payee had represented to the surety
that it was to be used in payment for
goods, as alleged in said answer.76.
PRACTICE.
1. Demurrer.-A demurrer to an en
tire pleading should be overruled if
such pleading contain any good para
graph.(Opinion by Buskirk, J.) Heavenridge r. Mondy.
parties.
2. Truttee of Express Trust.Suit by A.
on a promissory note made payable to
A. (for B.) or order. Held, that A. was
the trustee of an express trust within
the statutory definition, and the action
was properly brought in his name.76.
SUPREME COURT.
3. Rehearing.It is the settled practice
of the Supreme Court not to consider on
a petition for a rehearing a question not
presented and considered on the original
hearing of the cause.76.
DEMURRER.
4. Contract Made on Sunday.In a suit
on a promissory note which appears on
its face to have been executed on Sun
day, no question as to its invalidity by
reason of its execution on that dav can
he raised bv demurrer to the complaint.
-Ib.
WISCONSIN CASES.
The following are head-notes to opin
ions recently filed in the Supreme Court
of Wisconsin :
ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURIE8.
1. In an action under the statute for
injuries to plaintiff's intestate causing
his death, where such injuries were al
leged to have resulted from the negli
gent management of defendant's boat in
attempting to pass a drawbridge over a
navigable stream, (said bridge and draw
being in charge of the deceased,) there
was evidence tending to prove that the
boat was small and easily managed ; that
the bridge was not difficult to pass ; that
the captain of the boat, who was at the
wheel when the accident happened, was
almost wholly unacquainted with the
stream ; that he approached the draw
(which was on the east side of the river)
diagonally from the west side, while the
usual and only safe way of approach w.as
on the east side, in a direct line with the
current ; and that it was apparent to
persons on the shore, and others on the
boat, while she was yet at a distance
from the draw, that she could not clear
it. Held, that it was proper, on this evi
dence, to submit to the jury the question
of the defendants' negligence.(Opinion
of the Court by Lyon, J.) Castello, Adm'x
v. Landwehr et al.
CAUSE OF DEATH.
2. The draw and a part of the bridge
were knocked.down by the boat, and de
ceased fell among the falling timbers, one
of which lay across him when he was
taken np. lie became insensible almost
immediately, and, although no blood or
bruises were seen upon his body, died in
about three-fourths of an hour. There
was no post mortem examination, and no
surgeon testified on the trial. Held, that
the question whether his death was
caused by the accident was properly sub
mitted to the jury.lb.
PUBLIC ACT.
3. C'h. 237, Laws of 1864, authorizing
the town of Wrightstown to purchase
the bridge in question, etc., is a public
act, of which the courts take judicial
notice without its being pleaded or prov
en, and is a legislative recognition of the
legality of the oridge.lb.

Legal

NEGLIGENCE.
4. If proof of contributory negligence
on the part of the (oini would prevent
plaintiff s recovery in this case, (which
is not decided,) the question whether it
was negligence in the town to leave the
bridge unprotected by piles was for the
jury, depending as it did on facts as to
which there was conflicting evidence.
lb.
RIGHT TO BRIDGE PUBLIC STREAM.
5. It was not error to refuse an instruc
tion which included the following pro
positions: "That it was the duty of the
authorities of Wrightstown, when au
thorized by law, to provide a safe and
easy passage through said drawbridge;
that the right of maintaining a public
stream is paramount to the right of
bridging it ; and that if the bridge was
in the way of the safe and easy naviga
tion of said stream, it must give way to
the public right to such free navigation."
lb.
6. Under ch. 101, Laws of 1868, (which
deprives the judge of the right to modify
an instruction asked), it is not error to
refuse absolutely an instruction contain
ing numerous propositions, if one of
them is correct.Ib.
LIABILITY OK TOWN.
7. The fact that the town, on repairing
the bridge after the accident, protected
it with piles, etc., could not properly be
considered by the jury as evidence of
previous negligence in omitting such
protection. The town might have sub
sequently used extraordinary care, but
was liabfe only for the lack of ordinary
care.lb.
8. The deceased being engaged in a
lawful employment, there was no error
in an instruction that "defendants were
bound to use reasonable care and skill
in passing through the stream, whatever
its width," and that "even though the
draw was so constructed as to make the
bridge a nuisance, defendants had no
right to run into the bridge negligently
or unskillfully."Ib.
MEASURE OK DAMAGES.
9. In an action under the statute,
brought by the widow of the deceased
suing as administratrix, the damages (if
any) which she is entitled to recover
will include the value of her support
and protection and the support and
education of her children, by the de
ceased during the time he would
probably have lived and supported her,
but for the accident in question ; and
the jury may also consider "the addition
that the earnings of the deceased would
probably have made to his property, had
he continued to live, and the reasonable
expectation which plaintiff had of pe
cuniary advantage by ultimately re
ceiving a share of such earnings as one
of his heirs," and damages may be given
"with respect to that expectation being
disappointed and to the probable pecu
niary loss resulting therefrom."lb.
10. Upon the facts of this case, an al
lowance to the plaintiff of $1,500 dam
ages is held not excessive.Ib.
CHAMPERTOUS AGREEMENT.
1. An agreement between an attorneyat-law and his client, by which the for
mer is to prosecute an action for the
latter, pay the expenses therof, and di
vide with the client the amount recov
ered, is champertous. (Opinion by
Lyon, J.)Stearns v. Felker.
2. But in such case the attorney, after
prosecuting the action to judgment, is
entitled to full compensation for his
services ; and the client is entitled to the
fruits of the litigation after paying such
reasonable compensatian.Ib.
3. Any amount collected in such ac
tion from third persons who have made
themselves liable therein as sureties for
the defendant, must be accounted for by
the plaintiff's attorney in the same
manner as if collected from the defend
ant himself.76.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
We take the following synopsis of se
lected cases, to appear in 12 Wallace's
Reports, from the United. States Jurist, for
January :
COLLISIONINSURANCE.
1. When two cases of loss concur, one
at the risk of assured, and the other in
sured against, or one insured against by
A. and the other by B., if the damage
caused by each peril can be discrimi

News.

nated, it must be borne proportionally.

Howard Fire Ins. Co. v. Norwich & N.
Y. Transportation Co.
2. But if the damage caused by each
peril cannot be distinguished from that
caused by the other, the party responsi
ble for the predominating efficient cause,
or that which set in operation the other,
incidentally to it, is liable for the loss.
Ib.
3. An insurance upon a steamer against
fire, except " fire happening by means
of any invasion, insurrection, riot, or
civil commotion, or of any military or
usurped power," is an insurance against
fire caused by collisions.Ib.
4. Underwriters against fire are re
sponsible for a loss occasioned by the
sinking of the vessel insured, when
caused by tire, though the fire itself be
the result of a collision, not insured
against,if the effect of the collision,
without the fire, would have been only
to cause the vessel to settle to her upper
deck, in which case she would have been
saved.76.
CARRIER-RAILWAYS.
1. The obligations and liabilities of a
common carrier are not dependent upon
contract, though they may be modified
and limited by contract; they are im
posed by the law, from the public nature
of his employment.Hannibal R. R. Co.
v. Swift.
2. If a common carrier of passengers
and of goods and merchandise have rea
sonable ground for refusing to receive
and carry persons applying for passage,
and their baggage and other property, he
is bound to insist at the time upon such
ground, if desirous of avoiding responsi
bility. If, not thus insisting, he receives
the passengers and their baggage and
other property, his liability is the same
as though no ground for refusal existed.
76.
3. The liability of a common carrier of
goods and merchandise attaches when
the property passes, with his assent, into
his poseession ; and is not affected by
the carriage in which it is transported,
or the fact that the carriage is loaded by
the owner. The common carrier is an
insurer of the property carried, and
upon him the duty rests to see that the
packing and conveyance are such as to
secure its safety.76.
4. It is not a ground for limiting the
responsibility of a common carrier, when
no interference is attempted with his
control of the property carried, that the
owner of the property accompanies it
and keeps a watchful lookout for its
safety.76.
5. Where a railroad company receives
for transportation, in cars which accom
pany its passenger trains, property of a
passenger other than his baggage, in re
lation to which no fraud or concealment
is practiced or attempted upon its em
ployees, it assumes with reference to the
property the liability of a common car
rier of merchandise.76.
6. Surgical instruments, in the case of
a surgeon in the army traveling with
troops, constitute part of his baggage.
76.
BAGGAGE CONNECTING LINES OP RAIL
ROAD.
Where a Maryland railroad corpora
tion, whose charter contemplated the
extension of the road beyond the limits
of Maryland, was allowed, by act of the
Legislature of Virginiare-enacting the
Maryland charter in wordsto continue
its road through that State, and was also
allowed by act of Congress to extend
into the District of Columbia a lateral
road, in connection with the road
through Maryland and Virginia : Held,
(the unity of the road being unchanged
in name, locality, election and power of
officers, modes of declaring dividends,
and doing all its business,) First. That
no new corporation was created, either
in the District or in Virginia, but only
that the old one was exercising its facul
ties in them with their permission; and
that, as related to responsibility for dam
ages, there was a unity of ownership
throughout. Second. That in view of
such unity the corporation was amen
able to the courts of the District for
injuries done in Virginia on its road.
Tliird. That this responsibility was not
changed by a traveler's receiving tickets
in " coupons " or different parts, an
nouncing that " responsibility for safety
of person or loss of baggage on each
portion of the route is confined to the
proprietors of that portion alone." Rail
road Company v. Harris.

1NKRINGEMENTPATENTS.
1. Construction of Dubois's patent, of
September 23. 1862, for building piers
for bridges and setting the same : Held,
to be for a device or instrument used in
a process, and not for the process itself.
Railroad Company v. Dubois'.
2. It is not a bar to an action for an
infringement of a patent that, before
making his application to the Patent
Office, the patentee had explained his
invention orally to several persons, with
out making a drawing, model, or written
specification thereof, and that subse
quently, though prior to his application
for a patent, the defendant had devised
and perfected the same thing, and de
scribed it in the presence of the patentee,
without his making claim to it.76.
RIGHT TO QUARRY IN THE BED
OF RIVERS.
We hav received from a member of
the bar at Sterling, the following report
of a case recently tried in Morrison :
In the summer of 1870, Isaac N. Bressler, of Sterling, Illinois, quarried out of
the bottom of Rock River, about three
to five hundred feet from the north
shore, and on the north side of the cen
ter thread of the stream, ten loads of
stone. These stone were taken from the
bed of the stream, and were always, be
fore being quarried, covered with water.
Bressler had them hauled out and
piled upon his premises in Sterling.
Soon after this, Nelson Maxson, who
claimed to own the bank or a strip of
land along the edge of the stream, claim
ed the stone and brought his action of
replevin before a justice and took the
stone from Breesler. Breesler appealed
to the circuit court of Whiteside, where
the case has just been tried and decided
in favor of the defendant Bressler.
Though the amount in controversy
was small, the trial involved some ques
tions of law of no ordinary magnitude,
and as the decision in this case, to ad
verse to or not in conformity with the
cases on the same subject in this State
since 1841, it renders this case one of
considerable interest.
The case of Middleton v. Pritchard, 3
Scam. 510, was tried before His Honor
Judge Breese, sitting as Circuit Judge in
Madison county, Judge Breese then
holding and instructing the jury to the
effect, that a grantee by patent from the
U. S. Government, was bound by the
government survey and could not claim
beyond those lines. This case was taken
to the Supreme Court and thejudgment re
versed. Seates J., delivered the opinion.
It was held that the patent conveyed to
the center thread of the stream, a hold
ing which, in the case, was entirely
unnecessary, as the action of " trespass
quare clausumfregit," for cutting trees be
tween the margin of the river and the
bank along which the government sur
veyor had run his line.
The Territory of Louisiana was first
discovered by the French in 1699, who
at that time began a settlement within
its limits. It continued a colony of that
nation till 1702, when it was ceded to
Spain. It remained in her possession
till 1800, when it was returned to France.
The boundaries of Louisiana were
never very well defined, but as under
stood, included all the territory from the
mouth of the Mississippi to the Lake of
the Woods on the north, and extending
to the Pacific on the west ; the Mississ
ippi River being the eastern boundary.
When the inhabitants of the United
States, beyond or west of the Alleghanies had been numerous, about 1795,
Spain then owning the mouth of the
Mississippi, the territory on both sides
of the river at its moutli, refused to let
the people of the United States, west of
the mountains, have access to the Gulf
through that river. The people of Ken
tucky laid their complaints before Con
gress. In bold and forcible language
they asserted their rights by the laws of
God and of Nature, to the free use of
that noble river, and demanded that at
any cost the acknowledgement of that
right should be obtained.
We were on the point of war with
Spain on this subject, when she signified
her desire to conclude a treaty, and
Thomas Pinkney was appointed on the
part of the United States to conduct the
matter, which resulted in a solemn
treaty between Spain and the United
Continued on page 94.

Chicago

Legal

Chicago Legal News. his wife, based as that is upon his pre
sumed dominion and control over her
person and acts, the statute of 1860, de
ILei >Jmctt.
claring that any married woman " may
sue and be sued in all matters relating
CHICAGO, JANUARY 6, 1872.
to her separate property, in the same
manner as if she were sole " authorizes
published evehy satcbday by
an action against her alone for damages
The Chicaco Legal News Company, done by the straying of her cattle from
her own premises upon adjoining lands,
at 115 madison stbeet.
notwithstanding her husband and chil
dren reside with her upon the lands
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
and both the land and cattle are used
TERMS :
for the support of the family.
Two Dollars per annum, in advance. Single cop
InsuranceThe same court in LeRoy
ies Ten Cents.
vs. The Market Fire Insurance Co., re
THE LEGAL NEWS OFFICE U t 115 ported in the Transcript of the 28th of
West Madison Street. The Printing December, decide that in an action upon
Establishment Is At 18 N. Jefferson St.
a policy of insurance, where the survey
referred to in the policy, in the usual
We call attention to the following manner as a part thereof, is proved to
opinions reported at length in this be false and inaccurate, the insured
issue :
cannot recover although he did not un
Admiralty Jurisdiction.The opin derstand the survey in question to be
ion of the United States District Court the one mentioned in the policy.
for the E. D. of Michigan, delivered by
Attestation Signature as Witness
Longyear, J., reviewing many of the or Executor.Lord Penzance held in
former decisions of the Federal Courts, Griffiths vs. Griffiths where a will was
defining the extent of admiralty juris attested by t'iree witnesses, of whom
diction, and holding that Saginaw river two only signed in the testator's pres
in Michigan is public navigable water, ence, and opposite the name of the first
and within the admiralty jurisdiction of was written executor, and opposite the
the District court ; that a vessel whose last witness, that the first witness might
business or employment appertains to have signed not only as approving his
travel or trade and commerce upon the appointment as executor, but also as
water is subject to admiralty jurisdiction, attesting the testator's signature, and
whatever may be its size, form, capacity granted probate of the will. 25 L. T.
or means of propulsion ; that a lighter Rep., N. S., 574.
having no propelling power of its own,
Streets Neglect to Repair. The
and employed in floating lumber over a
Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, in City
bar at the mouth of a river to vessels
lying at anchor, may be proceeded of Philadelphia v. Weller, held that the
against in admiralty ; that admiralty city of Philadelphia and the passenger
jurisdiction is exercised by virtue of the railway companies are both liable in
Constitution and judiciary act of 1789, damages for neglect to repair the streets
and independently of the navigation over which the railway tracks are laid.
laws of Congress, and therefore has no 3 Leg. Gazette, 424.
WillExtrinsic Evidence.In Char
regard to registry or enrollment and
ter v. Charter, where the testator, whose
license.
Commitment by 1)e Facto Officer. will was written for him by the vicar of
The opinion of the Circuit Court of this the parish, nominated " my son Forster
county by Rogers, J. John Summer- Charter " as his executor. He had only
field, who has for a number of years been two sons, "William Forster Charter"
a justice of the peace in this city, and and " Charles Charter." Lord Penzance,
also by appointment of the common confirming a previous decision, held
council police justice, was not selected that the testator had not described either
as one of the justices of the peace by the of his sons with reasonable accuracy,
judges of this county and the goyernor and admitted parol evidence to show
under the new constitution, but was re which he meant.25 L. T. Rep., N. S.,
gularly elected by the people in Novem 575.
Constitutionality of Law not to be
ber, by a majority of thousands, one of
the police magistrates of this city, but Tested on Habeas Corpus.Where one
Governor Palmer refused to issue a com has been arrested and detained on legal
mission to him, claiming that the new process by a court having jurisdiction of
Constitution abolished the office of the person and the offense, is in custody
police magistrate in the city of Chicago. of the proper officer, and by virtue of a
Summerfield committed Amanda B. provision of the law, the Supreme court
Thompson, she sued out a writ of habeas will not, on a writ of habeas corpus, in
corpus, and claimed her liberty on the quire into the constitutionality f the
ground that Summerfield was not a jus law under which he was arrested. He
tice or magistrate. Judge Rogers held should test the validity of that question
fthat his right to the office could not be by means of trial in the appropriate
tried on a writ of habeas corpus, that his court.In re Harris, 47 Mo., 164.
acts were nat void, and remanded the
THE CHICAGO LAWYERS.
prisoner.
The London Law Times of October 16th
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
says :
Liability of a Married Woman.
We have made more than one appeal
The New York Court of Appeals in to the many wealthy lawyers in this
country on behalf of the Legal Profes
Rowe v. Smith, reported in the Tran sion
in Chicago. We have not heard
script of Dec. 29, held that at common that those appeals have had any effect,
law the liability of the husband for the and we therefore give prominence to
trespasses of cattle, damage feasant, be another, and trust that as an English
Barrister, who bears a name famous in
longing to the wife at the time of marri legal
history, has taken up the case,
age and straying from her land, did not something will be done to redeem our
rest upon the ground of his responsibil reputation for liberality :
ity for her torts ; that although the stat To the Editor of the Law Times :
utes of the State of New York in regard
Sir,Chicago Law Institute Library.
to married women have not affected the Some days since I rece'ved from my cor
liability of the husband for the torts of respondent, Mr. Hoyne, of the firm of

JNJews.

Hoyne, Horton & Hoyne, counselors at

Chicago, a circular, a copy of which I
forward on the other side. I should be
glad to know whether any subscription
has already been set on foot, and if so,
to make a small contribution to it. If
no list exists at present, I should gladly
take or join in any steps for collecting
or lorwarding money or contributions.
Yours truly,
Edward S. Alderson.
Dec. 8th, 1871.
10 King's Bench-walk, Temple, E. C.
Then follows the letter of Hon. John
M. Wilson, of this city, which was pub
lished in the Legal News, under date of
October 18th.
NOTICES OF SALES UNDER TRUST
DEEDS.
The Supreme Court of Missouri, in
Kellogg v. Currico et al., reported 47th
Mo., 157, held that a paper devoted to
the gathering up and dissemination of
legal news is a newspaper, and that the
St. Louis Legal Record was a newspa
per, and publication in it imparted no
tice of a sale under a deed of trust.
decent publications.
Reports of Cases Argued and Deter
mined in the Supreme Court of the
State of Missouri. Bv Truman A.
Post, Reporter. Vol. 'XLVII. St.
Louis : M'Kee, Fishback & Co., Pub
lishers. 1871.
This volume contains 678 pages, and,
we regret to say, the publishers in its
preparation have manifested a want of
taste that is unpardonable. It is badly
bound, and its whole appearance any
thing but pleasing. There are several
important opinions in the 47th, and,
taken as a whole, bear upon their face
abundant evidence of the ability of the
Judges by whom they were rendered.
We commend the head-notes of Mr.
Post for their brevity and clearness.
His index is somewhat crowded and
contains more matter than the headnotes. The statements of facts are well
prepared and give briefly the authorities
cited by counsel, which adds greatly to
the value of the report.
Edwards' Chicago Directory. Con
taining the Names of all Persons in
Business in the City whose Location
could be Ascertained up to Dec. 12,
1871. Also a Business Directory.
Price $3. Chicago : Richard Edwards.
We are in receipt of a volume just
issued from the press bearing the abeve
title. We know that it is no easy task
to get out a city directory at this time,
and are disposed to make all due allow
ance, but are compelled to say the
omission of large numbers of " persons
in business in the city whose location
could " easily have been " ascertained "
at any time within two months past is
inexcusable. It gives Hon. John A.
Jameson as the sole Judge of the Supe
rior Court, and Hon. Lambert Tree of
the Circuit. We are unable to find the
names of Judges Wallace, Rogers, Booth,
Williams, Gary, Porter and Farwell in
this directory, or Deputy Sheriffs Homer
B. Galpin and Seth F. Hanchett, Joseph
Pollock, the clerk of the probate depart
ment of the County court. Norman T.
Gassette's name is not in the body of the
work, but is in under the head of cor
rections as " county clerk " to which Mr.
Gindele might object if he should at
tempt to exercise the duties of the office
assigned to him by Mr. Edwards. We
examined the list of attorneys and find
that they have received nearly as bad
treatment at the hands of the compiler as
the judges and other officers of court.
Gross' Township Organization.We
have before noticed the first edition of

this work. The second, now upon our

table, is an improvement upon the first,
as it contains a set of short forms which
will be useful to every township officer.
It will be sent free to any address by E.
L. & W. L. Gross, the publishers, upon re
ceipt of the price, $1.25.
The American Law Review.The
contents of the January number are : 1.
The Constitutionality of Private Ways ;
2. The Revision of the United States
Statutes; 3. The Erie Railway and the
English Stock ; 4. The Machinery of
Politics and Proportional Representa
tion ; 5. Digest of the English Law Re
ports ; 6. Selected Digest of State Re
ports ; 7. Book Notices ; 8. List of Law
Books published in England and Amer
ica since October 1871 ; 9. Summary of
Events ; 10. Correspondence.
The January number is an unusually
good one. It may be obtained of E. B.
Myers & Co.
United States Jurist.The Jurist
commences its second volume with the
present month and comes to us changed
from a monthly to a quarterly of one
hundred pages. It is ably edited by
James Schouler, the author of the work
on Domestic Relations, which bears his
name and has no superior. The change
in the Jurist is a great improvement, and
we have no hesitation in recommending
it to the profession as worthy of their
patronage. The contents of this num
ber are : 1. Judicial Reforms, by Mr.
Justice Miller. 2. Quarterly Table of
Citicized Cases, with editorial notes.
3. Annual Digest of Federal Decisions.
4. Quarterly Digest of English Decisions.
5. Book Notices. 6. U.S. Supreme Court
Calendar. 7. Legal Intelligence. The
book notices of the Jurist are truthful and
able. It is time the legal journals of
the country exposed the tricks and trash
of some of those authors and publishers
who live by imposing upon the profes
sion. We intend to do what -we can to
aid the profession to obtain valuable new
law books, and to prevent them from
purchasing those that are worthless.
The Jurist is published at Washi ngton, D.
C. Subscription price $3.00 per annum,
in advance.
JUDGE WILLIAMS TO GOVERNOR
PALMER.
Chicago, Jan. 4, 1872.
Hon. John M. Palmer, Governor, etc. :
Dear Sir : Nearly two months ago, in
the discharge of my official duty, I im
paneled a grand jury in the Criminal
court of this county. That jury was in
great part composed of our oldest and
most honored citizensmen of intelli
gence and integrity.
I gave them a brief charge, advising
them to proceed carefully in their delib
erations, so that their action should not
unneceasarily asperse the innocent, or
fermit the guilty to escape punishment,
cautioned them that they should not
be influenced by anything spoken, writ
ten, or printed, except as it should come
before them, either upon the informa
tion of two of their number, or upon the
testimony of witnesses sworn in their
presence.
I called their attention to certain let
ters purporting to have been written by
you, which had been published and ex
tensively circulated through our city
papers, and advised them that they
ought in no manner to be influenced by
them.
Cautioning them thus against all ille
gal and improper influence, I advised
them that they were the sole judges
upon every question of fact, and that
neither the prosecuting attorney nor the
court had any right to influence them.
They pursued their investigations unin
fluenced by me, either by act, word, or
look, and, as I believe, free from every
illegal influence. Their results were at
tained after mature deliberation, and, as
I understand, with entire unanimity.

Chicago
Whether their actions gratified you or
me matters not.
You have been pleased, under date of
Dec. 23, to address a letter to Mr. Reed,
which I first saw in yesterday's Tribune,
in which you use my name very freely,
And in which you characterize that por
tion of my charge which relates to your
letters as being " as useless as unbecom
ing." That I stated the law correctly,
you admit; for one ground upon which
you allege that my charge was " as use
less as unbecoming" is, that "there is
no need of proof that such a course [giv
ing opinions by a Suite's attorney to a
grand jury upon questions pending be
fore them] would be improper." You
also say to Mr. Heed, " I never advised
you to obtrude your legal opinions upon
a grand jury."
In this connection to show whether or
not my charge was "useless," and to
show what I cannot but regard as a
slight inaccuracy of recollection upon
the part of your Excellency, allow me to
make the following extract from your
letter to Mr. Reed, of October 30, last:
"I have written this to you, because I
can well understand that you may feel a
degree of hesitation in advising the.
Grand Jury [the italics are my own] to
find an indictment against such persons
as R. B. Mason, P. H. Sheridan, and
Frank Sherman ; and, as the case con
cerns the State in its political capacity,
as much as in other respects, I think it
proper that the Governor should take the re
sponsibility of what is done, and, while I
have the utmost confidence in you, I do
advise the indictment and trial of all
concerned."
I understand from this, that you not
only advised the indictment of certain
parties whom you designated, but, as
Mr. Reed might feel a delicacv (happily
he did) "in advising the Grand Jury," you,
as Governor, generously ventured to" assume"t/te responsibility" of what might be
done.
However you, with your keen legal
acumen might interpret this language,
men destitute of your professional acuteness would understand you, not as ad
vising Mr. Reed to bring the case before
the Grand Jury, but a suggesting to him
to advise them as to their duties, upon
your responsibility.
With such a letter extensively circu
lated in all our city papers on the eve of
impaneling of the jurv, and read by
every juror probably, "l cannot regard
my charge as " useless."
Was it unbecoming in me to assume,
as I did, that the letter was not written
by you for the purpose of influencing
the jury in their deliberations ? Facts
which have come to my knowledge led
me to think I may have erred in this re
gard ; but the error, i f I made one, was
on the side of charity, and therefore, I
hope, was not unbecoming.
You are also pleased to refer to me as
" a Judge who did not do his duty ;" as
one " pandering to popular demand,"
etc., etc.
If to attend exclusively to the business
of my officestriving, to the utmost of
my power, to promote justice, by keep
ing myself and my jurors, grand and
petit, free from all improper influences
subjects me to the charge, I will not
complain.
And I beg to assure your Excellency
that my idea of duty is "such that I will
never permit any improper interference
with the business of any court in which
I may preside, by any onemore than
all by the Chief Executive of the State.
Had your Excellency written your
letter of Oct. 30 to a member of the
Grand Jury after he had been impanel
ed, the only notice I should have taken
of it would have been by the immediate
issue of a short note to your Excellency,
commonly called an attachment, foreontempt ; and the question there to be set
tled would have been whether courts
and juries had any rights which Gover
nors are bound to respect. The offense
would be hardly less flagrant to write
and publish letters immediately before
the impaneling of a Grand Jury for the
purpose of influencing them in their
conduct. I assume, in my charge, such
was not your intention.
You have thought fit to allege that
there is a question of veracity between
Mr. Reed and myself. We do not so un
derstand it.
If there is any misunderstanding it is
only this : that I understood Mr. Reed
to say that the letter of October 30 (as it
was written) was published in the Chi

Legal

cago papers before he received yours ;

whereas he says he meant only the sub
stance of the letter that was so publish
ed. So far as this gives you the right to
charge me with making a false state
ment, you may exercise your right ad
libitum.
But I understand that not only the
substance of your letter was telegraphed
from Springfield to this city before it
came to Mr. Reed's hands, but that a
written copy of it was here before Mr.
Reed had exhibited his letter to any
one out of his own family.
Your letter to Mr. Reed also contained,
as a printed circular, the letter to the At
torney General upon the same subject.
I will, therefore, retract all that I have
said in my charge, intimating that your
letters had been surreptitiously pub
lished.
I confess I ought not to have suspected
such to be the case, in view of the wellknown usages of the Executive Depart
ment. Your excellency is so accom
plished in the art of letter-writing, and
your letters are understood to possess
such literary merit, that for this, if for
no other reason, they always are eagerly
sought for bv the press.
As your fetter to Mr. Reod, contain
ing your animadversions upon me, only
came to my hands through the public
press, I shall sin e your Excellency all
trouble of publishing this letter ; but
you will receive it through the same
medium by which yours came to me.
Truly, your obedient servant,
E. S. Williams.
INTERNAL REVENUE.
Taxes paid by Judges of Stale Courts on the
Salaries received by them from their re
spective State Treasuries to be Refunded.
Treasury Department, Comptroll- \
er's Office, December 11, 1871. J
Hon. J. W. Douglass, Commissioner of In
ternal Revenue.
Sir :In my letter of 23d of August
last you were advised that, upon consul
tation with the Secretary, it had been
decided not to take any final action at
that time in relation to refunding income
tax paid by State officers.
I have now to say that, upon further
consultation with the Secretary, as well
as with yourself, it has been decided to
refund the tax paid by Judges of State
Courts on the salaries received by them
from their respective State Treasuries.
You may, therefore, transmit to the
Fifth Auditor the proper proofs to enable
him to report the amount due to each
judge, on the basis above stated.
This action conforms to the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Day
v. Buffinton, beyond which the depart
ment does not feel authorized to go. I
am, sir, very respectfully,
R. W. Tayler, Comptroller.
In the preparation of amendment of
claims filed by judges of State courts, for
the refunding of income taxes alleged to
have been paid by them upon their of
ficial salaries, answers to the following
questions are required at the office of
tne Commissioner of Internal Revenue :
Of what court were you the judge?
Is the judge of that court a State of
ficer ; if so, under what provision of the
State constitution or State laws does the
court exist ?
When were you appointed or elected
judge, and when did your official term
commence and when did it end ?
What was your salary during each and
every year you have been judge since
January 1, 1862 ?
Was any change made in the rate of
your salary during that period ; if so,
when and what ?
What part of your salary, if any, was
paid from the State Treasury, and how
much thereof was included in your re
turn for income tax for each year ?
Was anv portion of the sum received
for traveling expenses, or expenses of
any other kind, deducted by you as ex
penses of business or otherwise in your
annual income return ; if so, how much ?
Have you, in your annual income re
turns, deducted as national tax paid by
you, the tax now sought to be refunded
or any part thereof; and, if so, how
much ?
Personally appeared before me, this
day of
, 187 ,
to me well
known, and made oath that his answers

News.

to the foregoing interrogatories by him from whom he had to obtain them. The
circuit court having refused to vacate
subscribed are true.
the court commissioner's order, Held,
Claims of this character, which have that there was no abuse of discretion.
heretofore been presented to the De Ib.
partment, and which do not contain the
information called for by the foregoing
Foreign Law Books.We would call
questions, will be returned with an ap the attention of our readers who wish to
propriate blank upon which to supply
the deficiency. In making up new purchase foreign law books to the adver
claims not heretofore presented, this in tisements of Stevens & Sons and Stevens
formation should in no case be omitted. & Haynes, of London, England, on the
Internal Revenue Record.
last page of this issue. Both these firms
are composed of honest, fair dealing
HEAD-NOTES TO RECENT WISCON gentlemen, and those favoring either of
SIN CASES.
them with their orders will be faithfully
PRINTED CASE.
served. Books can be ordered by mail,
1. In jury cases, where there is con and a money order sent without diffi
flicting testimony, it need not be set out culty under the arrangement now exist
in fullin the "printed case" upon appeal ;
but it issuiheient to state therein what ing between the two governments.
facts it tends to prove, and refer to the
folios in the bill of exceptions where it
New Law Book Store.Jas Cockcroft
can be found.(Opinion by Lyon, J.) late of the firm of Callaghan & Cock
Kurasich v. Hasbrouck et al.
2. Where all questions and answers crofthas opened a new law book store
are taken down by a phonographic re at Ho. 499, Wabash avenue. As will be
porter, the judge settling the bill of ex seen by his advertisement, on the last
ceptions may in his discretion require the page of this issue, he invites the mem
testimony to be put into narrative form.
bers of the profession to call and ex
Ib.
3. In cases where this court is required amine his stock.
to review the finding of facts by the
Mr. Cockcroft intends, we understand,
court below, and where it may be nec to give special attention to the publish
essary to print the testimony more fully,
the same will be required hereafter to ing of law books. Mr. C. has capital,
be reduced to narrative form in the prin good address, large acquaintance, and
ted case, in the absence of any special will undoubtedly succeed.
reason to the contrary.Ib.
INSTRUCTIONS.
The Bench and Bar.We are pleased
4. It is not error to refuse a specific
instruction, though correct in principle to learn that J. A. L. Whittier, editor of
and applicable to the case, if it is sub the Bench and Bar, is now engaged in
stantially given in the general charge. preparing copy for a double number of
Ib.
that publication, to comprise the Octo
NEGLIGENCE.
ber
and January issues. The October
5. In an action for an injury to plain
tiff's person caused by a collision be number was printed before the fire, but
tween defendant's vessel and that of burned in the publication office. Mr.
plaintiff, an instruction that if plaintiff, Whittier deserves, and we hope will re
by luffing, would probably have avoided
the injury, he had no right of action ceive, the liberal patronage of the pro
was properly refused ; and also a further fession. It is no small undertaking to
instruction that " it was positively in resurrect a legal paper when everything
evidence from experts, and no testimony connected with it, except its list, has
to the contrary, that if the plaintiff had
luffed it would have tended to avoid, been destroyed by fire.
and in all probability would have avoid
ed the collision, aud his omitting to do
Order of Cook County Circuit
so was negligence, which would prevent Court. The following order was en
a recovery.
tered of record in this court at its present
PROPER CARE.
6. The question is not whether plain term :
The calling of the calendar for trial of
tiff might have avoided the injury, but
whether he exercised reasonable and causes set for the January term of the
proper care, and made reasonable and Circuit Court of Cook county will begin
proper effort, under all the circumstan on the fourth Monday of January, but
ces, to avoid it ; and this is peculiarly a no case will be entitled to trial in which
the issues have not been made up prior
question of fact for the jury.
7. The evidence being such as would to said fourth Monday of January.
justify a finding that plaintiff's injuries
from the collision were permanent ; that
The Supreme Court of Illinois.This
they unfitted him for the business to court adjourned on Friday until Tuesday,
which he had been reared (and upon
which he relied for the support of him the 5th day of March next.
self and family), or for any laborious
employment ; and that they would sub
The Legal News Calendar. Will
ject him to physical suffering during his some person who has one of our old
lifethis court does not find, in a ver
dict in his favor for S5,500, such evidence calendars containing the dower tables
of partiality, passion or prejudice as will compiled by us, please send it to this
authorize it to set such verdict aside as office.
^^^^^^^^^^^
excessive.Ib.
Admission
to the Bar.The following
POWER OF COURT COMMISSIONER.
1. A court commissioner has the same gentlemen, under the recent rules of the
power as a judge at chambers to allow Supreme Court, have passed a successful
an amendment to a pleading. Laws of examination and been admitted to the
1862, ch. 358.(Opinion by Lyon, J.) bar : Wm. R. Gibbs, Chicago ; Josiah
Moll v. Sender et al.
2. The power to grant an amendment Crotty, Peoria ; Albion Cate, Chicago ;
"upon such terms as may be proper," M. Luther Keplinger, Morgan county ;
does not require the imposition of terms Harrison P. Mackol, Cook county ; Frank
in all cases.Ib.
3. This court will not reverse an order Burnett, Montgomery county ; John C.
granting leave to amend a pleading, un White, Effingham county.
less there has been an abuse of discre
tion.Ib.
Urtatrirt.
AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS.
HillisKnights.At the residence
4. Ten days after defendant's right to
amend as of course had expired, they of the bride's father in this city, Decem
were permitted by a court commission ber 28th, 1871, by Rev. J. S. Sweeney, of
er to amend their answer (without any
terms), upon filing an affidavit of merits, Paris, Ky., David M. Hillis, of the law
a copv of the proposed amendment, and firm of Hillis <fc Christian, to Miss Dora
an affidavit of one of the two defendants, E. Knights, daughter of Darius Knights,
stating that the facts alleged in the Esq.
amendment were not known to him
Mr. Hillis and his bride are now on a
when the original answer was filed, but
only to his co-defendant in California, tour through the Southern States.

94
Continued from page 91.
States, that the Mississippi and all its
tributaries, should be and remain free
and public highways for all the people for
ever. Afterwards, in 1803, the United
States purchased from France by treaty,
the Territory of Louisiana, Spain having
before that time ceded to France, and it
was again made part of the treaty stipu
lation that the Mississippi Kiver and all
its tributaries should be and forever re
main free and public highways for the
people.
Again, by the Ordinance of 1787, by
which the United States government
acquired the Northwest Territory from
Virginia, it was provided, that the navi
gable waters leading into the Mississippi
and St. Lawrence rivers, and all the car
rying places between the same, shall be
common highways and forever free.
This acquisition of the Northwest Ter
ritory from Virginia in 1787 was the first
piece of real, estate owned or held by the
Federal government. This was her first
" land jjrab," and in construing grants by
the United States it must be considered
how and under what restrictions, if any,
she held it.
Rock River being one of these naviga
ble tributaries of the Mississippi, it must
follow the stone quarried therefrom
must be subject to all the conditions
precedent.
The plaintiffs in this case cited Angel
on Watercourses, and numerous author
ities from the Eastern States and Pennsvlvania, but defendants insisted that as
the United States never owned any land
east of the mountains, such cases were
not authority in construing a grant by
patent from the United States, and cited
Shermer v. The Railroad Company, a
case decided by the United States Cir
cuit court, reported in 7 Wallace, where
the court held that the grant by patent
only extended to the margin of the
stream.
Hon. W. W. Heaton, judge of the cir
cuit court in 22d judicial circuit, presi
ding, held with the Federal court. Ver
dict for defendant Bressler.
Kilgour & Monaiian for defendant.
J. E. McPiiarran & J. M. Wallace
for plaintiff.

LEGAL NEWS PRINTING DEPARTMENT

Briefs

&

Abstracts.

The attention of Attorneys is called to our superior

acilitiee for printing BRIEFS and ABSTRACTS.
Our prices are :
BRIEFS, - per page,
1.75
ABSTRACTS, "
...
Orders left either at the office of the Legal News,
115 W. Madison St., or at the Printing Office, 13 North
Jefferson St., will be promptly executed.
L. W. RAWSON,
Attorney, &> West Randolph Street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
Cook, sa. Superior court of Cook county. Jan
uary Term, A. I). 1KT2. Benjamin B. Bonner v, Mary
Jane Bonner.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Mary Jane Bonner,
defendant
having
filed incounty,
the office
of
the clerkabove
of saidmimed,
Superior
courtbeen
of Cook
no
tice is hereby given to the said Mary Jane Bonner that
the complainnut heretofore filed his bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery fide thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the tirt<t Monday of Feb
ruary
next, (1872,)
is by
required.
Now,*unle8H
you,asthe.
paidlawMary
Jane Bonner, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the t\n*t day of a term thereof, to bo
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of February, 1>72, and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
bill oftherein
complaint,
the and
fame,stated,
and
the matters
ami thing*
charged
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to the prayer of paid bill.
AVGl/STCS
L. W. Rawson, Compl't's
Sol'r.JACOBSON. Clerk.
13-16p
JAMES ENNIS.
Attorney.
West Randolph Street.
(CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
J Cook,88. Circuit court of Cook county. March
Term, A. D. 1*72. Wilhelmina Doerner v. John Peter
Doerner.In
chancery
Affidavit of the
non-rcnidence of John Peter Doerner.
defendant above named, having been filed in the
office of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said John Peter Doerner
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on ihe chancery sido thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendants, returnable on the third Mon
day
of March
is by Peter
law required.
Now,
unless next
you, (1872),
the saidasJohn
Doerner, shall
personally bo and appear before said Circuit court of
Cook connty, on the first day of a term thereof, to bo
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day of March, 1&72, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters
things therein
charged
and against
stated,
will
be takenand
as confessed,
and a decree
entered
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Jamkb E.nnis, Compl't's Sol'r.
13-16

JAMES L. STARK,
Attorney,'Xirun'n Buildintj, cor. La StiUe and Monroe,
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois. Cook county, as. Circuit court
of
Cook
Term, A. D. 1872. Augusta
Buck
hardtcounty.
v. JamesMarch
W, Dominic.
Public notice is hereby given to the said James W.
Dominic that a writ of attachment issued out of the.
office of the clerk of the Circuit court of Cook county,
dated
day of Burkhardt,
December, and
A. D.against
1871, atthetheestate
suit
of thethe
said^Ist
Augusta
of the said 'James W. Dominic, for the sum of five
thousandwhich
dollars,
directed
to thereturned
sheriff executed.
of Cook
county,
said writ
hits been
Now,
therefore,
unless
you,
the
said
James
W.
Dominic, shall personally be and appear before the
said Circuit court of Cook county, on or before the
firstcourt
day house,
of the innext
to be
at
the
the term
city ofthereof,
Chicago,
on holden
the third
Monday of March. A.D. 1ST2, give special bail and
plead to the said plaintiff's action, judgment will he
entered against you, and in favor of the said Augusta
Burkhardt. and so much uf the property attached as
may be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and costs
will be sold to satisfy
the same.T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
NORMAN
James L. Stark. Att'y.
13-17
NEWELL PRATT,
Attorney, IV2.A Wabash Avenue.
pHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
VV Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
Februarv Term, A.D. W2. Ella J. Sharp v. Oscar
Sharp.In
Affidavit ofchancery.
the non-residence of Oscar Sharp, de
fendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Oscar Sharp,
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in saiii court, on the chancery side thereof, and
[hat a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of February next (1>72.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Oscar Sharp, shall per
sonally
he andonappear
Superior
court
Cook county,
the firstbefore
day ofsaid
a term
thereof,
to beof
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
first
Monday
of February, 1^72. and plead,answer or demur to the said
complainant's bill ot complaint, the same, and the
matters
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
willyou
bo
taken asand
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newell Pkatt, Compl't's Sol'r.
13-1G
A. W. ENOS,
Attorney, Room 6, Lt'nd's Block.
ESTATE
O'MALLEY,
DECEASED.
Notice OFis PATRICK
hereby given
to all persons
having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
Patrick
O'Malley, deceased, to present the same forofadjudica
tion
settlement
the County
courtand
of Cook
county,attoa beregular
holdenterm
at theof court
house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March,
A.D. 1872, being the 1th dav
thereof.
PATRICK O'MALLEY,
MARIA O'MALLEY,
Administrators,
Chicago, Jan. 5. IM72.
12-lSp
EESTATE
OFIJOHN
W.
BROMLEY,
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of John
wT Bromley, deceased, to present the same for ad
judication
andofsettlement
at a toregular
torm ofat the
County court
Cook county,
be holden
the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
day of March, A. D. 1S72, being the 4th day thereof.
ALEXANDER ALLEN and
THOMAS ALLISON,
Executors.
Cbicago.'Jan. 3, A. D. 1872.
13-lt>a
SNOWHOOK & GRAY,
Attorneys, Xo. 8o West Monroe Street.
INSTATE OF THOMAS KINNEY, DECEASED.J Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demands
against
estate
Thomas Kinney,
de
ceased,
to present
thethe
same
for ofadjudication
ana set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872,
being the ith day thereof.
CATHARINE KINNEY, Administratrix.
Chicago, Jan. 3, A. D. 1872.
13-lSa
ARNOLD & WATERMAN,
Attorneys.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
Cook, ss, Superior Court of Cook county, To
January Term, A. D. 1872. Barton \V. Spears v.
Electa A. Spears.In Chancery.
Affidavitabove
of thenamed,
non-residence
of Electa
defendant
having been
filed inA.theSpears,
office
of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook county,
notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
Electa
A.
Spears
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plainta summons
in said Court,
on the chancery
sideofthereof,
and
that
thereupon
issued out
said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of January next (1872). as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Electa A. Spears, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior Court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of January, 1872. and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same. and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confesned, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Arnold & Waterman, Compl't's Sol'rs.
11-14
6. A. FOLLANSBEE,
Attorney, No. 10 Wert Randolph St.
estate
frederick
biermann,
deceased. ofNotice
is hereby given
to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate of
Friedrich Biermann. deceased, to present the same
for adjudication and settlement at a regular term of
the County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of February,
A.D. 1872, luting the filth dav thereof.
Aministrator.
Chicago. IIEINRICn
Dec. 20. A.D. BIERMANN,
1S71.
G. A. Follanshee, Att'y.
ll-16a
P. McHUGH & ANDREW ENZENBACHER,
Attorneys, No. 30, West Randolph St.
(CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
J Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
January Term, A.D. 1372. Anna Kleist v. Louis Uhe.
In Chancey.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Louis Uhe, defend
ant
named,
having
been
the office
of theis
clerkabove
of said
Superior
court
of filed
Cookincounty,
notice
lu. n l y given to the said Louis Uhe that the complain
ant heretofore filed her bill of complaint in said court,
on the chancery side thereof, and that a summons
thereupon issued out of said Court against said de
fendant, returnable on the first Monday of January
next,
as is you,
by lawtherequired.
Now,(1872),
unless
said Louis Uhe; shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of
Cook
county,
on
the
firBt
day
of a onterm
tobe
holden at Chicago, in Baid county,
the thereof,
first Monday
of January, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
of complaint,
the stated,
same, and
matters
and things bill
therein
charged and
willthe
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered againt you
according to the prayer
of
said
bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
P. HcHugh and Andrew Enzbxbacueu, Compl'ts
Sol'rs.
11-14

CIIICA G 0 A TTORNE YS.

LAW
Barber and Laekner. C4 West Lake street.
Barker, J. C, 143 West Madison street, room 3.
Bates & Hodges, 113 West Madison street
BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street.
Burgess, W. T., 1G5 W. Wahington.
Bonney, Fay & Griggs, 120 West Washington fit
Bentley, Bennett, Ullman & Ives, 376 Wabash av.
Barker & Waite, 4G East Harrison street.
Brouse, O. R., 400 Wabash avenue.
Brown & Rlckertfl, 114 West Madison.
Burke and Allen. 18 W. Randolph.
Carmiehael, D. L., 845 Prairie auenue.
Carter, Becker & Dale. GO Canal, ;150 Wabash av
Chase, F. h 386 Wabash avenue.
Clarkson & Van Pchaaek. No. 454 Wabash Ave.
Condon, Wm. H., 34 Cunal street.
Deane & Cahill, room 7, Llnd's Block.
Dent & Black, 710 Wabash avenue.
Ewing & Leonard. 487 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. W., 115 West Madison street.
Felker, Wm. 8., 92 Desplaines street.
Goodwin, D. jr., n. e. cor. Monroe and LaSalle.
Goudy & Chandler, 391 Wabash avenue, branch
office, 64 South Halsted street.
Harrison and Whitehead, 143 W. Madison street.
Hervey. Anthony & Gait. 356 Wabash avenue.
Hopkins, Wm., 40 East Harrison.
Herbert & Quick. 529 State street.
Hoync, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michi
gan and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne, Horton and Hoyne, 207 Michigan av.
Hitchcock, Dupee & Evarts, corner Wells and
Monroe streets.
Howe & Kussell, 475 Wabash avenue.
Isham. Edward S., 554 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
King, Scott <& Payson, G37 Wabash avenue.
Knickerbocker, J. C. and J. J. 163 W. Washington.
Learning & Thompson, 109 West Randolph street.
Leary, D. James, 159 West Madison.
Lyman & Jackson, 79 W. Madison street, room 3.
Magruder, B. D., 181 W. Madison.
Mattocks and Mason, 623 Wabash ave,
McClelland. Thos., S., 45 S. Canal, room 6.
Merriara, Alexander and Bolster, 149 W. Wash
ington street.
Miller, Frost & Lewis, 363 Michigan avenue.
Moore & Caulfield, S. E. cor. State and Madison.
Newcomb, G. W., 214 Warren avenue.
Norton, Jesse O,. 38G Wabash avenue.
Nissen &. Barnum,126 W. Randolph, and 376 State
Otis, E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Paddock & Ide, 449 Wabash avenue.
Perkins, N.C., 479 Wabash av.,cor. Eldridge court.
Palmer, L. L., 481 Wabash avenue.
Pfirshing, Jos. 47 Peck C't, bet. Wabash and State
Reynolds, Wm. C, 176 West Washington street.
Rich & Thomas, 945 Michigan avenue, and 468
Wabash avenue.
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 So Canal.
Rorke, M. A. & Son, 154 Halstcd street.
Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, Masonic Building, S
W., cor. Randolph and Halstedand350Wabash av.
Roys, C. D., 677 Wabash avenue.
Sawln <& Wells, 59 West Madison street.
Scammon, McCagg and Fuller, 389 Wabafch av.
Scoville, George, 30 South Clinton street.
Sheldon & Waterman, eor LaSalle and Monroe
Sherman, E. B., 153 W. Madison.
Sleeper & Whiton, 441 Wabash avenue.
Small and Ingalls, 481 Wabash avenue.
Snowhook & Gray, 85 W. Monroe st., cor. Jeffer
son.
Story and King, 149 West Washington street.
Tcnny, McCIellan & Tenny, 454 Wabash ave.
Thomas, Sidney, 95 East Harrison street.
Van Buren, E. & A.. 194 West Madison street.
Vallette, H. F., 59 West Madison street.
Waterman, A. N,, 135 West Monroe street.
White, Hugh A., 165 West Washington street.
Whitehouse, Wm. F., 188 West Madison, late Triun e building.
Williams & Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
Walker, Dexter & Smith, 792 Wabash avenue.
Wilson, Perry & Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
Windett, Arthur W., 562 Wabash ave., and room
6 Lind's Block.
Waughop, J. W 401 Wabash avenue.
THOMAS H. MARSH,
Attorney, 100 West Monroe.
pHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois,
i ook, ss. Superior
Court of Cook
county.county
Januof
ary Term, A. t>. 1S7L'. Edward T. Dickinson v. Sarah
E.Affidavit
Dickinson.In
Chancerv. of Sarah E.fDickluof the non-residenee
fion, defendant above named, having been filed in tho
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook
county, notice is hereby
given to the said Sarah E.
Dickinson that the complainant heretofore filed his
hill of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of
said court against said defendant, returnable on the
first (Monday of January uext (1873), as is by law re
quired.
Now, unless you, the said Surah E. Dickinson, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook
on the infirst
of a term
to be
holdencounty,
at Chicago,
saiddaycounty,
on thethereof,
first Mon
day of January, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same.^and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will bo taken as confessed,and adecree entered against
vou according to the prayer <>f said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Thomas H. Marsh, Compl't's Sol'r.
11-14

DEPARTMENT,

Chicago University*
LECTURES were resumed in this institution on
Monday, Oct. 80th last, in the lecture room of
the Second Baptist Church, corner of Monroe and
Morgan streets. All the old advantages obtained
by students in this law school are again offered.
For information address
JOHN A. HUNTER,
Sec. Law Dept.
6-13
135 W. Monroe street, Chicago.

L AW

BOOKS.

Bourquin & Welsh

LAW BOOKSELLERS,
PUBLISHERS <& IMPORTERS,
No. 431 Walnut Street,
Philadelphia.
4-16

LAW BOOKS.
J. It. McDIVITT,
81 NASSAU STREET, NEW YOB
Second-hand Law Books Bought, Sold and Ex
changed.
6-19

THE

CHICAGO

LEGAL

NEWS

COMPANY.
PRINTING OFFICE,
15 North Jefferson Stxeet ;
Business Office, us West Madison Street,
CHICAGO.

BOOK AND JOB

Particular attention given to all kinds of

LEGAL PRINTING :
INCLUDING
Attorneys' Abstracts,
Briefs and Dockets,
Books, Pamphlets and Reports.
Orders for this description of work will be execut
ed promptly in the neatest style of the art.
Decrees, Orders,
Mortgages, Deeds, Leases,
Cliecks, Notes, Drafts, Bonds,
Cards, Labels, Letter Headings,
Bills of Lading, Bill Heads,
Insurance Policies, Circulars,
Receipts, Hand-bills, etc., etc.,
Printed upon the shortest notice.
THOMAs L. McLVTOSH. lute head of the Book
and Newspaper department of the Lakeside Print
ing Company, is the superintendent of our Print
ing Department.

Chicago

Legal

BURKE & ALLEN,

JONES & GARDNER,
18 AV. Randolph Street.
Attorneys, 194 West Madison St.
flHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois, County of j
TRUSTEE'S SALE.Whereas, on the twenty-fifth ^ Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook
county, August
day of October, 1*70, Amos f . Tompkins executed Term. A.D. 1871. Timothy Lane vs. Sylphyna
J. Lane.
to the undersigned, his trust deed of that date, of the In
Chancery.
realtheestate
described,1870,
which
wasrecorder's
recorded Affidavit of the non-residence of Sylphyna J. Lane,
on
sixthhereinafter
day of December,
in the
above named, having been filed in the office
office of Cook county, Illinois, in book 575 of deeds, at defendant
of tho clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county, no
page 174, which
was given
to secure
two tice
is hereby given
to tho sitid
Lane that
promissory
notes trust
of saiddeed
Tompkins,
of even
date with
the
complainant
heretofore
filedSylphyna
his bill ofJ. complaint
said trust deed, payable to the order of Joseph Harris, in said court, on the
chancery
side
thereof,
and
that a
ach for the sum of thirty-seven hundred and fifty dol summons
thereupon issued out of said court ngainst
lars, with interest thereon at eight per cent, per an said defendant,
returnable on the third Monday of
num,
payable
eemi-Hunually,
said
notes
being
payable
next, (1871,) as is by law rniuired.
respectively in one and two years after date, and being September
you,appear
the said
Sylphyna
J. Lane,
shallof
for part of the purchase money of the premises in said Now, unless
be and
before
said Circuit
court
trust deed described; and, whereas, default has been personally
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
made in the payment of the interest due on said notes Cook
at Chicago, in said county, on the third Monday
for the nix months endiug on the twenty-fifth day of holden
of September,
1871, bill
andor'plead,
answertheorsame,
demurand
to the
the
October, 1*71, and in the payment of the note first due. said
complainant's
complaint,
except the sum of tour hundred dollars, paid and en matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will
be
dorsed upon said note as of its date, to apply on the taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
principal
of said
; and, whereas,
the legaltoholder
of said bill.
of said notes
1ms note
requested
the undersigned
make according to the praver
T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
sale of said real estate, as authorized by said truBt Burke A Allen,NORMAN
Compl't's Sol'rs.
10-13
deed, tois hereby
pay saidgiven,
notesthat
andunder
interest:
Now,
therefore,
notice
and
by
virtue
of
the
A.
B.
BALDWIN,
power and authority give-n by said trust deed, and for
Attorney. Room (>, Lino's Block.
the purpose of paying the notes and interest aforesaid,
of john b. gallagher, deceased.
and on the thirteenth day of January, 1872, at ten instate
J
Notice is against
hereby given
to all ofpersona
claims
o'clock
the forenoon
that day,
the premises
in and demands
the estate
John having
It. Gallagher,
eaid
trustin deed
described,of(.being
also atknown
as No. 447
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
West
Washington
street.)
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
in
tlement, at a regular term of theCnunty Court of Cook
the state toof the
Illinois,
proceedtherefor,
to sell, atthepublic
to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
auction,
highestI shall
cash bidder
said countyj
Chicago,
firstthereof.
Monday of February, A. D., 1872,
real estate, to wit: the east half of lot numbered being
theonfifththedav
twenty-six (2ii), in block numbered five (:>), in Malcom
SARAH
A.
GALLAGHER,
Administratrix.
McNeill's subdivision of blocks numbered Bix
B. Baldwin. Att'y.
seven (7) and eight (.$), in Wright's addition to Chica- A.
_8-13 9-14
fotin the city of Chicago, county of Cook and state of Chicago, Nov. 27th, 1871.
llinois, and
all bythesaid
right,
OF HOMER HOPKINS, DECEASED.conveyed
to me
trusttitle,
deed.interest in the samo I TESTATE
JTj
Notice
is
hereby
given
to
all
persons
having
Dated Dec. 7, 1871, GEO. GARDNER, Trustee. I claims and demands against the estate of Homer
Jones <fc Gardner. Att'ys.
9-13 I Hopkins, decceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
THEO. SCHINTZ,
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of Febru
Attorney, 122 West Randolph St. | ary,
A.D. 1872, being the fifth day thereof.
CHANCERY NOTICE. State of Illinois, Cook
KITTIE
L. HOPKINS, Executrix.
County,
bs.
Superior
Court
of
Cook
County.
Jan
I
Chicago,
Dec. 12,
A.D. 1871.
uary term, A. D., 1^72. Clara Hroschc v. Carl Grosse. j A^B. Baldwin,
AtUy.
10-15
InAffidavit
Chancery.of the non-residence of Carl Grosse, de
ELA
&
PARKER,
fendant above named, having been filed in the office Attorneys, 116 West Madison Street.
of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook County,
NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
notice is hereby given to the said Carl Grosse that the CHANCERY
Cook.Bs. Superior Court of Cook countv. Janu
complainaut heretofore filed her petition to be ap ary Term,
A.D. 1*72. Fanny M. Bundy v. Oliver T.
pointed guardian in said court, on the chancery side Bundy, Jr.In
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of Affidavit of theChancery.
non-residence ofOliver T. Bundy, Jr.,
' 1 court against said defendant, returnable on the defendant above named,
having been filed in the office
""
first Monday
of January next, 1872 ' i by law re- of tho Clerk of said Superior
county,
no
quired.
is hereby given to the saidCourt
OliverofT.Cook
Bundy,
Jr., that
Now, unless you, the said Carl Grosse shall per tice
the
complainant
heretofore
filed her bill of complaint
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of in said Court, on the chancery
thereof, and that a
Cook County,
on theinfirst
of a term
thereof,
to be summons thereupon issued outside
of said
against
holden
at Chicago,
saiddaycounty,
on the
first Mon
defendant, returnable on the
firstCourt
Monday
of
day of January, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to said
next (1>72), as is by law required.
the said complainant's petition, the same and the January
Now, unless you, the said Oliver T. Bundy, Jr., shall
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be personally
be and appear before said Superior Court of
taken as confessed,
and ofa decree
entered against you Cook county,
on the
first county,
day of aonterm
to be
according
to the prayer
said petition.
holden at Chicago,
in said
the thereof,
first Monday
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
of January,
1872,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
Theo. ScntNTZ, Compl't's Sol'r.
12-15 said
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
ESTATE
OF
AUGUST
SCHILLER,
DECEA8ED.taken as confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims according
to the prayer of said bill.
and demands against the eBtate of August Schiller, de
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
ceased,
present the
for adjudication
11-14
County Courtandofsettle
Cook Ela & Parker, Compl't's soPr.
ment attoa regular
termsame
of the
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
DEANE & CAHILL,
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
March,
A.
D.
1872,
be
ing the 4th dav thereof.
Attorneys, Lind's Block.
MAGDELENA SCHILLER, Administratrix. CHANCERY
NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Cook
Theo. Schintz, Attorney.
County, ss, Superior Court of Cook county, De
Chicago, December 8, A. D. 1871.
9-14a cember
term, A. D 1871. Duano C. Galloway v, Rosa
ESTATE
R. HAEUSSLER,
NoticeOFis CHARLES
hereby given
to all personsDeceased.
having Galloway.
Affidavit ofIntheChancery.
non-residence of Rosa Galloway, de
fendant above named, having been filed in tho office of
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
Charles
R.
Haeussler, deceased, to present the same for adjudica the Clerk of said Superior Conrt of Cook county, no
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County tice is hereby given to the said Rosa Galloway that the
court
county, toonbetheholden
at the court
house complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint in
in the ofcityCook
of Chicago
first Monday
of Febru
said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
ary, A.D. 1872, being the fifth dav thereof.
Bummons thereupon, issued out of said Court against
defendant,
returnable
on the
first Monday of De
ANNA HAEUSSLER, Administratrix. said
cember
next, 1871,
as is by law
required.
Chicago, Dec. 15. A.D. 1871.
Theo. Schintz, Att'y.
10-16a Now, unless you. the said Rosa Galloway shall per
sonally bo and appear before said Superior Court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Mon
Attorney.
day said
of Decomber,
1871, and
plead, answertheorsame,
demurand
to
administratrix'
sale
of
real
estate.
the
complainant's
bill ofcomplaint,
By virtue of an order and decree of the County the matters
and
things
ther
in
charged
and
stated,
will
Court of Cook county, Illinois, made on the petition of be taken as confessed, and a decree entered againsfyou
the undersigned, Dorothea Kingleb, formerly Dorothea according to the prayer of said bill
Medelman,
of the
of Friedrich
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Medelman, administratrix
deceased, for leave
to sellestate
tho real
estate of
10-13
said deceased, at the December term, A. D. 1871,'of said Dfane & Caiilll Compl't's Sol'r.
court? to wit, on the sixth day of" December, A. D. 1871,
R.
BIDDLE
ROBERTS,
I shall,
on Monday,
theat22dpublic
day ofsale,
January,
1872,
Attorney, Room 7, 43 S. Canal St.
at
11 o'clock
a. in", sell
at the A.
eastD. door
of the Court House, on Clark street, in the city of Chi ESTATE OF JOHN WEISHAAR, DECEASED.cago, in said Cook county, and State of Illinois, the
Notlco
is hereby given to all persons having claims
real estate described as follows, to wit: the northeast
demands against tho estate of John Weishaar, de
quarter of the northeast quarter of Bection twenty- and
ceased,
to
present
same for adjudication aud settle
three (23), in township thirty-six (36), range thirteen ment at a regular the
term of the County Court of Cook
'13), east of the 3d i\ M., in tho town of Bremen, in county, to be holden
the Court House, in the city of
_ x>k county. State of Illinois, containing forty acres, Chicago, on the first atMonday
on the following terms, to wit : cash on delivery of the ing the fourth day thereof. of March, A. D. 1872, be
deed.
DOROTHEA
R1NGLEB,
E. B. WEISHAAR,
(Formerly Dorothea Medelman.)
R. BIDDLE ROBERTS,
Administratrix of the estate of Friedrich Medelman,
Administrators.
deceased.
Chicago,
December
5,
A.
D. 1871.
y-14p
James B. Bradwell. Att'y for Estate.
9-14
WM. LAW7Jr.r~
JAMES B. BRADWELL & A. H. LAWRENCE,
Attorney, 145 YV. Madison St.
Attorneys.
ALL
WHOM
IT
MAY
CONC'KRN.-Public
noofhereby
enoch
h.to allstein,
Ttice ts hereby given that the undersigned, guardian instate
j
Notice
is
personsdeceased.having claims
of the estate of Wayne Wadhams, a minor, will make and demands againstgiven
the
estate
of Enoch H. Stein
application to the Circuit court of Cook county, Illi deceased, to present the same for adjudication
set
nois, at the January' term, A. D. 1*72, to bo holden at tlement at a regular term of the County Court and
Cook
the court-houae (High School building), in the city of county, to be holden at the Court House, in theofcity
of
Chicago, county ana Slate aforesaid, which said term Chicago, on the first Monday of February, A. D. 1872,
commences on the third Monday of January', A. D. being
the fifth day thereof.
1872, for leave to sell the following described real es
FANNIE STEIN,
tate, to wit: Lot No. eight (8), in the west two-thirds
(%) of block two (2) of canal trustee's subdivision of
Administrators,WM.
withA.thoBUTTERS,
will annexed.
the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Bcc- James B. Bradwell
&
A.
H.
Lawrence,
tlon thirty-three (33), township thirty-nine (.19), north
Attorneys
for
Estate.
range fourteen (14), east of the third (3d) P. M., in Chicago, Dec. 7, A. D. 1871.
9-14
Cook county. State of Illinois, for the purpose of in
vesting the proceeds of such property in such manner
SAMUEL
STRAUS,
as theKhali
courtdirect,
appointing
such guaras
Attorney, 502 Wabash Avenue.
dian
or for the
suchundersigned
other legalas purpose
estate
gottlieb
seber,
saidDec.Circuit
court
shall
direct.
23, 1*71.
HENRY S. AUSTIN,
Notice isofhereby
given to all
personsdeceased.
having claims
Wm. Law. Jr., Att'y.
11-13
Guardian, etc. and demands against the estate of Gottlieb Sober, de
ceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
and settle
NOTICE
IS HEREBY
GIVEN
the undersigned
term of the County Court of Cook
will make
application
to thethat
Honorable
County ment at toa regular
be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Court of Cook County on the first Monday ofJanuary, county,
first Monday of February, A. D. 1872.
1872, being the first day of the January term, 1872, or Chicago, on the
day thereof.
eaid county court, or as soon thereafter as counse being the 5th
ELISABKTnA
can be heard, to be relieved from their liability as the Samuel Straus,
Attorney.SEBER, Administratrix.
official sureties on the bond of Mrs. Boxana W. Par- Chicago, December
8, A. D.JS71.
9-14a
melee, guardian for YVillard A. and Bertha Smith,
minors.
P.
McHUGH,
H. K. ESKINS.
Attorney. S. E. cor. Randolph & Canal.
C. H. BECKWITH,
OF AUGUST JESKE. DECEASED.-NOChicago, NoT.'22d 1871.
11-14 ESTATE
is hereby given to all persons having claims
NOTICE OF~RESIGNATION.-Public Notice is and tice
demands
against the estate of August Jeske, de
hereby
givenCourt
that the
undersigned
offer to ceased, to present
the same fin- adjudication and settle
tho Hon.
Countv
of Cook
County will
on Monday,
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
the fifth day of February, 1*72, being the first day ofthe county,
to
bo
holden
the Court House, in the city of
February Term, 1*72. thereof, or as soon thereafter as Chicago, on the first at
Monday of March, A. D. 1872, be
counsel can be heard, his resignation as Guardian of ing the 4th dav thereof.
Bertram, Adrian and Amy Dickens, minors.
ANDREW ENZENBACKER, Administrator.
J. LINTON WATERS.
McHugh, Attorney.
Chicago, December 27th, 1871.
11- 14p P.
Chicago, December 3, A. D. 1871.
9-14a

News.

FRANCIS ROLLE,
Attorney, 301) Clyborne Avenue.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of
Cook, ss. Circuit Court of Cook county, February
term, A. I>. 1872. William Meinking v. Anna Meinking.In
AffidavitChancery.
of the non-residence of Anna Meinking,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of
the
Clerk
said Circuit
of Cook
county,that
no
tice is herebyofgiven
to the Court
said Anna
Meinking
complainant heretofore filed his certain bill of com
plainta Insummons
said Court,
on the chancery
sideofthereof,
and
that
thereupon
issued out
said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the third Mon
day of February next (1*72), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Anna Meinking, shall per
sonally be and appear before Baid Circuit Court of
Cook county, on tne first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day of February, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same,
and
matters
and tilingsand
therein
charged
andagainst
stated,
will the
be taken
as confessed,
a d' cn-r
entered
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Francis Rolle, Compl't's Sol'r.
11-14
G. J. DRESSER,
Attorney, 114 AV. Madison St.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
\J Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county, January
Term. A.I). 1*72. Sarah A. Burlingamo vs. Lauriston
Burlingame.In Chancery.
Affidavit
of theabove
non-residence
of Lauriston
game,
defendant
named, having
been filedBurlin
in the
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook coun
ty, notice is hereby given to the said Lauriston Burlin
game that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on tho chancery wide thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of January next, (1*72.) as is by law required.
Now.personally
unless you,
the said
Burlingame,
shall
be and
appearLauriston
before said
Superior
court of Cook county, on the first day of a term there
of, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first
Monday of January, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur
to
complainant's
of complaint,
thestated,
same,
andthethesaid
matters
and thingsbill
therein
charged and
will be taken as confessed, and a decreeentered against
you according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
G. J. Dresser, Compl't's Sol'r.
MM3
SAMUEL STRAUS,
Attorney,
502 Wabash
Avenue.
INSTATE OF
FltlEDRICH
JAHN,
(alias) YAHN,
j
deceased.
Notice
is
hereby
given
to allofpersons
having claims ami demands against the estate
Friedereich John (alias) Yahn, deceased; to present the
same
settlement
at toa behold
regular
term offortheadjudication
County Courtandof Cook
County,
en
the Courtof House,
Chicago,
on dav
tho
firstatMonday
March,inA.theD. city
1872,ofbeing
the 1th
thereof.
BERTHA JAHN,
Chicago, December 2Mb., 1871,
Administratrix.
Samuel Straus, Atty.
12-17a
MOORE & CAULFIELD,
Attorneys, S. E. cor. State & Madison.
INSTATE OF MARY ANN TAYLOR, DECEASED.
j Public
is hereby
given
all persons
claims
and notice
demands
against
the toestate
of Maryhaving
Ann
Taylor, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to be holden in tne city of Chicago,
on the first Monday of February next.
MARY BROWN, Executrix.
Chicago, Dec. 13. 1871.
10-15
THOMAS E. TURNER,
Attorney, cor. Canal and HatHaon.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook. bs. Superior court of Cook county. To Feb
ruary
term,InA.D.
1*72. Alida Bothwell v. John II.
Bothwell.
Chancery.
Affidavit of tho mm-residenco of John R. Bothwell,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
the clerk
of said
courtJohn
of Cook
county,
of
notice
is hereby
givenSuperior
te t lie said
It. Bothwell
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against
said defendant,
on the
first Monday
or February
next, Us~2,)returnable
as is by law
required.
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
John
R.
Bothwell,
shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court
of
Cook countyt on the first day of a term thereof, to bo
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
first
Monday
of February. 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant1* bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and tilings therein charged and stated, will be
taken
as confessed,
and of
a decree
entered against you
according
to the prayer
said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
Thos. E. Turner, Compl't's Sol'r.
12-lSp
WAITE & CLARKE,
Attorney,*, Van Buren. St. bet. Wabash and Mich. Ave.
INSTATE
OF
HARRIET
E. GARFIELD,
DEa ceased, Notice
is hereby given
to all persons hav
ing claims and demands aganst the estate of Harriet
E. Garfield deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the court
house
he city
Chicago,
first Monday of
March,inA.D.
1872.ofbeing
the 1thoudaythothereof.
Chicago, December IMh, A. D., 1871.
CHARLES B. KING, Executor
Waite & Clarke. Attys.
12-l7a
A. W. ENOS,
Attorney. Room 6, Lind'x Block,
ESTATE
OF JAMES
DECEASED,
Public notice
is herebyO'MALLEY,
given to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of James
O'Malley,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the Court
House, in tho city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
March, A.D. 1872. being the 4th day thereof..
Chicago, Dec, 30th. A. D. 1871.
ANN O'MALLEY, Administratrix.
A. W. Enos, Atty.
12-17 p
HAMMER & SMITH,
Att'y's, Hammer & Smith's Bl'k, Room 1.
flHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
Cook, bb. Superior court of Cook county. To
January term, A.D. 1872. George W. Bower v. Lydia
Bower.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residenco of Lydia Bower, de
fendant above namod, having been filed in the office of
the
of Baid
Superior
courtLydia
of Cook
county,
tice clerk
is hereby
given
to the said
Bower
that no
the
complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint iu
said court, on the chancery Bide thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Jan
uary
(1872),
is bysaid
law Lydia
required.
Now,next
unless
you,as the
Bower^ shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook
county^
on
tne
first
day
of
a
term
to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, ou thethereof,
firBt Monday
of
January,
1872,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to the prayer W the bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Hammer A Smith, Corap't'a Sol'rs.
11-14
J.
R.
HOWXETT,
Lanark, Carroll Co., lUmoit,
POLICE
MAGISTRATE
NOTARY
PUBLIC.
Peace.
Has the same
jurisdiction asAND
any Justice
of the
Prompt attention given to collections and remittances.

95
A. H. LAWRENCE,
Attorney, 3(18 State St.
EXECUTOR'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE.-Ill the
County court of Cook county, State of Illinois.
George R. Spurr, executor of the estate of Charles M.
Fay, deceased, vs. Fram es A. Kay, Ellen M. Daniels.
George F. Daniels and Jennie B. i ay.Petition to sell
real
estate.
Public
notice
hereby
given, that
the undersigned,
executor
of tho isestate
of Charles
M. Fay,
deceased, by
virtue of an order and decree of the County court of
Cook county, state of Illinois, mad'- aud entered at the
August term, A.D. 1871, of said court, on petition of the
undersigned,
to sell29,real
of said deceased,
willday,
on
Monday, January
1872.estate
at 12 o'clock
noon of said
at the east door of the court house, on Clark street, in
the city of Chicago, In said county of Cook, sell at pub
lic auction, to the highest and best bidd> r for cash, the
following
described
estate,to wit
situate
of Cook and
state of real
Illinois,
: lot intwosaidof county
assess
or's divisionquarter
of lot of
sixteen,
division
of west
southeast
sectionin 23,
township
40 half
north,of
range 13, east of third principal meridian; also, lot
fourteen,
assessor's
division
of west tithalf
of therange
south13,
east quarter
of section
23. township
north,
east of the third principal meridian, except so much of
said lot as is described as follows, to wit: commencing
in the north line of said west half of said quarter sec
tion, at a point 4-18 1-9 feet east from tho northwest
corner ofsaid west half, thence east 1 10 8-lu feet to land
now or late of Susan C.tse, thence south *3 &-10 feet by
said Case land, thence west by laud now or late of
Charles
M. Fay
140 8-10
now orland
late of M.
L. Kimball,
thence
northfeet,by tosaidlandKimball
feet to place of beginning. Said sale being made for
the purpose of paving debts of said deceased.
GEORGE B. SPURR, Executor of said Estate.
Dated Chicago, Dec. 1M871.
A. H. Lawrence, Att'y.
10-15
NEWELL PRATT,
Attorney*, 1124 Wabash Avenue.
(CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
J Cook, as. Superior court of Cook county. To
January Term, A. I>. 1*72. Joanna Stanselle vs. Louis
F.Affidavit
Stanselle.In
of the Chancery.
non-residence of Louis F. Stanselle,
defendant above named, having been filed injthe office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Louis F. Stanselle
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the flr^t Monday
of January next, (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Louis K. Stansello, shall
personally
he sind
appear
beforeof said
Superior
Cook county,
on the
first day
a term
thereof,court
to beof
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
ofJanuary, 1*72.bill
andofplead,
answer orthedemur
the said
complainant's
complaint,
same,to and
the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
Newell Pratt, Comp'ts
sol'r. JACOBSON, Clerk.
10-13
CHANCERY
county To
of
Cook. bs. NOTICE.-State
Superior court ofof Illinois,
Cook county.
January Term, A.D. 1*72. Adda Paine v. Clinton J.
Paine.In Chancery.
Affidavit that the above-named defendant, Clinton
J.
on due
inquiry,
cannot
found,been
so that
cessPaine,
can not
be served
upon
him, behaving
filedproin
tho office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook
county, notice is hereby given to the said Clinton J.
Paine that iuthesaid
complainant
heretofore
bill of
complaint
court, on the
chanceryfiledsideherthereof,
and
that
a
summons
thereupon
issued
out
of
said
court against said defendant, returnable on the first
Monday of January next (1872). as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Clinton J. Paine, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of
1*72, andbillplead,
answer orthe
demur
the
saidJanuary,
complainant's
of complaint,
same,to and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newell Pratt. ComPt's SoPr. _
11-14
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Cook
county, bs. Super ior Court of Cook county. Feb
ruary term, A. 1)., 1*72. Thomas Hatton v. Sarah
Hatton.
AffidavitIn ofChanc
tho rynon-resi * n<- of Sar.il. HatIon
defendant
above
named 1 i ing been filed in the office
of the Clerk of said
Sup nor Court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given 10 the said Sarah JIatton that
the
complainant
heretofore
bill of complaint
in said court, on tho chanceryfiled
sidehisthereof,
and that
a summons thereupon issued out ol said Court against
paid defeudaur, returnable on the first Monday of
Februa.y next, 1*72, as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Sarah Hatton, sball
personally be and appear before said Superior Court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to
be holden at Chicago, it said county, on the first Mon
day
of February,
1*72, and
answertheorsame,
demurand
to
the said
complainant's
bill ofplead,
complaint,
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will bo taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Ui-rk,
Newell Pratt, Compl't's Sol'r.
12-15
MAOEE & OLESON,
Attorneys, 105 W. Randolph St.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county ot
Cook,Term,
ss. Superior
of Cook
county. To
January
A.D. 1872.courtHelena
M. Evenson
vs.
Andreas Evenson.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Andreas Evenson,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Andreas Evenson that
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
in said court,
on the chancery'
andagainst
that a
summons
thereupon
issued outBideof thereof,
said court
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Jan
uary next, (1872,) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Andreas Evenson, sball
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of January, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the
said matters
complainant's
bill oftherein
complaint,
tho and
same,
and
the
and things
charged
Btated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the praver of said bill.
_Maoke A Oleson. AUGUSTUS
Comp'ts Sol'rs.JACOBSON, Clerk.
10-13
ESTATE OF HANS BRISTRUP, DECEASED.is herebyagainst
given the
to estate
all persons
claimsNotice
and demands
of Hanshaving
Bristrup. deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of tho County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in tho
city of Chicago, on tho first Monday of February, A.D.
1872, being the fifth day thereof.
M. KROGNESS,
Administrator.
Chicago. Dec. 12,S. A.D.
1371.
_ Maobk & Oleson, Att'ys.
10-I5a
D. J. CROCKER,
Attorney, 48 8. Canal Street.
estate of caroline hkines. deceased.
Public notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims
demands
againstthethesame
estate
of Caroline
Heines, and
deceased,
to present
for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cookin the
county,
house
city ofIllinois,
Chicago,toinbesaidholden
county,at onthethecourt
first
Monday
of
February,
A.D.
172,
being
fifth day
thereof.
JACOB HEINES,theExecutor.
D. J. Crocker, Att'y for Estate.
10-15

96

Chicago

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
J. SEYBOLD, 49" Wabash avenue ; residence
F . 140 South Green street.
ARTIN A. O'BKENNAN, LL.D ,
659 State street.
M
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
ANFORD, E. Special attention given to Col
14*
s lections and Real Estate.
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
HERNDON & ORENDORF,
Office west side square. 27*
ST. LOUIS (HO.) ATTORNEYS.
J P. COL Counselor-at-Law, St. Louis. Mo.
LFRED PAXSON.
Insurance Exchange Building
LOGANSPORT (LND.) ATTORNEYS.
M. HOWARD,
,
Attorney at LAW.
5-

ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.

)EPPER, WILSON A MARTIN,
Room 2 Bunk Building.

9-20*

NEW

LAW

BOOK

STORE.

JAMES

GOCKCROFT &

Will open with a Full Line of

LAW

BOOKS

AT

ON

MONDAY, JANUARY 8th.

It will be to the
give urn a call.

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney, 18 Eart UarrUvm Street.
fN
THE
DISTRICT
COURTDistrict
OF THE
UNITED
J. States, for the Northern
of Illinois.
In
the mutter of Austin J. Goss, bankrupt.In Bank
ruptcy.
Notice Is hereby (riven that a petition lias been filed
In Bald court by said Austin J.
, of Chicago, in the
county of Cook, in Bald district, duly declared a bank
rupt,
under
the
act
of
Congress
of
Marchall2. lt*67,
fr a
discharge,
andla certificate
thereof,
and i .t her claims
provable under
paidfrom
act, andhi*thatdebts
the
3lBt
dayhearing
of January,
1*72,
at IIbefore
o'clock a. m.,court,
in assigned
for
the
of ihe
same
the
United
Stut'H * ..in
i room,
in the citjHaid
of Chicago,inwhea
and where all creditors of Baid bankrupt, and all other
persons in interest may attend, and show cause, if any
they have, why the prayer of the said petitionershould
not
further
noticeof issaidhereby
givenof
that be
the granted;
second andandthird
meetings
creditors
said bankrupt, required under the 27th and 2Mb sec
tions of said act, will be holden at the office of II. N.
Ilibbard,
in bankruptcy
said court,
his
office inEsq.,
theregister
city of Chicago,
in saidofdiBtrict,
on theat
said :Ustday of January in*tant, at in o'clock a. m.
Dated Chicago, Jan. 5.WM.
1H72. H. BRADLEY. Clerk.
Bobkrt K. Jenkins, Att'y.
13-M

Legal

STEVENS AND SONS,

(Late STEVENS & NORTON,)
LAW BOOKSELLERS, PUBLISHERS
AND EXPORTERS,
119 CHANCERY LANE, LONDON,
{Formerly oj BcU Yard. Lincoln's Inn,)
Have on sale the largest Stock in England of SEC
OND-HAND LAW REPOBT8 and TEXT BOOKS, at
CURRENT MARKET PRICES. All books supplied
by S. & Sons are Warranted Perfect, in Good
Library Condition, and the Heat Editions.
CATALOGUES and ESTIMATES forwarded GRA
TIS to any address by return of post.
The following is a small selection of Law Books on
sale, sent post free by return mail for cash remitted
with order :
Barnwell and Alderson, King's Bench. .' vols.
wn-ae. and Adolpbus, King's Bench. 5 vols 8 10.00
Barnwell
UHhtf. Reports.
12.00
Bea.van's
36 vols. 1K38-63. - - 250.00
Bingham, Common Pleas. K) vols. 1822-3*. - 27.00
Bingham, Common, Pleas, New Series. 6 vols.
1S34-I0. ------ 20.00
Carrington and Kirwau, Nisi Prius. 3 vols.
1843-50. 15.00
Carrington and Payne, Nisi Prius. 9 vols.
1823-41. ...
... 40.00
Clark
and Finnelly, House of Lords. 12 vols. 185.00
1831-*ti.
Coke, King's Bench. 6 vols. 1S2S. - - - 20.00
Croiupton and Jervis, Exchequer. 2 vols. lS3(t-32 7.00
Croinpton and Meeson, Exchequer. 2 vols.
1832-31.
De Gex, Macnaghten, and Gordon. Chancery. 10.00
8 vols. 1853-64. - - 65 00
De
1858-6L 321(1 00I H1
Gex and
ami Jones.
Smale, Chancery.
Chancery. 4 5vols.
vols 1846-52.
De Gex
Dow and Clark. House of Lords. 2 vols 1827-32. 800
Haggard, Consistory Reports. 2 vols 1822 - 6 00
Jacob. Chancery. 1 vol 1821-2. - - - 3 00
Macnaghten and Gordon, Chancery, I vols
1M9-51. Exchequer.
124 00
McCleland,
1- vol -1824.
oil
McCleland
and
Young,
Exch.
00
Kidgway, Irish Appeal Cases. 1 3volvols1825.1784-90 4800
Simons, V. C. Courts. 17 vols. l26-4y.
SO 00
Simons, New Series. 2 vols 1850-52.
6 00
Simons
and Stuart.
500
West, House
of Lords.2 vols.
1 vol 1822-26.
1839-41
Younge and Collyer, V. C. Courts. 2 vols 1841-3. 400
Younge and Collyer, Exchequer in Equity. 4 600
vols 1833-41.
1200
Younge, Exchequer in Equity 1 vol 1833.
4 00
Younge and Jervis, Exchequer. 3 vols 1826-30 10 00
Lord St. Leonard's Decisions (corrected by him
self,)
1835-46. 4 Lloyd
Goold.
: Drnry
and Warren,
vols.;aud
Drury,
1 vol.1 vol.
; Jones
and
Latouche,
3
vols.
;
together,
9
vols.
FlnlnMou'n Treatlxe on 3Irtlal Law.- 32 Oft
As allowed by the Law of England in time of
Rebellion ; with Practical Illustrations drawn
Ron the Official Documents in the Jamaica
case, and the Evidence taken by the Royal
Commission
Equiry,
tutional
and of
legaf.
By with
W. F.comments
Fini.ason,consti
Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law. svo ; cloth. 1866. - - 3 00
Utruptcy;
1 flitIV Law
and
Practice
In
BankWith an Appendix of Statutes, Or
ders, Forms and Fees. 1'urtly founded^ou the
Eleventh Edition of Archbold's Treatise. By
William Dowses Griffith, Esq.. assisted by
C.
A. Holmes, Esq.,
a Supplement.
C.Barristers-at-Law.
A. Holmes, Esq. 2 With
vols., 13 00
royal
8Y0. 186*t. By
Cloth.
Levi's Commercial Law.International
Commercial Law. By Leone Levi, Esq..
F.S.A.,Professor
F.S.S., oiofLincoln's
Inn, Barrister-atLaw,
the Principles
and Practice
of
Commerce
at
King's
College,
London, etc.- 10 00
1 vols., royal svo. Cloth. ...
Roftcoe'a
I>i|fet
of
the
Law
or Prius.
Evi
dence on the Trial of Actions at Nisi
Twelfth Edition. By John Day and Maurice
Powf.ll. Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. In royal
12mo. 070. Cloth. - - - . y 00
Sfelwyn's Abridgment of the Law of
Prliia.Thirteenth Edition. By David
Kkane, O. 0. Recorder of Bedford, and
Charles t. Smith, M.A., one of the Judges of
the Supreme Court of tho Cape of Good Hope.
vols.,woroyal
I860. Cloth.body- of sound
. - 12 00
"2 Here
nave8vo.
an invaluable
practical law so reduced in bulk by judicious
compression that the whole subject is thoroughly
treated in two not very ponderous volumes. It
ccutains
those subjects
on which
Solici
tor is mostjustfrequently
consulted
by histheclients,
and for which he needs the latest, readiest and
most reliable information. Here lie will find it,
and thus it will he found as useful in the office
as in the courts."Lair Time*, July 17, 1869.
Nmllh'N 1 JoHlah W. Manual of
Kiinit.r Jurisprudence.- A Manual of
Equity Jurisprudence, founded on the works
of Story'. Spenceand other writers, and on the
subsequent
cases: and
comprising
mental Principles
the Pointstheof Funda
Equity
usually occurring in General Practice. By
Josiaii W. Smith, B.C.L., one of her Majesty's
Counsel,In Judgo
County
Courts.- Tenth
tion.
Umo. 01lS7o.
Cloth.
- - Edi - 3 00
Snilth'a Mercantile Law.A Compen
dium of Mercantile Law, By John William
Smith, late of tho Inner Temple, Esq., Barris
ter-at-Law.
Eighthi i 1 .Edition.
By Temple.
Georoe
Moill.t:i liow Iiksw
of the Inner
Esq.,
one
of
her
Majesty's
Counsel.
Royal- 9 00
Svo. 1871. Cloth.
Tudor'a Mercantile tWs.-A Selertion
of Leading Cases on Mercantile and Maritime
Law. With Notes. By Owen Davis Tudor,
of tho Middle
Secoud
Edition.Temple.
RoyalEsq.,
svo. Barrister-at-Law.
I860. Cloth. - 10 00
Vunuc.vthitMcu'M Equity RraflMmnn.
A Selection of Forms of Pleading! in Suits in
Equity. Second Kdition. Revised and En
larged.
By E. HtuiiF.8. 2 vols., royal Svo; 7 00
1M28. Cloth.
Willlum*3ruteto Saimdcrtt' Report*.
By the late Serjeant Williams. Continued to
tne present time by the Right Hon. Sir Edward
Vauohan
Cloth. Williams. 2vols., royal Svo. 1871. 13 00
" The new matter added by Sir E. V. Willliams
to theofprevious notes is both considerable in
point
quantity, and most valuable in point of
quality. Not only aie the latest changes in the
law carefully pointed out, and the recent deci
sions
bearing
question
referred made,
to by
him, but
viewsonareeach
stated,
and suggestions
which
cauuot
fail
to
be
of
the
greatest
service
those who consult this work for information onto
any among the vast range of subjects with which
it deals. . . , We know no work which will
be more serviceable to the common lawyer than
that which lias given rise to the above observa
tions.
If any
the common
law bar inwishes
to be well
up inman
theatknowledge
necessary
that
branch of tho profession to which he hat devoted
himself, he can scarcely obtain elsewhere more
trustworthy
instruction.
Such digest
cannotthese
do better
than
read, mark,
and inwardly
vol
umes."-Law Magazine, Nov., 171.
S. & S. would draw attention to the facilities ofTered
by the recent introduction of the money order system
for transmission of remittances to Euglaud.
STEVENS & SONS, 119 Chancery Lane,
LONDON.

News.
AD VERTISEMENT.

ATTORNEYS.

GEORGE C. FEY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
54 West Randolph Street, formerly LaSallc Street,
Chicago.
STEVENS & HAYNES
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
I >u >v Publishers,
No. 113 West Madison Street, Chicago.
Special Attention Given to Probate 1
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
ESTATES SETTLED.
" Set thine house in order ; for thou shalt die,
AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS, and not live."2 Kings xx. 1.
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
LONDON.

H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.

8. A. GOODWIN.
E. C LARNED.
H. B. TOWLE.
GOODWIN,
LAENED
&
TOWLE,
Works ill all Classes of Literature
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
SUPPLIED TO ORDER.
No. 376 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWARD G. MASOS.
MATTOCKS & MASON,
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
No. 523 Wabash Avenue, S. W. cor. Harmon Court,
Orders Promptly Filled.
Chicago, III.
W. H. WING,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Elgin, III.
Collections promptly attended to.
5-16
RATES A IIODOES,
By importing DIRECT from England, a consider ATTORNEY'S AT LAW, 13 W. MADISON St.
able saving is effected, especially in the Customs duty, GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
from which Public Institutions in (he United States are
CHARLES J. BISHOP,
Successor to J. Freeman Silke,
SUNDRY mistakes having been made ACCOUNTANT AND EXPERT BOOK-KEEI'EB.
122 W. Washington St., Chicago, IB. 7-18p
by our Foreign and Colonial Correspond
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
ents in addressing their letters, we beg
SHORT-HAND
WRITER,
to notify that the members of our firm . Western Union Telegraph Office,
554 H'abash Ave..
are Henry G. Stevens and Robert W.
Haynes, the son and stepson of the late
Valentine Stevens, the eminent Law- PROPOSALS FOR SUPPLIES.
State of Illinois, County of Cook, )
Publisher. Since our father's death we
Office of Clerk of County Court, >
have continued to carry on the business
Chicago, Dec. 2S, 1S71.J
Id pursuance of instructions from the Board of Com
of Law Publishers, Booksellers and Export missioners
of Cook County, public notice is hereby
ers, at the above address.
given that sealed proposals will be received at this of
fice up to and including January 1ft, 1872, for furnish
During his recent visits to the United ing
Cook county with all blank books, stationery,
States and Canada, Robert W. Haynes printing, etc., also all the wood, coal, meat, provisions,
secured many Friends and Correspond groceries, dry goods, boots 'and shoes, clothing, medi
etc., needed for the Insaue Asylum, and Poor
ents; we are thus enabled to give refer cines,
House, county Hospital, and county Agent, for one
ences of the highest character in most year, ending Dec. 31, 1672 ; to be delivered at such
places and at such times as the county may direct.
of the principal American cities.
January 2, 1*72, exhibits showing tho quantity
We have no connection whatever with andByquality
of the various articles needed by tho coun
any other house of business, and to pre ty, also where same are to be delivered, can be seen in
office of the County Clerk.
vent delay and miscarriage, our Corre theThe
exhibits are prepared by the different depart
spondents abroad are respectfully re ments, and owing to the great variety of articles enu
merated
in the exhibits, they have been classified and
quested to plainly address their letters
numbered, and it is expected that the bids will not only
to us as follows :
designate the article, but the number of exhibit and
article, so that confusion on opening of bids may be
STEVENS & HAYNES,
avoided. All bids not in conformity with foregoing
instructions will be rejected.
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
All bidders will be required to enter into bond with
two sureties, to be approved by the County Clerk, In a
LONDON,
sum sufficient to guarantee the faithful performance
ENGLAND. of the contract, the county reserving the right to re
ject II bids if deemed expedient to do so.
Payments to be made promptly in cash immediately
Extract from " Report or Julius Rosenthal, Esq., after the bills Bhall have been audited by the Board.
LlBRAJtLAN TO THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF All proposals to be addressed to the County Clerk of
the Chicago Law Institute." November, 1870.
Cook county, and endorsed
" Proposals for Supplies,11 \
" To our collection of English Reports a valuable
" Gxbibit .... Number . ..." J
addition has been made by the importation of a
JOHN G. GINBELE,
. County Clerk.
full and well preserved set of the House of Lords
Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58 "INSTATE OF ELIZABETH GOEDEN, DECEASED.
volumes.
JTj Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands
againstthethesame
estuto
Elizabeth Goeden,
" English books were imported directly free of deceased,
to present
lor ofadjudication
and set
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the tlement at a regular term of the County conrt of Cook
to be holden at the court house, in the city of
firm of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose county,
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. UH% bethe 4th Jan.
day theieof.
diligence, promptness, and care in filling our or inChicago,
s, A. D. 1872. PETER GOEDEN,
Executor.
ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
Theo. Bohixtz. Att'y.
13-lSa
rpo ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERX.-This Is to
Scale of Advertisiitf/ liatis.
A certify that tho undersigned hnvo thin duy formed
aBrothers.
copartnership tinder the firm name of Frank
Space.
1 w. J w . 3 w. 1 m. 3 m. 6 m.
The general nature of the business to he transacted
by said firm is the purchase and sale of dry goods and 1 sq
jLoo 81.75 $2>3b t3725 88.00 $15.00 130.00
notions in the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and
State, of Illinois. The following persons are the part 2sq
2.00 3.50 4.75 6.00 15.75 30.00 59.00
ners of said firm: Joseph Frank, of tho city, county
and State of New York ; Henry L. Frank, of said Chi
2.S0 5.00 6.50 8.00 23.00 44.00 87.00
cago: Isaac Meyer, of Bald Chicago; and Henry C.
Frank, of said Chicago. These tour personH are all
3.75 7.00 9.50 12,00 30.00 59.00 110.00
general partners.
a
coi....
Harrman Mack, of the city of Cincinnati, county of
Hamilton,
State luis
of Ohio,
is the<l tospecial
partner. V2 col.... 7.00 11.50 17.25 22.00 58.00 108.00 210.00
Saiil specialand
partm-r
coiitrilnit'
the common
stock the sum of fifty thousand (S.vi,nwin dollars in cash. Icol 1 12.00 22.00 31.00 42.00 108.00 210.00 350.00
Said partnership is to commence January 1st, 1872,
andWitness
to terminate
December
Ten lines of Agate make a Square.
our hands,
this r.'d31st,
duv1*7.1.
of l>erwnl<fr, 1>71.
Advertisements must be paid for in advance,
JOSEPH FRANK,
and w hen not so paid. 50 per ceut. will be added.
HENRY L. FRANK,
ISAAC MEYER,
Legal Notices not included In the above.
HENRYGeneral
C. FRANK,
Partners.
Printed at the Chicago Legal News Press, 15
HARRMAN MACK,
13-18
Special Partner. North Jefferson street, Chicago.
of Public 1,1-

Qhicago

Jegal

Mews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 14.

6e Courts.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COOK
COUNTY.
Opinion Delivered January, 12, 1872.
The People ex rel. Catharine V. Waite. n.
Horace 11. Stebbins et al.
Mandamus,
WOMEN NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE OR BK
REGISTERED UNDER THE STATE OR UNI
TED STATES CONSTITUTION.
1. A Female Citizen not Entitled to Vote or
be Registered.Catharine V. Waite, of lawful
age, a resident freeholder of Hyde Park, a citizen
of the State of Illinois and of the United States,
applied to the board of registry to have her name
placed on the register as that of a lawful voter at
general elections in said town, the board refused
to enter her name, and the relator, by mandamus,
sought to compel the board to comply with her
request. The court held that although the relator
had been a resident of the town the length of time
required by the statute, was a citizen of the United
Stales and of this State, being a woman had no
right to have her name entered upon the register
as a voter or to vote.
2. Natural Right to Vote.That the right to
vote is not a natural right.
8. Certain Quotations Construed and held
Not to Apply to Women.That the quotations
read from the writings of philosophers and pub
licists are of great interest, and 11 taken as they
were intended
decisive
asauthority;
that they
were
meant toare
affirm
merely
that governments
ought to be founded and administered by the
people, and not by a self-appointed few who claim
to
be theirrepresentation
rulers by divine
right; that
without
is tyranny;
thattaxation
every
freeman is entitled to liberty, and that consists in
having an actual share in the appointment of
those who frame the laws; propositions which
have been familiar to Anglo-Saxon cars for many
centuries. But the word woman or female no
where appears in any one of the passages cited :
but the terms used demonstrate that the writers re
ferred to had in mind the male and not the female
of our species as the one whose right to vote, or to
riarticipate in making the laws they were vindica
ting.
4. Our Government,That our government is a
representative one ; that is, a government founded
upon the idea Jof every citizen being represented
in framing and executing the laws, instead of
participating therein directly and persorally, as
in the Athenian and Roman Democracies ; that
there has never been a day when every man, wo
man and child had not a well recognized right
with respect to the representation established by
the laws ; that the right guaranteed was the right
simply to be adequately represented ; that the
suffrage should be so distributed among the citi
zens that all substantial interests ofall classes and
conditions of men should be protected and en
forced.
5. Right of Suffrage.That to be a voter is to
be charged with a political duty in the nature of
an office from which many citizens are excluded
an office for life and without salary, but imposed
or conferred by the Constitution like any other
office : that it is the right of aAery citizen to have
the suffrage lodged in honest and competent
bands, but not his natural right to be selected by
his fellow citizens as their and his own representa
tive, that is, to vote for himself and them.
6. Suffrage under the 13th, 14th and 15th
Amendments.The court construes these amend
ments to the Constitution of the United States,
and holds that they do not guarantee or confer
suffrage upon women.
7. Who is a Citizen.The meaning.of the word
citizen, as applied to our government defln ed.
Ed. Legal News.
The opinion of the court was delivered
by Jameson, J.
This is an application by the relator
for a writ of mandamus to compel the re
spondents, who are the inspectors ofelec
tions and, ex officio, the board of registry,
for the fir3t voting district of Hyde Park,
to register her name as that of a lawful
voter at general elections in said town.
The petition of the relator sets forth,
that she is above the age of twenty-one
years, married, a freeholder in said town,
and a resident thereof, as well as of Cook
countv and the State of Illinois, for the
jjeriocis of time required by law to en
title male citizens to vote therein, re
spectively, at all general and special elec
tions.
Her petition also sets forth that on the
day of November last, the relator
tendered to the respondents, sitting as
judges of the election then held in Hyde
Park, her vote, offering to make the oath
and other proofs required by law as con
ditions of the right to vote, but that the
vote tendered was refused by them, con
trary to law and right. Upon this peti
tion an alternative writ was issued, to
which a general demurrer has been
filed, and the question I am to deter
mine is, whether, upon any ground of
Law, a peremptory writ should now be
issued.
It is not pretended, that the constitu

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1872.

tion of the State confers the right
claimed ; certainly it does not, in direct
terms ; for, Art. \ II., Sec. 1, after giving
the right of suffrage to special classes of
persons, not comprising the relator,
seems to limit it to males: its lan
guage is, " Every person, having resided,
etc., who shall be a male citizen of the
United States, above the uge of twentyone years, shall be entitled to vote," etc.
If, in this State, females have the right
of suffrage, that right must be grounded
upon the prescriptions of some para
mount law permitting it, notwithstand
ing restrictions or omissions of the State
constitution. And such was the ground
assumed by counsel for the relator in the
argument of this cause. The right of
suffrage, it was said, is a natural right,
and, as such, has been recognized and
fuaranteed by the Constitution of the
Tnitcd States. If this be so, it would
doubtless be a wrong to refuse to receive
the votes of females at State elections,
though it is not clear that the respond
ents would then be required to register
their names as voters, unless authorized
by some positive law to do so, since con
stitutional provisions do not in general
execute themselves. But waiving this
objection, is it true that the right to vote
is a natural right?
It is contended by the relator that our
government is one in which the people,
not merely the males, but all, irrespec
tive of age, sex or condition, possess the
sovereign power ; that the suffrage is
that whereby alone the individual can
exercise that portion of the sovereignty
which belongs to him or to her ; that
thus the right of suffrage is a fundamen
tal right, to take away which, in the lan
guage of Paine, " is to reduce man to a state
of slavery ;" that a right thus primary,
is one which can not be bartered away,
but is indefeasible ; and numerous cita
tions have been made of passages from
the writings of philosophers and publi
cists, such as Hooker, Priestley, Paine,
Granville Sharpe, and the republican
fathers, Franklin, Otis, Jefferson, and
the like, tending to establish that posi
tion. These quotations are of great in
terest, and, if token as they were intend
ed, they are decisive as authority. But
what is it they were meant to affirm ?
It was merely that governments ought to
be founded and administered by the
people, and not by a * it-appointed few
who claim to be their rulers by divine
right ; that taxation without representa
tion is tyranny ; that every freeman is
entitled to liberty, and that liberty con
sists in having an actual share in the
appointment of those who frame the
laws ;propositions which have been fa
miliar to Anglo-Saxon ears for many
centuries. But it is noteworthy that
the word woman, or female, nowhere
appears in any one of the passages cited,
but the terms used demonstrate, that the
writers referred to had in mind the
male and not the female of our species,
as the one whose right to vote, or to
participate in making the laws, they were
vindicating. Space would fail me to re
hearse them all, and I content myself
with citing the language of our Declara
tion ofIndependence, which isa fair spec
imen, and is much relied upon by the
relator upon this point. It declares, that
" all men are created equal ; that they
are endowed with certain inalienable
rights ; that to secure these rights gov
ernments are instituted among men," etc.
Now, while it is, doubtless, true that the
terms thus used are general, and were
intended to declare the rights equally of
men and women, still the words employ
ed are such as import only males. I
note this fact merely to enforce more
strongly the truth, that until the present
age, females were regarded as acting po
litically only through the other sex ; as
represented by them exclusively ; in
short, as having no direct participation
in public affairs, but only an indirect one
through their husbands, brothers and
fathers. To quote the writings referred

to, therefore, as proving their right to a

direct participation in politics is to per
vert themto give currency to the fool
ish heresy, that a law, general in its
terms, but admitted to express only a
particular intention of the law-maker,
can by construction be made to enact
what it is admitted he did not intend.
The relator has accurately denned the
government under which we live. It is
a government in which the peoplemean
ing thereby the corporate aggregate of
our citizensare the sovereign author
ity. This, it is safe to affirm, and it is,
perhaps, unsafe to affirm much more.
When we say, that our government is a
democracy or a republic, as many of our
writers do, we make use of descriptive
words which may or may not describe
accurately the thing we wish here, in
America, to define. It is certain that
with some features similar to those found
in one or more of the old democracies or
republics, the government of the United
States has many which are found in none
of them, but in respect to which it is mi
generic. It is not precisely a democracy,
nor precisely a republic, within the
scope of any of the definitions ; it is
rather a combination of some features of
each, with important features superad
ded. For our present purpose, the most
important fact, however, is, that our gov
ernment is a representative one ; that is, a
government founded upon the idea of
every citizen being represented in framing
and executing the laws, instead of par
ticipating therein directly and personal
ly, as in the Athenian and Roman de
mocracies. Considering the numbers of
our populations, and the great extent of
our country, it is obvious that it has
never been possible to administer here
any ^iher than a representative govern
ment ; nor has it ever been contended, so
far as I am aware, that there ever was a
time in American history, when the right
existed, even in theory, for the entire
people to assemble and pass laws or ex
ecute them themselves directly. There
has, however, never been a day when
every man and woman and child had
not a well recognized right with respect to
the representation established by the laws.
What was that right, and what were its
guaranties, and the means provided for
its enforcement ? The right was the
right simply to be adequately represented :
that the suffrage should be so distributed
amongst the citizens, that all substan
tial interests, of all classes and condi
tions of men, should be protected and en
forced. As not all citizens could partic
ipate directly in the act of governing,
such and so many representatives should
be selected to do so, as would do it fairly,
and as could do it effectively. And this
right, certainlv, has always been a natu
ral one, belonging as well to females as
to males, to children, criminals and lu
natics, as to persons not under any disa
bility. But the right to be represented is
not the right to be a representative. It is
one of my natural rights to have over
me magistrates, national and state, that
shall not oppress me in my person or
property, but it is not my natural right
to be one of those magistrates. I may
be a magistrate, if selected for that pur
pose by the proper authorities, in a prop
er manner ; otherwise not. How can
that be a natural right, which is one
only upon the condition that others vol
untarily concede it to me ? Precisely
the same is true of the suffrage. What
is it to be a voter, but to be charged with
a political duty in the nature of an office,
from which many citizens are excluded ?
an office, it is true, for life, and without
salary or perquisites, but imposed or
conferred by the Constitution like any
other office ? It is, beyond question, my
right, as a citizen, to have the suffrage
lodged in honest and competent hands ;
distributed so liberally and evenly that
all my substantial rights shall be guard
ed and made available to me, but
how can it be my right, my natural
right, to be selected by my fellow citi

Whole No. 172.

zens as their and my own representative,
that is, to vote for myself and them, any
more than it is to be President of the
United States, or Commander-in-chief of
the army, or, generally, to be the most
honored and distinguished American ?
And yet, in a certain sense, I have a
right to be a voter, a governor or a Pres
ident ; I have a right to exercise free
dom of speech and of the press, and, by
means thereof, if I can, to persuade my
fellow-citizens that I am not fairly rep
resented, or that I can not be fairly
represented without myself holding a
vote, or an office, or that it is a mistake, in
view of their own interests, to continue to
disfranchise me. But this, obviously, is
quite distinct from the right claimed by
the relator to vote, by reason of her cit
izenship, age and residence, and not
withstanding her sex, without showing
any law or constitutional provision mak
ing it her duty or right so to do. The
right which I thus concede to women is
an imperfect one, and is that which Mr.
Justice Daniel described in *he Dred
Scott case as inhering in every citizen,
the " right of acquuilian and enjoyment
of an entire equality of privileges, civil
and political." Scott v. Sanford, 19
How., 476. Doubtless, every citizen has
a natural right to acquire the suffrage, if
he can, as well as the right to insist that
when inadequate, it shall be extended or
enlarged. And this brings me to con
sider now the right thus limited is guar
anteed and can be enforced. If a citizen
having himself or herself no vote, is not
fairly represented, how can the govern
ment be compelled to correct the ine
quality ? The answer is, by using the
same means which children, women and
disfranchised classes generally, have al
ways employed in such casesand there
can be no o"the-*-namely, agitation, pe
tition, remonstrance, and if these avail
not, then revolution.
But, it is said, the right to vote must
be a natural one, because it has been
recognized and guaranteed by the Fed
eral Constitution as belonging to every
citizen of the United States. Let us ex
amine briefly the provisions of that in
strument, to ascertain what rights it se
cures or grants to the citizen, as such.
It is proper to note, however, in the
first place, that the term "citizen" is
used in the United States to designate
persons possessed of very different de
grees of political rights ; for, it is a gen
eral term, characterizing the entire popu
lation of the country, Dorn or natural
ized therein, and over which its govern
ment has jurisdiction. And this was
always the case, if we except Indians
not taxed, and slaves before the late act
of emancipation. The word subject, em
ployed in foreign countries, generally, to
characterize their respective peoples, has
not been in use amongst us as applicable
to our populations, since the separation
from Great Britain. This is well shown
in the Federal Constitution, Art. 3, Sec.
2, where the Supreme Court of the
Union is declared to have jurisdiction
between " citizens of different States,"
and " between a State, or the citizens
thereof, and foreign States, citizens or
subjects." See, also, Chisholm v The
State of Georgia, 2 Dallas' R., 470, where
Chief Justice Jay declares of the people
of the United States, that the sover
eignty was devolved upon them at the
Revolution, but that they were " sover
eigns without subjects."" But, although
all are citizens, not all are possessed of
the same rights. Conceding that, in
civil rights, they ever have been, with
the exception named, equal, in political
privileges and immunities they have
never been otherwise than unequal.
Children, criminals, lunatics, and per
sons residing in the unorganized territo
ries of the Union, have never been
voters. In point of fact, they have never
been regarded by anybody as having a
right to vote. 1 might add women to
this list of disfranchised persons, but I
will not, as that would be to decide the

Chicago

Legal

question I am discussing adversely, and tal ; which belong of right to the citi
I desire now only to note the fact, that, zens of all free governments, and which
in the United States, the term "citizen " have at all times been enjoyed by the
has ever been used as a general one, des citizens of the several States which com
ignating persons, some of whom had, and pose this Union, from the time of their
some of whom had not, the elective becoming free, independent and sove
franchise. Here, however, I am con reign. They may, however, be all com
fronted by the definition of the term prehended under the following general
" citizen," given by Webster, Worcester, heads : protection by the government,
and others, importing that a citizen is the enjoyment of life and liberty,
one who is entitled to vote and to be with the right to acquire and possess
elected to office. Were it true, that they property of every kind, and to pursue
thus define the term, I might reply, that and obtain happiness and safety ; sub
those authors are certainly mistaken, if ject, nevertheless, to such restraints as
they pretend to found their definitions the government may justly prescribe for
upon facts existing amongst us, and the general good of the whole. The
charge them with having defined the right of a citizen of one State to pass
term as it is understood on the continent through or reside in any other State, for
of Europe, where such would be a cor the purposes of trade, agriculture, pro
rect definition. It is well known, that in fessional pursuit.-!, or otherwise, to claim
all the countries governed by the Roman the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus ;
law.or by the codes that sprang from it, to institute and maintain actions of any
the civis, or citizen, is one connected kind in the courts of the State ; to take,
more or less directly with the adminis hold, and dispose of property, real or
tration of the civitat, the city or State ; personal ; and an exemption from
and, of course, is a person standing on a higher taxes or impositions than are
higher plane than the mere subjects, the paid by the other citizens of the State,
unenfranchised plebs. But the fact is, that may be mentioned as some of the par
even the lexicographers cited give sev ticular privileges and immunities of citi
eral definitions of the term " citizen," zens, which are clearly embraced by the
one ascribing, and the others not ascrib general description of privileges deemed
ing, to him the possession of the right of to be fundamental ; to which may be
suffrage. As to the dictum of Attorney added the elective franchixe as regulated and
General Wirt, in which he affirms, that established by the laws and Constitution of
the right to vote is the test of citizen the State in which it is to be exercised."
ship (1 Opinions of Att'ys Genl., 508), I
It is the last clause of this passage
balance it by citing that of Attorney which is supposed to establish the right
General Bates, to the effect, that negro to vote as a natural oneas one of those
slaves were, before the late act of eman fundamental rights, which the constitu
cipation, citizens of the United States, tional provision was intended to guar
though certainly they were not, until antee. But, the meaning of the learned
lately, entitled to vote. I Opinions of judge obviously was, that, while the law
Att'ys Genl.)
of a State might fix the qualifications of
I proceed now to inquire into the con voters, by requiring of each the owner
stitutional provisions supposed to estab ship of property, or a certain age, or sex,
lish the right to vote as a natural one. or period of residence, it could not make
The first of these is Art. 4, Sec. 2, of the birth within the State a prerequisite,
Federal Constitution, which provides, since that would preclude citizens of the
that " the citizens of each State shall be United States immigrating to the State
entitled to all the privileges and immu from another State, where they were
nities of citizens in the several States." born, from ever attaining the suffrage al
It is contended by the relator, that lowed to similar persons born within the
amongst the rights guaranteed by this State. Or, applying the guaranty to the
section is the right to vote. What, then, case now in hand, the meaning of the
are the scope and meaning of the sec judge was, that if any State should per
tion as determined by its history and by mit females to vote, a female citizen of
the United States immigrating from an
the judgments of the courts?
other State, would also, after haviite re
Before the Union was-formed the sev sided
in her new home the time required
eral colonies had been foreign states with
by law, and complied with the other
respect to each other, having a common conditions
upon females voting,
sovereign, but independent jurisdictions. be entitled imposed
to vote, without regard to the
The citizens of one colony, therefore,
when they entered another colony for a extent of her rights in the State from
temporary or permanent domicile", were which she came. In this sense, un
in law, foreigners, and had such rights doubtedly, " the elective franchise, as
only as the government of the latter regulated and established bv the laws
constitution of the State in which it
should concede to them. They might be and
to be exercised," is a fundamental
disfranchised, and they might be stripped is
of citizenship ; for it is but the
of many civil rights. While it was right
right to acquire the franchise, if State
competent for the colonies, when they laws
permit it to like classes of citizens
formed the Union, to continue this state
within the State. I am confirmed
of things, it was not desired to do so, born
but rather to make of the citizens of the in this interpretation of the passage in
the opinion of Mr. Justice
Union citizens also of the several states question,inbythe
case cited from Abbott's
to which they might transfer their domi Bradley
cile, with full rights, and on equal terms, Reports, in which he gives a summary of
the essential privileges of citizenship,
as near as might be. Accordingly it was but
makes no mention of the right to
provided, that the citizens of each state
as amongst them.
should be entitled to the privileges and vote
I am next referred to the 14th and loth
immunities of citizens in the several amendments
the Constitution as es
states. The evident intention of the tablishing thetosupposed
natural right to
provision was, not to endow citizens vote.
immigrating from other states with
The 13th amendment had declared
greater privileges than the native-born
abolished throughout the United
citizen enjoyed, but to put them, class slavery
It was the object of the 14th and
for class, as far as possible, upon the States.
15th amendments to fix the status, and
same footing as the native-born. Ac secure
the rights, of the class of persons
cordingly, it has been held in several I thus emancipated
from slavery. Al
cases, that this constitutional guaranty though, perhaps, emancipation
made of
can be applied only in the case of re those persons citizens ofthe United
States,
moval from one State to another. Ab the 1st section of the 14th amendment,
bott v. Bailey, 6 Pick., 8!); Connor v. to remove all doubt, defines the term
Elliott, 18 Howard, 591 ; Live Stock, etc., citizen so as to include them, and then
Association v. Crescent City, etc., Co., 1 proceeds,
in their interest, and with a
Abbott's U. 8. R., 397 ; 3 Chicago view to their
to guarantee
Legal News, 17. Hence, it was held further than hadprotection,
before been done, the
by Washington, J., that it was not rights of citizens in
the following terms:
a violation of this provision for the State " No State shall make
or enforce any law
of New Jersey to limit the right of fish which shall abridge the
or
ing for oysters in the waters of the State immunities of citizens ofprivileges
the United
to the citizens of New Jersey. Corfield States ; nor shall any State deprive
any
v. Coryell, 4 Wash., C. C. R., 380.
person of life, liberty or property with
What, then; are the rights guaranteed out due process of law, nor deny to any
by this provision as fixed by judicial person within its jurisdiction the equal
construction ; or, more directly, is the protection of the law." This provision
right to vote secured thereby to all citi is a still further departure from the
zens coming to this State from another original policy of leaving the Federal
State ?
Constitution without a bill of rights,
The privileges and immunities of citi for it secures to the citizens of the
zenship were declared by Justice Wash United States rights commonly guaran
ington, in the case last cited, to be those teed only in our State bills of rights.
which "are, in their nature, fundamen Amongst those is undoubtedly included

News.

the right of suffrage as above qualified

and explained; that is, the right of
every citizen of the United States emi
grating to another State, to acquire there
the suffrage, upon equitable conditions,
so far as it is accorded to citizens of the
same class by the law of the State. This
we infer from the language used, and
still more clearly from the history of the
times in which the amendment was
adopted. In many of the States, even
at the North, colored men were, at that
time, deprived of most political, and of
many civil, rights. Not only could they
not vote, but they could not be heard as
witnesses in our courts. The object of
the amendment was to place the colored
citizens of the United States, within the
several States, on the same footing, in all
respects, as the white citizens; in short,
to constrain the States to erase the word
white from their Constitutions, laws, and
customs. By far the most important of
the rights thus secured was the right to
become voters at State elections; for,
with that right guaranteed, all others, it
was hoped, would be easily attained by
the action of the voters themselves.
Accordingly, the amendment proceeds,
in the second section, to provide a pen
alty for refusing to erase the word white,
wherever it should operate to prevent
the exercise of that most important and
valued right. " Representatives," it de
clares, " shall be apportioned among the
several States according to their respec
tive numbers, counting the whole num
ber of persons in each State, excluding
Indians not taxed. But where the right
to vote at any election for the choice of
electors for President, etc., * * ie denied
to any of the male inhabitants of such
State, being twenty-one years of age
and citizens of the United States, or
in any way abridged, except for par
ticipation in rebellion or other crime,
the basis of representation therein shall
be reduced in the proportion which the
number of such male citizens shall bear
to the whole number of male citizens
twenty-one years of age in such State."
That is, if any State shall retain the
word white in determining the qualifica
tions of its voters, the United States will
punish it by using the same word in de
termining its population, with a view to
fix its representation in Congress. Such
a provision, of course, implies, that the
States may lawfully limit the right of
voting to their white citizens ; it seeks
merely to prevent them from doing so
by lessening their power in the Union
in proportion to the numbers of blacks
whose rights they might thus abrklge or
deny. As I have said, this amendment
was aimed at the Northern as well as the
Southern States, for they nearly all had
Constitutions discriminating against the
black citizens, or retained in force laws
whose effect was to det rive them of
many of their most valuable rights. But
it was soon found that the 14th amend
ment failed to remedy the evil. The
States continued to retain the obnoxious
provisions in their laws, and it was not
easy to inflict at all, and impossible to
inflict with exact justice, the penalty
prescribed for denying or abridging the
most prized right of allthe right of suf
frage. This failure led to the adoption
of the 15th amendment which relates to
that right alone, and was intended to
make impossible the further denial of it
to the emancipated blacks. It is couched
in the following terms :
" The right of citizens of the United
States to vote, shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States, or by any
State, on account of race, color or pre
vious condition of servitude." This
amendment must be considered in con
nection with the 14th, just explained.
That amendment provided that if the
word white were used by any State in describingthe qualifications forthe suffrage
the State should be punished, as we have
stated. The 15th Amendment, in effect,
prescribed that the word white should
not be used in a law at all, when its
effect would be to prevent from voting
any citizen, who, but for that word,
would be entitled, by the terms of the
law itself, to vote. The amendment,
then, must be construed as though it
read thus : " The right to vote shall not
be denied or abridged, by the United
States, or by any State, to citizens of the
United States, on account of race, color,
or previous condition of servitude."
History and common sense unite in de
claring this to be the true interpretation
of this important constitutional provi
sion. To hold the contrary, would be to

" stick in t lie bark " of a mere literal in

terpretation. Worse than that, it would
be, out of two interpretations of which
the language of the amendmetit is capa
ble, to choose that one which is not
only false and misleading, but shallow.
To the view I have thus taken of the
constitutional question, a case decided
in the Circuit court of the United States
for Louisiana, by Mr. Justice Bradley,
Live Stock, etc., Association v. Crescent
City, etc., Co., 1 Abbott's U. S. B., 397,
3 Chicago Legal Nkws, 17, is thought
by counsel for the relator to be in some
way opposed. A careful examination of
the case has satisfied me, that it has nolegitimate bearing upon this case. The
right of suffrage is not alluded to in it.
The question before the court was,
whether or not the right to erect and
maintain slaughter-houses within the
city of New Orleans was a right common
to all citizens of the State, and of which
a monopoly could not, under the 14th
amendment, be granted to certain citi
zens exclusively, as a lawr of the State
attempted to do. The decision of the
court was, that the law creating the
monopoly was in violation of the 14th
amendment, aud so, void. Admitting
the soundness of this decision, and that,
according to it, it is one of the rights of
human nature to erect slaughter-house*
in the city of New Orleans, it is not ap
parent how that establishes the right of
women to vote in Illinois, without any
law permitting it. The opinion of the
court contains some general observations
upon the scope of the 14th amendment,
which may or may not be well-founded.
It is enough that they do not touch this
case. If they did, as they were made
by a single judge, sitting at nisi prius,
their decisiveness as authority might
well be questioned. I, therefore, dis
miss them without further comment.
In this view of the 14th and loth
amendments, they have a scope and
purpose very different from those of the
2nd section of the 4th article, first ex
plained ; they guarantee the equality
before the law of citizens in t; ie several
States, while the latter, as Stated above,
relates only to cases of removal from
one State to another, guaranteeing the
right of citizens leaving the State of their
birth to become citizens of the State to
which they transfer their residence.
The 15th amendment, moreover, is re
markable as effecting an important
change in the Constitution in relation to
State legislation on the right of suffrage.
By the Constitution, as originally
adopted, it was left to the States to pre
scribe the qualifications of 'voters, not
only at State elections, but at those held
for members of Congress, and for presi
dential electors. The 15th amendment
still leaves that power to the States, but
restricts them in its exercise by pre
scribing, that they shall not make the
race, or color, or previous condition in
respect to servitude, of the person ap
plying to vote, a ground of excluding
him from the right to vote.
If the conclusions I have reached be
correct, the claim advanced by the re
lator of a right to vote on the ground
of mere citizenship, and as a natural
right, must fall to the ground.
Upon the policy of so amending our
laws as to permit women to vote, I shall
only observe, that, on principle, I see
no ground for refusing to do so, when
ever a general demand for the suffrage
is made by women themselves. They
form a distinct class of persons, having
peculiar rights and interests, of wdiich
they might he the best guardians, if they
would assume the labor and responsi
bility of that office. Be this as it may,
one thing seems to me clear, that if
women are to enter the Capitol, with a
view to seat themselves by the side of
the Conscript Fathers, as legislators and
administrators, they ought to wait until
they can effect their entrance there le
gally and directly, by the door, and not
seek, as by this motion the relator seems
desirous of doing, to climb thither
some other way, through passages in
tended for wholly different purposes.
As the writ prayed for must be deni
ed, on the general grounds stated, I need
not stop to inquire into the powers of
the respondents, as registers of voters,
under the statute. The demurrer of the
respondents is sustained, and the prayer
of the relator denied, with costs.
Sixteen indictments for mtirder are
on the docket for the present term of
the Jefferson Circuit Court, Ky.

99
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
Opinion at Present Term.
The Hannibal and Saint Joseph Railroad
Company. Plaintiff in error, vs. Eden Swift.
In error to the Circuit Ontrt of the Vniltii States for
the District of Slissourt.
RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMON CARRIER.
1. The obligations and liabilities of a common
carrier are not dependent upon contract, though
they may be modified and limited by contract ;
they are imposed by the law, from the public
nature of his employment.
2. If a common carrier of passengers and of
goods and merchandise have reasonable grounds
for refusing to receive and carry persons applying
for passage, and their baggage or other property,
he is bound to insist at the time upon sucn ground
If desirous of avoiding responsibility. If not thus
insisting he receives the passengers and their bag
gage and other property, his liability is the same
as though no ground for refusal existed.
3. The liability of a common carrier of goods
and merchandise attaches when the property
, with his assent, into his possession, and is
not affected by the carriage in which it is trailsported, or the fact that the carriage is loaded by
the owner. The common carrier is iui insurer of
the property carried, and upon him the duty rests
to see that the jtacking and conveyance are such
as to secure its safety.
4. It is not a ground for limiting the responsi
bility of a common carrier, where no interference
is attempted with his control of the property car
ried, that the owner of the property accompanies
it and keeps a watchful lookout for its safety.
5. Where a railroad company receives for trans
portation, in cars which accompany its passenger
trains, property of a imssenger other than his buggage, in relation to which no fraud or conceal
ment is practiced or attempted upon its employ
ees, it assumes with reference to the property the
liability of a common carrier of merchandise.
6. Surgical instruments, in the case of a surgeon
in the army travelling with troop?, constitute part
of his baggage.
Mr. Justice Field delivered the opin
ion of the Court.
Two questions are presented by the
record for our determination : 1st, wheth
er upon the facts stated in the agreed
case the railroad company was liable as
a common carrier for the safe convey
ance of the baggage of the plaintiff; and,
2d, whether there was any error in the
assessment of damages as allowed by the
circuit court.
The railroad company was charted by
the legislature of Missouri in 1847, and
for many vears its railroad between the
city of Hannibal, on the Mississippi
river, and the city of St. Joseph, on the
Missouri river, has been constructed and
in operation. Between those places the
company was, in 1861, a common carrier,
over its road, of passengers and their
baggage, and of goods and merchandise.
As such carrier, its duties and liabilities
were plain ; as a carrier of passengers it
was bound, unless there was reasonable
greund for refusal, to take all persons
who applied for passage, and their bag
gage, and as a carrier of goods, to take
all other property offered for transporta
tion, and was responsible for the safe
conveyance of the baggage and other
property to the point for which they
were destined or the termination of the
road, unless prevented by inevitable ac
cident or the public enemy. Its obliga
tions and liabilities in these respects
were not dependent upon the contract
of the parties, though they might have
been modified and limited by such con
tract. They were imposed upon it by
the law, from the public nature of its
employment, independent of any con
tract.
If at any time reasonable ground ex
isted for refusing to receive or carry
passengers applying for transportation,
and their baggage and other property,
the company was bound to insist upon
such ground if desirous of avoiding re
sponsibility. If not thus insisting, it
received the passengers and their bag
gage and other property, its liability was
the same as though no ground for refusal
had ever existed.
It does not appear from the agreed
case that the company refused to trans
port over its road the troops of the
United States, and the plaintiff and his
family who accompanied them, when
they arrived in December, 1861, at Saint
Joseph, or their baggage, camp equip
ments, arms, munitions, and other prop
erty, but only that it refused to enter
into any special contract for the trans
portation on account of the danger of the
troops from the insurrectionary con
dition of the country through which the
road ran, and the frequent depredations
committed bv armed bands of rebels
upon the railroad and and its track,
bridges, depots, and atation-houses.
It was usual at the time, and during
the entire war, for railroad companies to
transport troops of the United States,
with their baggage, at a less rate per
head, and their equipments, arms and
munitions at a less rate per pound, than

the price paid by ordinary passengers,

for similar services, and it was undoubt
edly the desire of the commanding offi
cer in this case to have special contract
as to the amount of compensation to be
paid for the transportation. As we read
the agreed statement it was only a con
tract of this kind, fixing the rate of com
pensation, which was refused.
Whether the reasons assigned would
also have justified a refusal to transport
the troops and the plaintiff, with his
family, and their baggage and other prop
erty, it is unnecessary to determine. It
is enough to fasten a liability upon the
company that it did not insist upon these
reasons and withhold the transportation,
but, on the contrary, undertook the car
riage of men and property without being
subjected to any compulsion or coercion
in the matter.
The liability of the company was in
no respect affected by the fact that the
baggage, camp equipments, arms and
munitions of the troops, and the prop
erty of the plaintiff were placed in a
separate car, selected by the command
ing officer out of several cars standing
in the yard of the company, and not in
its regular baggage car, or by the fact
that the ear was loaded by soiiie of the
soldiers detailed for that purpose, and
not by the servants of the defendant.
The car selected belonged to the com
pany, and, after it was loaded and locked
by the commanding officer, the ageuts
and employees of the company took
charge of it and placed it in the regular
train, which transported the troops, and
the plaintiff and his family, next to the
tender of the engine. The liability of
the company attached when it thus took
possession of the property. No objec
tion was made at the time to the selec
tion of a separate car for the baggage
and other property of the troops and
the plaintiff, or to the kind of property
offered for transportation, or to the man
ner in which the property was packed,
or to the locking up of the car by the
commanding officer. If objection ex
isted on any of these grounds, or on any
other ground not concealed but open to
the observation of the company, it
should have been stated before the prop
erty was received. The company might
then have insisted, as a condition of its
undertaking the transportation, upon
the selection of a different car, or upon
superintending its loading, or upon the
possession of its key, or upon all these
things. Not having thus insisted, but
having received the property and under
taken its transportation in the car in
which it was placed, the company as
sumed, with respect to it, the ordinary
liabilities of a common carrier.
The case of Mallory v. The Tioga
Railroad Company, (39 Barb., 488), is
much stronger than this. There the
company only agreed with the plaintiff
to furnish the motive po\vr to draw his
cars laden with his propii y, he to load
and unload the cars a..d to furnish
brakemen to be under the control of the
conductor of the train to accompany
them, yet the company was held liable,
as a common carrier, for injuries to the
cars and the property of the plaintiff
not caused by inevitable accident or the
public enemy. The court did not con
sider the fact that the property was
transported in the cars of the plaintiff,
and that the cars were loaded and un
loaded bv him, affected in any respect,
the liabilty of the company, trie entire
train in which the cars were moved be
ing, whilst on the route, under the con
trol and management of its servants and
employees.
In all such cases the liability of the
common carrier attaches when the prop
erty passes, with his assent, into his pos
session, and is not affected by the car
in which it is transported, or the man
ner in which the car is loaded. The
common carrier is regarded as an insurer
of the property carried, and upon him
duty rests to see that the packing and
conveyance are such as to secure its
safety. The consequences of his neglect
in these particulars cannot be trans
ferred to the owner of the property.
It does not distinctly appear, from the
agreed case, whether any troops were
detailed to guard the car which contained
their property and that of the plaintiff,
except while the car was being loaded.
But if it were admitted that a special
guard was appointed for the car on the
route, the admission would not aid the
company or relieve it of its liability.
The control and management of the car,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.

[From 3. B. lil.A< K. Xeuurtir. to appear in XXJCIV.
Indiana.
Hawes m. Rhoades, Administrator.
Appeal from the Pike Omtmon IHni*.
1. Evidence.Revenue StampRecorder's Certifi
cateA certified copy of the record of a mortgage
is not rendered inadmissible in evidence by the
want of a revenue stamp upon the recorder's cer
tificate, such official instruments being exempt
from stamp duty.
2. Foreclosure of MortgageJ'roduction of Note
In a suit by the holder of a mortgage given to se
cure the payment of a note, to foreclose the mort
gage, no personal judgment being sought, the
plaintiff' need not produce the note and oiler it in
evidence, if it be in the possession of the defend
ant.
Worden, J.This was an action by the
appellee against the appellant to fore
close a mortgage executed by the latter
to the plaintiff s intestate in his lifetime,
to secure the payment of a note for
twenty-four hundred dollars, no personal
judgment being sought.
Answer of general denial, and pay
ment. Issue, trial by jury, verdict for
plaintiff, and judgment of foreclosure
for the amount of seven hundred and
fifty dollars.
A bill of exceptions raises the ques
tions pressed upon our consideration.
It is claimed that the court erred, first,
in admitting improper testimony ; sec
ond, in giving and refusing instructions;
and third, in not setting aside the ver
dict as being contrary to the evidence.
On the trial, the plaintiff offered in
evidence a copy of the record of the
mortgage, duly certified by the proper
recorder, but this was objected to by the
defendant because the recorder's certifi
cate had upon it no revenue stamp. The
objection was overruled, and the certified
copy of the mortgage admitted. There
was no error in this ruling, as such cer
tificates need no stamp.
By the act of Congress of July 3, 1866,
it is provided, " that all official instru
ments, documents and papers issued by
the officers of the United States govern
ment, or by the officers of any State,
county, town, or other municipal corpo
ration, shall be, and hereby are, exempt
from taxation." The certificate of the
recorder is an instrument issued by a
county officer, in the discharge of his of
ficial functions as such, and comes clearly
within the spirit and letter of the ex
empting statute. On this ground it has
been held by this court that county or
ders were exempt from stamp dutv.
Nave v. King, 27 lnd., 356.
We come to the next point. On the
trial, the note was not produced, it being
in possession of the defendant. The
point raised on the instructions given and
those refused is, whether it is necessary
in such case to produce the note and of
fer it in evidence. The court held it un
necessary, saying to the jury, in sub
stance, that the holder of a mortgage giv
en to secure the payment of a note has a
double remedy ; he may sue on both or
either of them, and recitals in the mort
gage are evidence of facts therein recited.
In a case like this, where the proceeding
is for a foreclosure only, the authorities
are somewhat in conflict as to the ne
cessity ofproducing the note. It was held
to be unnecessary by this court in the
case of Arnold v. Stanjteld, 8 lnd. 323 ; while
a different ruling seems to have been
made in the following cases : Lucas v .Har
ris, 20 111. 165 ; Moore v. Tilman, 35 111. 310;
Rennet v. Taylor, 5 Cal. 502. Probably
there are other cases to the same effect .
The recitals in the mortgage are undoubt
edly sufficient proof of the execution of
the note, and there is no need of any fur
ther proof in order to foreclose the mort
gage. There are, nevertheless, some good
reasons why, as a matter of practice, the
courts should require the plaintiff to pro
duce the note and offer it in evidence,
where it is in his possession or under his
control. In the ordinary course of bus
iness, payments are frequently made
upon notes secured by mortgage, and
indorsed thereon, the maker preserving
no evidence of such payments except
the indorsements. But where, as in this
case, the defendant has the possession of
the note, there is no good reason why
the plaintiff should be required to pro
duce it. If it contain, by way of indorsment of payments or otherwise, any evi
dence to his advantage, the defendant
may, in such case, avail himself of it by
producing the note and offering it in ev
idence. There was no error committed
in reference to the instructions as appli
ed to the case, in view of the defendant's
We are under obligations to Hon. R. possession
of the note. We put the de
P. Derrickson, of the Illinois Legislature, cision of this point on the ground of the
for copies of several important acts.
]Continued on page 102].

or of the train, by the servants and em

ployees of the companv were not impe
ded or interfered with ; and where no
such interference is attempted it can
never be a ground for limiting the re
sponsibility of the carrier that the owner
of the property accompanies it and keeps
a watchful lookout for its safety.
The ruling of the court upon the find
ings of the referee, appointed to ascer
tain the damages sustained by the plain
tiff, does not appear to us to be open to
any valid objection. A considerable
portion of the property, it is true, was
not personal baggage, which the com
pany was obliged to transport under the
contract to carry the person ; nor does it
appear that it was offered to the com
pany as such. It embraced buffalo robes,
hair mattresses, pillows, writing desks,
tables, statuary, and pictures, in relation
to which there could be no concealment,
and it is not pretended that any was
attempted. Where a railroad company
receives for transportation, in cars which
accompany its passenger trains, property
of this character, in relation to which no
fraud or concealment is practiced or at
tempted upon its employees, it must be
considered to assume, with reference to
it, the liability of common carriers of
merchandise. It may refuse to receive
on the passenger train property other
than the baggage of the passenger, for a
contract to carry the person only implies
an undertaking to transport such a limi
ted quantity of articles as are ordinarily
taken by travelers for their personal use
and convenience, such quantity depend
ing of course upon the station of the
party, the object and length of the jour
ney, and many other considerations.
But if property offered with the passen
ger is not represented to be baggage, and
it is not so packed as to assume that
appearance, and it is received for trans
portation on the passenger train, there
is no reason why the carrier shall not be
held equally responsible for its safe con
veyance as if it were placed on the
freight train, as undoubtedly he can
make the same charge for its carriage.
Here two companies of artillery in the
army of the United States sought trans
portation with their arms, equipments
and ammunition. The plaintiff, as sur
geon in the army, was ordered to accom
pany the troops, and for him, and his
family, and his property, transportation
was also sought as part of the general
transportation for the whole command.
On arrival at Hannibal the amount of
compensation for the entire transporta
tion, which included carriage of men
and property, was agreed upon and was
subsequently paid. It is to be presumed
when the compensation was fixed, that
the company took into consideration not
merely the peculiar kind of property
carried bv the troops w hich could hardly
be treated as simple baggage of travelers,
but also the property Desides baggage
possessed by the plaintiff and his family.
The value of the unpublished treatise
on veterinary surgery, and of the jewel
ry, as estimated by the referee, was
properly excluded in the amount al
lowed. The value of surgical instru
ments was properly included. Instru
ments of that character, in the case of a
surgeon in the army traveling with
troops, may properly be regarded as part
of his baggage. He may be required to
use these instruments at any time, and
must, accordingly, have them near his
person, where they can be had upon a
moment's notice. Whether the table
silver-ware of the plaintiff, although of
a limited amount, can be regarded in the
same manner, admits of much doubt. It
does not appear that the plaintiff or his
family had any occasion for this ware on
the cars, or even that they carried it
with any intention of using it on the
route. It is not, however, necessarv to
charge the defendant that it should be
treated as baggage. Its value may be
properly included in the amount of
damages, considering it only as part of
the property wihch the company re
ceived as a common carrier of goods,
against the loss of which, from any cause
but inevitable accident or the public
enemy, it was, as such carrier, an insu
rer to the plaintiff.
We see no error in the judgment of
the Circuit court, and it is accordingly
affirmed.Pacific Law Reporter.

IOO

Chicago

L egal

Chicago Legal News. not a proper construction of the statute.

The statute is as follows :
" The testimony to be heard on such
Hex TrJincit.
motions, aside from the bill and answer,
shall be by depositions in writing, taken
as in other cases in chancery proceed
CHICAGO, JANUARY 13, 1872.
ings, except the affidavits which may
have
been filed with the bill or answer
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
which may be read on such motion as
TnE Chicago Legal News Company, heretofore, and the depositions taken to
dissolve an injunction, may be read on
AT 115 MADISON STREET.
the final hearing of the cause in which
they have been taken."
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
It is clear it was the intention of the
Terms :
legislature, that only those affidavits
Two Dollars per annum, in advance. Single cop should be evidence which were filed
ies Ten Cents.
with, which means at the same time as,
THE LE6AL NEWS OFFICE Is at 115 the bill or answer, and if any other tes
Heal Madison Street. The Printing; timony is heard, it should be by de
Establishment Is at 13 BT. Jefferson at.
positions regularly taken.
We call attention to the following
Indiana Supreme Court Reporter.
opinions, reported at length in this
Col.
James B. Black has been the official
issue :
Reporter of the Supreme Court of In
Woman Suffrage.The opinion of the
Superior Court of this County, delivered diana for the past four years. We have
noticed many improvements in the In
by Jameson, J., holding that women diana
Reports during his official term,
of lawful age, citizens of this State, and not only in the manner of preparing the
of the United States, have no right un
opinions for the press, but also in the
der the laws and Constitution, State or
mechanical
appearance of the volumes.
Federal, to have their names entered as
have received some of the prooflegal voters upon the registry or to vote. We
The learned Judge construes the 13th, sheets of the 34th volume, and are much
14th and loth amendments to the United pleased with their appearance. They
States Constitution, and the decisions of are printed with entire new type
the courts made thereunder, and comes old stylemade expressly for the pur
to the conclusion that they neither con pose. We learn, through one of our
fer upon or guarantee to women the exchanges, that Col. Black's term will
expire in a short time. In Indiana the
right of suffrage.
reporter is elected by the people ; in Illi
Special AssessmentsPublication No nois appointed by the judges of the
tice.Two opinions of our Supreme Supreme Court. While we believe a re
Court in special assessment cases, defin porter should always be selected without
ing what constitutes a good certificate of reference to politics, and intend to keep
publication, and holding that Sundays the News entirely free from politics, we
and holidays should be excluded in com may, however, be permitted to say,
puting the time of publication.
knowing that Mr. Black is an able, ex
A Married Woman may be Decreed perienced and faithful reporter, that the
to pay Costs.The opinion of the Su people of Indiana will, in our opinion,
preme Court of Illinois, delivered by make a great mistake if they do not re
Walker, J., holding, that since the pas elect him.
sage of the married women's act of 1861,
and the act of 1869, giving to a married THE STANDARD OF GREATNESS.
woman her own earnings, that when a
Judge Story, in his treatise on Equity
married woman brings a suit in equity, Pleadings, citing Cooper's Equity, re
against her own husband, or any other marks that the ability to understand
person, and is defeated, that she may what is the appropriate remedy and re
properly be ordered to pay the costs, and lief for the case ; to shape the bill fully,
that the same can be made out of her accurately, and neatly, without deform
separate property. Many of the per ing it by loose and immaterial allega
plexing questions in regard to the prop tions, or loading it with superfluous de
erty rights of married;women, that now tails; and to decide who are the proper
trouble the ablest members of the pro and necessary parties to the suit ;the
fession, would be satisfactorily settled if ability to do all this requires various
our Supreme Court would construe these talents, long experience, vast learning,
reformatory acts according to the inten and a clearness and acuteness of percep
tion of the legislature that passed them, tion, which belong only to very gifted
and hold that a married woman for any minds. (S. E. P., Sec. IS.) Judged by
contract relating to her separate proper this standard, the Chicago bar is not
ty, might be sued in an action at law, and wanting in great lawyers. Any one
upon judgment going against her, that it familiar with the profession here, can
might be satisfied out of her separate readily designate in its ranks a number
property or earnings.
of gentlemen who are distinguished for
Responsibility of Common Carrier. their ability to do readily, and accurately,
The opinion of the Supreme Court of what so great an authority as Judge
the United States, delivered by Field, J., Storv declares to be proof of various
in regard to the responsibility of com talents, long experience, vast learning,
mon carriers.
and a clearness and acuteness of percep
tion, which belong only to very gifted
Dissolution of InjunctionAffida minds. It is often said that modesty and
vits as Evidence.Our readers will see great merit go hand in hand ; and this
by reference to the head-notes to ap maxim is abundantly illustrated in the
pear in 64th 111., printed in this issue, Chicago bar. Men who are competent
that our Supreme Court have decided to manage any case, in any court where
several important questions of practice. the law and equity systems of England
One of the most important is that upon prevail, work on from year to year, guid
a motion to dissolve an injunction, affi ing the immense interests of their clients
davits may be read if filed at any time be in this great city, with as little ostenta
fore the hearing of the motion, although tion as has characterized the incredible
not filed at the same time as the bill or increase of its commerce. To such men,
answer. This decision is, we believe, public office offers few attractions. Its
contrary to the settled practice on the cares are too exacting, and its rewards
circuits for the last thirty years, and is too small. They find in their profession

News.

an ampler field, greater honors, richer charters, yet too incomplete for practical
rewards, and with them, the peace and results.
2. The bill now under consideration
independence of private life.
by the Senate is not sufficient for cities
above 150,000, or for Chicago in the
present emergency.
(ffotiegpontiettre.
3. While I nave no doubt that special
assessments cannot be levied under the
power of eminent domain, I do not
LOST RECORDS.
doubt the present Constitution has es
I find a case reported in 15 U. S. Di tablished the power to make local im
gest, p. 480, of Adkinson v. Kul, 25 Ala provements by special assessment or
bama, 551, reported as holding that " the taxation of contiguous property, and
circuit court, by virtue of its general and that the application of this oower is en
plenary jurisdiction, has power to supply tirely practicable.
4. The requirement jthat there shall
a lost record. On motion to supply a
lost record, the proper practice is as fol be no sale of land for taxes or assess
lows : The notice of the motion must ments but upon the judgment or order
specify when the motion will be made, of some court, does not authorize the
and must contain a copy of that which court to examine into the equality or
the plaintiff will move the court to en justice of the assessment itself, and never
roll as the subsUince of the lost record ; did. That must be finally determined
and the defendant must have reasonable before a warrant issues to the city col
personal service of the notice, and of the lector commanding him to make levy
affidavits by which it will be supported, and collect the amounts of the goods and
which affidavits may be controverted by chattels of the several owners. The
counter affidavits. If the court, on court, before permitting sale of land, is
hearing the affidavits, is fully satisfied of required to examine all prior proceed
the correctness of the proposed substi ings, and determine that they are done
tute, it will order the same to stand en in due course and process of law.
If they do not constitute due process
rolled as the original lost record.
To the same effect is Dosurlt v. Stew of the law and the amounts are not de
art, 11 Alab., 629, alluding to an act pass termined, the officers issuing the war
ed to restore lost records, with the de rant against personal property, and the
tails of which the party had not com collector executing it are trespassers act
plied. It is quoted in 8 U. S. Dig. 322, ing against law ; and of course the city
as holding that " The power of supplying Hiust pay back any money so collected.
anew record, when the original has been But no court has ever had or can have
lost, is one which pertains to courts power to review an assessment on ap
of general jurisdiction, independent of plication for an order for sale of lands.
legislation, and if the notice of the mo It may annul it for fraud, or any other
tion for leave to substitute it is explicit fact, showing that it is not in due pro
in describing a judgment and papers al cess of law, and must refuse to grant
leged to be lost, it is sufficient, though it the order unless all the facts showing
does not conform to a statute which pro that it is 'in due course of law are proven.
5. The city is not liable to pay dama
vides for such a proceeding."
In view of the law as thus settled, it is ges for the use of its property or streets
evident that in order to restore the rec in anv case, where it would not have
ords of decrees and judgments, it is only been liable under the former constitu
necessary to provide for the service of tion.
The provision, " private property shall
notice on parties who cannot be found
to be personally served. For that an act not be taken or damaged for public use
providing for constructive service, as without just compensation," does not
embodied in \ 8 and 15 of the chapter change the rule of liability or impose
damages, in any case, where they could
R. S. chancery could be passed.
This would leave the matter under the not have been recovered under the for
control of the courts, to meet the exigen mer constitution.
The city can grade its streets by build
cies of cases as they arise. A recent case
in Tennessee, holding the views of the ing up or digging down ; can authorize
case in Alabama, as to the effect of a the building of steam or horse- railroads
statute upon the common law powers of upon streets ; can devote streets, like
the court, though recognizing them as Michigan Avenue, to the use of house
fully as the Alabama cases do. So this movers. These have been determined
power is recognized in Deshory v. Cain, by the courts to be legitimate corporate
1 Duvall (Ky.) 309, cited 25 U. S. Dig. uses, and if so, the city and the railroad
150. I have not seen these cases, as re companies are no more liable to lot own
ported, but give them from the digests. ers for damages, than the city and own
ers of slaughter-houses were to lot own
W. T. Burgess.
ers on Wabash Avenue for the use of
that street as a butchers' thoroughfare.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND THE
Some appear to have supposed that
CITY CHARTER.
the Constitution made the public liable
for damages accruing from the UBe of
Chicago, Dec. 16, 1871.
public propertybut there is no provis
Touching the various bills now before ion that private property shall not be
the Legislature respecting the powers damaged by public use of adjacent prop
and duties of municipal corporations and erty. If any such intention existed it is
their officers, note that the Constitution not expressed in the Constitution, and it
is written, " No corporation shall be cre appears that as land had been damaged
ated by special laws, or its charter ex for public use, Dy casting stones and
tended, changed or amended, * * but earth upon it, in deepening the canal or
the General Assembly shall provide by building railroads, the clause was insert
general laws for the organization of all ed that property should not be damaged
corporations hereafter to be created." for public use withoutjust compensation.
" ! he General Assembly shall not pass Whether this is the reason or not, this
local or special laws incorporating cities, is as far as the provision extends.
towns or villages, or amending the char
6. The present charter is utterly in
ter of any town, city or village." It is sufficient, most of it being, at least, of
apparent that no local law can have ef doubtful constitutionality, and a new act
fect as amending any particular charter, is ind ispensablebut it should be pre
and no special law can have effect as pared with the utmost care. Should be
amending all charters in any single or simplenot clogged with detail, yet full
special particulars. Neither local nor enough to convey every necessary pow
special laws can be enacted to enlarge or er and contain every necessary check.
alter existing charters ; therefore, if they Much legislation of this year will be of
are insufficient to operate as general great damage to the State "; but the char
laws of incorporation, they are void, and ter should not be a mistake. An exper
will be vetoed by the Governor, who is iment should not be resorted toyet a
a sound constitutional lawyer, and has novelty, if soundly based in principles of
read his oath. The policy "of this Con law, and adapted to attain practical re
stitution is to prevent jobs by making sults with certainty, is not necessarily
charters by piecemeal. There must be an experiment.
passed a general act capable of amend
The framer of any law should have a
ment, and then, if any amendment is to clear and definite idea of the end to be
be made, it must be made by designating attained. And it should be adequate to
the section amended. Only in this man attain the result, for results form the
ner the checks and security of this Con only test of the wisdom of a law. It
stitution can be preserved and its prin should be constitutional ; completely so;
ciples sustained. Its principles are as for this is a free country, and though
the constitution may be straight, like the
sacred as its words.
The great danger lies in the passage of laws of nature or of trade, everything
an act ample enough to operate as an necessary is possible within it.
Edward Roby.
act of incorporation and supersede the

101
We are indebted to Edward Roby,
Esq., of the Chicago Bar, for copies of
the following opinions :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed June 19, 1871.
John C. Rue tw. The City of Chicaiio.
1. Special Assessment.A defective certificate
of publication is a fatal defect in the proceedings.
2. Certificate of Publication.No particular
language is requisite to a compliance with the
statute, providing the certificate contain such
dates and facts that the court can determine
therefrom the date ot the first and lost paper con
taining the notice.
A certificate that the notice was published six
days consecutively (excepting Sundays and holi
days), commencing with Sept, '24. IStjS, held insuf
ficient. (See Smith v. Chicago Past.)
3. Cases referred toRich v. Chicago affirmed
in above respects. (See Chicago Legal News,
vol. 3. p. 2S2>. Creole v. Chicago (to be published
next week), as to what defenses may be made up
on an application for judgment upon the collect
or's report.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion by McAllister, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment
of the Superior Court of Chicago, for a
special assessment, for the tilling, paving,
etc., of Jefferson street, from West Van
Buren to Randolph street, in the city of
Chicago.
There is one fatal defect in the pro
ceedings, for which the judgment must
be reversed.
The certificate of publication of the
commissioners' notice of the assessment
is as follows: "This certifies that the
appended assessment notice has been
published in the Chicago Republican, the
corporation newspaper of the city of Chi
cago, County of Cook, and State of Ill
inois, six days consecutively, (excepting
Sundaysand holidays) commencing with
September 24, 18G8.
Ceo. Williston, Publisher."
The statute requires the certificate to
state the number of times which the no
tice shall have been published, and the
dates of the first and last papers contain
ing the same. No particular language is
requisite to a compliance with the stat
ute, providing the certificate contain
such dates and facts that the court can
determine from the date of the first and
last papers containing the article.
If we can determine by this certificate
the date of the fi rst paper, we certainly
cannot that of the last, because we can
not know how many or what days the
publisher regards as holidays. Kich et
al. v. City of Chicago, (decided May,
1871.)
The question as to what defenses may
be made upon an application for judg
ment upon the collector's report are dis
cussed and decided in the case of Creote
v. the City of Chicago.
The judgment must be reversed and
the case remanded.
Opinion Filed June 29, 1871.
N. B. Smith et al. vs. The City of Chicago.
1. Report of Collector.The report is good,
though the schedule of the lands was not signed
by the collector, nor annexed to the report. Being
identified with it, the court could have permitted
him to annex it, If the specific objection nad been
made below.
2. Order of Judgment.The order need not be
recorded upon the report of the collector in pur
suance of the Hth section of ch. IX of the char
ter.
3. Certificate of Publication.The certifi
cates state that the appended notice had been
published ten days consecutively, commencing on
a particular days. There being no exception for
holidays, as In the case of Rue v. Chicago, the
court can determine by computation the date of
the the first and last paper containing the notice.
[These opinions modify that expressed in the
case of Rich v. Chicago, (8 Chk ago Legal News,
282,) that "the publication might have been com
menced or begun on the 30th day of July, by set
ting up the type for its publication without being
contained in a paper of that date."Ed. Legal
News.]
Per Curiam.
The records in all these cases are alike,
and the question raised in each case the
same. They will therefore be consider
ed together as one case. The first ob
jection, and upon which a voluminous
argument haB been submitted, is that
the schedule containing the statement of
the unpaid assessments and the list of
lands, was not signed by the collector,
nor was it corporally annexed to the re
ports, in which it was referred to as a
schedule of the same. The schedule had
a heading sufficient to designate it, and
if it had been physically annexed to the
reports, no question could have been
made as to its identity.
Can it be contended, that if the atten
tion of the court had been called to the
want of annexation of these papers, at
the time, that it would not have been
competent for the conrt to have permited the collector to attach them to
gether? It is therefore an objection,
if it be one at all, which could have been

obviated, and falls within the class re

quiring the grounds to be specifically
stated.
The objection made was general ; that
the collector's report was insufficient to
entitle the plaintiff to judgment.
Another objection, equally frivolous
and untenable is, that the judgment, or
ders, etc., were not recorded upon the
reports of the collector in pursuance of
the provisions of the Hth Sec. of Chap.
9, of Charter.
If we were to hold these provisions
mandatory (but which we did not) it is
something to be done after judgment ;
the omission might or might not affect
the validity of a sale under the judg
ment, but cannot, by possibility, affect
the validity of the judgment itself.
The only remaining objection is, that
certain certificates of publication are de
fective. These certificates state that the
appended notice had been published in
the Chicago Republican, etc., ten days
consecutively, commencing on a partic
ular day.
There being no exception for holidays,
as in the case of Rue v. The City of Chi
cago, (decided September term, 1870) the
court can determine by computation the
date of the first and last papers contain
ing the notice.
In that case we said, " no particular
language is requisite to a compliance
with the statute, providing the certificate
contain such dates and facts as that the
court can determine from them the date
of the first and last papers containing
the notii e."
Finding no error in these records, the
judgment must be affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
[From Hon. Norman L. Freeman, to apjjear in the
54fA III.]
SlI.A D. MUSORAVE V. SAMULL (i. MUSGRAVE.
Married Women Whm liable, fur curt*In a
suit, under the statute, by a married woman
against her husband, for separate maintenance,
and in which she was unsuccessful, it was lidd,
that under the law of ISM. known as "The Mar
ried Woman's Act," and the law of lstii), giving a
married woman the control of her own earnings,
it was proper to decree that the complainant
should pay the costs.
Writ of error to the Circuit Court of Jefferson
county ; the Hon. James M. Pollock, Judge, pre
siding.
The opinion states the case.
Mr. T. B. Tanner and Mr. T. S. Casey, for the
plaintiff" in error.
Messrs. Wright & Orern, for the defendant in
error.
Mr. Justice Walker delivered the opinion of the
court.
This was a bill in chancery, filed by plaintiff in
error, in the Jefferson Circuit Court, against de
fendant in error, for maintenance. On a final
hearing, the court below dismissed the bill and
rendered a decree against complainant for the
costs. The question presented and urged upon
this record is, whether the law permits a decree to
be rendered in such a case in favor of the husband
and against the wife, for costs.
The act of 1807 (Pub. Stat., 132) declares that
" married women who, without their fault, now
live, or may hereafter live, separate and apart from
their husbands, may have their remedy In equity,
in their own names respectively, against their said
husbands, for a reasonable support and mainte
nance, while they so live, or have so lived, separate
and apart; and in determining the amount to be
allowed, the court shall have reference to the con
dition of the parties in life, and the circumstances
of each case ; and the court may grant allowance
to enable the wife to prosecute her suit, as in cases
of divorce." It further provides, that the wife
shall not be required to give security for costs in
any such proceeding.
This court had, prior to the adoption of the law
known as " The Married Woman's Act," and the
passage of this law, held that in cases for divorce
and alimony, it was error to decree costs against
the wife. Reavis v. Reavis, 1 Scam., 242, and
Thatcher v. Thatcher, 17 111., 66. But It Is insisted
that this legislation has so far changed the rela
tions of husband and wife, as to their property,
that when the reason of the law ceases, the law is
also changed, and those cases do not apply to the
case at bar.
Prior to the act of 1861, a married woman could
not own separate property in her own name and
right. But that act invests her with her property,
free from the control of her husband, and gives
her the same power over it as if she were sole and
unmarried. Again, In 1869 (Pub. Laws,255),lt was
enacted that any married woman shall be entitled
to receive, use and possess her own earnings, and
sue for the same In her own name, free from the
interference of her husband or his creditors, etc.
These acts have manifestly radically changed the
common law. Under them, she may hold, use and
enjoy separate property, and her earnings, free
from the interference of her husband. The rea

son, then, for refusing to render a decree against

her for costs, has ceased. Then her personal prop
erty and earnings belonged to her husband, as
well as the use of her real estate, and when that
was the case, it would be to idle to decree her to
pay the husband's costs in litigation arising be
tween them. But it is not so as the law now
stands. She may own separate property, and have
and enjoy her earnings, and no reason is perceived
why she should not. out of them, bear the burdens
of her unsuccessful litigation, whether with her
husband or with other persons. The extension of
rights usually Imposes corresponding liabilities.
So in this case, holding or having the right to hold
separate property and earnings, she must be held
liable to costs incurred in maintaining her separate
rights. Such a decree could, of course, only be
collected out of her separate property and estate.
We perceive no error in this record, and the de
cree of the court below is affirmed.
L1V. ILLINOIS REPORTS.
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman
L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following
head-notes to cases to appear in the 54th
volume of Illinois Reports :
INFERIOR COURTS IN CITIES.
1. Their territorial jurisdictionconstruc
tion of the constitution. Under section one
of the fifth article of the constitution of
1848, which provides " that inferior local
courts " " may be established by the gen
eral assembly in the cities of this State,"
but that "such courts shall have a uniform
organization and jurisdict ion in such cit
ies," the general assembly have no pow
er to authorize such a court to issue its
summons beyond the limits of the city
in which it is established, and acquire
jurisdiction over a defendant served with
out the city.(Opinion by Lawrence, C.
J.)Holmes v. Fihlenburg p. 203.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
2. Ofthe city of Spartaits territorial jur
isdiction. So the court of common pleas
of the city of Sparta, created at the ses
sion of 1809, can not acquire jurisdiction
of the person of a defendant by issuing a
summons beyond the city limits, and
there served upon the defendant.lb.
AFFIDAVITS.
1. On motion to disxohe injunctionat
what time they may be filed. The provis
ion of the thirteenth section of the chap
ter of the revised statutes entitled " Ne
exeat and Injunctions," authorizing af
fidavits, filed with the bill and answer,
to be read on motions to dissolve injunc
tions, must not be construed as requiring
the affidavits to be filed at the same time
with the bill and answer, to authorize
them to be read, but only to be filed in
the case with the bill or answer, no mat
ter when, so it is before the hearing of
the motion.(Opinion by Walker, J.)
Humert v. Schwal, p. 142.
DISMISSAL OF BILL.
2. On dissolution of injunction. Upon
the filing of a bill in chancery praying
an injunction, and also other relief, it is
error to dismiss the bill upon the hear
ing merely of the motion to dissolve the
injunction, the bill not yet being submit
ted. The bill should be retained and all
the evidence heard when, on a final
hearing, if the complainant fails to sus
tain his bill, it should be dismissed.Lb.
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.
Construction of a lease as to when they be
gin to accrue. Where a lease provided
for a surrender by the lessee of different
portions of the premises at different
times, and, without adverting to such
provision, contained a covenant that the
lessee should pay fifty dollars per day,
as stipulated damages, for every day he
should hold over after the termination
of his lease, it was held, that, as the pro
vision as to damages was highly penal,
and the lease admitted of two construc
tions as to the time when they would
begin to accrue, they would not be con
sidered as commencing until the time
when the entire premises were to be
surrendered.(Opinion by Lawrence, J.)
Klinger v. Ritter. p. 140.
PLEADING.
1. When the plaintiff must declare spe
cially.A recovery cannot be had in an
action for money had and received, on a
special contract, the breach of which is
the gravamen of the action.(Opinion by
Breese, J.)Russell et al. v. Gilmore, p.
147.
2. So there can be no recovery in an
action of general indebitatus assumpsit
where the claim is upon a warranty of a
chattel, for such a declaration would not

apprise the defendant of the matter he

is to defend. In such case, the plaintiff
should count specially on the contract.
SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.
1 . What is reauisite, to pass title.As be
tween the parties to a contract of sale,
of personal property, a delivery of the
goods is unnecessary to render the con
tract binding. And the property may
remain with the vendor any length of
time if the vendee takes it into posses
sion before any lien attaches to it while
in the hands oi' the vendor, provided the
transaction between vendor and vendee
is bona fide.(Opinion by Breese, J.)
Frost, Jr., v. Woodruff, p. 155.
2. In the sale of personal property, so
long as anything remains to be done to
complete the contract, such as ascertain
ing quantity, or delivering possession,
the title does not pass.lb.
3. So where a party contracted for the
purchase of a lot of cord-wood before it
was all cut, the wood to be measured and
delivered by the choppers when they
had finished chopping, it was held, the
measurement was requisite to passing
the title, and until such measurement,
the wood was subject to seizure and sale
under execution against the vendor.lb.
WATER COURSES
1. Not navigableOwnership of riparian
proprietors.By the common law, a water
course which is not navigable, belongs,
its banks and bed, to the riparian pro
prietors.(Opinion by Breese, J.)Hub
bard v. Bell, p. 110.
2. As public highwaysRights of ripa
rian owners.Merely because a water
course may, in times of periodical fresh
ets, for a few days or weeks, be capable
of floating mill logs, but in its natural
state, and during a greater portion of the
year, is incapable of such floatage, the
stream cannot be regarded as a highway
for that purpose at any time. The bed
and the banks of such a stream, it not
being navigable, belong to the riparian
proprietors, and are wholly and abso
lutely private, and there being no claim
of prescription or user, not subject to the
servitude of the public interest in that
regard, nor to be considered as a public
highway by water.lb.
release of surety.
1. Taking further security. The mere
taking of further security from the prin
cipal in a bond, by the obligee, will not
operate to release a surety on the bond.
(Opinion by Walker," J.)Oxley v.
Stores, p. 159.
INSTRUCTIONS.
2. Should be based on the evidence in
the case.lb.
VARIANCE.
3. Between allegations and proofswho
to decide. In the introduction of written
evidence, it is the duty of the court to
determine whether it varies from the
pleadings under which it is offered.
And it is error for the court to leave such
question to the jury.lb.
On motion of Hon. Wm. H. King, of
this city, fifty-eight members of the
House of Representatives at Springfield
voted in favor of allowing women to vote
on the Temperance bill.
Admission to the Bar.Under the re
cent rules of the Supreme Court of this,
State, H. P. Nichols of this city, passed a
successful examination and was admit
ted to the bar.
James C. Cockcroft, well known to theprofession in the Northwest as an enter
prising and accommodating law book
seller, has an entire new stock of law
books at 499 Wabash avenue, and will be
glad, we have no doubt,'to receive a visit
from any member of the bar who wishes
to increase his library.
Illinois Reports and Digest. We
have frequent call for the first and new
second volume of Wood & Long's Di
gest and the Illinois Reports. Persons
having any of these volumes for sale will
please send us their address and terms.

102
Continued from page 99.
defendant's possession of the note, but
do not decide that it would or would not
be error to render judgment of foreclos
ure without producing the note where it
is in the plaintiff's possession or under
his control.
We cannot reverse the judgment be
low on the evidence, which was quite
conflicting. There were two trials, both
resulting the same way, though in the
former the damages assessed were larger
than in the latter.
The circumstance of the defendant
having the note would, unexplained, be
very strong evidence that he had paid
and taken it up ; but, on the other hand,
the evidence tends strongly to show that
he obtained such possession under such
circumstances as would entirely remove
any presumption of payment arising
from such possession.
The judgment below is affirmed, with
costs and nve per cent, damages.
[Upon the fore?losure of a mortgage,
the note or bond it was given to secure
should be produced, or its absence ac
counted for, and when it is shown to be
in the possesssion of the defendant with
out any explanation, it should be pre
sumed to have been paid.Ed. Legal
News.]
FELKER &.MARX.
Attorneys, 1*2 .N. Dcsjtlftints street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county, February
terra, A.I). 1*72. Elizabeth Schuler vs. Charles Schuler.In
Chancery.
Affidavit
of tho non-residence of Charles Schuler,
defendant above named, having been died in the office
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to thw said Charles Schuler
that the complainant
filed tide
her thereof,
bill of
complaint
in nald court,heretofore
on the chancery
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendants, returnable on the third Mon
day of February next, (1872,) us is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Charles Schuler, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit court of Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
at
Chicago,1872,in and
saidplead,
county,
on the
third Monday
February,
answer
or demur
to the saidof
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
willyou
be
mattersasand
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
taken
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
CASSETTE. Clerk.
Felker .v Marx,NORMAN
Compl't's T,
Sol'ra.
14-17
STORT & KINO,
Attorney*, 149 W. Washington St.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois, Cook County, ss. Circuit court
of Cook county. March Term, A.D. 1873, WilUiam
Patterson vs. C. S. Berg.
Public notice is hereby given to tho said C. S. Berg
Hiat a writ of attachment issued out of the office
of the clerk of the Circuit court of Cook county, dated
the 18th day of November, A.I). 1871, at the suit of the
said William Patterson and against the estate of C. 9.
Berg,
the sura
two hundred
and seventy
dollars,fordirected
to theof sheriff
of Cook county,
which
said writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said C. 8. Berg,
shall
In midonappear
beforethethoflrstBald
court personally
of Cook ( nunty.
or before
dayCircuit
of the
next
term
tin-roof,
to
be
holden
at
the
court
in
the city of Chicago, on the third Monday ofhouse,
March,
A. D. 1472, give special bail and plead to the said plain
tiff's action, judgment will be entered against you, and
in favor of the said William Patterson, and so much of
the
maybebesold
sufficient
to satisfy
the
saidproperty
judguifutattached
and costsaswill
to satisfy
the same.
NORMAN
T.
CASSETTE,
Clerk.
Stout & Kino, Attorneys.
14-17
ELBERT H. GARY,
Attorney, 51) Wait Madison St.
/CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
Cook.ss. Superior court of Cook county, Janu
ary
Term. A.D.
John vs.
B. Livernois,
alias Jcun
B. Meloche
Dlt 1*71'.
Livernois,
Lucy 0. Livernois.
In Chancery.
Affidavitabove
of tho named,
non-residence
of Lucy
defendant
having been
filedC.inLivernois,
the office
of
said
Superior
court
of Cook
county,
of
the
clerk
notice" is hereby given to the said Lucy
C. Livernois
that
the
complainant
heretofore
filed
his
bill
of
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, com
and
that
a summons
thereupon
issuedonout
court
against
said defendant,
returnable
the offirstsaidMonday
of February next, (1872,) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, tho said Lucy C. Livernois, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior -court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said count), on the first Monday
of February 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
mid complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
wiltyou
be
taken asand
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Elbert H. Gary. Compl't's Sol'r.
14-17p
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney, 1 8 East Harrison Street.
fN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
L States, for the Northern District of Illinois. In
the matter of Austin J. Goss, bankrupt.In Bank
ruptcy.
Notice is hereby given that a petition has been filed
fn said court by said Austin J. Goss, of Chicago, in the
county
of Cook,
in said
district, duly
declared
a bank
rupt, under
the act
of Congress
of March
2. 1867,
for a
discharge, and a certificate thereof, from all his debts
and other claims provable under said act, and that the
31st day of January, 1872, at 11 o'clock a. m., is assigned
for the hearing of ihc same before said court, in the
United States court room, in the city of Chicago, when
and where all creditors of said bankrupt, and all other
persons in interest may attend, and show cause, if any
they have, why the prayer of the said petitioner should
not
; andthird
further
noticeof issaidhereby
givenof
that be
thegranted
second and
meeting:*
creditors
Bald bankrupt, required under the 27th and 2*th sec
tions of saiif act, will be holden at the office of H. N.
Hihbard, Esq., register in bankruptcy of said court, at
his office
in the
city of Chicago,
district,a. m.
on the
said
Slstday
of January
instant, inat said
](t o'clock
WM. H. BRADLEY, Clerk.
Dated Chicago, Jan. 1H72.
Robert E. Jenkins Att'y.
13-14

Chicago

Legal

News.

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
LAW
LEGAL NEWS PRMM DEPARTMENT

Briefs

&

Abstracts.

The attention of Attorneys is called to our superior

acilities for printing BRIEFS and ABSTRACTS.
Our prices are:
BRIEFS, - per page,
81.35
ABSTRACTS!,
...
1.75
Orders left either at the office of the Legal News,
113 W. Madison St., or at the Printing Office, 13 North
Jefferson St., will be promptly executed.

F. W. LOWELL,
Attorney, lioom 1, 9 N. Omai St..
INSTATE OF LARS P. LARSON, DECEASED.
j Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Lars P. Larson,
deceased,
forCounty
adjudication
set
tlement attoa present
regular the
termsame
of the
court and
of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872,
being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January 10, A.D. 1872.
14-19 _
LINE ftL LARSON, Administratrix.
ROSENTHAL, PENCE & MOSES,
Attorneys, Masonic BuUdiuy.
I'STATE
LOUIS given
FRIEDMAN,
DECRA8ED.j Notice OF
is hereby
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Louis Fried
man, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago. January fi, A.D. 1872.
SARAH FRIEDMAN, Administratrix.
Rosenthal. Pence & Moses. Att'ya.
I4-19a
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
S.
CLASSEN,
DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of John S.Classen,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the Count]' court of
Cook ton nty, to bo holden at the courthouse, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
1872. being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January 10. A.D. 1S72.
CATHARINA CLASSEN. Administratrix.
A. Enzknracker, Att'y.
14-19
MATTOCKS & MASON,
Attorneys, At). 523 Wabash Avenue,
ESTATE
BENJAMIN
Deceased.
Notice isOFhereby
given to F.ailHADDUCK,
persons having
claims
and demands against the estate of Benjamin F. Hadduck, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and
settlement
the County
of Cook
county, atto aberegular
holden term
at theofcourt
house, incourt
the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
1872, being tho fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January y, A.D. 1872.
JOHN Att'ys.
DEKOVEN, Administrator.
Mattocks A Mason,
n-iva
ARNOLD 6 WATERMAN,
Attorneys
CHANCERY
countyToof
Cook, hs. NOTICE.-Stnta
Superior Court of0/ IllinoU,
Cook county,
January
Term,
A.
D.
1872.
Barton
W.
Spears
v.
Electa A. Spearn. In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Electa A. Spears,
defendant above named, hayinff been filed fn the office
of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Electa A. Spears
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plaint in said Court, on the chancery' side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of January next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, uuless you, the said Electa A. Spears, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior Court
of Cook county, on the flrst day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of January,
1872, andbillplead,
answer the
or demur
to the
the
said
complainant's
of complaint,
same, and
matters and tilings therein charged and stated, will bo
taken aB confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON,
Arnold A Watkkman,
Compl't's
Sol'rs. Clerk.
1 1-14
rpo ALL WHOM IT MAY OONCKBN.-This is to
X certify that the undersigned have this day formed
a copartnership tinder the firm name of Frank
Brothers.
Tho general nnture of the business to be transacted
by said firm is the purchase and sale of dry goods and
notions in the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and
State of Illinois. The following persons are the part
ners of Baid firm: Joseph Frank, of the city, county
and State of New York ; Henry L. Frank, of said Chi
cago: Isaac Meyer, of Baid Chicago; and Henry C.
Frank, of said Chicago. These four persons are all
general partners.
Harnnan Mack, of the city of Cincinnati, county of
Hamilton,
State has
of Ohio,
is the tospecial
partner.
Said
specialand
partner
contributed
the common
stock the sum of fifty thousand (fcwi.ooo) dollars in cash.
Said partnership is to commence January 1st, 1872,
and to terminate December 31st, 1873.
'Witness our hands, this 22d day of December, 1871.
JOSEPH FRANK.
HENRY L. FRANK,
ISAAC MEYER,
HENRYGeneral
C. FRANK,
Partners.
HARBMAN MACK,
13-18
Special Partner.
a. A. FOLLANSBEE,
Attorney, No. 10 West Randolph St.
estate of frederick biermann, deceased. Notice is hereby given to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate of
Friedrich Biermann, deceased, to present the same
for adjudication and settlement at a regular term of
the County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
ctty of Chicago, on the first Monday of February',
A.D. 1672, bsing the fifth dav thereof.
Aministrator.
Chicago. HEINRICli
Dec. 20. A.D. BIERMANN,
1S71.
G. A. Follansiisk, Att'y.
II-I60
NOTICE
OF
RESIGNATION.-Public
Notice
hereby given ttiat the undersigned will offer tola
tho
Hon.
County
Court of1872,
Cook
County
on ilny
Monday,
the filth day
ofFebruary,
being
the first
ofthe
February Term, 1872. thereof, or as soon thereafter as
counsel
can
be
heard,
his
resignation
as
Guardian
of
Bertram, Adrian and Amy Dickens, minors.
J.
LINTON
WATERS.
Chicago, December 27th, 1871.
ll-ftp

Barber and Lackner. 64 West Lake street.

Barker, J. C, 143 West Madison street, room 3.
Bates & Hodges, 113 West Madison street.
BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street.
Burgess, W. T., 165 W. Wahington.
Bonney, Fay & Griggs, 120 West Washington Bt.
Bentley, Bennett, Ullman & Ives, 376 Wabash av.
Barker A Waite, 46 East Harrison street.
Brouse, O. R., 400 Wabash avenue.
Brown & RiekerK 114 West Madison.
Burke and Allen . 18 W. Randolph.
Caruikhacl. D. L., 845 Prairie auenue.
Carter, Becker & Dale, tio Canal, :i."s) Wabash av.
Chase, F. L., BSC Wabash avenue.
Clarkson a Van Schaack, No. 454 Wabash Ave.
Condon, Wm. H., 34 Canal street.
Deane & Cahill. room 7, Lind's Block.
Dent A: Black. 740 Wabash avenue.
Ewing & Leonard. 4S7 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. W., 115 West Madison street.
Felker, Wm. S., 92 Desplaincs street.
Goodwin, I>. Jr., n. e. cor. Monroe and LaSalle.
Goudy & Chandler, 3i)l Wabash avenue, branch
office. 64 South Halsted street.
Harrison and Whitehead, 143 W. Madison street.
Hervey, Anthony <fc Gait, 356 Wabash avenue.
Hopkins, Wm., 46 East Harrison.
Herbert & Quick, 529 State street
Hoj-ne, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michi
gan and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne, Horton and Hoyne, 267 Michigan av.
Hitchcock, Dupee tfc Evarts, corner Wells and
Monroe streets.
Howe & Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
Isham. Edward S., 554 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street
King, Scott ik I'ayson. 637 Wabash avenue.
Knickerbocker, J. C. and J. J. 163 W. Washington.
Learning & Thompson, 109 West Randolph street.
Leary, D. James, 159 West Madison.
Lyman & Jackson, 79 W. Madison street, room 3.
Magruder, B. D., 181 W. Madison.
Mattocks and Mason, 523 Wabash ave,
McClelland, Thos., S 45 S. Canal, room 6.
Merriam, Alexander and Bolster, 149 W. Wash
ington street.
Miller, Frost & Lewis, 363 Michigan avenue.
Moore <St Caulfleld, S. E. cor. State and Madison.
Newcomb, G. W., 214 Warren avenue.
Norton, Jesse O,. 386 Wabash avenue.
Nissen & Baruum,126 W. Randolph,and376 State
Otis, E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Paddock & Ide, 449 Wabash avenue.
Perkins, N.C.,479 Wabash av.,cor. Eldridge court.
Palmer, L. L., 481 Wabash avenue.
Pflrshlng, Jos. 47 Peck Ct, bet. Wabash and State
Reynolds, Wm. C, 176 West Washington street
Rich & Thomas, 945 Michigan avenue, and 468
Wabash avenue.
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 So Canal.
Rorke, M. A. <t Son, 154 Halsted street.
Rosenthal, Pen cc & Moses, Masonic Building, 8
W., cor. Randolph and Halsted and 350 Wabash av.
Roys, C. D., 677 Wabash avenue.
Sawln & Wells, 59 West Madison street
Scammon, McCagg and Fuller, 389 Wabash av.
Scoville, George, 30 South Clinton street
Sheldon & Waterman, cor LaSalle and Monroe
Sherman, E. B., 153 W. Madison.
Sleeper & Whiton, 441 Wabash avenue.
Small and Ingalls, 481 Wabash avenue.
Snowhook & Gray, 85 W. Monroe St., cor. Jeffer
son.
Story and King, 149 West Washington street
Tenny, McClellon <fc Tenny, 454 Wabash ave.
Thomas, Sidney, 95 East Harrison street
Van Buren, E. & A., 194 West Madison street.
Vallette, H. F., 59 West Madison street.
Waterman, A. N., 135 West Monroe street.
White, Hugh A., 165 West Washington street.
Whitehouse, Wm. F., 188 West Madison, late Triu n e building.
Williams & Thompson, 551 Wabash avenue.
Walker, Dexter & Smith, 792 Wabash avenue.
Wilson, Perry & Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
Windett, Arthur W., 562 Wabash ave., and room
6 Lind's Block.
Waughop, J. W., 401 Wabash avenue.
THOMAS H. MARSH,
Attorney, 166 West Monroe.
IVvlITANCEliY
NOTICE.-State
Illinois,
rook, 88. Superior
Court of of
Cook
county.county
Januol
ary Term, A. D. 1872. Edward T. Dickinson v. Sarah
E.Affidavit
Dickinson.In
Chancery. of Sarah E. 'Dickin
of the
non-residence
son, defendant
above
named, having been filed in tho
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook
county, notice is hereby Riven to the said Sarah E.
Dickinson that tho complainant heretofore filed his
bill of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of
said court against said defendant, returnable on the
first (Monday of January next (1872), as is by law re
quired.
Now, unless you, the said Sarah E. Dickinson, shall
personally be and appear be lore said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to bo
holden
at Chicago,
saidplead,
county,
on theor first
Monto
day of January,
is<2,in and
answer
demur
the said complainant's bill of complaint, tho same.jand
the
things therein
charged
and against
stated,
will matters
be taken and
as confessed,
and a decree
entered
vou nccording to the praver of paid bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Thomas H. Marsh, Compl't's Sol'r.
11-14

DEPARTMENT,

Chicago University.
T ECTURES were resumed in this institution on
I J Monday, Oct. 30th last, in the lecture room of
the Second Baptist Church, comer of Monroe and
Morgan streets. All the old advantages obtained
by students in this law school are again offered.
For information address
JOHN A. HUNTER,
Sec. Law Dept.
5-13
135 W. Monroe street, Chicago.

LAW BOOKS.
J. B. McDIVITT,
81 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK.
Second-hand Law Books Bought, Sold and Ex
changed.
6-19

THE

CHICAGO

LEGAL

NEWS

COMPANY.
PBINTING OFFICE,
15 North Jefferson Street ;
Business Office, 115 West Madison Street,
CHICAGO.

BOOK AND JOB

Particular attention given to all kinds of

LEGAL PRINTING :
INCLUDING
Attorneys' Abstracts,
Briefs and Dockets,
Books, Pamphlets and Reports.
Orders for this description of work will be execut
ed promptly in the neatest style of the art.
Decrees, Orders,
Mortgages, Deeds, Leases,
Checks, Notes, Drafts, Bonds,
Cards, Labels, Letter Headings,
Bills of Lading, Bill -Heads,
Insurance Policies, Circulars,
Receipts, Hand-bvlls, etc., etc.,
Printed upon the shortest notice.
THOMAs L. MelNTOSH lote head o! the Book
and Newspaper department of the Lakeside Print
ing Company, is the t>ujKirinu.*ndent of our Print
ing Department
JAMES L. STARK,
Attorney,'Nixon's Building, cor. La SaUe and Monroe.
PUBLICATION
IN ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois.NOTICE
Cook county,
as. Circuit court
of
Cook
county.
March
Term.
Burkhardt v. James W. Dominic.A. D. IS72. Augusta
Public notice is hereby given to the said James W.
Dominic
thatclerk
a writ
of Circuit
attachment
outcounty,
of the
office
of the
of the
courtissued
of Cook
dated the 21st day of December, A, D. 1871, at the suit
of the said Augusta Burkhardt. and against the estate
of the said James W. Dominic, for the sum of five
thousand dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook
county, which said writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said James W.
Dominic, shall personally be and appear before the
said Circuit court of Cook county, on or before the
first day of the next term thereof, to be holden at
the court house, in tho city of Chicago, on the third
Monday
A.D. 1872,
give judgment
special bail
plead to of
the March,
said plaintiffs
action,
willand
be
eutered against you, and in favor of tho said Augusta
Burkhardt. and so much of the property attached as
may be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and costs
will be sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
James L. Stark, Att'y.
13-17
SAMUEL STRAUS,
Attorney, 562 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE OF FRiEDRICH JAHN, (alias) TAHN,
deceased. Notice is hereby given to all persons
having claim;* and demands acraiiift the estate of Friedcreich John (alias) Yahn, deceased ; to present the
Bttme
settlement
at toa bo
regular
term offortheadjudication
County Courtandof Cook
County,
hold
en at the Court House, in the city of Chicago, on the
first Monday of March, A. D. 1st:', being the 4th day
BERTHA JAHN,
thereof.
Administratrix.
Chicago, December IMh, 1871,
Samuel Straus, Atty.
I2-17a

Chicago

Legal

A. H. LAWRENCE,
NEWELL PRATT,
Attorney, 1124 Wabash Avenue.
Attorney, 308 State St.
flHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
EXECUTOR S SALE OF REAL ESTATE.-ln the ^
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
County court of Cook county, State of Illinois. January
Term, A.D. 1872. Adda Paine v. Clinton J.
George R. Spurr, executor of tho estate of Charles M. Paine.In
Fay, deceased, vs. Francos A. Fay, Ellen M. Daniels, Affidavit Chancery.
the above-named defendant, Clinton
George F. Daniels and Jennie B. Fay.Petition to sell J. Paine, onthat
inquiry, cannot be found, so that pro
real
estate.notice is hereby given, that the undersigned, cess can not due
be served
upon him, having been filed iu
Public
office of the clerk ot said Superior court of Cook
executor of the estate of Charles M. Fay, deceased, by the
notice is hereby given to the said Clinton J.
Tirtue of an order and decree of the County court of county,
Paine that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
Cook county, state of Illinois, made and entered at the complaint
said court, on the chancery side thereof,
August term, A.I). Id71, of said court, on petition of the and that ainsummons
thereupon
issued out
of said
undersigned,
to
sell
real
estate
of
said
deceased,
will
on
against said defendant,
returnable
on the
first
Monday, January 2'.f, ls72, at 12 o'clock noon ofsaid day, court
of
January
next
(1*72),
as
is
by
law
required.
at the east door of the court house, on Clark street, in Monday
Now, unless you, the said Clinton J. Paine, shall
the city of Chicago, in said county of Cook, sell at pub personally
be and appear before !*aid Superior court ot
lic
auction,described
to tin? I.ighc?t
and bestsituate
bidderinfor
the Cook county,
on the first day of a term thereof, to bo
following
real estate;
saidcash,
county
holden
at
Chicago,
thedemur
first Monday
of Cook and state of Illinois, to wit : lot two of assess of
1*72, andin said
plead,county,
answeron or
to the
or's division of lot sixteen, m division of west half of saidJanuary,
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
nino,staled,
and
southeast quarter of section !. township 4(1 north, tho matters
and things therein charged mid
range
1-1,
east
of
third
principal
meridian:
also,
lot
will be taken as confessed, and a derive entered against
fourteen, assessor's division of west hull" of the south you
according
to
the
praver
of
said
hill.
east quarter of section i, township 40 north, range 13,
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
east of the third principal meridian, except so much of JJkwell Pratt. Coml't's
Sol*r.
11-H
said lot as is described as follows, to wit: commencing
in the north line of said west half of said quarter sec CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois. Cook
tion,
at
a
point
118
]-*
f-et
east
from
the
northwest
fs. Superior Court of Cook county, Feb
corner ofsaid west half, thence east 140 8-10 feet to land ruarycounty,
A. D., K-72. Thomas Harton v. Sarah
now
or lateland,
of Susan
C.ise,
thence
southnow
S3 5-10
feet
byof Hatton.term,
In Chanc rj
said
Case
thence
west
by
land
or
late
Affidavitabove
of thenamed
non-resi n-"beenoftiled
Sarin theRation
Charles M. Kay 140 8-in feet, to land uow or late of M. defendant
office
L. Kimball, thence north by said Kimball land S3 5-lu of the Clerk of said Sup > I'loringCourt
of Cook county,
feet
to
place
of
beginning.
Said
sale
being
made
for
notice Is hereby given to the said Sarah Hatton that
the purpose of paynig debts of said deceased.
complainant
heretofore
bill of complaint
GF.ORGE R. SPURR, Executor of said Estate. inthesaid
court, on the
chanceryfiled
sidehisthereof,
and that
Dated Chicago, Dec. 16,1671.
a summons thereupon Issued out ot said Court against
A. H. Lawiienck, Att'y.
10-15 said
defendant, returnable on the first Monday of
Februa y next. 1*72, as is by law required.
theo. schintz,
Now, unless you, th.- *aid Sarah Hatton, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior Court
Attorney, 122 West Randolph St.
Cook county, on tfie first day ot a term thereof, to
CHANCERY NOTICE. -State of Illinois, Cook of
be holden
at Chicago,
county,
on theorfirst
Monto
County, ss. Superior Court of Cook County. Jan day
of February,
1*72, uandsaidplead,
answer
demur
uary term, A. D., 1872. Clara Brosche v. Carl Grosse. the said
complainant's bill ot complaint, tho same, and
InAffidavit
Chancery.of the non-residence of Carl Grosse, de the matters
and things therein charged and stated,
be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
fendant above named, having been tiled in the office will
you according to the
prayer of said
bill. c; rk,
of
the
Clerk
of
said
Superior
Court
of
Cook
County,
JACOBSON.
notice is hereby given to the said Carl Grosse that the _Newell Pratt,AUGUSTUS
Compl't's
Sol'r.
12-15
complainant heretofore filed her petition to be ap
pointed guardian in said court, on the chancery side CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of
Cook,Term,
ss. Superior
Cook county.John
Tu
said court against said defendant, returnable on the February
A.D. 1*72.court
HelleuofRockfellowvs.
first Monday of January next, 1S72, as is by law re Rockfellow.In
Chancery.
quired.
Affidavit of the non-residence of John Rockfellow,
Now, unless you, the said Carl Grosse shall per
above named, having been filed in the office
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of defendant
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
Cook County, on the first day of a term thereof, to be notice
given to the said John Rockfellow,
is
hereby
bolden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Mon that the complainant
filed her bill of com
day ofJanuary, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to plaint in said court, onheretofore
the chancery side thereof, and
the said complainant's petition, the same and the that a summons thereupon
issued
of said court
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be against ynid defendant, returnable onout
the first Monday
taken as coufessed, and a decree entered against you of February next, (W2.), as isj by law required.
according to the prayer of said petition.
Now, unless you, the .-aid John Rockfellow, shall
AUGUSTUS JAC0BS0N. Clerk.
personally
be and
appear
Superior
Theo. Schint'/, Compl't's Sol'r.
12-15 Cook
county,
on the
first before
day of said
a term
thereof,court
to beof
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of February, 1*7:'. uixl
plead,
answertheor same,
demurand
to the
ESTATE
AUGUST
hill of
complaint,
the
Notice isOFhereby
givenSCHILLER,
to all personsDECEASED.having claims said complainant's
and things therein charged and stated, will be
and demands against the estate of August Schiller, do- matters
as confessed, and a decree entered against you
ceased, to present the same for adjudicat ion and settle taken
of said bill.
ment
term
of the
County
Cookof according to the pravcr
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
county,at toa regular
be holden
at the
Court
House,Court
in theofcity
Newell Pkatt, Comp'ts sol'r.
11-17
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
March,
A.
D.
172,
be
ing the 1th dav thereof.
NOTICE.State
of
Illinois,
county
MAGDELENA SCHILLER, Administratrix. CHANCERY'
Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook county. Toot
Theo. Schistz, Attorney.
February Term, A.D. 1872. Kathreua Gargaro vs.
Chicago, December 8. A. D. 1871.
9-14a Angelo
(iargaro.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Angelo Gargaro,
ESTATE OF CHARLES R. HAEUSSLER, Deceased. defendant
above named, having been filed in tho office
is herebyagainst
given the
to estate
all persons
having
of said Superior court of Cook county.
claimsNotice
and demands
of Charles
It. of the isclerk
hereby given to the said Angelo Gargaro that
Haeussler, deceased, to present tho same for adjudica notice
the
complainant
heretotoro filed her hill of complaint
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County in said court, on tho
side thereof, and that a
court
county, toonbetheholdeu
at the court
house summons thereupon chancery
issued out of said court against
in the ofcityCook
of Chicago
first Monday
of Febru
said
defendant,
returnable
on
the
first Monday of Feb
ary, A.D. 1872, being the fifth day thereof.
next. (1S72,) as is by law required.
ANNA
HAEUSSLER,
Administratrix. ruary
Now, unless you, the said Angelo Gargaro, shall
Chicago, Dec.
15. A.D.
1871.
be and appear before said Superior court of
Tueo. Scuintz, Att'y.
10-16a personally
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, In said couuty, on the first Monday
ESTATE
OF
ELIZABETH
GOEDEN,
DECEASED.
1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims of February.
complainant's
bill oftherein
complaint,
the and
same,
and
and demands against the estate of Elizabeth Goeden, said
matters
and things
charged
stated,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set the
will
be
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
tlement
a regular
the County
Cookof you according to the prayer of said bill.
county, toat lie
holden term
at theofcourt
house, court
in theofcity
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1*72, be
Newell Pkatt, Comp'ts Sol'r.
M-17
ing the 4th day thereof.
PETER GOEDEN,
Chicago, Jan. 3, A. D. 1672.
Executor. CHANCERY NOTICE. - State of Illinois, Cook
Tueo. Schintz, Att'y.
13-lSa
County, ss, Superior Court of Cook county. To
February Term, A.D, 1*72. Alden P. Pierce vs. Fran
cis J. Pierce.In Chancery.
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
Affidavit above
of thenamed,
non-residence
of Francis
Attorney.
defendant
having been
filed in J.thePierce,
office
the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
administratrix' sale of real estate.- otnotice
hereby given to the said Francis J. Pierce
By virtue of an ordor and decree of the Couuty that theiscomplainant
filed his bill of com
Court of Cook county, Illinois, made on the petition ol
in said court, onheretofore
the chancery side thereof, and
the undersigned, DorotheaRingleb, formerly Dorothea plaint
that
a
summons
thereupon
issued
court
Medelman,
administratrix
of
the
estate
of
Friedrlch
said defendant, returnable onout
theoffirstsaidMonday
Medelman, deceased,for leave to sell the real estate ot , against
of February next, < 1*72.) as is by law required,
Baid
deceased,
at
the
December
term,
A.
D.
1871,
of
said
Now, unless yon. the said Francis J. Pierce, shall
court, to wit, on the sixth day of December, A. D. 1871, i personally
be and appear before said Superior court of
I shall,
on Monday,
theat22dpublic
day ofsale,
January,
1*72, Cook county,
on the first day of a term thereof, to be
at
11 o'clock
a. m*. sell
at the A.eastD. door
holden at Chicago, in said couuty, on the first Mon
of
the
Court
House,
on
Clark
street,
in
the
city
of
Chi
day of February, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to
cago, in said Cook county, and State of Illinnis, the the
complainant's
thestated,
same, will
and
real estate described as follows, to wit : the northeast the said
matters
and things bill
therofcomplaint,
in charged and
quarter
northeast
quarter(36),
of section
twenty- be taken
as confessed, and a decree entered against you
three (23),ofinthetownship
thirty-six
range thirteen
of said bill
(13), east of tho 3d P. M.. in the town of Bremen, in according to the prayer
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
Cook
State
of Illinois,
containing
forty of
acres,
14-17
on thecounty.
following
terms,
to wit : cash
on delivery
the Newell Pratt Compl't's Sol'r.
deed.
DOROTHEA RINGLEB,
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
(Formerly Dorothea Medelman.)
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook countv. To
Administratrix of the estate of Friedrlch Medelman, February
Term,
A.D. 1*72. Ella J. Sharp v. Oscar
deceased.
chancery.
James B. Bradwell, Att'y for Estate.
9-14 Sharp.In
Affidavit
of the
non-repidence
OscarIn Sharp,
de
fendant
above
named,
having beenof filed
the office
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned of the clerk of said Superior
court of Cook county,
will make application to the Honorable County notice Is hereby given to the
said Oscar Sharp,
Court of Cook County on the first Monday of January, that tho complainant heretofore filed
her bill of com
1872, being the first day of the January term, 1872, ot plaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof, and
said
county
court,
or
as
soon
thereafter
as
counse
that
a
summons
thereupon
issued
out
said court
can be heard, to be relieved from their liability as the against said defendant, returnable on the offirst
official sureties on the bond of Mrs. Roxana W. Par- of February next (1*72.) as is by law required. Monday
melee, guardian for Wlllard A. and Bertha Smith, Now, unless you. the said Oscar Sharp, shall per
minors.
sonally be and appear before said Superior court of
H. K. E8KINS.
Cook county, on tho first day of a term thereof, to be
C.
H.
BECKWITH,
at Chicago,
in plead.answer
said county, on
the firsttoMonday
Chicago, Not. 22d 1871.
11-14 holden
of February,
1*72, and
or demur
the said
complainant's bill ot complaint, the same, and the
ESTATE
OF
HANS
BRISTRUP,
DECEASED.matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
Notice Is hereby given to all persons having taken
as confessed, andofa decree
claims and demands against the estate of Hans Bristsaid bill.entered against you
rup. deceased, to present the same for adjudication and according to the praver
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
settlement at a regular term of the County court of Newell Pkatt, Compl't's
Sol'r.
13-l(>
Cook county, to be holden at tho court house, in the
city ofChicago, on the fir3t Monday of February, A.D.
MOORE ft CATJLFIELD,
1872, being the fifth day thereof.
S. M. KROGNESS, Administrator. Attornrys, S. E. cor. State & Madison.
Chicago, Dec. 12, A.D. 1871.
OF MARY
ANNgiven
TAYLOR,
DECEASED.
Magee & Oleson, Att'ys.
10-15a ESTATE
Public notice
is hereby
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Mary Ann
D. J. CROCKER,
Taylor, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
Attorney, 48 S. Canal Street.
of Cook county, to bo holden In the city of Chicago,
INSTATE OF CAROLINE HEINES. DECEASED.- on
the first Monday of February next.
j Public notice iB hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Caroline Chicago, Dec. 15, 1871.MARY BROWN, Executrix.
10-15
Heines, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, Illinois, to be holden at the court
J. R.Carroll
H0WLETT,
house
city of Chicago,
couuty,
the first
Lanark,
Co.. Illinois,
Mondayin the
of February,
AlD. in
1872,saidbeing
theonfifth
day POLICE MAGISTRATE
AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
thereof.
JACOB HEINES, Executor. Has the same jurisdiction as any Justice of the Peace.
D. J. Crocker, Att'y for Estate.
10-15 Prompt attention given to collections and remittances.

News.

FRANCIS ROLLE,
'Attorney, 309 Clyhorne Avenue.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of
Cook, ss. Circuit Court of Cook county, February
term, A. v. 1872. William Mefnking v. Anna Mein
king.In
AffidavitChancery.
of the non-residence of Anna Meinking,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the Clerk of said Circuit Court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby heretofore
given to the
that
complainant
filedsaid
his Anna
certainMeinking
bill of com
plaint in said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the third Mon
day of February next (W2), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Anna Meinking, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit Court of
Cook couuty, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day of February. 1S72, and plead, answer or demur to
tho
complainant's
billtherein
of complaint,
the stated,
same,
and said
the matters
and things
charged and
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Fbaxcis Rolle, Compl't's Sol'r.
1 1-14
R. BIDDLE ROBERTS,
Attorney, Room 7, 43 S. Canal St.
INSTATE
OF
JOHN
WEISHAAR,
J Notice is hereby
given
to all personsDECEASED.having claims
and demands against the estate of John Weishaar, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at toa regular
term
of the
Connty
Cookof
county,
be holden
at the
Court
House,Court
in theofcity
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872, be
ing the fourth day thereof.
E. B. WEISHAAR.
R. BIDDLE ROBERTS,
Chicago, December 5, A. D. 1871. Administrators.
y-Hp
THOMAS E. TURNER,
Attorney, cor. i'anal and Madison.
C1HANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois. County of
' Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county, To lebruary term, A.D. 1872. Alida Bothwell v. John B.
Bothwelt. In Chancery.
Affidavit of the uou-resldenco of John R. Bothwell,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said John R. Bothwell
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint
said court,thereupon
on the chancery
Bide ofthereof,
and
that a iusummons
issued out
said court
against
said
defendant,
returnable
on
the
first
Monday
of February next, (1872,) as is by law required.
Now, unions
you,appear
the said
John R.Superior
Bothwell, shallof
personally
bo and
Cook connty.
on the
first before
day of said
a term thereof,court
to be
holdeu at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of February. 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, ami the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said hill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Titos. E. Turner, Compl't's Sol'r.
12-I5p
ptHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Kj Cook.es. Superior court of Cook county, February
Term. A.D. 1872. Anna Elizabeth Walbert vs. Charlts
W.Affidavit
Walbert.In
of theChancery.
non-residence of Charles W. Wal
bert, defendant above named, having been filed in tho
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook coun
ty, notice
is horeby
given toheretofore
the said Charles
Walof
bert
that the
complainant
filed herW.bill
complaint iu said court, on liifl chancery side thereof,
and
thatsaid
a summons
thereupon
issued
out first
of said
court
uirain*t
defendant,
returnable
on the
Monday
of February next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now. unless you, the said Charles W. Walbert,
shall personally be and appear before said Superior
court of Cook connty. on the first day of a term there
of, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first
Monday of February, 1872, and plead, answer or demur
to the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same,
and tho matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to theAUGUSTUS
prayer of said
bill.
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
Thomas E. Turner, Compl't's Sol'r.
14-17p
HAMMER ft SMITH,
Att'ys. Hammer & Smith's Bl'k, Room 1.
nnANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
^ Cook,term,
ss. A.D.
Superior
county.
To
January
1872. court
Georgeof W.Cook
Bower
v. Lydia
Bower.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Lydia Bower, de
fendant above named, having been filed in the office of
the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Lydia Bower that the
complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint iu
said court, on the chancery side thereof, ana that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on tho first Monday of Jan
uary
(1872),
is bysaid
law required.
Now,next
unless
you,as the
Lydia Bower, shall per
sonally bo and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term tl of. to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of January.
1872, andbill
plead,
answer or tho
demur
the
said
complainant's
of complaint,
same,to and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to the praver f the bill.
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Hammer <t Smith,AUGUSTUS
Comp't's Sol'rs.
11-14
SAMUEL STRAUS,
Attorney, 562 Wabash Avenue.
estate
gottlieb
seber,
Notice isofhereby
gi ven to all
personsdeceased.having claims
and demands against the estate of Gottlieb Sober, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county,
the Court
House, in the
Chicago,toonbetheholden
first atMonday
of February,
A. D.city1872of
being the 5th day thereof.
ELISABETHA
Samuel Straus,
Attorney.SEBER, Administratrix.
Chicago, December 8, A. D. 1S71.
SM4a
JAMES B. BRADWELL ft A. H. LAWRENCE,
Attorneys.
ESTATE OF ENOCH H. STEIN, DECEASED.Notice
is
hereby
all persons
having
and demands againstgiven
the toestate
of Enoch
H. claims
Stein
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term ot the County Court ofCook
county,
holden
the Court
House, iu A.
theD.city1872,
of
Chicago,toonbeth
first atMonday
of February,
being the fifth day thereof.
FANNIE STEIN,
Administrators,WM.
withA.theBUTTERS,
will annexed.
James B. Bhadwell & A. H. Lawrence,
Attorneys
for
Estate. 9-14
Chicago, Dec. 7, A. D. 1871.
WATTE ft CLARKE,
Attorneys. Van Burcn. SL bet. Wabash and Mich. Ave.
ESTATE
OF
HARRIET
E. GARFIELD,
DEceased, Notice
is hereby given
to all persons hav
ing claims and demands aganst the estate of Harriet
E. Garfield deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the court
house in he city of Chicago, on tho first Monday of
March,
A.D.December
1872, being
Chicago,
With,theA.4thD.,day
1871.thereof.
CHARLES
B.
KING. Executor
Waite & Clarke, Attys.
12-17a

103
ELA ft PARKER,
Attorneys, 1 1 1> West Madison Street.
CtHANCERY
NOTICE.-State.
Illinois,
county
' Cook, ss. Superior Court ofofCook
county,
Januof
ary Term, A.D. 1872. Fanny M. Bundy v. Oliver T.
Bundy* Jr. In Chancery.
Affidavit above
of the named,
non-residence
Jr.r
defendant
having ofOliver
been filedT.inBundy,
the office
of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Oliver T. Bundy, Jr., that
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
in said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said Court against
said
defendant,
returnable
first Monday of
January
next (1872),
as is by on
law the
required.
Now, unless you, the said Oliver T. Bundy. Jr., shall
personally be and appear before said Superior Court ot
Cook county,
on the
first county,
day of aonterm
to be
holden
at Chicago,
in said
the thereof,
first Monday
of January, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters
things therein
and stated,
willyou
be
taken asandconfessed,
and a charged
decree entered
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Ela A Parker. Compl't's sol'r.
11-14
ESTATE
THOMAS
Notice isOF
hereby
given toKELLEY,
all personsDECEASED.having claims
and demnnds against the estate ot Thomas Kelley,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement
regular
of the
of
Cook county,at toa be
holdeuterm
at the
courtCounty
house.court
In the
city of Chicago, on the tirst Monday of March, A.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January
1*72.
14-li'a
JOHNA.D.
TILFORD,
Administrator.
L. W. RAWSON,
Attorney, 38 M'tut Randolph Street.
f^HANOERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
\J Cook,
court of Cook
county.v. Mary
Jan
uary
Term,ss.A. Superior
D. 1*72. Benjamin
B. Bonner
Jane Bonner.In Chancery.
Affidavit above
of thenamed,
non-residence
Mary
Bonner,
defendant
having ofbeen
filedJane
in the
office
of tho clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Mary Jane Bonner that
the complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Feb
ruary
required.
Now,next,
unless(1872.)
you,astheis by
saidlawMary
Jane Bonner, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court ol
Cook connty,
on the
first county,
day of a on
termthethereof,
to be
holden
at Chicago,
in Bald
first Monday
of
February,
1872.
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to the prayer of said bill,
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
L. W. Rawkox, Compl't's Sol'r.
13-lfip
A. B. BALDWIN,
Attorney, Room (i, Lind's Block.
TESTATE OF JOHN B. GALLAGHER, DECEASED.
Hi Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demand? against the estate of John B. Gallagher,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement,
Cook
county, toatbea regular
holden atterm
theofthe
CourtCounty
House,Court
in theofcity
of
Chicago, on the first Monday of February, A. D., 1872,
being the fifth day thereof.
SARAH A.Att'y.
GALLAGHER, Administratrix.
A. B. Baldwin,
Chicago, Nov. 27th, 1B71.
8-13 9-14
INSTATE OF HOMER HOPKINS, DECEASED.
j Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Homer
Hopkins, deceeased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court
county, toonbetheholdeu
at the court
house
in
the ofcityCook
of Chicago,
first Monday
of Febru
ary, A.D. 1872, being the fifth day thereof.
KITTIE L. HOPKINS, Executrix.
Chicago, Dec. 12, A.D. 1871.
A. B. Baldwin, Att'y.
10-15
ROTJNTREE ft McHUGH,
Attorneys, No. 30, West Randolph St.
i"1HAN0ERY
county To
of
\J
Cook, ss. NOTICE.-State
Superior court ofof Illinois,
Cook county.
January Term, A.D. 1872. Anna Kleist v. Louis Uhe.
In Chancey.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Louis Uhe, defend
ant above named, having been filed in the office of the
clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, notice Is
herel y given to the said Louis Uhe that the complain
ant heretofore filed her bill of complaint in said court,
on tho chancery side thereof, and that a summons
thereupon issued out of said Court against said defondant, returnable on tho first Monday of January
next,
as is you,
by lawtherequired.
Now,(1872),
unless
said Louis Uhe, shall per
sonally bo and appear before said Superior Court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of January, 1812, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered agatnt you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
P. McHugh and Aniiukw Enzbnuacher, Compl'U
Sol'rs.
ll-H
ESTATE
OF AUGUST
DECEASED.-N0tice is hereby
given to JESKE,
all persons
having claims
and demands against the estate of August Jeeke, de
ceased, to present thesame for adjudication and settle
ment
term
ot the
County
Cook
county,at toa regular
be holden
at the
Court
House,Court
in theofcity
of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872, be
ing the 4th dav thereof.
ANDREW;
ENZENBACKER, Administrator.
P. McHugh,
Attorney.
Chicago,
December
8, A. D. 1871.
?-14a
A. W. EN0S,
Attorney, Room f>. Lino's Block,
ESTATE OF JAMES O'MALLKY, DECEASED,
Public notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of James
O'Malley, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the Court
Houso, In the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
March, A.D. 1872, being the 4th day thereof..
Chicago, Dec, 30th. A. D. 1871.
ANN O'MALLEY, Administratrix.
A. W. Enos, Atty.
12-17 p
ESTATE
OF
PATRICK
O'MALLEY,
DECEASED.
Notice Is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Patrick
O'Malley, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the city ofChicago, on tho first Monday of March,
A.D. 1872, being the 4th day thereof.
PATRICK O'MALLEY,
MARIA O'MALLEY,
Administrators.
Chicago, Jan. 5. 1S72.
12-lSp
TjlESTATE* OF JOHN W. BROMLEY, DECEASED.
Xj Notice is hereby given to all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of John
W7 Bromley, deceased, to present the same for ad
judication and settlement at a regular term of the
County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court ' house,
Chicago,
on the
Monday first
thereof.
" ' in A.'theD.
"city
' ""2,ofbein
being
the 4th
day of March,
1872.
ALEXANDER ALLEN and
THOMAS ALLISON,
Executors.
Chicago.'Jan. \ A. D. 1872.
13-18a

Chicago

Legal

News.

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
A D VER TISEMENT.
ATTORNEYS.
IN PREPARATION,
J! J. SEYBOLD, 497 Wabash avenue : residence
140 South Green street.
GEORGE C. FRY,
STEVENS &HAYNES
AND WILL SHORTLY DE PUBLISHED.
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
MARTIN A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D.,
54 West Randolph Street, /ormerly 86 LaSalle Street,
Law Publishers,
659 State street.
Chicago.
DICKSON'S
ANALYSIS
OFBLACKSTONE
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
SANFORD, E. Special attention given to Col AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS,
Royal 8vo. Price $8.00.
lections and Real Estate.
14*
No. 118 West Madison Street, Chicago.
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
Special Attention Given to Probate 1
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
LONDON.
ESTATES SETTLED.
DICKSON'S ANALYSIS OF KENT.
HERNDON & ORENDORF,
Office west side square. 27*
" Set/ thine house in order ; for thou shalt die,
Works in all Classes of Literature
and not live."2 Kings xx. 1.
Royal 8vo. Price $8.00.
~ST^ LOUIS (MO.) ATTORNEYS.
SUPPLIED TO ORDER.
J P. COLBY,Counselor-at-Law. St. Lonfs, Mo.
H. II. HERMAN,
By FREDERICK B. DICKSON, Esq.
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
ALFRED PAXSON.
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.
Orders Promptly Filled.
Insurance Exchange Building. The Trustee*
52*
and Officers of Public Li BOURQUIN & WELSH,
braries may rely upon tbc
LOOANSPORT (XND.) ATTORNEYS.
S.
A.
GOODWIN.
E.
C.
LARKED.
H.
8.
TOWLB.
careful attention to tbelr
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
M. HOWARD,
GOODWIN, LARNED & TOWXE,
Attorney at Law.
5-16*
PublisJiers and Importers,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
By importing DIRECT from England a consider'
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS._
able saving is effected, especially in the Customs duty, No. 431 Walnut Street, Philadelphia.
No.
376
Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
from which Public Institutions in the United States are
EPPER. WI LSON A MARTIN,
4-16
Room 2 Bank Building.
9-20* exempt.
JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWARD G. MASON.
SUNDRY mistaken have been made by our Foreign
LAW BOOKS
MATTOCKS & MASON,
and
Colonial
Correspondents
in
addressing
their
let
FURNESS & ABBOTT,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
ters, we lg to notify that the members of our firm are
FOR SALE.
Attorney*, 30 South Clinton Street-.
Henry
G. Stevens
and Valentin*
Robert W.
Uaynes,
the son Illinois Reports from Scammon to 25th, inclusive, No. 523 Wabash Avenue, S. W. cor. Harmon Court,
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of and
stepson
ol
the
late
S'evens,
the
eminent
Chicago, IU.
VV Cook,Term,
ss. Superior
CourtMartha
of CookE. County,
To the Law Publisher. Since our lather's death we have con
New York Reports, from Johnson to Deuio, inclu
February
A.I). 1*72.
Fisher, Rachel
tinued to carry on the business of l*mw Publisher*, sive.
0.
Fisher
and
Lucius
G.
Fisher
her
husband,
petitionJohnson's
Chancery,
and Exporters, at the above ad
W. H. WING,
on*, ts. Peter Quackenhush, Jonathan P. Armstrong, Booksellers
Wood & LnNfi'K
Diiikat,Patau's
2 Vols.,do.and numerous Toxtdress.
William
C. Goadr,George
John A.Forsythe,
Janu-*
Wallace,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Books.
DuringKobkst
his recent
visits
to
the
United
States
and
Henry Burwell,
Townsend
andI).Robert
T. Canada,
W. Haynks secured many Friends Champaign, 111,, Jan, 11th, 1872. A. E. HARMAN.
Elgin, IU.
Lincoln.In Chancery.
are thusin enabled
ref
Affidavit of the non-residonce of Peter Quockeabush, and Correspondents
Collections promptly attended to.
5-16
of the highest; we
character
moat of tothegive
princi
Jonathan P. Armstrong and George A. Townsend, erences
cities.
SNOWHOOK & GRAY,
defendants above named, having been filed in the oflloe palWeAmericau
have
no
connection
whatever
with
any
other
Attorneys,
So.
85
West
Monroe
Street.
BATES A HODtiES,
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, no house of business, and to prevent delay and miscar
tice is hereby given to the said Peter Quackeubush, riage, our Correspondents abroad are respectfully re PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT. Attorneys at Law, 13 W. Madison St.
State of Illinois, Cook county, ss. Superior court
Jonathan
P.
Armstrong
and
George
A.
Townseud
that
quested
to
plainly
address
their
letters
to
us
as
fol
the complainants heretofore filed their bill of ceinplaint lows;
of
Cookv. county.
January Term, A. D. 1872. John GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
Sollitt
Philo D. Mickles.Attachment.
In said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
Public
notice
is
hereby
given to the
saidout
Philo
D.
summons thereupon issued out of said court against STEVENS & HAYNES,
Mickles that a writ of attachment
issued
of the
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of
office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook
February next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Bell
Yard,
Temple
Bar,
CHARLES J. BISHOP,
county, dated the litth day of December, A. D. 1x71, at
Now, unless yon, the said Peler Ouackenbnsh,
Successor to J. Freeman Silke,
the suit of the said John Sollitt, aud against the estate
Jonathan P. Armstrong and George A. Townsend,
LONDON,
of
Philo
I).
Mickles,
fur
the
sum
of
eleven
hundred
shall personally be and appear before said Superior
ENGLAND. and seventy-one 76-100 dollars, directed to the sheriff ACCOUNTANT AND EXPERT BOOK-KEEPER,
court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
122 W. Washington St.. Chicago, IU. 7-18p
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the Extract from " Report or JDLIDI Rosenthal, Esq., of Cook county, which said writ has been returned ex
ecuted.
first
Monday
of
February,
1*72.
and
plead,
answer
or
Librarian
to
the
President
and
Members
of
Now,
therefore,
unless
you,
the
said
Philo
D.
demur to the said petitioners bill of complaint, the
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
Mickles, shall personally be and appear before the said
same,
things and
therein
charged
and
the Chicago Law Institute." Xovcmber, 1870.
Superior court of Cook county, on or before the first
stated,and
willthe
be matters
taken asand
confessed,
a decree
entered
SHORT-HAND
WRITER,
"
To
our
collection
of
English
Reports
a
valuable
day
of
the
next
term
thereof,
to
bo
holden
at
the
court
against you according to the prayer of said bill.
addition has been made by the importation of a house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
And U. S. Commissioner.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk. full
and
well
preserved
set
of
the
House
of
Lords
January. A. D. 1872, give special bail and plead tu the Western Union Telegraph Office, 554 Wabash Ave,
Fcrnjcsh A Abbott, Compl't's Sol'rs.
H-17 Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58 said
plaintiffs action, judgment will he entered against
volumes.
you.
and
in favorattached
of the said
JohnbeSollitt,
andtososatisfy
much
of
tinproperty
as may
sufficient
"
English
books
were
imported
directly
free
of
J. C. & J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
the said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the same.
Attorneys, 163 W. Washington St.
firm of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose Snowhook & Gray, Attorneys.A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
H-17
fiHANCERY
NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
diligence,
promptness,
und
care
in
filling
our
or
IN TnE DISTRICT COURT OF THK UNITED ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
^ Cook, as. Superior C-ourt of Cook County, To
States, for the Northern District of Illinois. In
February
Term,
A.D., 1872. Joseph Harvey vs. Jane
ESTATE
OF
DANIEL
O'BRIEN,
DECEASED.the matter of Reuben Beardslee, Phineas Beardslee
Chancery.
is hereby
all persons
havingO'Brien,
claims Harvey.In
and William P. II. Unible. bankrupts.In Bank
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence of Jane Harvey, de
and Notlce
demands
againstgiven
the toestate
of Daniel
ruptcy. Notice is hereby given that a third general
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set fendant above named, having been filed In the office of
the
creditors
of
said
bankrupts
will
be
meeting
of
the
clerk
ofsaid
Superior
court of Cook county, notice
tlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
court
of
Cook
held on the first day of March, 1K72, at 2 o'clock p.m.,
county, toonbethe
holden
at the court
house, A.D.
In the1872,
citybeof is hereby given to the said Jane Harvey that the com
at No. 18 East Harrison street, in the city of Chicago,
Chicago
first
Monday
of
March,
plainant
heretofore
Hied
his
bill of complaint In said
NEW
before H. N. HTVBARD. Esu., Register, for the purposes
court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a sum
ing the fourth day thereof.
named in the 27tli and 2*th sections of tlx* Bankrupt
mons thereupon issued out of said court against said
Chicago, January IS, A.D. 1872.
ActChicago.
of March
2.
1*72.
returnable on the first Monday ol February
LAWRENCE O'BRIEN, Administrator. defendant,
.Ian. 11, 1*72.
(1M72.) as is by law required.
Snowhook A Gray. Att'ys.
14-19a next,
E. JENKINS,
Now, unless you, the said Jane Harvey, shall person
AssigneeROBERT
of said Bankrupt's
Estate.
ally be and appear before said Superior court of Cook
ESTATE
THOMAS
DECEASED.N.B. In the late fire all Proofs of Debt Id the hands
Notice isOFagainst
hereby
given
toKINNEY,
allofpersons
claims
on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
of the Assignee and Register in Bankruptcy were de
and demands
the estate
Thomashaving
Kinney,
de county,
Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday of
stroyed. It will be necessary for each Creditor to make
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set at
February.
1?2, bill
And plead,
answer orthedemur
the said
another proof.
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
of complaint,
same,to and
the
H-15
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of complainant's
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
March,
A.
D.
1872,
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decreo
entered
against
you
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
being tho 4th day thereof.
according to the prayer of said bill.
States, for the Northern District of Illinois. In
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON,
CATHARINE KINNEY. Administratrix. J. C. & J. J. Knickerbocker,
the matter of Jarnes R. Lindsay, bankrupt.In Bank
Compl't's
Sol'rs. Clerk.
14-17
Chicago,
Jan.
3,
A.
D.
1872.
13-1*
ruptcy. Notice is hereby given that a final general
meeting
of
the
creditors
of
said
bankrupt
will
De
held
JAMES ENNIS,
BARBER & LACKNER,
on the .loth day of January. 1*72, at 2 o'clock, n. m., at
Attorney, '12 West Randolph Street.
Attorneys, 64 West Lake Street
No. 18 East Harrison street, in the city of Chicago,
"before
H.
N.
HinnARD.
Esq.,
Register,
for
the
purposes
CHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of
Illinois,
County
of
INSTATE
OF
CHRISTIAN
DECEASED.
named in the 2*th section of the Bankrupt Act of
is hereby
given to allZIMMER.
persons having
claims
court ofStraus
Cook vs.
county,
March andJ Notice
Term,Cook,
A.D.as.1*72.Circuit
Magdalena
John Straus.
demands against the estate of Christian Zimmer,
March 2, 1867.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
Assignee of Baid Estate. JAMES COGKCROFT & CO. In Chancery.
Chicago,
12, 1871.
Affidavit that said John Straus, defendant above tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
N.B, In Jan.
the late
fire all proofs of Debt in the hands
named,
uponhaving
due inquiry
cannot
be found
the clerk
State county, to be holdeu at the court house, in the city of
of the Assignee and Register in Bankruptcy were
of
Illinois,
been filed
in the
office ofin the
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872,
destroyed. It will be necessary f"r each Creditor to
of said Circuit court of Cook county, notice is hereby being the fourth day thereof.
make
another
proof.
If
one
dividend
has
been
re
given
to
the
said
John
Straus
that
the
complainant
Chicago, January 13, A.D. 1*72.
ceived in the above case, another Proof will not be
heretofore filed her bill of complaiant in said court, on
SELEMAAtt'ys.
ZIMMER, Administratrix,
Have opened with a Full Line of
required,which
as the
Assignee
has allowed.
preserved all dividend
Barber A Lackner,
L4-1M
the chancery side thereof, and that a summons there
orders,
show
the claims
upon
issued
out
of
said
court
against
said
defendant,
14-15
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
returnable on the third Monday of March next, (1872,) ESTATE OF HIBBKLL B. CONS, DECEASEDas is by law required.
Is hereby given to all persons having claims
Now, unless you, the said John Straus, shall per and Notice
demands
againstthethesame
estateforof adjudication
Hubbell B. Cone,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
sonally
be
and
appear
before
said
Circuit
court
ot
deceased,
to
and
States,
for
the
Northern
District
of
Illinois.In
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be settlement at present
a regular term of the County court of
Bankruptcy. In the matter of James R. Lindsay,
LAW
BOOKS
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
third
Monday
Cook
county,
to
be
holden
at
the
court
house,
in
the
Bankrupt. This is to give notice that I have filed my
of March, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
final accounts
as assignee
of the and
estate
R.
said
complainant's
bill
of complaint,
the stated,
same, and
tho
1S72, being the fourth day thereof.
Lindsay,
bankrupt,
in said court,
thatofonJames
the 30th
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
will
be
11, A.D. 1872.
day
January.
at 2 o'clock,
p.m.,saidaccounts
I shall applyand
to
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you Chicago. January
WILLIAM W. KIMBALL,)
aaid ofcourt
for the1872,settlement
of my
AT
according to the prayer of said bill.
MARY
M.
and
for
a
discharge
from
all
liability
as
Assignee
of
said
NORMAN
T.
CASSETTE,
Clerk.
RAPHAEL CONE
M. SK1LT0N,
)> Executors.
estate, in accordance with the provisions of the 28th
James Ennis, Compl't's SoPr.
14-17 H-19a
section of the Bankrupt Act of March 2d. 18fi7.
having books belonging to the Chicago
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
/"1HANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of PERSONS
Institute
Indelay,
theirtopossession,
please
re
14-15
Assignee of said Estate.
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. March turn Law
them,
without
the new will
Rooms
of the
499
Wabash
Ave.
Term, A. D. 1872. Wilhelmina Doerner v. John Peter Institute, in the Northwest
corner
of
the
new
City
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi
Doerner.In chancery
Hall, second story.
JULIUS ROSENTHAL,
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the
Affidavit ofabove
the non-residence
of John
14
Librarian.
11th daygives
of notice
January.
A.D.appointment
1872. Theasundersigned
defendant
named, having
beenPeter
filedDoerner,
in the
hereby
of his
assignee of
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
the estate of Louis Lindner, of Chicago, in the county It will be to the Interest of Lawyers to office
notice
is
hereby
givun
to
the
sai>i
John
Peter
Doerner
of Cook and State of Illinois, who ha* been adjudged
Scale of Advertising Rates.
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
aCourt
bankrupt
owninpetition
by the District
complaint in said court, on i he chancery sido thereof,
of the upon
UnitedhisStates
the paid District.
Iv
mm
a
call*
and
that
a
summons
thereupon
issued
outof
said
court
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
against said defendants, returnable on the third Mon Space. 1 w. If. 8 w.|4 w. 3 m. I 6 m. 1 y.
n ir,
Assignee.
day of March next (1872), as is by law reqnired.
1 sq
tub
82JW|83^5 ~*ujb J15.50 sm
Now* unless
you,appear
the saidbefore
Johnsaid
PeterCircuit
Doerner,
JtcjiWe
should
be
pleased
to
correspond
with
Law
A SSIGNEF/S NOTICE.-Northern District of 1111- yers desiring information regarding books, or wishing personally
be and
courtshall
of
J\.
nois,
sh.
At
Chicago,
in
said
District
on
the
1th
4.75 6.00 15.751 30.0o! 59.00
2
sq
2.00
3.50
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to
bo
day of January. A.D. 1*72. The undersigned hereby to purchase.
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
gives
of hisPerson,
appointment
as assignee
of the
day
of
March,
1872.
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
6.50
2.80
5.00
8.00 23.00 44.00j 87.00
8
sq
estate notice
of Franklin
of Chicago,
in the county
tho said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
of Cook and State of Illinois, who ha* been adjudged
the matters and things therein charged and stated, >/ col.... 4.68 8.75
15.00 37.50| 73.75 13730
aCourt
bankrupt
upon
creditors*!
petition
by
the
District
will
be
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
of the United States in and for the said District.
you according to the prayer of said bill.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk. M col.... 14.87 21.50 27.50 72.501 135.00 262.50
14-16
Assignee.
James Ennis, Compl't's SoPr.
J^IL
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern (District of Illi JAMES COCKCROFT & CO., I^STATEOF ZEBINA BLISS, DECEASED -Notice 1 col 15.00127.50 38.75 52.50
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the 0th
J ts hereby given to all persons having claims nnd
lines of Agate make a Square.
demands against the estate of Zebina Bliss, deceased, Ten
day
January, A.D. 1*72. The undersigned hereby
Advertisements must be paid for in advance,
givesofnotice
of his appointment a* assignee of the
to
presentterm
the same
adjudication
settlement
499 Wabash Avenue,
when not so paid. 50 per cent, will be added.
a regular
of theforCounty
court ofnnd
Cook
county, atto and
estate
of
Julius
Weise,
of
Chicago,
in
the
county
of
Cook and State of Illinois, who has been ailjudged a
be holden at the court house, in the city of Chicago, on Legal Notices not included in the above.
bankrupt,
creditors'
the said
District
the first Monday of March, A.D. 1*72, being the fourth p^^i^^^^i^g^g
CHICAGO.
Court of theupon
United
State*.petltition,
In and forby the
Dis
day thereof.
Printed at the Chicago Legal News Press, 15
trict.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Chicago, January 11, A.D. 1*72.
H-16
Assignee.
14-19*
ELLEN S. BLISS, Administratrix. North Jefferson street, Chicago.

Qhicago

Jegal

^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 15.

Eht Courts.
U. S. DISTRICT COURT, SECOND D.
OF WASHINGTON T.
September Term, 1871.
The United States v. Cultus Joe.
Motion for Warrant qf Arrest on a Criminal Informa
tion,
CRIMINAL INFORMATIONS IN UNITED
STATES COURTS.
1. Criminal Informations.That the proceed
ing by criminal information in the United States
courts is, so far as the court is aware, with a single
exception, entirely unknown.
2. Power ok U. S, Courts.That the Supreme
Court is the only court of the United States which
derives any part of its power directly from the
Constitution , that the Circuit and District courts
are, by authority of the Constitution, creatures of
the national legislature having such jurisdiction,
and only such, as Congress has been pleased to
confer upon tnera, and having no common law
Jurisdiction, though drawing upon the common
law for modes of procedure and practice when
necessary to carry into effect the jurisdiction given
by statute.
3. Practice and Jurisdiction of District Courts
in the Territories.That the District courts of
the Territory although they may in a sense be
said to be of general jurisdiction yet in the exer
cise of their jurisdiction, and the settlement of
their practice as Circuit and District courts of the
United States, are subject to like limitations, with
the Circuit and District courts themselves ; that
the act of 1789 to establish the judiciary system is
an express grant in so many words, it gives juris
diction over crimes and other matters in it ex
pressly enumerated, and is also an example of
grant by implication, for in the express grant
of criminal jurisdiction is contained impliedly a
grant of authority to summon and regulate graud
juries, that if the Circuit and District courts of
the United States have jurisdiction to proceed in
criminal causes upon information that authority
must spring from the Constitution and statutes of
the United States either expressly or by implica
tion.
4. Prosecutions by Indictment and Informa
tion.The court construes that part of the Vth
amendment to the U. S. Constitution relating to
prosecutions by indictment and information and
the various nets of Congress, and detines the
powers of the Federal courts in criminal cases,
and the proper mode pf proceeding.Eo. Legal
News.
Opinion of the Court by Greene, J.
The attorney of the United States
comes and tiles a criminal information,
charging one Cultus Joe with the offense
of selling spirituous liquor to an Indian,
contrary to the statute ; and moves that
a warrant of arrest issue against the ac
cused, that he may be imprisoned or
bailed for trial before this court. It is
contended that the proceeding by in
formation is concurrent in such cases as
this with that by indictment, and is
preferable as being the less expensive
and more simple mode.
There is no doubt in my mind that, if
this court can take cognizance of crimes
not capital nor infamous, upon informa
tion of the United States attorney, a
warrant of arrest may properly issue in
this case. It is not urged by the prose
cuting officer, and does not appear to
me, that there is any authority of law
which would allow the proceeding by
information in this case, which would
not also allow it in every case of an
offense not capital nor infamous. Nor
does there appear to be any reason why
an information should not lie in this
case, if properly lying in any other.
In short, the offense charged is one of a
large class of offenses, and the argument
before me is, that this class of offenses,
and this particular offense, because one
of the class, may, under the Constitu
tion and laws of the United States,
properly be prosecuted by information.
Although not infrequent in England
and some of the States, the proceeding
by criminal information in the United
States courts, so far as I am aware, is
(with perhaps a single exception, which
I will hereafter specify) entirely un
known.
By English common law, the AttorneyGeneral, or in the vacancy of his office,
the Solicitor-General, can prosecute by
information, without leave of court, for
any misdemeanor whatever, except mis
prison of treason. (Cole Crim. Inf., 9).
The Master of the Crown office, though
now required first to obtain leave of
court, had originally, on the relation of
a common informer or private person,
like power. (4 Bl. Com. 308). The

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, JANUARY 20, 1872.

exercise of this power is, however, rare
ly resorted to by the Attorney-General,
unless moved to it by a House of Parlia
ment, the Lords of the Treasury, the
Commissioners of some Public Depart
ment, or the very serious nature of the
case. (Cole on Crim. Inf., 9, 10; Bishop's
Crim. Pro., ? 605).
Our prosecuting attorneys correspond
in function rather to the English Attor
ney-General than to the Master of the
Crown Office, and according to this
analogy, it would seem proper, what
ever may be the power, that in practice,
if criminal informations are to be al
lowed in United States cases at all, they
should only be exhibited in cases of
great urgency, or by direction of Con
gress, or of some department. But as
the exhibition of an information in
England is, notwithstanding the prac
tical limitations, really at the absolute
discretion of the Attorney-General, the
practice of that officer, and the restric
tion of the Master of the Crown Office,
are alluded to here, chiefly as the basis
of an inference, that the proceeding by
indictment has met with more favor
among the English bar and the English
people than that by information, and
being concurrent was not unlikely to be
preferred exclusively by the original
law-makers of our national govern
ment.
If Lord Coke is to be trusted, the pro
vision of Magna Charta that no English
subject should be deprived of life, liber
ty or property, save by the law of the
land and the judgment of his peers, is
decisive of the preference of the Eng
lish people at the date of that conces
sion; for, he says, the true sense and
exposition of the words " by the law of
the land " is " by indictment or present
ment of good and lawful men." (2 Inst.,
50), and see 2 Hale's P. C, c. 20. And
there is good reason to suppose that such
a preference did exist in the minds of
our first legislators, strengthened and
justified by the oppressive use made in
this country by the English Crown of
criminal informations, immediately pre
ceding the colonial struggle for inde
pendence.
Certain it seems to be, that the pro
ceeding by indictment has, as matter of
fact, had preference given it, not only
by the first, but by all subsequent Con
gresses, as is evident from even a hasty
survey of the body of our criminal law
and the power delegated to our courts.
The Supreme court is the only court
of the United States which derives any
part of its power directly from the Con
stitution. The Circuit and District
courts of the United States are, by au
thority of the Constitution, the creatures
of the national legislature, having such
jurisdiction, and only such, as Congress
has been pleased to confer upon them,
and having no common law jurisdiction,
though drawing upon the common law
for modes of procedure and practice,
when necessary to carry into effect the
jurisdiction given by statute. The dis
trict courts of this territory, although
they may in a sense be said to be of gen
eral jurisdiction, yet in the exercise of
their jurisdiction and the settlement of
their practice as Circuit and District
courts of the United States, are obvious
ly subject to like limitations with the
Circuit and District courts themselves.
The entire jurisdiction and practice of
the Circuit and District courts is given
them either by express letter of written
law, or by necessary implication from
that letter. The act of 1789, to establish
the judiciary system of the United
States is at once an example of an ex
press grantsince in so many words it
gives jurisdiction over crimes and other
matters in itself expressly enumerated,
and is also an example of grant by
implication, for in the express grant of
criminal jurisdiction is contained im
pliedly a grant of authority to summon
and regulate grand juries. ( U. S. v. Hill,
1 Brock, 156). These are instances of

the only possible ways in which a Circuit

or District court has acquired, or can ac
quire, power or jurisdiction in any case
or proceeding.
If the Circuit and District courts have
authority to proceed in criminal causes
upon information, then that authority
must spring from the Constitution and
statutes of the United States, either ex
pressly or by necessary implication.
But the power to proceed by criminal
information is nowhere expressly grant
ed. Search the Constitution and "statutes
from beginning to end, and it is believed
there can be found no provision men
tioning or expressly referring to a pro
ceeding by criminal information. The
only provision of the Contitution that
can be construed to hint at such an in
formation is in the fifth amendment,
which says, that " No person shall be
held to answer for a capital or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment
or indictment of a grand jury, except in
cases arising in theland or naval forces,
or in the militia when in actual service,
in time of war or public danger." The
history of this amendment does not, so
far as I am informed, disclose the reason
of it ; that, we are left to gather mainly
or wholly from the words themselves.
The wording, together with the histori
cal fact, that at the time of its adoption
our country had but newly emerged
from a condition of military rule, might
plausibly be held to indicate a mere de
sign authoritatively to put an end to and
prevent any assumption of power by
military tribunals to punish persons
guilty of capital or otherwise infamous
crimes, in time of peace and public secur
ity. Yet it can not be denied, that the
words are really susceptible of a broader
ncfatiing. A broader meaning I think
they have, but not the construction coun
sel has put upon them.
Capital crimes, and most of those call
ed infamous, never were prosecutable at
common law otherwise than by indict
ment, and it has been argued that this
amendment was intended to adopt the
common law in the main, varying it in
part, as matter of right and practice in
cases to arise under the the United
States statutes. It is argued that this
amendment forbids procedure, other
wise than by presentment or indict
ment in some cases, and thereby, by im
plication, adopts the procedure by infor
mation or indictment in other cases.
By this is probably meant that it explic
itly adopts in substance the common law
limits for the exclusive use of indict
ments, and thereby impliedly adopts
substantially the common law limits for
theiruse concurrently with informations.
But mark, the prohibition of the consti
tution is not co-extensive with that of
the common law. It is fundamentally
different. At common law, some infa
mous crimes could be prosecuted by in
formation ; under this amendment, they
must all be prosecuted by presentment
or indictment : by the common law
prosecution of misprison of treason, othwise than by presentment or indictment,
was forbidden ; by this amendment it is
not forbidden. An information for mis
prison of treason would be a novelty in
jurisprudence, and would require an ex
plicit grant of power to introduce it. Yet
here it is granted by implication, if the
power to use criminal information is at
all here declared by implication ; for it
is a rule of construction, applicable here,
that what is so made law by implication
must be the complement of what is made
law by expression ; and this amendment,
if, by implication, it authorizes the use
of criminal informations, must be under
stood to authorize the use of them in all
cases, except where their use is express
ly excluded. I do not think that there
is any such meaning as counsel would
imply, in this constitutional provision.
As the Constitution stood before
amendment, Congress had absolute pow
er to regulate criminal procedure in the
national courts, civil and martial. It

Whole No. 173.

was prudent, then, by such an amend
ment, to put a limit to that power. Thus
regarded, the utmost implication that
can be extracted from it is, not that
criminal informations are to lie, but that
Congress is free to provide, by any mode
it sees fit, for prosecution before courts
civil or courts martial, of crimes not cap
ital nor infamous.
Congress, being thus free, has not seen
fit to make any enactment expressly
adopting the proceeding by criminal in
formation. There is not, even, in any
statute, an allusion to such a proceeding.
But, as we have seen, if there is any au
thority for such a proceeding, it must be
granted expressly, or by necessary im
plication. We de not find any express
or implied grant in the Constitution, and
none expresr in the statutes. Is there
necessarily implied in the statute any
such grant ?
How can there be ? Not even an al
lusion to criminal information is found
in the statutes. An indictment will lie
in all cases, and is, under the Constitu
tion, absolutely necessary in some. A
grand jury and its power to indict is nec
essary by implication, because else many
species of crime could not be reached by
any mode of procedure known to the
law. But a criminal information, how
ever convenient, can never be necessa
ry, since an indictment lies in all cases.
How can an unnecessary mode of pro
cedure, all reference to it and recogni
tion of it being absent from the statutes,
be claimed to be given by necessary im
plication from them? I cannot under
stand how it can.
It seems to be the opinion ofreputable
law-writers, that the courts of the United
State* ned pf si',ive authority of Con
gress, before a proceeding by criminal
information can be entertained. (2 Sto
ry on the Constitution, 3d ed., p, 593,
\ 1786 ; Conkling's Treatise, 4th edition, p.
591.)
That the courts have never understood
themselves to possess jurisdiction of a
criminal information, is patent from the
fact that in not a single reported case
from the adoption of the Constitution to
the present time, a period of eighty
years, has a court of the United States
assumed jurisdiction of such a proceed
ing. In one district, indeed, to my
knowledge, and I think in some others,
in internal revenue cases, where the ac
cused has been desirous to submit him
self to the judgment of the<-ourt, without
the delay and publicity incident to the
action of a grand jury, his desire has
been accomplished by the filing, by the
United States attorney, of a criminal in
formation, and by the entry, by himself,
simultaneously, (the United States attor
ney consenting) of a plea of nolo conten
dere. In such cases, the accused, by his
acts, voluntarily waived all exception to
the proceeding, and in no other cases,
did I ever hear of an information being
accepted by a United States court, as
the first pleading in a criminal prosecu
tion.
Congress itself, has all along labored
under the impression that the mode of
procedure by criminal information was
not possessed by the courts of its crea
tion. If we turn to the acts of the na
tional legislature, prior to June 11, 1864,
touching procedure for the punishment
of crime, we find that procedure inten
tionally and expressly, all made to fit
the proceeding by indictment, and that
proceeding only. Section 29 of the
crimes act of 1790, (1 Stat. 117) gives to
persons " indicted " the right to have
counsel, to persons "indicted" the right
to witnesses and process ; and section 31
provides that the " indictment" for any
offense not capital, shall be found within
two years, and though the word " infor
mation" occurs in this section, it plainly
means an information for fines and for
feitures onlv. In the limitation, section
3 of the act*of 26th March 1804, (2 Stat.,
290) " indictment" is named as if the ap
propriate first pleading, in a prosecution

io6
for crime, and " information" in a prose
cution for a fine or forfeiture. Section
14 of the act of 3rd of March, 1825 (4 Stat.,
1 18) provides that a party refusing to plead
to an " indictment, shall be proceeded
against as if he had pleaded no:
guilty. The act oi ord March, 1835, (4
Stat., 777) empowers the court to enter a
plea of not guilty when a person " in
dicted" stands mute. The statute of Sth
August, 1846, in section 2 (9 Stat., 72)
provides for the transfer of an " indict
ment "from the circuit to the district
court, and vice versa ; in section three it
gives " grand juries" of the district court,
cognizance of all crimes and offenses
within the jurisdiction of the circuit and
district courts ; and in section 11 it gives
process for witnesses to the defendant
in an ' indictment" pending. And the
first section of the act of 26th February,
1853, (10 Stat., 162) provides for the join
der of ofl'enses in one " indictment," and
for the consolidation of " indictments."
The statutes that I have cited are not all
that might be cited, but they are fair
samples. The legislation is uniform,
and, to all appearance, that of a legisla
ture ignorant that there is any other
authorized mode of procedure than that
by indictment.
Congress, in the act of llth June, 1864,
(13 Stat., 124,) provides a summary pro
ceeding by sworn complaint, instead of
indictment, for the trial of offenses not
capital nor infamous, when committed
by seamen. The third section of this
act, by declaring that, on the trial of ca
ses under it, " it shall not be necessary
that the accused shall have been previ
ously indicted," distinctly recognizes
that, without such declaration, an indict
ment would have been necessary. Now,
if at the time of making this law, Con
gress understood the Constitution ex
pressly to adopt for United States courts
the proceeding by indictment in certain
cases, and by implication (as has been
contended,) the proceeding by infor
mation or indictment in other cases,
then Congress knowingly made a useless
and a void law7. Useless, because an ad
equately simple and summary proced
ure for prosecuting such offenses was
already provided, namely, by informa
tion. Void, because if the Constitution
adopted one sort of procedure for cer
tain cases, and that sort and another im
pliedly for all other cases, it thereby an
ticipated and prevented all provision of
other methods by Congress. Congress,
in passing this act of 1804, evidently had
in mind the fifth constitutional amend
ment ; evidently supposed that amend
ment left it free to provide any mode of
proceeding it pleased for the trial of
offenses not capital norinfamous ;and ev
idently did not suppose that the Consti
tution fixed in the courts the right to
proceed on criminal information.
Since the act of llth of June, 1864,
Congress has passed no law, from which
any mode of procedure may be infer
red to be sanctioned, other than those
recognized by that and previous enact
ments.
I am not disposed to hike cognizance
of a proceeding, which has not ever
been used in United States courts, which
Congress has never adopted or recog
nized, and which, however convenient
it may be, does not give that effectual
security against vexatious prosecution
which is afforded by the action of a
grand jury. I shall, therefore, decline
to issue the warrant of arrest in this
case. Motion overruled.
Leandee Holmes, U. S. Attorney, for
the motion.
W are indebted to Edward Roby,
Esq., of the Chicago Bar, for a certified
copy of the following important opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed June 19, 1871.
Joseph Cheote et al. v. The City of Chicago.
1. Constitutional Law.The Common Council
of the city of Chicago does not belong to the ju
dicial department of the State, and, under the
Constitution, can nut be clothed with judicial
power.
2. Special AssessmentDefences are not pre
cluded by confirmation of a special assessment
by the Common Council.
3. Defenses allowable under the statutes gov
erning these proceedings are those which by
recognized principles of either law or equity are
suftieicnt to quash the proceedings for want of
compliance with the statute, ortoovcrthrowthem
for matters extrinsic the record.
Legal Defenses.Anything which a court of
law would examine into under a writ of certiorari
will be considered on this trial.
1. EticiTAW.E Defenses.The courtmay inquire
dehors the proceedings of the Common Council

and see if any facts exist which render the tax or

assessment illegal.
2. Also into any substantial irregularity in the
mode of assessing it. for which (if apparent upon
the record) a court of law should set them aside
on certiorari.
Fraud in assessment is a good defense, and evience tending to show fraud admissible; e. Tg., i
vldence that part of the work assessed for had
been done at private expense prior to making the
assessment.[Chicago v. Burtice, 24 111., 489].
Illegality.Evidence tending to show that the
assessment was made in a manner violative of the
Constitution or statute ; e. g.. on an assessment
for curbing with curb walls, rilling and paving a
street, it might be shown that the cost of the curb
walls was assessed upon each lot in proportion to
its frontage upon the street.
3. PracticeObjections Filed and offers of
Testimony.It seems that lack of technical pre
cision will not authorize the court to overrule the
defense without hearing, if what is oll'ered shows
or tends to show a substantial defense, or a link in
the chain of evidence which would.
4. Arguendo (1). In actions concerning real
estate, there are defenses ternied legal and equit
able. In ejectment, with but slight exception,
none but the former are allowed, while in some
other States, in order to avoid multiplicity of suits,
both are permitted. It is a matter generally under
the control of the legislature.
(2.) The application for judgment is treated as
a suit ; a cause pending in court.
(3.) The stauue does not limit thedefeuses; ex
cept that none founded on a mere formal irregu
larity
defect
shallsays:
be received.
(4.) orThe
statute
'Said assessment, when
confirmed by the Common Council, shall be final
and conclusive upon all particsinterested therein,
except as hereinafter provided." I f parties choose
to submit to the confirmation as conclusive upon
them, and voluntarily pay their assessment, when
the law affords them the means of resisting its
collection if illegal, as to them it should be eonelusive.
Opinion by McAllister, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment
of the Superior Court of Chicago, against
certain lots of appellants, for an assess
ment on warrant for curbing with curb
walls, filling and paving with wooden
blocks, West Lake street, from Halsted
to Reuben street, in the city of Chicago.
The appellants having filed numerous
objections to the recovery of judgment,
offered to prove, upon "the hearing, in
support of the objections, that a portion
of the curb walls upon said street, and on
the line of the proposed improvement,
had been built, before the assessment
by the Board of Public Works was
made.
The evidence was objected to by the
counsel for the City, and the court exclu
ded it on the ground that there was no
objection filed to that effect. The ex
clusion of this evidence is relied upon
for error.
The evidence offered would not, stand
ing alone, establish a defense. But it
aflorded a link in the chain of evidence
which would. If it were followed up by
evidence that such portions of the walls
had been built by property owners, or
any party, other than the city, and
the commissioners had, willfully and
knowingly included them in this assess
ment, it would be such a fraud upon the
property owners, as ought to render the
assessment void. There is some lack of
precision in the offer as made, but, for
the purpose indicated, the evidence was
admissible, if any such defense can be
set up after confirmation by the com
mon council ; and if there was a proper
objection on file, can such a defense be
made to the recovery of judgment upon
the collector's report ? In actions con
cerning real estate, there are defenses
termed legal and equitable. In actions
of ejectment, for instance, with but very
limited exceptions, none but the former
are recognized in this State, as proper,
while in other States, in order to avoid
multiplicity of suits, equitable defenses
maybe interposed. It is a matter, gen
erally, within the legislative power to
regulate, and the question is, what char
acter of defenses, if any, is allowable
under the statute governing these pro
ceedings ?
By the 14th section of chapter 9, of the
city charter (Gary's Laws, etc., 89) it is
declared that each of the collectors' re
ports shall constitute a separate suit,
and shall he docketed by the clerk as a
suit. The loth section (same chapter)
says, that " It shall be the duty of the
court, upon the filing of the reports, to
proceed to the hearing of the same, and
they shall have priority over all other
causes pending in said court."
The application for judgment is thus
treated as a suita cause pending in
court. But the statute proceeds : " The
court shall pronounce judgment against
the several lots and parcels of land, or
other property described in the report,
to which no objection shall be filed, for
the amount of the tax or assessment,
damages and costs due severally there
on." This judgment the statute speaks
of as a judgment by default.
The statute further declares, that

" The owner of any property described

in said report, or any person beneficially
interested, may appear at said court, at
the time designated in the collector's no
tice, and file objections, in writing, to the
recovery of judgment against such prop
erty ; but no objection shall be sustained,
founded on any mere formal irregulari
ty or defect." By the Kith section of
same chapter, these objections a re styled
defenses. There is nothing in this lan
guage which places any limitation upon
the objections, except that none founded
upon any mere formal irregularity or
defect, shall be sustained. But in giving
it a construction, the court must hold
that the objections which may be sus
tained, if apparent upon the proceed
ings, or if not, which are supported by
evidence, are those which by recogniz
ed principles of either law or equity, are
sufficient to quash the proceedings for
want of compliance with the statute, or
to overthrow them for matters extrinsic
the record. As was said in Pease v. The
City of Chicago, 21 111., 500, " Anything
which a court of law would examine in
to, under a writ of certiorari, may be con
sidered on this trial, and even more, for
the court may inquire dehorn, the pro
ceedings of the common council, and see
if any facts exist which render the tax
or assessment illegal, as well as into any
substantial irregularity in the mode of
assessing it, for which a court of law
should set them aside."
It has been supposed, and some of the
later decisions of this court are to that
effect, that if such defense as was sought
to be established in this case, was not
made in the common council, before
confirmation of the assessment, it could
not be objected to the recovery of the
judgment. We 'are unwilling to give
our adherence to such a position. The
13th section of chapter 7th, concerning
the condemnation of land for public use,
(Gary's L., 66) says, that " said assess
ment, when confirmed by the common
council, shall be final and conclusive up
on all parties interested therein, except
as hereinafter provided." This excep
tion includes the very case of a defense
being made to the recovery of judgment,
by a party who desires to test the valid
ity of the proceedings. If other parties
choose to submit to the confirmation as
conclusive upon them, and voluntarily
pay their assessment, when the law af
fords them the means of resisting its col
lection, if illegal, then, as to them, it
should be conclusive. The 24th section
of chapter 7, (Gary's L., 70) if taken lit
erally, would seem to sustain the posi
tion of the conclusiveness of the con
firmation. But when the whole statute
is construed together, it does not admit
of such a construction. This section re
quires that the commissioners, when
they shall have completed the assess
ment for street improvements, "shall
sign and return the same in like man
ner, and give the like notice of the appli
cation to the common council for con
firmation, as herein required, in relation
to assessments for the condemnation of
real estate, and all parties in interest
shall have the like rights, and the com
mon council shall perform like duties,
and have like powers in relation to such
assessment as are herein given in rela
tion to assessments for the condemnation
of real estate."
Here is a plain intention to assimilate
the confirmation and its effects, to that
in the case of the condemnation of real
estate, and the remaining clause must be
construed in the light of the context.
"When confirmed by the Common
Council, said assessment shall be final
and conclusive, upon all parties inter
ested therein, and shall be collected, as
in other cases ; and no appeal shall lie in
any case from the order of confirma
tion."
The 34th section of same chapter
(Gary's L., 74) takes away the common
law certiorari of which the Circuit Court
has jurisdiction, unleas the writ is ap
plied for within thirty days after the
confirmation ; and if the party interested
neglect to file objections in the Common
Council to the confirmation, it is taken
away altogether, unless he can show, by
legal and satisfactory evidence, other
than his own oath, that he has a suf
ficient legal excuse for such omission or
neglect."
Thus it will be seen, that if the de
fense in question cannot be made upon
the application for judgment, upon the
collector's report, it can be made no
where except before the Common Coun

cil. Such a construction would, under

the statute, be arbitrary and despotic.
No appeal is allowed. The common law
certiorari practically taken away, the
property owner, bound hand and foot
would be subject to a conclusive judg
ment uppn the most important rights of
property, rendered by a tribunal wholly
unfitted, by the very nature of its or
ganization, fur sitting in judgment upon
questions so grave, intricate and delicate
as are involved in the exercise of the
high prerogative power of eminent do
main. The Common Council of the city
of Chicago does not belong to the judi
cial department of the State, and under
the constitution cannot be clothed with,
judicial power. We hold, therefore, that
the appellants were not precluded by the
confirmation of the assessment, by the
Common Council, from setting up the
defense offered. Was there an objection
filed, under which the defense was ad
missible ?
The sixth objection is, in substance,
that the estimate of the expense of this
improvement, as reported by the Board
of Public Works to the Council, was
knowingly and willfully stated by theBoard at a much larger amount of money
than the Board believed the expense
would be, and at a sum much larger by
several thousand dollars than the Board
knew would be the cost of the work.
These grounds of objection show an
abuse of power, and, if true, amount to
a fraud.
If a portion of the curb walls had
been previously built by parties other
than the city, and the commissioners in
cluded them in the amount of the esti
mated cost of this improvement, this
would sustain the objection just stated,,
and constitute a good defense. City of
Chicago v. Burtice, 24 111., 489. It was
error to exclude the evidence.
Appellants also offered to show by
competent evidence, that the cost of thecurb walls was assessed upon each lot in
proportion to each lot's frontage upon
the street. There was an objection stat
ing this as a ground, but the court ex
cluded the evidence, and exception was
taken. The evidence was competent as
tending to show that the principle both
of the statute and the constitution wasviolated. City of Chicago v. Lamed, 34
111., 203. Other questions are made in
this case, but they are based upon tech
nical grounds involving no principleErrors of a substantial character being
found in the record, for which "the judg
ment must be reversed, it is unnecessary
to discuss the other points mad e.
Judgment reversed and c-ause re
manded.
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY..
John Williams v. Wight, Deston & Co.
THAT THE ACT OF INCORPORATION OF THE
BOARD OF TRADE OF CHICAGO, SO FAR AS
IT SEEKS TO CONFER JUDICIAL POWERS
UPON THE COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD,
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The opinion of the court was delivered
by Booth, J., in substance as follows :
This was a motion by defendant to
quash an execution issued upon an award
of the Committee of Arbitration of the
Board of Trade of this city, which had
been filed in court, and upon which judg
ment had been obtained. The grounds
upon which the motion was urged were
shown by affidavits.
The first point made was that there
was no such submission by the parties as
is required by the act of incorporation
and rules of the Board.
The act and rules require that the
party shall notify the Secretary of the
Board that the services of the Commit
tee of Arbitration will be required on a
day and at a place certain, to decide the
controversy ; also that a bond shall be
executed by the parties conditioned toabide by and fulfill the award that shall
be rendered. In this case, though the
notice was regularly given, yet no bond
of submission was executed. It was ar
gued in behalf of plaintiff that the par
ties had waived this informality by en
tering upon the trial without such tond.
The court held otherwise ; that inasmuch
as our Supreme Court has repeatedly de
cided that the submission under our
General Arbitration Act of 1845 (which
act requires the submission to be under
seal of the parties) must be executed
strictly in accordance with the act, in or
der to give the court jurisdiction to enter
judgment upon the award made in pur
suance thereof, much more should the
requirements of the act of incorporation

Chicago
of a Board of Trade (which is merely a
private act) and the rule of said Board
thereunder be strictly complied with.
Especially as that act gives to the award
the force and effect of a judgment of
this court, whereas the General Arbitra
tion law of 1845 gives to an award the
effect of a verdict only.
The second point made was upon the
composition of the Committee of Arbi
tration in this case. The charter and
rules of the Board provide for the elec
tion of a Committee of Arbitration, also
a Committee of Appeals, each to consist
of ten members of the association, and
five of the members of either of these
committees constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business, and a majority
of such a quorum may render a decision.
The rules also provide that in case a
quorum of either of these committees
shall not Vie present, any vacancies
may be filled by other members of the
association, such as the parties to the
controversy may select, or the parties, if
they shall so choose, may pro hoc rice
select an entire new committee in this
matter.
In the present ease there were four
members of the regular committee pres
ent, and the quorum had been made up
by the parties to another suit by the se
lection of a member of the association
outside of the committee. The commit
tee, thus constituted, continued to sit on
the trial of this case, the defendant not
knowing but that all the arbitrators were
members of the Standing Committee.
The affidavit of the defendants is posi
tive on this point. An attempt was
made by the plaintiff to meet this ob
jection, on the ground that tne defend
ants were members of the association ;
that they attended the annual elections,
and therefore knew, or might have
known, who the members of the com
mittee were ; that they had also access
to the printed reports containing the
names of the officers'of the Board ; and
that as they went into the trial all objec
tion to the committee representing the
Board, as thus constituted, was waived.
The court, held that going into the trial
in ignorance of the fact that there was an
outside party upon the Committee was
no waiver of this objection; that the de
fendants could not be considered to have
waived that of which they were wholly
ignorant ; that the vacancy could be sup
plied only by the consent of the parties,
and that before there could be such con
sent there must have been a distinct
recognition of the existence of such va
cancy, and then a distinct meeting of the
minds of the parties in the choice of a
person to fill it.
A third point was based upon the fact
that no notice of the filing of the award
in the Circuit Court, or of any intention
to file it, was given to the defendants.
Neither the act of incorporation nor the
rules of the Board require that any such
notice should be given, and the court
was of opinion, that if the authority
claimed for the Committee of Arbitra
tion was valid in law no notice could be
required.
The act of incorporation provides that
upon the filing of the award rendered
by the Committee of Arbitrations, to
gether with a submission, such award
shall have the force and effect of a judg
ment of this court, and execution shall
be issued thereon, and an entry made
thereof upon the judgment docket. This
point, therefore, the court considered
merged in the more radical objection to
the authority of said Committee of Arbi
tration, to render such an award in any
case.
The court proceeded to consider the
final objection upon the ground of the
constitutionality of those provisions of
the act of incorporation and rules of the
Board of Trade creating the Committees
of Arbitrations and Appeals.
Upon examining the different sections
of the act and rules relating to this sub
ject, the court came to the conclusion
that here was an attempt to establish a
tribunal vested with the usual powers of
courts of justice, compulsory process to
enforce the attendance of witnesses, the
administering of oaths with jurisdiction,
to decide questions of law as well as fact,
arising in controversies of a mercantile
or financial character, such as should be
submitted to them, either by members of
the association, or by other persons not
members ; that these rules contain pro
visions for a review of the decision ren
dered by the Committee of Arbitrations,
by a Committee of Appeals, the decisions

Legal

of this latter committee being based

upon the record evidence alone, certified
to them by the Committee of Arbitra
tions. In the opinion of the court, here
was a manifest attempt to vest judicial
power in direct violation of Section 1 of
Article 6 of the Constitution of this
State: "The judicial powers, except as
in this article is otherwise provided,
shall be vested in one Supreme Court,
Circuit Courts, County Courts, justices of
the pea?e, police magistrates, and in such
courts as may be created by law in and
for cities and incorporated towns." The
court referred to the case of The People
v. The Mayor of Rockford (14 Ills., 420),
where the question presented to the Su
preme Court was whether the charter of
that city vesting in the Mayor the juris
diction of a justice of the peace, was
constitutional, and the court, in giving
construction to Section 1, Article 5 of the
Constitution of 1848, then in force, and
which is substantially the same with our
present Constitution, held that the pro
vision of the charter in that respect was
void for unconstitutionality. In this
provision of the charter of tlie Board of
Trade, which is a private act, a tribunal
is created whose decisions it is declared,
when filed with the clerk of the Circuit
Court, shall have the force and effect of
a judgment of the court ; that is, they
shall become a lien upon land and real
estate, may be seized and sold upon
execution thereon. Such decision shall
have the force and effect of a judg
ment of the court; and yet it is not
a judgment of the court. This court
exercises no judicial function whatever
in the rendering of such judgment, only
a clerical service is performed by an of
ficer of this court, and the court is called
upon to lend its record and its process
for the recording and execution of a
judgment in no sense whatever its own,
but, on the contrary, a judgment ren
dered by a tribunal which is a stranger
to this court, and of which this court has
not and cannot take judicial cognizance,
the act of incorporation creating this
tribunal being a private act. If this is
not an attempt to vest judicial power in
violation of the Constitution, it would be
difficult to point to a case where such
violation would be apparent.
LIV. ILLINOIS REPORTS.
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman
L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following
head-notes to cases to appear in the 54th
volume of Illinois Reports :
COLOR OP TITLE.
1 . What constitutes.Where a purchaser
at a sale of land under execution, re
ceived a sheriff's deed therefor, and af
terwards executed a conveyance to a
third person, it was held, such deeds con
stituted color of title, even though the
sheriff's sale was void, : ml possession
and payment of taxes un i ,r such color
would bar a recovery, under the limita
tion act of 1839, those claiming under the
paramount title being under no disabil
ity.(Opinion by Law-rence, C. J.)
Fritz v. Joiner el al., p. 102.
BURDEN OP PROOF.
2. As to existence of disabilities.A party
relying upon the existence of a disabil
ity, to avoid the operation of the statute
of limitations, must prove it.lb.
CUMULATIVE DISABILITIES
3. Are of no avail, as against a statute
of limitations.lb.
constable's bond.
1. Executed after twenty daysfrom his elec
tion. The fact that the official bond ofa
constable was not given until nineteen
months after his election, will not affect
the validity of a bond ; it will be presum
ed, from the mere fact of its execution,
that such a bond was given because a
former bond had become insufficient.
McElhanon et al. v. County Court of Wash
ington Co., etc. p. 103.
PLEADING.
2. Declaring on such a bond. In declar
ing upon a constable's bond given byreason of an order of the proper court,
because a former bond had become in
sufficient, it is not necessary to set out
such order in the declaration ; it is
enough to set out the bond.lb.
PLEADING.
1. Of the declaration in an action against
amunicipal corporation , for injury from de
fective highways.In an action against an
incorporated town, to recover damages
for injuries received by the plaintiff, by

News.

reason of a defective bridge within the

corporate limits of the town, it was alleg
ed in the declaration that the town had
power to levy and collect a tax, and to
require labor to keep its streets, alleys
and roads in repair, and that it was the
duty of the town to exercise such power
during the year 1808, and to keep its
highways in repair, and also to keep said
bridge in repair, alleging the injury was
received on a particular day in that year :
Held, on motion in arrest of judgment,
the averment as to the time when the du
ty of keeping the bridge in repair rested
upon the town, was sufficient. The
averment that the duty existed during
the year, embraced the day the accident
occurred.(Opinion by Walker, J.)
The I'resident and Trustees of the Town of
Meclianicsburg v. Rice R. Meredith, p. 84.
2. And the power to keep the bridge
in repair would be inferred, especially
after verdict, under the averment that it
was the duty of the town so to do. After
verdict, it will be intended that every es
sential fact alleged in the declaration, or
fairly to be implied from what is alleged,
was established on the trial. So the
avermentof theexistence of the duty will
be aided after verdict, by the inference
that the duty would not have been im
posed unless the power was conferred.
Ib.
HIGHWAYS.
3. Bridgesduly and liability of muni
cipal corporations.All towns, whether
incorporated by special charter or under
the general law, have the power, and it
is their duty, to keep in repair the brid
ges within their corporate limits, and
if injury result to an individual by reason
of a neglect of such duty, the town must
respond in damages.Ib.
effect of the duty being assumed by
others.
4. In an action against an incorporated
town to recover for injuries received on
account of a neglect of duty on the part
of the defendant to keep a bridge in re
pair, it is not competent for the town to
prove that prior to the accident the com
missioners of highways of the township
had assumed to perform the duty ofkeep
ing the bridge in repair. The usurpa
tion of the powers and assuming the du
ties ofthe incorporated town by the town
ship authorities, though acquiesced in by
the former, wouid not work a dissolution
of the corporation, or relieve it from its
responsibility for neglect of duty.Ib.
arbitration.
1. What constitutes. -Where parties
agree to settle certain differences between
them by submission ofthe matters in dis
pute to four persons, two to be selected
by each party, the action of two persons
selected by one of the parties will not be
regarded as an arbitration under such
agreement, so as to be binding on the
other party.(Opinion by Walker, J.)
William v. Schmidt.
2. Noticetoparties.Buteven where the
body of arbitrators is organized accord
ing to the agreement of the parties, it is
essential to ihe regularity and validity of
their action that such notice be given the
parties as will afford them an opportuni
ty to be heard.Ib.
recoupment.
3. When allowable.In an action by a
lessee against the lessor, it appeared the
subject of the lease was a coal mine, and
the lessor, under a provision in the lease,
had resumed possession of the leased
property before the end of the term, for
non-payment of rent, and because the
mine was not being worked to his satis
faction. The lessee sued to recover for
certain mining tools and other property
belonging to him, which were taken by
the lessor when he terminated the lease,
and also for the erection of a blacksmith
shop and other buildings : Held, the de
fendant in the action, the lessor, could re
coup in this suit such damages as he had
sustained by reason of the mine having
been unskillfully worked by the lessee,
in violation of the covenants in the lease,
it being regarded that the subject matter
of the plaintiff's claim arose out of the
lease.ib.
4. Nor|would this right of recoupment,
as against the plaintiff, who was the sole
lessee, be affected by the fact, that after
taking the lease, the lessee had associat
ed others with him in working the mine,
as he was liable, under his covenants, for
injury to the property, whether occasion
ed by himself or by those connected
with him in the business.Ib.
levy.
1. Upon personalpropertywhether valid.

107
To constitute a valid levy of an execu
tion, upon personal property, the proper
ty must, at the time of the levy, be in
the control of the officer, and he must
within a reasonable time, take it into his
possession, unless the debtor shall tender
a delivery bond ; he must so deal with the
property that, without the protection of
the writ, he would be a trespasser. This
is the rule as between successive levies un
der different executions in favor of sev
eral creditors, or where the debtor sells
the property aftera levy has been indors
ed.(Opinion byWALKER, J.) Loysdon
v. Spivey, p. 105.
2. But as between the officer and the
leDtor, or the personal representatives of
the latter, it is not essential to the validity
of the levy, that the property should be
taken possession ofby the former. If after
indorsing the levy, the officer should
leave the property with the debtor, it
would be, like a defectively executed
chattel mortgage, binding between the
parties, but void as to creditors and pur
chasers.lb.
3. Of a levy after the dealh of the debtor.
Where an execution comes to the hands
of the officer in the lifetima of the debt
or, it becomes thereby a lien upon the
personal property of the latter, subject
to execution, and though the debtor
should die before any further steps have
been taken, the officer may proceed to
make the levy, and it will be binding
upon his representatives, and his cred
itors, if he have any.lb.
LIEN.
4. Of'levy on personal propertyits dura
tion.The levy of an execution upon per
sonal property does not cease to bind
the property at the end of ten days after
the return day, but the officer may pro
ceed to sell under the levy after that time,
without regard to what has become of the
writ.Ib.
5. And the rule in that regard is the
same whether the levy was made by a
sheriff, who could be compelled to make
the sale, by writ of venditioni exponas, or
by a constable, under a judgment ren
dered by a justice of the peace, who has
no power to issue such a writ.lb.
ELECTION.
1. For town offices, in the city of Vandalia
0/ appointing the. place of holding the
same. Under the act of 1869, incorpor
ating the city of Vandalia, and constitut
ing the city a separate election district
for the election of township officers, it is
made the duty of the city council to fix
the place of holding the election, and it
is held not sufficient for the council, on
the day before the election, to meet and
have a verbal understanding where the
election should be held, and that the
record be subsequently made up in con
formity with such understanding ; but
the council should take such formal ac
tion before the election that citizens
could know from its records where it
was to be held, and by what officers.
(Opinion by Lawrence, C. J.) Thepeople
ex rel Ringe et al. v. Gochinour, p. 123.
EVIDENCE
2. Under the general issue.In an action
on the case against the owners of a ferry
boat, to recover for injuries alleged to
have been received by the plaintiff while
on such boat, by reason of the negli
gence and unfitness of the defendants'
servants thereon, it was held, to be com
petent for the defendants to prove, under
the general issue, that at the time of the
alleged injury the plaintiff was an em
ployee of the defendants on such boat
and any injury he received was by
reason of his own negligence as well as
that of his fellow-servants in that em
ployment.lb.
3. The defendants could also prove,
under the general issue, that the plaintiff
was their servant on the boat at the time
he was injured, and that neither the de
fendants nor their servants were guilty of
gross negligence in respect thereto.Ib.
4. Also, it was allowable for the de
fendants to prove, under the general
issue, that the plaintiff was an employee
of the defendants on such boat at the
time he received the injuries complained
of, and well knowing the habits and ca
pacity of his fellow-servants, never gave
anv^ notice thereof to the defendants.
SPECIAL PLEA.
1. Amounting to general issue.It is prop
er to sustain a demurrer to a special plea
which amounts only to the general issue.
(Opinion by Breese, J.) Wiggins Fer
ry Co. v. Blakeman, p. 202.

io8
Chicago Legal News. the Legal News one year for two dollars,
which will contain the laws of Congress
passed during that period.
Hex >Jtnrit.
We have left out our Notes to Recent
CHICAGO, JANUARY 20, 1872.
Cases, Book Notices, and several other
articles, to make room for Senator Car
published every saturday by
The Chicago Legal News Company, penter's argument.
at 115 madison stbeet.
Law Library at Auction.It will be
seen by reference to the last page of this
YRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
issue, that a valuable law library is to be
Terms :
Two Dollars per annum, in advance. Single cop sold at Nokomis, Feb. 8, at administra
ies Ten Cents.
tor's sale, on credit.
THE LEAL NEWS OFFICE la at 115
West Hadlaon Street. The Printing
Ealabllihmrnl Is at 13 ST. Jefferson St.
Senator Carpenter's ArgumentLib
erty of Pursuit.As our readers are
aware, we made application at the Sep
tember term, 1869, of the Supreme Court
of thiH State, for license to practice law,
which was refused in an elaborate opin
ion of twenty pages, on the ground that
the applicant was a woman. That opin
ion has not appeared in the Illinois re
ports, although the opinions of that
term have long since been reported. It
may be found in 2 Legal News, 140. We
obtained a writ of error from the Su
preme Court of the United States. Our
case was finally argued and submitted to
the court by Hon. Matt. H. Carpenter,
one of the most eloquent and powerful
constitutional lawyers in the nation, on
Thursday of this week. And we take
pleasure in placing before our readers
Senator Carpenter's able, concise and
unanswerable argument. One half the
citizens of the United States are asking
Is the liberty of pursuit guaranteed to
us, or are we slaves ?
We call attention to the following
opinions reported at length in this issue :
Criminal Informations in U. S. Court.
The opinion of the United States Dis
trict Court at Olympia, Washington Ter
ritory, delivered by Greene, J., construing'that part of the Vth amendment to the
U. S. Constitution relating to prosecu
tions by indictment and information,
and various acts of Congress relating to
the powers of the Federal courts in
criminal cases. The questions discussed
in this opinion are important, and sev
eral of the conclusions arrived at by Judge
Greene are in conflict with opinions
heretofore published in the Legal News.
We refer particularly to the opinion of
Withey, J., reported 2 Legal News, p.
317.
Special Assessments.The opinion of
the Supreme Court of this State, deliv
ered by McAllister, J., defining the
powers of the city authorities to make
special assessments. This opinion con
tains a very just rebuke to the authori
ties for making an excessive assessment
without regard to the cost of the im
provement to be made.
Judicial PowersChicago Board of
Trade.The opinion of the Circuit
Court of this county, delivered by Booth,
J., construing several sections of the act
incorporating the Board of Trade of
Chicago, and holding that the act, so far
as it seeks to confer judicial power upon
the Committees of the Board, is uncon
stitutional.
Laws of the United States.The
Legal News has been selected under the
laws of the United States to publish the
acts passed and to be passed at the pres
ent session of Congress. Merchants,
bankers, lawyers and others can obtain

XXXIV, INDIANA REPORTS.

Our thanks are due James B. Black,
Reporter of the Supreme Court of Indi
ana, for advance sheets of the 34th vol
ume of his Reports, from which we take
the following head-notes :
CITY.
Street improvement Estoppe{.Where
an owner of property in a city sees a
contractor go on and make a street im
provement adjoining said property, un
der a contract with the city, and makes
no objection while the work is being
done, he cannot, after the work is com
pleted and accepted by the city as having
been done according to the contract, en
join the collection of the entire assess
ments made for such improvement, on
the ground that the materials used and
the work done were not strictly in ac
cordance with the contract ; in such
case, a complaint for an injunction must
show a tender, by the property owner to
the contractor, of the value of the im
provement.(Opinion by Pettit, C. J.)
City of Evansville et al. v. Pjisterer et al.
appeal.
Effect of Trial de novo.Where an ap
peal has been taken and perfected from
the judgment or determination of an
inferior court to a superior court (as from
the board of county commissioners or a
justice of the peace to the Circuit Court
or the Court of Common Pleas), and the
cause or matter is to be tried in such su
perior court de novo, upon the original
papers, the appeal operates to suspend
further proceedings under said judgment
or determination.(Opinion by Downey,
J.) Young v. The State.
LIQUOR LAW.
License.Where an appeal has been
taken by remonstrants from an order of
the board of county commissioners grant
ing a license to a person to retail intoxi
cating liquors, and such person has re
ceived notice of that fact, the appeal
thenceforward suspends said order and
the right to sell under such license.
Molihan v. The State, 30 Ind., 266, ex
plained and criticised.lb.
RAILROAD.
Injury to animalsDamages.Where an
animal is so badly injured by a passing
train of cars upon a railroad track that
it must soon die from the injury, and the
railroad company is liable therefor to the
owner of the animal by reason of its
track not being securely "fenced, and the
owner kills the animal, but receives no
benefit of it after the injury, evidence of
the value of the animal after the injury
is not admissible for the purpose of re
ducing the damages.(Opinion by Worden, J.)Ind., Pittsburg & Cleveland R. R.
Co. v. Mustard.
SUPREME COURT.
Assignment of errors.On appeal to the
Supreme Court, the assignment of errors
must contain the full names of the par
ties to the appeal, and must be signed by
the appellant or his attorney as such;
otherwise, the appeal will be dismissed.
(Opinion bv Pettit, C.J.) The State on
Relation of Children v. Delano, et <d.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.
New trial.Exclusion of evidence.
Whore the overruling of a motion for a
new trial is not assigned as error, the
Supreme Court will not examine a ques
tion as to the exclusion of evidence.
(Opinion by Worden, J.)Bickle v.
Swartz.
COSTS.
Draining associationAppeal from ap
praisers.Where on an appeal to the
Court of Common Pleas from the pro
ceedings of appraisers appointed under
the act of March 11, 1807, to enable the

owners of wet lands to drain and reclaim

them, etc. (Acts 1867, p. 186), the appellee
recovers judgment, he is entitled to re
cover the costs in said court, though on
such appeal the appellant has reduced
the amount allowed against him by said
appraisers five dollars or more.(Opin
ion by Buskirk, J.)Dearinger v. Ridgeway.
PRACTICE.
Misjoinder of Causes.The joinder of a
cause of action sounding in tort with one
sounding in contract is, under the code,
good ground for a demurrer assigning a
misjoinder of causes of action ; and
where such a demurrer to a complaint
has been properly sustained, the plain
tiff' cannot successfully complain in the
Supreme Court of the action of the court
below in thereupon rendering judgment
against him for costs, where he merely
excepted to the ruling on the demurrer,
but interposed no objection to the judg
ment, and took no steps for a separation
of the causes.(Opinion by AVorden, J.)
Boyer v. Fredman.
habitual drunkard.
legislative control.The act of March
9th, 1867, (Acts 1867, p. 109), " to provide
for the care and custody of the person
and estate of habitual drunkards, is an
enactment within the power of the legis
lature.(Opinion by Buskirk J.)Denven Guardian v. Scott et al.
Contracts of Drunkards under Guardian
shipInjunction.An inquisition under
said act by which it is found that a per
son is an habitual drunkard and incapa
ble of managing his estate, or that there
is danger of his squandering it, and the
appointment of a guardian for him, are
conclusive evidence of the incapacity of
such person to make a contract while
under such guardianship ; and the col
lection of a judgment rendered against
a person while under such guardianship,
the guardian not being a party thereto,
and having no knowleege thereof until
after its rendition, on a contract made
by said person after inquisition found,
will be enjoined at the suit of the guard
ian, when it does not affirmatively ap
pear that the contract was for necessaries
furnished said person, the guardian hav
ing failed to make needful provision.
Ib.
sheriff's sale.
RedemptionLien of Judgment.Where
land sold on execution for less than the
amount of the judgment on which such
execution was issued is redeemed by the
judgment defendant, under the act of
1861 (2 G. & H. 251), the priority of the
lien of said judgment for the remainder
of the amount thereof over other judg
ment liens continues as if such sale had
not been.(Opinion bv Downey, J.)
The State v. Sherill.
assignment of errors.
New Trial.Where the overruling of
a motion for a new trial is assigned as
error, this presents to the Supreme
Court all the grounds for a new trial
properly set forth in the motion, and
said grounds for a new trial need not be
specially assigned as errors.(Opinion
by Downey, J.)Boulden v. Scircle.
evidence.
ContributionStatute offrauds.A. con
veyed certain real estate to B., C. and D.,
to each an undivided one-third portion
thereof, in consideration of the verbal
agreement of said grantees to pay a cer
tain indebtedness to E. evidenced by
certain commercial paper on which A.
was principal and B. surety, but to which
C. and D. were not parties. This paper
was afterwards renewed by other paper
to which B., C. and D., with another, hecame parties, without A. The latter pa
per was renewed by a note given by B.
and C, against whom judgment was ob
tained thereon, one-third of which was
paid by C. and the remainder by B.
Held, in a suit by B. against D. for con
tribution, that the plaintiff was entitled
to prove the consideration of said deed.
Held, also, that D. was liable for contri
bution.lb.
consideration.
Promissory notePatent rightEvidence.
Suit on a promissory note given by the
defendant to the plaintiff in considera
tion of the assignment of a patent right
to the former by the latter. Held, that
the fact that after the date of said note
another patent for the same invention
was issued to another patentee, could
not be shown under an answer setting

up want of consideration. (Opinion by

Downey, J.) Crow v. Eichinger.
pleading.
Evidence.An answer of entire want
of consideration will fail if it appear on
the trial that there was any considera
tion, however small.Ib.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
December Term, A.D. 1871. No. 67.
Myra Bradwell. Plaintiff in Krror, v. State of
Illinois.
ARGUMENT OK HON. MATT. H. CARPENTER,.
JAN. 18, 1872, UPON THE APPLICATION OF
MYRA BRADWELI, TO BE ADMITTED TO
THE BAR.
This is a writ of error to the supreme
court of the State of Illinois, to review
the proceedings of that court, denying
the petition of the plaintiff in error tobe admitted to practice as ;.n attorney
and counsellor of that court ; which right
was claimed by the plaintiff in error in
that court under the XlVth amendment
of the Constitution of the United States.
The plaintiff' in error is a married
woman, of full age, a citizen of the
United States and of the State of Illinois;
was ascertained and certified to be duly
qualified in respect of character and at
tainments ; but was denied admission to
the bar for the sole reason that she was
a married woman. This is the error
relied upon to reverse the proceedings
below.
By the rules of this court no person
can be admitted to practice at the bar
without service for a fixed term in the
highest court of the State in which such
person resides. Consequently a denial
of admission in the highest court of the
State is an insurmountable obstacle toadmission to the bar of this court.
This record, therefore, presents the
broad question, whether a married wo
man, being a citizen of the United States
and of a State; and possessing the neces
sary qualifications, is entitled by the Con
stitution of the United States to be ad
mitted to practice as an attorney and
counsellor at law in the courts of the
State in which Bhe resides. This is a
question not of taste, propriety, or po
liteness, but of civil right.
Before proceeding to ditcuss tbis ques
tion, it may be well to distinguish it
from the question of the right of female
citizens to participate in the exercise of
the elective franchise.
The great problem of female suffrage,
the solution of which lies in our imme
diate future, naturally enough, from its
transcendent importance, draws to itself,
in prejudiced minds, every question re
lating to the civil rights of women ; and
it seems to be feared that doing justice
to women's rights in any particular would
probably be followed by the establish
ment of the right of female suffrage,
which, it is assumed, would overthrow
Christianity, defeat the ends of modern
civilization, and upturn the world.
While I do not believe that female
suffrage has been secured by the ex
isting amendments to the Constitution of
the United States, neither do I look upon
that result as at all to be dreaded. It is
not, in my opinion; a question of uoman's
rights merely, but, in afar greater degree,
a question of man's rights. When Goa
created man, he announced the law of
his being, that it was not well for him
to be alone, and so he created woman to
be his helpmate and companion. Com
mencing with the barbarism of the far
East, and journeying through the na
tions toward the bright light of civiliza
tion in the West, it will everywhere be
found that, just in proportion to the
equality of women with men in the en
joyment of social and civil rights and
privileges, both sexes are proportionately
advanced in refinement and all that en
nobles human nature. In ourown coun
try, where women are received on an
equality with men, we find good order and
good manners prevailing. Because wo
men frequent railroad cars and steam
boats, markets, shops, and post offices,
those places must be, and are, conducted
with order and decency. The only great
resorts from which woman is excluded
by law are the election places ; and the
violence, rowdyism, profanity, and ob
scenity of the" gathering there in our
largest cities are sufficient to drive de
cent men even away from the polls. If
our wives, sisters and daughters were

Chicago
going to the polls, we should go with
them, and good order would be observed,
or a row would follow, which would se
cure order in the future.
I have more faith in female suffrage,
to reform the abuses of our election sys
tem in the large cities, than I have in
the penal election laws to be enforced by
soldiers and marines. Whobelieves that,
if ladies were admitted to seats in Con
gress, or upon the bench, or were partici
pating in discussions at the bar, such
proceedings would thereby be rendered
less refined, or that less regard would be
paid to the rights of all ?
But whether women should be admit
ted to the right of suffrage, is one thing ;
whether this end has already been ac
complished, is cmite another. The XlVth
amendment forbids the States to make
or enforce any law which shall abridge
" the privileges or immunities" of a citi
zen. But whether the right to vote is
covered by the phrase " privileges and
immunities," was much discussed under
the provisions of the old Constitution ;
and at least one of the earliest decisions
drew a distinction between "privileges
and immunities" and political rights.
On the other hand, Mr. Justice Wash
ington, in a celebrated case, expressed
the opinion, that the right to vote and
hold office was included in this phrase.
But in neither of the cases was this point
directly involved, and both opinions are
obiter dicta in relation to it.
But the XlVth and XVth amend
ments seem to settle this question against
the right of female suffrage. These
amendment* seem to recognize the dis
tinction at first pointed out between
" privileges and immunities," and the right
to vote.
The XlVth amendment declares, " all
persons born and naturalized in the
United States, etc., are citizens of the
United States, and of the State wherein
they reside." Of course, women, as well
as men, are included in this provision,
and recognized as citizens. This amend
ment further declares, " No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States." If the
privileges and immunities of a citizen
cannot be abridged, then, of course, the
privileges and immunities of all citizens
must be the same. The second section
of this amendment provides, that " rep
resentatives shall be apportioned among
the several States according to their re
spective numbers, counting the whole
number of persons in each State, ex
cluding Indians, not taxed. But when
the right to vote at any election, etc., is
denied to any of the male inhabitants, be
ing twenty-one years of age, etc., the
basis of representation therein shall be
reduced in the proportion which the
number of such male citizens shall bear to
the whole number of male citizens twentyone years of age in such State."
It cannot be denied, that the right or
power of a State to exclude a portion of
its male citizens from the right to vote,
is recognized by this second section;
from which it follows, that the right to
vote is not one of the " privileges or im
munities" which the first section de
clares shall not be abridged by any State.
The right of female suffrage is also inferentially denied by that provision of
the second section, above quoted, which
provides, that when a State shall deny
the right to vote to any male citizen, " the
basis of representation therein shall be
reduced in the proportion which the
number of such male citizens shall bear to
the whole number of male citizens in such
State."
In the first place, it is to be observed
that the basis of representation in a
State, which is the whole number of per
sonsmale and female, adults and in
fantsis only to be reduced when the
State shall exclude a portion " of the
male inhabitants of such State." The
exclusion of female inhabitants, and in
fants under the age of twenty -one years,
does not effect a reduction of the basis
of representation in such State. And,
again, when a State does exclude a por
tion of its male inhabitants, etc., the
basis of representation in such State is
not reduced in the proportion which
the number of such excluded males
bears to the number of persons-male
and femalein such State ; but only "in
the proportion which the number of
such (excluded) male citizens shall bear
to the whole number of male citizens
twenty-one years of age in such State."
This provision assumes that females are

Legal

no part of the voting population of a

State.
The XVth amendment is equally de
cisive. It recognizes the rightthat is,
powerof any State to exclude a por
tion of its citizens from the right to vote,
and only narrows this right in favor of
a particular class. Its language is :
" The right ofcitizens ofthe United States
to vote shall not be denied or abridged,
etc., on account of race, color, or previ
ous condition of servitude." Thisamendment was wholly unnecessary upon the
theory that the XlVth amendment
had established or recognized the right
of every citizen to vote. It recognizes
the right of a State to exclude a portion
of its citizens, and only restrains that
power so far as to provide that citizens
shall not be excluded on account of
race, color, or previous condition of ser
vitude. In every other case., the power
of exclusion recognized by the XlVth
amendment is untouched by the XVth
amendment.
It is also worthy of notice that,
throughout the XIV and XVth amend
ments, voting is not treated as, or de
nominated a privilege, and, evidently
was not intended to be. nor regarded as,
included in the " privileges or immuni
ties" of a citizen, which no State can
abridge for any cause whatever.
I have taken this pains to distinguish
between the "privileges and immunities"
of a citizen, and the " right" of a citizen
to vote, not because I feared that this
court would deny one, even if the other
would follow, but to quiet the fears of
the timid and conservative.
I come now to the narrower and pre
cise question before the court : Can a fe
male citizen, duly qualified in respect of
age, character and learning, claim, under
the XlVth amendment, the privilege of
earning a livelihood by practicing at the
bar of a judicial court?
It was provided by the original Con
stitution, " The citizens of each State
shall be entitled to all privileges and im
munities ofcitizens in the several States."
Under this provision each State could
determine for itself what the privileges
and immunities of its citizens shouldbe.
A citizen emigrating from one State to
another carried with him, not the priv
ileges and immunities he enjoyed in his
native State, but was entitled, in the
State of his adoption, to such privileges
and immunities as were enjoyed by the
class of citizens to which he belonged
by the laws of such adopted State. A
white citizen of one State, where no
property qualification for voting was re
quired, emigrating to a State which re
quired such qualification, must conform
to it before he could claim the right to
vote. A colored citizen, authorized to
hold property in Massachusetts, emi
grating to South Carolina, where all col
ored persons were excluded from such
right, derived no aid in this respect,
from the Constitution of the United
States, but was compelled to submit to
all the incapacities laid by the laws of
that State upon free persons of color
born and residing therein. A married
woman, a citizen of the State of Wiscon
sin, where by law she was capable of
holding separate estate, and making con
tracts concerning the same, emigrating
to a State where the common law in this
regard prevailed, could not buy and sell
property in her own name, or contract
in reference thereto.
ButtheXIVth amendment executes
itself in every State of the Union. What
ever are the privileges and immunities
of a citizen in the State of New York,
such citizen, emigrating, carries them
with him into any other State of the
Union. It utters the will of the United
States in every State, and silences every
State constitution, usage, or law which
conflicts with it. If to be admitted to
the bar, on attaining the age and learn
ing required by law, be one of the priv
ileges of a white citizen in the State of
New York, it is equally the privilege of
a colored citizen in that State ; and if in
that State, then in any State. If no
State may " make or enforce any law"
to abridge the privileges of a citizen, it
must follow that the privileges of all cit
izens are the same.
We have already seen that the right
to vote is not one of those privileges
which are declared to be common to all
citizens, and which no State may
abridge ; but that it is a political right,
which any State may deny to a citizen,
except on account of race, color or pre
vious condition of servitude. It there

News.

fore only remains to determine whether

admission to the bar belongs to that
class of privileges which a State may
not abridge, or that class of political
rights as to which a State may discrim
inate between its citizens.
In discussing this subject, we are com
pelled to use the words " privileges and
immunities " and the word " right " in
the precise sense in which they are em
ployed in the Constitution. In* popular
language, and even in the general treat
ises of law writers, the words " rights "
and "privileges" are used synonymously.
Those privileges which are secured to a
man by the law are his rights ; and the
great charter of England declares that
the ancient privileges enjoyed by Eng
lishmen, are the undoubted rights of
Englishmen. But, as we have seen, the
XlVth and XVth amendments distin
guish between privileges and rights;
and it must be confessed that it is para
doxical to say, as the XI Vth amendment
clearly does, that the " privileges " of a
citizen shall not be abridged, while his
" right" to vote may be. But a judicial
construction of the Constitution is wholly
different from a mere exercise in philol
ogy. The question is not whether cer
tain words were aptly employedbut
the context must be searched to ascer
tain the sense in which such words were
used.
It is evident that there are certain
" privileges and immunities " which be
long to a citizen of the United States as
such ; otherwise it would be nonsense
for the XIVth amendment to prohibit a
State from abridging them . and it is
equally evident from the XlVth amend
ment that the right to vote is not one of
those privileges. And the question re
curs whether admission to the bar, the
proper qualification being possessed, is
one of the privileges which a State may
not deny.
In Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall., 321,
this court say :
" In France, deprivation or suspension of civil
rights, or some of themand among these of the
right of voting, of eligibility to office, of taking
part in family councils, of being guardian or trus
tee, of bearing arms, and of teaching or being
employed in a school or seminary of learningare
punishments prescribed by her code.
" The theory upon which our political institu
tions rest is, that all men have certain inalienable
rightsthat among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness ; and that in the pursuit of
happiness all avocations, all honors, all positions,
are alike open to every one, and that in the pro
tection of these rights all are equal before the law.
Any deprivation or extension of any of these
rights for past conduct, is punishment, and can be
in no otherw ise defined."
No broader or better enumeration of
the privileges which pertain to American
citizenship could be given. " Life, lib
erty, and the pursuit of happiness ; and,
in the pursuit of happiness, all avoca
tions, all honors, all positions, are alike
open to every one ; and in the protection
of these rights all are equal before the
law."
In ex parte Garland (4 Wall., 378), this
court say :
"The profession of an attorney and counselor Is
not like an office created by an act of Congress,
which depends for its continuance, its powersand
its emoluments upon the will of its creator, and
the possession of which may be burdened with
any conditions not prohibited by the Constitution.
Attorneys and counselors are not officers of the
United States ; they are not elected or appointed
in the manner prescribed by the Constitution for
the election and appointment of such officers.
They are officers of the court, admitted as such by
its order, vpon evidence of their possessing sufficient
leaal learning and fair private character. * * * *
The order of admission is the judgment of the
court, that the parties possess the requisite quali
fications as attorneys and counselors, and are en
titled to appear as such and conduct causes there
in. From its entry the parties become officers of
the court, and are responsible to it for professional
misconduct. They hold their office during good
behavior, and can only be deprived of it for miseonduct, ascertained and declared by the judgment of the
court, after opjHtrtunity to be tteanl has been offered.
(Ex parte Heyfron, 7 How., Miss.. 127 ; Fletcher v.
Daingerfield, 20 Cal.. 430.) Their admission or
their exclusion is not the exercise of a mere min
isterial power. It js the exercise ofjudicial power,
and has been so held in numerous cases. * * *
The attorney and counselor being, by the solemn
judicial act of the court, clothed wjth his office,
does not hold it as a matter of grace and favor.
The right which it confers upon him to appear for
suitors, and to argue causes, is something more
than a mere indulgence, revocabla at the pleasure
of the court, or at the command of the Legislature.
It is a right of which he can only be deprived by
the judgment of the court, for moral or profes
sional delinquency. The Legislature may un
doubtedly prescribe qualifications for the office,
to which he must conform, as it may, where it has
exclusive jurisdiction, prescribe qualifications for
the pursuit of the ordinary avocations of life."
It is now well settled that the courts,
in admitting attorneys to, and in expell
ing them from, the bar, act judicially,
and that such proceedings are subject to
review on writ of error or appeal, as the
case may be. Ex parte Cooper, 22 N. Y.,
07 ; Strother v. Missouri, 1 Mo., 605 ; Ex

parte Secomb, 19 How., 9 ; Ex parte Gar

land, 4 Wall., 378.
From these cases the conclusion is
irresistible, that the profession of the
law, like the clerical profession and that
of medicine, is an avocation open to
every citizen of the United States. And
while the Legislature may prescribe
qualifications for entering upon this pur
suit, they cannot, under the guise of fix
ing qualifications, exclude a class of citi
zens from admission to the bar. The
Legislature may say at what age candi
dates shall be admitted ; may elevate or
depress the standard of learning re
quired. But a qualification, to which a
whole class of citizens never can attain,
is not a regulation of admission to the
bar, but is, as to such citizens, a prohibi
tion. For instance, a State Legislature
could not, in enumerating the qualifica
tions, require the candidate to be a white
citizen. This would be the exclusion ofall
colored citizens, without regard to age,
character, or learning. Such an act would
abridge the rightsofall colored citizens,by
denying them admission into one of the
avocations which this court has declared
is alike open to every one. I presume
it will be admitted that such an act
would be void. I am certain this court
would declare it void. And I challenge
the most astute mind to draw any dis
tinction between such an act and a cus
tom, usage or law of a State, which
denies this privilege to all female citi
zens, without regard to age, character or
learning. If the Legislature may, under
pretense of fixing qualifications, declare
that no female citizen shall be permitted
to practice law, they mav as well declare
that no colored citizen shall practice law.
It should be borne in mind that the only
provision in the Constitution of the
United States which secures to colored
male citizens the privilege of admission
to the bar, or the pursuit of the other
ordinary avocations of life, is that pro
vision that " No State shall make or en
force any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of a citizen."
If this provision does not open all the
professions, all the avocations, all the
methods by which a man may pursue
happiness, to the colored as well as the
white man, then the Legislatures of the
States may exclude colored men from alt
the honorable pursuits of life, and com
pel them to support their existence in a
condition of servitude. And if this pro
vision does protect the colored citizen,
then it protects every citizen, black or
white, male or female.
Why may a colored citizen buy, hold,
and sell land in any State of the Union ?
Because he is a citizen of the United
States, and that is one of the privileges
of a citizen. Why may a colored citizen
be admitted to the bar ? Because he is a
citizen, and that is one of the avocations
open to everv citizen ; and no State can
abridge his right to pursue it. Certainly
no other reason can be given.
Now, let us come to the case of Myra
Bradwell. She is a citizen of the United
States, and of the State of Illinois, resid
ing therein ; she has been judicially
ascertained to be of full age, and to pos
sess the requisite character and learning.
Indeed, the court below, in their opin
ion, found in the record, page 9, say :
" Of the ample qualifications of the ap
plicant we have no doubt."
Still admission to the bar was denied
the petitioner, not upon the ground that
she was not a citizen ; not for want of
age or qualifications ; not because the
profession of the law is not one of those
avocations which are open to every
American citizen as matter of right, up
on complying with the reasonable regu
lations prescribed by the legislature ; but
upon the sole ground that inconvenience
would result from permitting her to en
joy her legal rights in this, to wit, that
her clients might have difficulty in en
forcing the contracts they might make
with her, as their attorney, because of
her being a married woman.
Now, with entire respect to that court,
it is submitted that this argument ab inconvenienti, which might have been
urged with whatever force belongs to it,
against adopting the XI Vth amendment
in the full scope of its language, is utterly
futile to resist its full and proper opera
tion, now that it has been adopted.
Concede, for argument, that the XI Vth
amendment ought to have read thus:
" No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of any citizens except
married women ;" yet that exception is

I IO
not found in the sweeping provision of
this amendment. It is provided that
citizens may be disfranchised for trea
son ; but it is nowhere provided that a
citizen shall be disfranchised for being a
married woman. The opinion of the
court below puts a limitation upon this
unlimited constitutional provision. If
this court shall approve this exception,
in the very teeth of the unambiguous
language of the Constitution, where may
we expect judicial legislation to stop?
Can this court say that married women
have no rights that are to be respected ?
Can this court say, that when the XlVth
amendment speaks of all persons, etc.,
and declares them to be citizens, it
means all male persons and unmarried
females? Or can this court say that,
when the XlVth amendment declares
"the privileges of no citizen shall be
abridged," it means that the privileges
of no male citizen or unmarried female
citizen shall be abridged ? This would
be bold dealing with the constitutional
provision. It would be excluding a large
proportion of the citizens of the United
States from privileges which the Consti
tution declares shall be the inheritance
of every citizen alike.
But it is respectfully submitted that
the court below erred in holding that a
married woman, admitted to the bar
under the XlVth amendment, would
not be liable on contracts, express or im
plied, between her and her clients. In
Wisconsin, when the legislature passed
the act protecting married women in the
enjoyment of their separate estate, our
court, upon reasoning that cannot be
gainsaid, held that the .legislature must
have intended all the natural and log
ical results of the act in question ;
and, therefore, that the contracts of
a married woman, relating to her
separate estate, were as binding as
if made by a feme sole. It is submitted
that, for still stronger reasons, the great
innovation of the XlVth amendment
should be carried to its logical conclu
sion, and that it sweeps away the princi
ples of the common law, as it does the
express provisions of State constitutions
and statutes.
But again : Mrs. Bradwell, admitted to
the bar, becomes an officer of the court,
subject to its summary jurisdiction. Any
malpractice or unprofessional conduct
towards her client would be punishable
by fine, imprisonment, or expulsion from
the bar, or by all three. Her clients
would, therefore, not be compelled to re
sort to actions at law against her. But
if the courts of Illinois should refuse to
exercise this summary jurisdiction, and
should hold that actions at law could not
be maintained on contracts between her
and her clients, it might result that she
would not be as generally employed as
she otherwise would be. But that is no
reason why she should be prohibited
from appearing and trying causes for
clients wno are willing to rely upon her
integrity and honor.
But let it not be supposed that, in try
ing to answer as to the inconveniences
imagined by the court below, I am at all
departing from the broad ground of con
stitutional right upon which I rest this
cause. I maintain that the XlVth
amendment opens to every citizen of the
United States, male or female, black or
white, married or single, the honorable
professions as well as the servile employ
ments of life ; and that no citizen can be
excluded from any one of them. Intel
ligence, integrity, and honor are the only
qualifications that can be prescribed as
conditions precedent to an entry upon
any honorable pursuit or profitable avo
cation, and all the privileges and immu
nities which I vindicate to a colored cit
izen, I vindicate to our mothers, our sis
ters, and our daughters. The inequali
ties of sex will undoubtedly have their
influence, and be considered by every cli
ent desiring to employ counsel.
There may be cases in which a client's
rights can only be rescued by an exercise
of the rough qualities possessed bv men.
There are many causes in which the tell
ing sympathy and the silver voice of
woman would accomplish more than the
severity and sternness of man could
achieve. Of a bar composed of men and
women of equal integrity and learning,
women might be more or less frequently
retained, as the taste or judgment of cli
ents might dictate. But the broad shield
of the Constitution is over them all, and
protects each in that measure of success
which his or her individual merits may
secure.

Chicago

Legal

ROSENTHAL, PENCE & MOSES,

Attorneys,
W'tilmtth Arrmte.
( HIANCERY
NOTICE.State
Illinois,
countyTo
ol
Cook, ss. Superior
Court ofofCook
county.
February Term, A. 1). 1S72. Jaroslav B. Belohradsky
and Max Kohn v. E. M. Arnateiu, Sarah Arnntein and
Jacob
Kuhn.In
Chancery. of E. M. Arnefein and
Affidavit
of the non-residence
Sarah
Arnstcin.
two
defendants
named,
having been tiled iuofthetheoflice
of the above
clerk of
said
Superior
court
of
Cook
county,
notice
is
given to the said E. M. Arnstcin and Sarah hereby
Arnstein that the complainants heretofore tiled their bill
of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of
said court against said defendant, returnable on the
first Monday of February next (1872), as is by law re
quired.
Now, unless you, the said E. M. Arnstcin and Sarah
Arnsteiu shall personally bo and appear before said
Superior
courttoofbeCook
county,
on theiufirst
of a
term thereof,
hoiden
at Chicago,
saidday
county,
on
Monday
of February,
1*72, andbillplead,
an
swertheorfirstdemur
to the
suid complainant's
of com
plaint, the same, and the matters and things therein
charged and stated, will bo taken as confessed, and a
decreebill.entered against
you according
to the prayer
said
Al Gl'STl'.S
JAOoBSOS,
Clerk. of
Bosrntkal, Fence & M08K8, Compl't's Sol'ri. 15-13
GUARDIAN
S SALE.-State
Illinois,
CookIncoun
ty, ss. Superior
Court of ofCook
county.
the
matter of the application of Margaret L. Rockwell,
guardian of Athie Rockwell, a miuor, to sell real
estate.
Public notice is hereby given that in pursuance of
the decree of said court heretofore entered in said
cause, I shall, on Monday, the 12th dav of February,
A.D. 1*72, at the hour of 10 o'clock A.M.. upon the
premises
nercinsfter
described,
sell at described
public auction,
to the highest
bidder,
the following
prem
ises, viz., Lot seventy (70) in block forty-four (44) in
Canal Trustees' subdivision of section seven (7), town
thirty-nine (310, North of range fourteen (U), East of
threetenements
(.*>) 1*. M.,thereon.
in Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, with
the
Terms: One half cash in hand, balance due in one
year from date of sale, secured by note and trust deed
upon said premises.MARGARET L. ROCKWELL,
* Guardian of Athie Rockwell, a minor.
Rosexthai.^Pknce & Moskb, Att'js for Guardian.
1J-18
MONROE & BISBEE,
Attorney*. 52-1 Wabash Avenue.
PUBLICATION
NOTICE
State of Illinois,
countyINof ATTACHMENTCook, ss. Circuit
Court of Cook county, March Term, A. I>. 1S72. Kdgar
Loomis and Martin 1'. Kollett v. Isabella S. Halliday
and John W. Halliday.
Public notice is hereby given to the said Isabella S.
Halliday
andout
John
W. ollice
Halliday
a \% of
rit the
of attach
ment
issued
of the
of thethatclerk
Circuit
Court of Cook county, dated the 12th day of January,
A.D. 1872, at the suit of the said Edgar Loomis and
Martin P. Follett, and against the estate of Isabella S.
Halliday
and John
W. Halliday,
the sum
of fourto
teen
hundred
and sixty-one
2.VHHIfordollars,
directed
the Sheriff of Cook county, which said writ lias been
returned
executed.unless you, the said Isatpella S. Hal
Now, therefore,
liday
aud
JohntheW.said
Halliday
be and
appear before
Circuitshall
Courtpersonally
of Cook county,
on
or
before
the
tirst
day
of
the
next
term
thereof,
be hoiden at the Court House, in the city of Chicago,to
on
of March.
A.D. action,
1*72, give
special
bailthe
andthird
pleadMonday
to the said
plaintiffs'
judgment
will
be
entered
against
you,
and
in
favor
of
the
Edgar Loomis and Martin P. Follett, ami so muchsaidof
the
attached
maywillbobesufficient
to satisfy
tlie property
said judgment
andascosts
sold to satisfy
the
same.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Monroe * Bisiiee, Att'ys.
15-18
HERVEY, ANTHONY & GALT,
Allunin/n, ir<"/>av/i Arenuc.t
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACnMENT.State
of
ot Cook,
Court of CookIllinois,
county,county
February
Term,ss. A.Superior
D. ls.72.
John
Currie
v.
James
Oliphant.
Public notice is hereby eiven to the said James oli
phant
of attachment
issuedofoutCook
of thecounty,
otiice
of .the that
clerka writ
of the
Superior court
dated
tile
24th
day
of
November.
A.D.
1*71,
at
the
suit
of
the oliphant,
said JohnforCurrie,
against
the estate
James
the sumandof three
hundred
and fiftyof
dollars, directed to the Sheriff of Cook county, which
said writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said James Oliphant
shall personally be and appear before the said Superior
court
of Cook
county,
or before
theCourt
first day
of the
next term
thereof,
to beonhoiden
at the
House,
in
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of February,
A.D. 1*72, give special bail and plead to the said plain
tiff's
action,
judgment
willCurrie,
be entered
in favor
of the
said John
and against
so muchyou,of and
the
property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy the
said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the
same.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Heuvey, Anthony & GArr, Attorneys.
15-18
JAMES ENNIS,
Attorney, 232 lit?/ Randolph Street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county, March
Term. A.D. 1*72. Magdaleua Straus vs. John Straus.
In
Chancery.
Affidavit
that Baid John Straus, defendant above
named, upon due inquiry cannot bo found in the State
of Illinois, having been filed in the office of the clerk
of said Circuit court of Cook county, notice is hereby
given to the said John Straus that the complainant
heretofore tiled her bill of complaiant in saidcourt, on
the chancery side thereof, and that a buiiiiuous there
upon issued out of said court against said defendant,
returnable on the third Monday of March next, (1*72.)
as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said John Straus, Bhall per
sonally bo and appear before said Circuit court ol
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
hoiden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Monday
of March,
1872, andbillplead,
answer or
to the
said
complainant's
of complaint,
the demur
same, and
the
matters and tilings therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, aud a decree entered against you
according to the praver of Baid bill.
NORMAN
T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
James Ennis, Compl't'B
Sol'r.
14-17
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
court of Doerner
Cook county.
Term,Cook,
A. I).ss.1872.Circuit
Wilhelmina
v. JohnMarch
Peter
Doerner.In chancery
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of
John
Peter
Doerner,
defendant above named, having been tiled iu the
oflice of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said John Peter Doerner
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and
thatsaid
a BUtnmons
thereupon
issuedonout
court
against
defendants,
returnable
theofsaid
third Mon
day of March next (1*72), as is by law required.
Now,
unless
yon,
the
said
John
Peter
Doerner,
personally bo and appear before said Circuit courtshallof
Cook
on theinfirstsaiddaycounty,
of a term
thereof,
hoidencounty,
at Chicago,
on the
third toMonho
day of March, 1*72. and plead, answer or demur to
the
complainant's
of complaint,
same,
and
the said
matters
and thingsbill
therein
chargedtheand
stated,
will bo taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
James Ennis, Compl't's Sol'r.
13-16
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
S II O I! T - II A N D WRITER,
And U. S. Commissioner.
Western Union Telegraph Ogicc, 554 Wabash Ave.

News.

CHICA GO A TTORNE YS.

Barber and Ijickner. 64 West Lake street.
Barker, J. C, 113 West Madison street, room 3.
Bates & Hodges, 113 West Madison street.
BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street.
Bonney, Fay & Griggs, 120 West Washington st.
Bentley, Bennett, Ullman & Ives, 376 Wabash av.
Brouse, O. R., 400 Wabash avenue.
Brown & Rickerts, 114 West Madison.
Burke and Allen . 18 W. Randolph.
Carmichael, D. L., 845 Prairie auenue.
Chase, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue.
Clarkson t Van Schaack, No. 454 Wabash Ave.
Condon, Wm. H., 84 Canal street.
Deane & Cahill, room 7, Lind's Block.
Dent & Black, 710 Wabash avenue.
Ewing it Leonard. 4S7 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. W., 115 West Madison street.
Felker, Wm. S., 92 Desplaines street.
Goodwin, D. jr., n. e. cor. Monroe and LaSalle.
Goudy & Chandler, 391 Wabash avenue, branch
office. 64 South Halsted street
Harrison and Whitehead, 113 W. Madison street.
Hervey, Anthony & Gait, 356 Wabash avenue.
Hopkins, Wm., 46 Eust Harrison.
Hoyne, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michi
gan and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne, Horton and Hoyne, 267 Michigan av.
Hitchcock, Dupee & Evarts, corner Wells and
Monroe street'.
Howe & Russell, 470 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street
Knickerbocker, J. C. and J. J. 163 W. Washington.
Leary, D. James, 159 West Madison.
Magruder, B. D., 181 W. Madison.
Mattocks and Mason, 523 Wabash ave,
McClelland, Thos., S., 45 S. Canal, room 6.
Merriam, Alexander and Bolster, 149 W. Wash
ington street.
Miller, Frost & Lewis, 363 Michigan avenue.
Moore & Caulficld, S. E. cor. State and Madison.
Monroe, Bisbee 4 Gibbs, 523 Wabash ave.
Neweomb, G. W., 214 Warren avenue.
Norton, Jesse O,. 386 Wabash avenue.
Nissen & Barnum,12fl W. Randolph, and 376 State
Otis, E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Paddock & Ide, 449 Wabash avenue.
Perkins, N.C., 479 Wabash av.,cor. Eldridge court.
Palmer, L. L., 481 Wabash avenue.
Pflrshing, Jos. 47 Tuck C't, bet. Wabash and State
Rich & Thomas, 915 Michigan avenue, and 468
Wabash avenue.
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 So Canal.
Rorke, M. A. & Son, 151 Halsted street.
Rosenthal, Pen ce & Moses, Masonic Building, S
W., cor. Randolph and Halsted and350 Wabash av.
Roys, C. D., 677 Wabash avenue.
Seammon, MeCagg and Fuller, 389 Wabash av.
Sheldon & Waterman, cor LaSalle and Monroe
Sleeper & Whiton, 441 Wabash avenue.
Small and Ingalls, 481 Wabash avenue.
Story and King, 149 West Washington street.
Tenny, McClellan & Tenny, 454 Wabash ave.
Thomas, Sidney, 95 East Harrison street.
Van Buren, E. ifc A., 194 West Madison street.
Vallette, H. F., 59 West Madison street.
Waterman, A. N., 133 West Monroe street.
White, Hugh A., 165 West Washington street.
Williams & Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
Walker, Dexter & Smith, 792 Wabash avenue.
Wilson, Perry & Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
Windett, Arthur W., 562 Wabash ave., and room
6 Lind's Block.
Waughop, J. W 401 Wabash avenue.

LAW BOOKS.
J. R. McDIVITT,
81 KASSAV STREET, NEW YORK.
Second-hand Law Books Bought, Sold and Ex
changed.
6-19

L^W

DEPARTMENT,

Chicago University,
LECTURES were resumed in this institution on
Mondav, Oct. 30th last, in the lecture room oi
the Second Baptist Church, corner of Monroe and
Morgan streets. All the old advantages obtained
by students in this law school are again ottered.
For information address
JOHN A. HUNTER,
Sec. Law Dept.
5-13
135 W. Monroe street, Chicago.
ESTATE
JOHN
S. CLASSEN,
Notice IsOFhereby
given
to all personaDECEASEDhaving claims
and demands ugainst the estate of John S. Classen,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
settlement at a regular term of the County courtand
of
Cook county, to be hoiden at the courthouse, in the
city of Chicago, on the firwt Monday of March, A.D.
1612, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January U\ A.D. 1*72.
CATHARINA CLASSEN. Administratrix.
A. EffZENBACHEB, Att'y.
14-19
J.
R.
HOWLETT,
Lanark, Carroll <'o., Illinois,
POLICE
MAGISTRATE
NOTARY
PUBLIC.
Has the same
jurisdiction asAND
any Justice
of the
Peace.
Prompt attention given to collections and remittances.

FELKER & MARX,

Attorneys, \FZ .S\ Desplaines street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illi nois, County of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county, February
term, A.D. U72, Elizabeth Schuler va. Charles Scbuler.In
Chancery.
Affidavit
of the non-residence of Charles Schuler,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to tho said Charles Schuler
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery aide thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out ofsaid court
against
said defendants,
returnable
third Mon
day of February
next, (1S72,)
as is byonlawtherequired.
Now, unless you, the said Charles Schuler, Bhall per
sonally
be
and
appear
before
said
Circuit
court
Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to beofhoiden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
third
Monday
February, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the saidof
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to tho prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T, GASSETTE. Clerk.
Fei.keu A Maux, Compl't's Sol'rs.
14-17
STORY & KING,
Attorney*, 149 W, Washington St.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.Statecountv.
of Illinois,
CookTerm,
County,
Circuit
court
of Cook
March
A.D.ss. lt>72.
Willliam
Patterson vs. C. S. Berg.
Public notice is hereby given to the said C. S. Berg
that a .writ of attachment issued out of the office
of the clerk of the Circuit court of Cook county, dated
the
day ofPatterson
November,andA.D.
1871, the
at the
suitofof0.the
saidl*th
William
against
estate
8.
Berg, for the sum of two hundred and seventy
dollars,
directed
to
the
sheriff
of
Cook
county,
which
said writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said 0. S. Berg,
shall personally be and appear before the said Circuit
court of Cook county, on or before the first day of the
next term thereof, to be hoiden at the court house, in
the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of March,
A. D. 1872, give special bail and plead to the said plain
tiffs
action,
will bePatterson,
entered against
in favor
of thejudgment
said William
and ho you,
muchandof
the
property
attached
as
may
be
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Stoiiy & Kino, Attorneys.
14-17
ELBERT H. GARY,
Attorney, 59 West Madison St.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county, Janu
ary Term, A.D. IM72. John B, Livernois, alias Jean
B. Meloche Dit Livernois, vs. Lucy C. Livernois.
In Chancery.
Affidavitabove
of the named,
non-residence
defendant
having of
beenLucy
filed0.inLivernois,
the office
of
the
clerk
of
said
Superior
court
of Cook
county,
notice is hereby given to the said Lucy
('.Livernois
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of February next, (H72.) as is by law required.
Now, unless
you.appear
the said
LucysaidC.Superior
Livernois,
shall
personally
be and
before
court
of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
hoiden
at
Chicago,
in
said
count}
,
on
the
first
Monday
of February, J8"2, and plead, answer or demur to the
oeid complainant's bill of complaint, tho same, and the
matters
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
willyou
be
taken asand
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Elbert H. Gary. Compl't's Sol'r.
H-17p
JAMES L. STARK,
Attorney, Nixon's Building, cor. La Sidle and Monroe,
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTAOUMENT.Statecounty.
of Illinois.
CookTerm.
county,
ss. 187Circuit
court
of Cook
March
A. D.
2. Augusta
Burkhardt v. James W. Dominic.
Public notice is hereby given to the said James W.
Dominic that a writ of attachment issued out of the
office of the clerk of'the Circuit court of Cook county,
dated t he 21st day of December, A, D. 1871. at the suit
of the said Augusta Burkhardt. and against the estate
of the said James \V. Dominic, for the sum of five
thousand dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook
county,
said unless
writ hasyou,
beenthereturned
executed.
Now, which
therefore,
said James
W.
Dominic, shall personally be and appear before the
said Circuit court of Cook countv. on or before tho
first day of the next term thereof, to be hoiden at
the court house, in the city of Chicago, on the third
Monday of March, A.D. lt>72, give special bail and
plead to the Baid plaintiff's action, judgment will be
entered against you, and in favor of the snud Augusta
Burkhardt. and so much of the property attached as
may bebe sold
sufficient
to satisfy
the saidjudgment and cobU
will
to satisfy
the same.
NORMAN
James L. Stark, Att'y. T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
13-17
SAMUEL
STRAUS,
Attorney. r>fi*2 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE
OF FRIEDRICH
JAIIN, (alias)
_
deceased.
Notice
is hereby
to allofYAIIN,
persons
Friedhaving claims and
demands
againstgiven
the estate
ereich
Johu
(alias)
Yahu,
deceased
;
to
present
the
same for adjudication and settlement at a regular
term of the County Court of Cook County, to be holden at the Court House, in the citv of Chicago, on the
first Monday of March, A. D. ]S72. being the 4th day
thereof.
BERTHA JAHN,
Chicago, December 28th, 1871,
Administratrix.
Samuel Straus, Atty.
12-17a
G. A. FOLLANSBEE,
Attorney, No. 10 West Randolph St.
estate
frederick
biermann,
deceased. ofNotice,
is hereby given
to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate of
Friedrich Biermann, deceased, to present the same
for adjudication and settlement at a regular term of
the County court of Cook county, to be hoiden at the
city
tho day
firstthereof.
Monday of February,
A.D. of
1S72,Chicago,
being theonfifth
HEINRICH BIERMANN, Aministrator.
Chicago, Dec. 20, A.D. 1871.
G. A. For.LANSiiEK, Att'y.
ll-16a
TOcertify
ALL that
WHOM
IT
MAY
CONCERN.-This
is to
the undersigned have this day formed
a copartnership under the firm name of Frank
Brothers.
The general nature of the business to be transacted
by said firm is the purchase and sale of dry goods and
notions in the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and
State of Illinois. The following persons are the part
ners State
of said
firm:York
Joseph
Frank,L. Frank,
of the city,
county
and
of New
; Henry
of said
Chi
cago: Isaac Meyer, of said Chicago; and Henry C.
Frank, of said Chicago. These four persons are all
general
partners.
Harrman
Mack, of the city of Cincinnati, county of
Hamilton, and State of Ohio, is the special partner.
Said special partner has contributed to the common
stock the sum of fifty thousand <$W,o0n) dollars in cash.
Said partnership is to commence January 1st, 1872,
andWitness
to terminate
December
our hands,
this 22d:llst,
day\?>73.
of December, 1571.
JOSEPH
HENRY L.FRANK.
FliANK,
ISAAC MEYER,
HENRY
C. FRANK,
General Partners.
HARRMAN
MACK.
13-18
Special
Partner.

1 1 1
A. H. LAWRENCE,
' Attorney, 3(>S State St.
EXECUTOR'S SALE OF REAL ESTATK.-In the
County court of Cook county. Stint! of Illinois.
George R. Spurr. executor of the estate of Charles M.
Fay, deceased, vs. Frances A. Fay, Ellen M. Daniels,
George F. Daniels and Jennie II. Fny. Petition to sell
real estate.
Public notice is hereby given, that the undersigned,
executor of the estate of Charlet* M. Fay, demised, by
irtue of an order and decree of the County court of
Cook county, state of Illinois, made and entered at the
August
term, toA. Bell
D. 1871,
ofestate
said court,
petitionwill
of the
undersigned,
of saidondeceased,
on
Monday. January
Lit,real
i72.at
12 o'clock
noon of said
day,
at the east door of the court house, on ('lark street, in
the city of Chicago, in said county of Cook, sell at pub
lic
auction,di-scribed
to the I.ighest
and bestsituate
bidderinfor
the
following
real estate,
saidcash,
county
of Cook and state of Illinois to wit : lot two of assess
or's division uf lot sixteen, in division of west half of
southeast quarter of section Zi. township 40 north,
range
Kt, assessor's
east of third
principal
fourteen,
division
of westmeridian;
half of thealso,
southlot
east quarter of section 23. township 40 north, range Kt,
east
principal
meridian,
exceptcommencing
so much of
said of
lot the
as isthird
described
as follows,
to wit:
in the north line of said west half of said quarter sec
tion, at a point 44* 1-9 feet east from the northwest
corner ofsaid west half, thence east HO 8-10 feet to land
now or late of Susan Case, thence south 8.'! ;>lo feet by
said Case land, thence west by land now or late of
Charles M. Fay 140 s-10 feet, to land now or late of M.
L. Kimball, thence north by said Kimball land s.", .Viu
feet
to placeofofpaving
beginning.
being made for
the purpose
debts ofSaid
saidsale
deceased.
GEORGE It. Sl'fRK. Executor of said Estate,
Dated Chicago, Dec. 16, 1871.
A. II. Lawrence, Att'y.
10-15
theo. schintz,
Attorney, 122 West Randolph St.
CHANCERY NOTICE. - State of Illinois, Cook
Courtof
Cookv. County.
Jan
uary County,
term, A.88.D., Superior
lo72. Clara
Brosche
Carl Grosse,
In Chancery.
Affidavit
of named,
the non-residence
Carl inGrosse,
de
fendant
above
having beenof filed
the office
of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook County,
notice is hereby given to the said Carl Grosse that the
complainant heretofore riled her petition to be ap
pointed
said court,thereupon
on the chancery
thereof, gunrdiaii
and that ainsummons
issusd outsideof
said court against said defendant, returnable on the
first Monday of January next, 1872, as is by law re
quired.
Now, unless you, the said Carl Grosse shall per
sonally
be andonappear
Superior
Courtof
Cook County,
the firstbefore
day ofsaida term
thereof,
to be
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
first
Monto
day ofJanuary, Jft72, and plead, auswer or demur
the said complainant's petition, the same and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken
as confessed,
and ofsaid
a decreopetition.
entered against you
according
to the praver
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Theo. Schintz, Compl't's Sol'r.
12-15
ESTATE
OF
CHARLES
R.
HAEUSSLER,
Deceased.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Charles R.
Haeussler. deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court ofcityOook
county, toon betheholden
at, the court
house
in
of Chicago
firstthereof.
Monday
of Febru
ary,theA.D.
1672,
being the tiftlt day
ANNA HAEUSSLER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Dec. 15. A.D. 1871.
Theo. Sciiintz. Att'y.
l(M6a
ESTATE
OF
ELIZABETH
GOEDEN,
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demands againstthethesame
estate
ofadjudication
Elizabeth Goeden,
deceased,
forCounty
set
tlement attoa present
regular term of the
court and
of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago,
the thereof.
first Monday ofPETER
March,GOEDEN,
A. D. 1872, be
ing
the 4thonday
Chicago, Jan. 3, A. D. 1872.
Execute
ecutor.
Theo. Schintz, Att'y,
13-18a
D. J. CROCKER,
Attorney, 48 S. Canal Street.
Estate
of Caroline
heines.
deceased.Public notice
is hereby given
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Caroline
Heines, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, Illinois, to be holden at the court
house
city of Chicago,
county,
the first
Mondayin the
of February,
A.D. in
1872,saidbeing
theonfifth
day
thereof.
JACOB HEINES, Executor.
D. J. Chocker, Att'y for Estate.
10-15
THOMAS E. TURNER,
Attorney, cor. Canal and Madison.
CHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois,
Cook, ss. Superior
court of Cook
county,County
To I eb-of
ruary term, A.D. 1872. Alida Bothwell v. John R.
Bothwell. In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of John R. Bothwell,
defendant
above
named,
havingcourt
been filed
in thecounty,
office
of said
Superior
of Cook
of the clerk
notice is hereby given to the said John R. Bothwell
that
the
complainant
heretofore
filed
her
bill
of
plaint in said court, on the chancery Bide thereof,com
and
that
a summons
thereupon
issuedonout
court
against
said defendant,
returnable
the of
firstsaidMonday
of February next, (1872,) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said John R. Bothwell, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of February. 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken
as confessed,
and of
a decree
entered against you
according
to the prayer
said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Thos. E. Turner, Coinpl't'e Sol'r.
12-lSp
CHANCERY' NOTICEState of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county, February
Term, A.D. 1872. Anna Elizabeth Walbert vs. Oharlo
W.Affidavit
Walbert.In
of theChancery.
non-residence of Charles W. Wal
bert, defendant above named, having been filed in the
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook coun
ty, notice is hereby given to the said Charles W. Wal
bert that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against
said defendant,
ou required.
the first Monday
of February
next, (1872.)returnable
as is by law
Now. unless you, the said Charles W. Walbert,
shall personally be and appear before said Superior
court of Cook county, on the first day of a term thoreof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first
Monday of February, 1872, and plead, answer or demur
to the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same,
and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to theAUGUSTUS
prayer of said
bill.
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
Thomas E. Turner, Compl't's Sol'r.
14-I7p
ESTATE
OF
HANS
BRISTRUP,
DECEASED
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Hans Bristrup, deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of February, A.D.
J872, being the fifth day thereof.
S. M. KROGNESS, Administrator.
Chicago. Dec. 12, A.D. 1871.
Magee k Qleson, Att'ys.
10-15n

NEWELL PRATT,
Attorney, 1124 Wabash Avenue.
CHANCERY N0TICE.|- State of Illinois, Cook
county, as. Superior Court of Cook county, Feb
ruary term, A. D., 1872. Thomas Hatton v. Sarah
Hatton.
AffidavitIn ofChanc
the r'non-resi n*-- of Bar Hatton
defendant above nanred > i ing been tiled in the office
of the Clerk of said Sup . ior Court "I Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Sarah Hatton that
the complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
a summons thereupon issued out ot said Court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of
Febrna y next. i."72, as is by law required.
Now, unless
you,appear
thr- before
,->aid Sarah
Hatton, Court
shall
personally
be and
said Superior
of
Cook
county,
on
the.
first
day
ol
a
term
thereof,
be holden :tt * 'liicago, ii suid county, on the first Monto
day
of February,
1.-72. and
answertheorsame,
demurnndto
the said
complainant's
bin ofplead,
complaint,
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the praver of paid bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Ci rk,
Newell Pratt, Compl't's Sol'r.
12-15
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
February Term, A.D. 1*72. Helleu Rockfellow vs. John
Rockfellow.In Chancery.
Affidavit,above
of thenamed,
non-residence
of John
defendant
having been
filed Rockfellow,
in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said John Rockfellow,
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plainta insummons
said court,
on the chancery
sideofthereof,
and
that
thereupon
issued out
said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
ot February next, (1*72), as is by law required.
Now, unless
you,appear
the said
John
shallof
personally
he and
before
said Rockfellow,
Superior court
Cook
on thein first
of a ou
termthethereof,
to be
holdencounty,
at Chicago,
said day
county,
first Monday
of February",
1*72, and
plead, answertheor same,
demurand
to the
said
complainant's
bill ofcomplaint,
the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newell Pratt, Comp'ts sol'r.
H-17
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county o!
Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
FebruaryGargaro.In
Term, A.D.Chancery.
1*72. Kathrena Gargaro vs.
Angelo
. Affidavit of the non-residence of Angelo Gargaro,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Angelo Gargaro that
the complainant neretofore filed her bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said
returnable
on the
first Monday of Feb
ruarydefendant,
next, (1872,)
as is by law
required.
Now, unless you, the said Angelo Gargaro, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior coxirt of
Cook county,
on thein said
first county,
day of aonterm
to be
holden
at Chicago,
the thereof,
first Monday
of Februaryt 1*72. and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
bill oftherein
complaint,
the and
same,
and
the matters
and things
charged
Btated,
will
be
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newell Pratt. Comp'ts Sol'r.
H-17
pHANCERY NOTICE. - State of Illinois, Cook
\y
County,
ss,
Superior
Court
of
Cook
county.
To
February Term, A.D, 1872. Alden P. Pierce vs. Fran
cis J. Pierce.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Francis J. Pierce,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Oook county,
noticetheiscomplainant
hereby givenheretofore
to the said
Pierce
that
filedFrancis
his billJ.ofcom
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that
a summons
thereupon issuedonout
court
against
said defendant,
theoffirstsaidMonday
of February
next. Us"2,)returnable
as is by law required.
Now, unless you. the said Francis J. Pierce, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Mon
day of February, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant s bill ofcomplaint, the same, and
the
matters
and thingsand
theraindecree
charged
and stated, will
be taken
as confessed,
enteredagainst
you
according to the praver of said bill
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newell Pratt Compl't's Sol'r.
H-17
pHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of
Illinois,
County
of
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
February Term, A.D. 1372. Ella J. Sharp v. Oscar
Sharp.In chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Oscar Sharp, de
fendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Oscar Sharp,
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of February next (1*72.) as is by law required.
Now, be
unless
the before
said Oscar
Sharp, shall
sonally
andyou,
appear
said Superior
courtperof
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of February, 1672, and plead.answer or demur to the said
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken
as confessed,
andofa decree
according
to the praver
said bill.entered against you
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newell Pratt, Compl't's Sol'r.
13-lfi
WAITE & CLARKE,
Attorneys, Van Bvren, St. bet. Wabash and Mich. Ave.
ESTATE
HARRIET
E. GARFIELD,
DEceased. OF
Notice
is hereby given
to alt persons hav
ing claims and demands aganst the estate of Harriet
E. Garfield deceased, to present tho same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the court
house in he city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
March, A.D. 1*72, being the 4th day thereof.
Chicago, December .T'th. A. D.. 1*71.
CHARLES B. KING, Executor
Waite & Clarke. Attys.
12-17a
A. B. BALDWIN,
Attorney, Room fi, land's Block.
INSTATE
HOMERgiven
HOPKINS,
DECEASED.
J Notice OF
is hereby
to all persons
having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
Homer
Hopkins, decreased, to present the same forofadjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of Febru
ary, A.D. 1872, being tho fifth day thereof.
KITTIE
L. HOPKINS, Executrix.
Chicago, Dec. 12,
A.D. 1371.
A.B.Baldwin, Att'y.
10-15
A. W. ENOS,
Attorney, Room (>, Lind's Block,
ESTATE OF JAMES O'MALLEY, DECEASED,
Public notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of James
O'Malley, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
March, A.D. 1872, being the 4th day thereof..
Chicago, Dec, 30th. A. D. 1871.
ANN O'MALLEY, Administratrix.
A. W. Exos, Atty.
12-17 p

L. W. RAWSON,
Attorney. :>:{ Meat Randolph Stml.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Hlinois, County of
C! Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. Jan
uary Term, A. D. 1*72. Benjamin B. Bonner v. Mary
Jane
Bonner.In
Chancery. of Mary June Bonner,
Affidavit
of the non-residence
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby giwn to the said Mary Jane Itonner that
the complainant heretofore tiled his bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side i hereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Feb
ruary next, 1*72.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Mary Jane Bonner, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court ot
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of February.
1*72. and
answer orthe
demur
the
said
complainant's
billplead,
of complaint,
same,to and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be you
taken
as confessed,
and a ofdecree
entered
against
according
to the praver
said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
L. W. Rawsox, Compl't's Sol'r.
13-16p
FURNESS & ABBOTT,
Attorneys, 30 SouVi Clinton Street.
/CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
\J Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook County, To the
February Term, A.D. 1*72. Martha E. Fishf-r. Rachel
C, Fisher and Lucius G. Fisher her husband, petition
ers,
vs. Peter
Quackenbush,
Jonathan
P. Armstrong,
William
('. Goudy,
John Forsythe,
James
1). Wallace,
Henry Burwell. George A. Townsend and Robert T.
Lincoln.In Chancery.
Affidavit P.of the
non-residence
of Peter A.Qnackenbush,
Jonathan
Armstrong
and George
Townsend,
defendants above named, having been filed in the office
of
the
clerk
of
said
Superior
court
of
Cook
county,
no
tice is hereby given to the said Peter Qnackenbush,
Jonathan P. Armstrong and George A. Townsend that
the complainants heretofore filed their bill of complaint
| in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of
February next. 0*72,) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Peter Quackenbush,
Jonathan P. Armstrong and George A. Townsend,
shall personally be and appear before said Superior
court of Cook county, on the first day of u term
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the
first Monday of February, 1*72, and plead, answer or
demur to the said petitioners' bill of complaint, the
same, and the matters and things therein charged and
stated, will be taken a* confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to the prayer
of said bill.Clerk.
A. JACOBSON,
Fukness it Abbott. Compl't's Sol'rs.
14-17
J. C. ft J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
Attorneys. Iti3 II*. Washington St.
CHANCERY
County Toof
v' Cook, ss. NOTICE.-State
Superior Court ofof Illinois.
Cook County,
February
Term,
A.D.,
1872.
Joseph
Harvey
vs. Jane
Harvey.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Jane Harvey, de
fendant
having
filed county,
in the office
of
the clerkabove
of saidnamed,
Superior
courtbeen
of Cook
notice
isplainant
hereby heretofore
given to theMed
saidhisJane
that thein com
bill Harvey
of complaint
said
court,
on the chancery
and against
that a sum
mons thereupon
issued side
out ofthereof,
said court
said
defendant, returnable on the first Monday of February
next, (1872.) an is by low required.
Now, unless you. the said Jan> Harvey, shall person
ally be and appear before said Superior court of Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
at Chicago,1*72,in and
saidplead,
county,
on the
first Monday
of
February,
answer
or demur
to the said
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
mattersasand
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
willyou
bo
taken
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
J. 0. A J. J. Knickerbocker, Compl't's Sol'rs. 14-17
BARBER ft LACKNER,
Attorneys, i>4 West- Lake Street.
INSTATE
OF
CHRISTIAN
DECEASED.
J Notice is hereby
given to allZIMMER,
persons having
claims
and demands against the estate of Christian Zimmc
deceased,
to
present
tho
same
for
adjudication
and
set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872,
being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January 13, A.D. 1872.
SELEMA ZIMMER, Administratrix,
Barber & Lackner, Att'ys.
14-19a
ESTATE OF HUBBELL B. CONE, DECEASED.Notico is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Hubbell B. Cone,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication ana
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
1*72,
being January
the fourth11,day
Chicago.
A.D.thereof.
1*<2.
WILLIAM W. KIMBALL,)
MARY M. CONE and
^Executors.
14-19a
RAPHAEL M. SKILTON, J
SNOWHOOK & GRAY,
Attorneys, No. 85 West Monroe Street.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.State county.
of Illinois,
Cook county,
Superior court
of Cook
January
Term, ss.
A. D.
1872. John
Sollitt v. Philo I>. Mickles.Attachment.
I'ublic notice is hereby given to tho said Philo D.
Micklesthata writ of attachment issued out of the
office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook
county, dated the 19th day of December. A. D. 1871, at
the suit of the said John Sollitt, and against the estate
of
D. Mickles,
the sum
of eleven
andPhilo
seventy-one
76-100 for
dollars,
directed
to thehundred
sheriff
of
Cook county, which said writ has been returned ex
ecuted.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Philo D.
Mickles, shall personally be and appear before the said
Superior court of Cook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the court
house. In the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
January. A. D. 1*72, give special bail and plead to the
said plaintiffs action, judgment will be entered against
you, and in favor of the said John Sollitt, and so much
of the property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy
the said judgment and costs will bo sold to satisfy the
same.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Snowhook & Gray, Attorneys.
14-17
ESTATE OF DANIEL O'BRIEN, DECEASED.is hereby
all persons
havingO'Brien,
claims
and Notice
demands
againstgiven
thetoestate
of Daniel
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of tho County court of Cook
county,
holden
at the court
house, A.D.
in the1*72,
citybeof
Chicago,toonbethe
first Monday
of March,
ing the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January v.\. A.D. 1*72.
LAW HENCE O'BRIEN, Administrator.
Snowhook & Gkav, Att'ys.
H-19a
ESTATE OF THOMAS KINNEY, DECEASED.Notice is against
hereby given
to allofpersons
claims
and demands
the estate
Thomashaving
Kinney,
de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in tho city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872,
being the 4th day thereof.
CATHARINE KINNEY, Administratrix.
Chicago, Jan. 3, A. D. 1872.
13-lSa

BANKR UrTCY NOTICES.

TN
THE for
DISTRICT
ClH'RT
OF THE
UNITED
JL States,
the Northern
District
of Illinois.
In
the matter of Reuben Beardsleo, E'hineas Beardslee
and William P. Humble, bankrupt?. In Bank
ruptcy. Notice is hereby given that a third general
meeting of the creditors of said bankrupts will be
held on tho first day of March, 1*7-, at 2 o'clock p.m.,
at No. IS East Harrison street, in the city of Chicago,
before II. N. Himi.uu>. Esq., Register, for the purposes
named in the 27th and 2*th sections of the Bankrupt
ActChicago.
of March
1872.1872.
Jan.2. 11,
E. JENKINS,
AssigneeROBERT
of said Bankrupt's
Estate.
N.B.
In
the
late
fire
all
Proofs
of
Debt in tlwere
e hands
of tlie Assignee and Register in Bankruptcy
de
stroyed. It will be necessary for each Creditor to make
ANOTHER proof.
14-15
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
TN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
_L States, for the Northern District of Illinois. In
the
matterNotice
ofJames
R. Lindsay,
Bank
ruptcy.
is hereby
given bankrupt.In
that a final general
meeting
of day
the creditors
of said
willp.bem.,held
on the .Tilth
of January,
1872, bankrupt
at 2 o'clock,
at
No. is East Harrison street, in the city of Chicago,
before
H.
N.
Hiiirard.
Es|
Register,
for
the
purposes
named in the 28th section of the Bankrupt Act of"
March 2, 1867,
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Chicago, Jan. 12. 1871. Assignee of said Estate.
N.B, In the late fire all proofs of Debt In the hands'
of the Assignee and Register in Bankruptcy were
destroyed. It will be necessary f*r each Creditor to>
make another proof. If one dividend has lieeu re
ceived in the above case, another Proof will not be
required,
as the
Assignee
has allowed.
preserved all dividend
orders, which
show
the claims
14-15
ROBERT K. JENKINS, Assignee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
States, for the Northern District of Illinois.In
Bankruptcy. In the matter of James R. Lindsay,
Bankrupt. This is to give notice that I have filed my
final accounts as assignee of the estate of James It.
Lindsay, bankrupt, in said court, and that on the 30th
day of January, 1872, at 2 o'clock, p.m., I shall apply tosaid court for the settlement of my saidaccounts and
for a discharge from all liability ns Assignee of said
estate, in accordance with the provisions of the
section of the Bankrupt Act of March 2d. 18fi7. 28th
ROBERT
14-15
AssigneeE. ofJENKINS.
said Estate.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.Northern District of Illi
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the
11th day of January. A.D. 1872. The undersigned
hereby gives notice of his appointment as assignee of
the estate of Louis Lindner, of Chicago, in the county
of Cook and State of Illinois, who has been adjudged
aCourt
bankrupt
upon hisStates
owninpetition
by the District
of the United
the said District.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
14-16
Assignee.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.Northern District of Illi
nois, es. At Chicago, in said District on the 4th
day
January,
A.D.appointment
1872. The undersigned
givesofnotice
of his
as assignee hereby
of the
estate of Franklin Person, of Chicago, in the county
of
Cook
and
State
of
Illinois,
who
has
been
adjudged
aCourt
bankrupt
by said
the District.
District
of the upon
Unitedcreditors'
States in petition
and for the
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
14-16
Assignee.
ASSIGNEE'S
NOTICE.-Northern
District
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on of
theIlli
9th
day
of
January,
A.D.
1872.
The
undersigned
of the
gives notice of his appointment as assignee hereby
estate
of Julius
Chicago,
in theadjudged
county ofa
Cook and
State ofWeise,
Illinois,ofwho
has been
bankrupt, upon creditors' petitition, by the District
Courtof the United States, in and for the said Dis
trict.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
14-16
Assignee.
F. W. LOWELL,
Attorney, Room 4, 9 S. Canal St.
ESTATE
OF
LARS
Notice is hereby givenP. toLARSON.
all personsDECEASED.
havingclaims
and demands against the estate of Lars P.Larson,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication aud set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872,
being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January 10. A.D. 1872.
14-19
LINE M. LARSON. Administratrix.
MOORE ft CATJLFTELD,
Attornrys, S, E. cor. State & Madison.
ESTATE
OF MARY
ANNgiven
TAYLOR,
DECEASED.
Public notice
is hereby
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Mary Ann
Taylor, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook
be February
holden in next.
the city of Chicago,,
on
the firstcounty,
Mondayto of
MARY BROWN, Executrix.
Chicago, Dec. 15, 1871.
10-15.
MATTOCKS ft MASON,
Attorneys, No. 523 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE OF BENJAMIN F. HADDUCK, Deceased.
Notice is hereby given to all persons havingclaims
and demands
the estate
of Benjamin
F. Hadduck,
deceased,against
to present
tho same
for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of
county, toonbethe
holden
the court
house, inA.D.
the
cityCook
of Chicago,
first atMonday
of March,
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January y. A.D. 1872.
JOHN DEKOVEN, Administrator.
Mattocks & Mason, Att'ys.
14-19a
ESTATE
OF
PATRICK
O'MALLEY,
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against 'the estate of Patrick
O'Malley, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court
county, on
to be
at the court
house
in the ofcityCook
of Chicago,
theholden
first Monday
of March,
A.D. 1672, being the 4th day thereof.
PATRICK O'MALLEY.
MARIA O'MALLEY,
Administrators.
Chicago, Jan. 5, 1872.
12-18p
EESTATE OF JOHN W. BROMLEY, DECEASED.
Noticeand
is demands
hereby given
all estate
persons
hav
ing claims
againstto the
of John
W.
Bromley,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
ad
judication and settlement at a regular term of the
County court of Cook county, to be holden at tho
court
Chicago,
on the
Mon
day ofhouse,
March,in A.theD.city
1872,ofbeing
the 4th
day first
thereof.
ALEXANDER ALLEN and
THOMAS ALLISON.
Executors.
Chicago, Jan. 3, A. D. 1872.
13-ISa
ESTATE
OF
THOMAS
KELLEY,
DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons havingclaims
and demnnds against the estate ot Thomas Kelley.
deceased, to present the same tor adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on tho first Monday of March, A.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January 9, A.D. 1872.
14-19a
JOHN TILFORD, Administrator.

I 12
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
FJ. SEYBOLD, 497 Wabash avenue : residence
. 140) South
a
Green street.
MARTIN A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D .
659 State street.
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
HERNDON & ORES'DORF,
Office west side square. 27*
ST. LOUIS MO.) ATTORNEYS.
J. P" C< Counselor-at-Law. St. Louis, Mo.

Chicago

NEW

Legal

News.
ATTORNEYS.

CALLAGHAN&Co.
SUCCESSORS to
CALLAGHAN & COCKCROFT,
Respectfully call the attention of the profession to
their large stock of

ALFRED PAXSON.
JAMES COCKCROFT & CO. law mm
Insurance Exchange Building.
GLENWOOD (MO.i ATTORNEYS.
Embracing the REPORTS of alt the leading
Have opened with a Full Line of
\r ROOM AX .V VROOMAN.
Courts in this Country and England.
Glenwood, Missouri.
14-17*
We
have
a very full assortment of
LOGANSPORT iIND.) ATTORNEYS.
LAW
BOOKS
HOWARD,
5-16*
Attorney at Law.
J."
New Text Booh and Digests,
AT
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
and an unusually full line of
PEPPER, WILSON & MARTIN,
Room 2 Bunk Building.
9-20* 499 Wabash Ave.
BARE AND VALUABLE WORKS,
It will be to the interest of Iwyen to out of print, which we are offering! at lowest current
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
prices.
fflve
us a c11
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney, 18 East Harmon Street,
49~ We should be pleased to correspond with Law
We would also call attention to our superior facili
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.Northern District of Illi yers
desiring information regarding books, or wishing ties for importing, being in monthly receipt of
nois,
as.
At
Chicago,
in
said
District,
on
the
23d
day of October, A.D.. 1*71. The undersigned hereby to purchase.
gives notice of 111* appointment as assignee of the es
tate of Julius Schreiber, of Chicago, in the county of
CONSIGNMENTS FROM LONDON
Cook and State of Illinois, who has been adjudged a
bankrupt, upon his own petition, by the District court
of the United States in and for Bald District.
direct, which we are selling at unusually low figures.
Dillon on Municipal Corporations.
15-17
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
Wo
have
in
press,
and
will
shortly
issue,
a
Trkatise
A large collection of Second-hand TextIN THE DISTRICT COURT OK THE UNITED on tthk Law o>* Municipal Corporations, with full
Northern
of Illinois.
In reference to English and American cases, by the Hon Books, Digests and Reports kept constantly on
the States,
matter for
of the
Joseph
Chi Ids,District
Myer W.
Child* and
John F. Dillon, United States Circuit Judge. hand.
Hum Childs, bankrupts. In Bankruptcy. Notice is orable
work isofdesigned
to meet Judge
a wantDillon
long felt
hereby given that a second general meeting of the This
members
the profession.
has deby Catalogues sent promptly upon application.
creditors of said bankrupts will be held on the 1Mb the
voted several years to the most careful preparation of
day
of
February,
1872.
at
2
o'clock
P.M.,
at
No.
IS
East
the
text
and
notes:
and
thiB
fact,
together
with
his
Harrison K><i..
street,Register,
in the city
of purposes
Chicago, named
before inH.the
N. high reputation as a jurist, guarantee the excellence
Hihbanl.
for the
ofComplete
the work.in one large octavo volume.
27th section of the Bankrupt Act of March 2, 1867.
Chicago, Jan. l.%ROBERT
1*72, E. JENKINS, Assignee.
N. B.In the late fire all Proofs of Debt in tho hands
of the Register and Assignee in Bankruptcy were de
CALLA'GHAN & CO.,
stroyed.
will be necessary for each creditor to make
another It
proof.
15-16
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee. JAMES COCKCROFT & CO.,
525 Wabash Ave.,
TN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
499 Wabash Avenue,
X States, for the Northern District of Illinois. In
the matter of Robert II. Gillett, P. Gillett, A. P. Cun
CHICAGO.
ningham Notice
und L.is hereby
M. Pierce,
Ingeneral
Bank
CHICAGO, ILL.
ruptcy.
givenbankrupts.
that u second
meeting
of
the
creditors
of;
said
bankrupts
will
be
13-21
held on the 26th day of February, IS72, ut 2 o'clock.
P. M.. at No. Is. East Harrison street, in the city of
Chicago,
Esq., of
Register,
for the
AD VERTISEMENT.
purposes before
named H.in N.theHibbard,
27th section
the Bankrupt
Act of March 2, 1867.
IN PREPARATION,
ROBERT
E.
JENKINS,
Assignee.
Chicago, Jan. W, 1*72.
STEVENS
&
HAYNES
N. B.In the late tire all Proofs of Debt in the hands
AND WILL SHORTLY BE PUBLISHED.
<if the Register and Assignee in Bankruptcy were de
Hiarw Publishers,
stroyed. It will be necessary for each creditor to make
ANOTHER proof.
15-16
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
DICKSON'S ANALYSIS OFBLACKSTONE
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
States for the Northern Districtof Illinois, In the AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS,
matter
of E)i
Small. Bankrupt.
Notice is the
hereby
Royal 8vo. Price $8.00.
given that
the N.undersigned
will, on Saturday,
3rd
Sell Yard, Temple Bar,
day
of
February,
1*72.
at
10
o'clock,
A.M.,
at
No.
3.'*
Wabash avenue, in the City of Chicago, sell at public
LONDON.
auction toaccounts
the highest
for cash,duealltoof the
tho said
un
collected
andbidder,
indebtedness
bankrupt ; and also any and all interest which the said
DICKSON'S ANALYSIS OF KENT.
bankrupt may have in the estate of his father William Worts in all Classes of Literature
Small, deceased.
15-17
8. S. MERRILL, Assignee.
SUPPLIED TO OBDEB.
Royal 8vo. Price $8.00.
CLARKSON & VANSCHAACK,
Attorney!*, 4o4 Wabash Ave.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.Stato of Illinois, Cook county, ss. Circuit Court
of Cook couuty, April Term. A.D. 1*72. Charles F.
Pierce and Frederick Paine v. Joseph Goodman and
Mauton
Hoard.
Public E.notice
is hereby given to the said Joseph Good
man and Manton E. Hoard that a writ of attachment
issued out of the office of the clerk of the Circuit court
of
theCharles
12th dayF. ofPierce
January,
A.D.
1*72,Cook
at thecounty,
suit ofdated
the said
and Fred
erick Paine, and again.st the estate of Joseph Good
man and Manton E. Hoard, for the sum of two thou
sand und ninety-six (.1-100 dollars, directed to the
Sheriff' of Cook county, which said writ has been re
turned
executed.
Now,
therefore,
you, the said
Joseph beGood
man
andbefore
Manton
E.unless
Hoard,
und
appear
the said
Circuitshall
courtpersonally
of (.look county,
on
or
before
the
first
day
of
the
next
term
thereof,
be hoiden at the Court House, in the city of Chicago,to
on the third Monday of April, A.D. 1872, give special
bail and plead to the said plaintiffs' action, judgment
will be entered against you, and in favor of the said
Charles
F. Pierceattached
and Frederick
und so
much
of the property
us may bePaine,
sufficient
to satisfy
the said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the
same.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Clarkson A Van Schaack, Att'ys.,
15-18
TH0S. SHIRLEY,
Attu, Mamnir. lild'g, cor. Randolph and'Hoisted *ts,
ESTATE
JOHANN
WILIIELM
knownOF
us John
William)
Mever, (OTHERWISE
deceased.No
tice is hereby given to all persona having claims and
demands
against
tho
estate
of
Jobunn
Wilhelm
(otherwise known as John William) Meyer,
de
ceased, to present tho same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be hoiden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872, be
ing the 4th day MARIA
thereof. CHATARINA MEYER,
Administratrix.
Titos. Shirley, Att'y.
15-2ba
ESTATE OF LOUIS FRIEDMAN, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Louis Fried
man, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and
settlement
the County
of Cook
county, atto aberegular
hoidenterm
at theofcourt
bouse, incourt
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
March, A.D.
1*72. being the fourth dav thereof,
Chicago, January fi, A.D. 1*72.
Rosenthal,SARAH
Pen. k &FRIEDMAN.
Moses, Ati'ys.Administratrix.
14-iya

By FREDERICK B. DICKSON, Esq.

Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
Orders Promptly Filled.
The Trustee* and Officers of Public 1*1uiay rely upon the most
BOUBQUIN Sc WELSH,
careAil attention to their
CommiMtiunit,
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
Publishers and Importers,
By importing DIRECT from England a consider
able saving is effected, especially in the Customs duty,
from which Public Institutions in the United States are No. 431 Walnut Street, Philadelphia.
4-16
SUNDRY mistakes have been made by our Foreign
and Colonial Correspondents in addressing their let
ters, wo beg to notify that the members of our firm are
LAW BOOKS
Henry U. Stevens and Robert W. Haynes, the son
and stepson ot the late Yalentine S'evens, the eminent
FOB SALE.
Law Publisher. Since our father's death we have con
tinued to carry on the business ufLaw Publishers, Illinois Reports from Scammon to 25th, inclusive,
llooksellers and Exporters, at the above ad
New
York
Reports,
from Johnson to Denio, inclu
dress.
During his recent visits to the United States and sive.
Johnson's
Chancery,
do.
Canada, Robert W. Haynes secured many Friends Wood & Lono's Dioest,Paige's
2 Vols., and numerous Textand Correspondents ; we are thus enabled to give ref
erences of the highest character in most of tbe princi Books.
A. E. HARMAN.
palWeAmerican
have nocities.
connection whatever with any other Champaign, 111,, Jan, 11th, 1872.
house of business, and to prevent delay and miscar
riage, our Correspondents abroad are respectfully re
L. 0. BRAINARD,
quested
Attorney.
lows: to plainly address their letters to us as fol CHANCERY' NOTICE.State
county To
of
Cook. ss. Superior court ofof Illinois,
Cook county.
February Term, A.D. 1HT2. John W. Gaskiu v. Hannah
STEVENS & HAYNES,
C.Affidavit
Gaskin.In
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
of theChancery.
non-residence of Hannah C. Gitskin,
defendant
above
named, having been filed in the office
LONDON,
of
the Clerk
of saidgiven
Superior
of CookC. county,
notice
is
hereby
to the Court
said Hannah
Gaskin
ENGLAND.
that
complainant
heretofore
filed
his
bill
ofthereof,
com
plaint
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
Extract from " Report of Julius Rosenthal, Esq., and that a summons thereupon issued out of said
Librarian to the President and Members of court against said defendant, returnable on the first
the Chicago Law Institute." November, 1870.
of February next (1872), as is by law required.
" To our collection of English Reports a valuable Monday
Now, unless you, the Baid Hannah C. Gaskin shall
addition has been made by the importation of a personally be aud appear before said Superior court ot
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
full and well preserved set of the House of Lords hoiden
at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58 of February,
W2. and plead, answer or demur to the
volumes.
said
complainant
bill of complaint, the same, and
" English books were imported directly free of the matters and sthings
therein charged aud stated,
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the will
be
taken
as
confessed,
a decree entered against
firm of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose you according to the prayerand
of said bill.
diligence, promptness, and care in tilling our or
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
L. G. Brainard, Cuinpl'i'B ^ui'r.
ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."

GEORGE C. FRY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
54 West Randolph Stre^Jarmrly 86 LaSatte Street,
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.
52
S. A. GOODWIN.
E. C. LARNED.
B. 8. TOWLE,
GOODWIN, LARNED & TOWLE,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
No. 376 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWARD O. MASOH.
MATTOCKS & MASON,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
No. 523 Wabash Avenue, S. W. cor. Harmon Court,
Chicago, III.
W. H. WING,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Elgin, III.
Collections promptly attended to.
5-16
BATE* A HODGES,
Attorneys at Law, 13 W. Madison St.
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
CHARLES J. BISHOP,
Successor to J. Freeman Silkk,
ACCOUNTANT AND EXPERT BOOK-KEEPER,
122 W. Washington St., Chicago, III. 7-18p
iii^TOEEST^gSP PLANTS !
SSSS SEEDS !
Apple and Crab, 100 2 |to 4 ft., $4 ; 4 to 6 ft., fc.
Pear, stand., extra, ljyear, Bartlett, etc., 3 to 4 ,'ft.,
per doz., $2.50.
Meed*, Peach,: bush., $2;;Apple lOsage, new, bush.,
$12.
Potatoes, Early, Howe, White, Peach Blow, per
bush. $2.
Seedlings, ]ft h) Soft Maple, $1; Ash, S3; Elm, %%.
Illustrated Catalogue 1U0 pages, and Price List, 10c.
15-27
F.IK. PHCENIX, Bloomlngton, JXL
ADMINISTRATOR'S SALEOF A LAW LIBRARY,
at Nokoniis,
Thurs
day, February
Sth, Montgomery
constating ofcounty,
a full 111.,
Het ofon Illinois
and New York Report*, now. Also a well selected
library of Elementary Law Books, nearly new.
Administrator.
Terms of sale:JOHN
CreditH.of BEATTY,
twelve months
for all pubis
over five dollar?*.
r|X) WHOM IT MAY CONCERN -We. tho underX signed, have formed u limited copartnership to be
carried on in Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, from
January 1, 1*72, till January 1, 1874, to carry on the
business of buying, Helling, and manufacturing and
selling, harness and carriages. The said undersigned,
F. I. Lazear. M. E. Fletcher und George A. Cheney,
are the general partners, and John Amerman. of Bronson, and Josias Parks, of Norwalk, m the State of
Ohio,into
are the
the common
special partners,
have respectively
paid
stock twoandthousand
dollars in
cash.
M. K. FLETCHER,
F.
I.
LAZEAR,
GEORGE A. CHENEY,
JOHN
15-30
JOS1ASAMKHMAN,
PARKS.
CARTER, BECKER & DALE,
Attorney*, 523 Wabash Avenue.
PUBLICATION
NOTICE
ATTAOHMENT.State of Illinois,
county INof Cook,
ss. Superior
Court of Cook couuty. To April Term, A.D. 1S72.
Isaac V. Place and I. W. Place v. Othneil T. Atwood.
Public that
noticea writ
is hereby
given to theissued
said Othneil
T.
Atwood
of attachment
out of the
offlco of the clerk of the Superior Court of Cook
couuty,
dated
dayV.of Place
November,
1S71, at the
suittheoftwenty-fifth
the said Isaac
and I.A.D.
W.
Place,
und
against
the
estate
of
othneil
T.
Atwood,
for
the sum of two thousand dollars, directed to the
Sheriff" of Cook county, which said writ has been re
turned
executed.
Now,shall
therefore,
unless
said before
OthnioltheT. said
At
wood
personally
be you
and the
appear
Superior
Court
of
Cook
county,
on
or
before
the
first
day of the next term thereof, to be hoiden at the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
April,
A.D,action,
1672, give
special bail
to the
said
plaiutifTs
judgment
willand
he plead
entered
against
you, and in favor of the said Isaac V. Place and I. W.
Place,
and
so
much
of
the
property
attached
as
may
be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and costs will
be sold to satisfy theAUGUSTUS
Fame.
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Caster. Bkckrk A Dale. Attorneys.
HAMMER & SMITH,
Hammer
dir Smith's Block.
Boom 1.county of
CHANCERY
NOTICE.State
Cook, ss. Superior
Court ofof Illinois,
Cook couuty,
To
February Terra, A. D. 1872. D. Harry Hammer and
Frank
J.
Smith
v,
Addison
L.
Page.-In
Chancery.
Affidavitabove
of thenamed,
non-residence
of Addison
L. 1office
age,
defendant
having been
filed in the
of
the
Clerk
of
said
Superior
Court
of
Cook
county,
no
tice is hereby given to the said Addison L. Pac that
the
filed their
petition and
for that
por
tioncomplainants
in said Court,heretofore
on the chancery
side thereof,
a summons thereupon issued out of said Court against
Baid defendant, returnable on the first Monday oi
February
next (1H72),
as issaid
by law
required.
Now, unless
you. the
Addison
L. Page, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior Court oi
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
t0.^
hoiden
at Chicago,
said county,
the thereof,
firsttoMonday
of February,!
2, andin plead,
answeron
orjdemur
tnesaia
complainant's petition for partition, the same, and tlie
matters
things therein
and stated,
>VJ11Djr
taken asandconfessed,
and a charged
decree entered
against
you
according to the prayer
of said bill.
.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Hammer & Smith, Comp't's Sol'rs.
INSTATE
OF given
ZEBINA
j is hereby
to allBLISS,
personsDECEASED.Notjot
having claims auu
demands against the estate of Zebina DIUs, deceosea,
to present the same for adjudication and settlement a
aberegular
the Conntv
connt>' ou
hoiden term
at theofcourt
house, incourt
the of
cityCook
of Chicago,
the first Monday of March, A.D. 172, being the fourm
dav thereof.
Chicago, January
11, A.D.
1872. Administratrix
14-19a
ELLEN
S. BLISS,

Qhicago

Jegal

^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 16.

EU Courts.
Our thanks are due H. E. Mann, Clerk
of the Federal Courts at St. Paul, for the
following opinion :
7. & DISTRICT COURT, D. OF M1NNESOTAJanuary, 1872.
United States v. C. P. Wells.
OFFENSES UNDER STATE AND U. S. LAWSCONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF STATE
AND FEDERAL COURTS.
1. Same Offense under U. S. and State Laws.
That the same offense may be made punishable
both under the laws of a State and of the United
States, and over such offenses the State and Fed
eral courts have concurrent jurisdiction.
2. Concurrent Jurisdiction.That in cases of
concurrent jurisdiction the court that first gets
control of the subject matter will continue to ex
ercise jurisdiction until judgment, without mo
lestation or interference from the other: that this
Is the proper course to pursue in criminal as well
as In civil cases.
3. Authority of Marshal.That the marshal
exceeded his authority in taking the prisoner from
the custody of the sheriff: that he should have
made return of the fact that the sheriff held the
prisoner in custody for a violation of State laws.
4. The Judgment of the Court.The court,
after citing various conflicting authorities, holds
the indictment good, but believing the State exer
cised jurisdiction in good faith, turns the prisoner
over to be dealt with by the State authorities.
En. Legal News.
The prisoner was indicted at this term
of the court for passing counterfeit
Treasury notes. A plea in abatement
was interposed, alleging that an indict
ment had been found against him at a
regular term of the Di3trict Court of the
State of Minnesota, held in and for the
county of Fillmore, on the 16th day of
May, 1871, charging him with the very
same crime of felony, as contrary to the
statute and against the peace and dignity
of the State of Minnesota ; that subse
quently, on the 15th of November, 1871,
the prisoner was arrested by the sheriff
on a bench warrant issued by the State*
Court, was arraigned, plead not guilty,
and the cause was continued until the
next regular term of the court, and the
prisoner committed to the custody of the
sheriff in default of bail ; that while the
prisoner was held as aforesaid, he was
taken out of the custody of the sheriff
by the Marshal of the United States, and
is now held by him without authority of
law.
A demurrer is filed by the United
States District Attorney.
C. K. Davis, U. S. District Attorney for
government.
Thomas Wilson, contra.
Opinion of the court bv Nelson, J.
The question presented by the plea in
abatement is an interesting one, and al
though I am not able to give it at this
time the careful consideration which its
importance demands, I think I am safe
in announcing the conclusions arrived at
upon the examination of such authori
ties as have been within my reach, at
least, so far as to lay down a rule of
comity which must exist between the
Federal and State courts in cases of this
character, whether they arise in the ex
ercise of criminal or civil jurisdiction.
The point involved, though interest
ing, is not entirely a new one. It has
engaged the attention of both the State
and Federal courts, and the result in
nearly every instance has been to recog
nize the right of both courts to punish,
in the proper exercise of their authority,
" when the same act (U. S. v. Marigold,
9 Howard, 570) might, as to its character
and tendencies, and the consequences it
involved, constitute an offense against
both the State and Federal govern
ments." The court, in this case, regarded
this doctrine as distinctly enunciated in
the case of Fox v. Ohio, 5 Howard, 410,
and adopted it as sound.
In the latter case, the point raised was
whether the statute of the State of Ohio,
which provided for the punishment of
passing counterfeit coin, was consistent
with, or in contravention of the Consti
tution of the United States, or any law
enacted in pursuance of the Constitu
tion. After a full and exhaustive argu
ment, the Supreme Court of the United

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 1872.

States decided, Mr. Justice McLean alone
dissenting, that the State possessed the
power : but Mr. Justice Daniel, who de
livered the opinion, said : " It is almost
certain that in the benignant spirit in
which the institutions, both of the State
and Federal systems are administered, an
offender who should have suffered the
penalties denounced by the one, would
not be subject, a second time, to punish
ment by the other, for acts essentially
the same, unless public safety demanded
it."
A very {treat variety of opinions ex
isted previous to these decisions, as is
shown by the authorities cited by the
learned counsel for the defense. My at
tention has been called to the case of
Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheaton, 1, in
which Judge Washington says, " That if
the jurisdiction be concurrent, the sen
tence of either court, either of conviction
or acquittal, maybe pleaded in barof the
prosecution before the other." The de
fendant's counsel insists that by a parity
of reasoning, the plea in abatement must
be held good in the case at bar, and the
indictment dismissed, as it is undeniable
that the state court first obtained juris
diction of the person of the offender. I
feel the force of the reasons argued, but
cannot assent to the opinion above ex
pressed.
Justice Johnson, who delivered a sep
arate opinion in the case, appears to
have announced the doctrine which has
subsequently governed the court in cases
involving similar questions of jurisdic
tion. He says, " Why may not the same
offense be made punishable both under
the laws of the State and of the United
States? Every citizen owes a double al
legiance ; he enjoys the protection and
participates in the government of both
the State and the United States. *
When the United Stateshas not assumed
this exclusive exercise of power, I can
not imagine a reason why the States may
not also, if they feel themselves injured
by the same offense, assert their right of
inflicting punishment also." This opin
ion also dissents from the view main
tained, that there might be embarrass
ment in the general administration of
justice, and, I think, fairly indicates that
rule of comity which should control the
courts.
Some able legal minds, at that time,
among the number Chancellor Kent,
took the same view of the case as did the
court in 5th Wheaton ; others, Justices
Story and McLean, have considered
State laws similar to this one, as repug
nant to the Constitution of the United
States, and that they must necessarily
yield ; if not, then delinquents or offen
ders are liable to be twice put in jeopar
dy and be twice subjected to punishment,
"against the manifest intent of the act
of Congress, the principles of the com
mon law, and the genius of our free gov
ernment." They also deny that after the
Federal Congress have provided for the
trial and punishment of an offense man
ifestly within their constitutional author
ity, a State law, creating and defining a
like offense, could confer jurisdiction
upon a State court, to try it, without the
consent of Congress.
Others, not exactly concurring in the
reasons announced above, have doubted
the authority of the State governments
to enact any law which might make one
act an offense against both governments.
A very ingenious view is cited by Ioynes,
Judge, in the case of Jett v. Common
wealth, 18 Grattan R., p. 946. Speaking
of the decisions upon the question, that
a person could not, by one act commit
an offense against both the State and Fed
eral governments, he says : " An able
writer advocated this view of the ques
tion, upon the ground that an offense
against one State ought to be considered
as merged in an offense against all the
States."
Some State courts adopted, at first, the
dissenting opinion of Justice McLean in
Fox v. Ohio, [holding to the repugnancy

of the State law to the Federal Constitu

tion and that there would be double
punishment for one offense. I have not
time to allude to the views taken by the
courts in all of the cases cited by counsel,
but they show conflict of opinion upon
the subject.
The principle involved again came be
fore the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of Moore v. People of
Illinois, 14 Howard, 13. In this case the
plaintiff had been convicted under a
statute of Illinois for " harboring and
secreting a slave." It was strenuously
urged that this law was in conflict with
the Constitution of the United States,
and the acts of Congress on the subject
of fugitives from labor. I will extract
a portion of the opinion of the Court
by Mr. Justice Greer, which sets at rest
the point raised by the counsel in regard
to the effect of a plea in bar : " It has
been urged that this act is void, as it
subjects the delinquent to a double pun
ishment for a single offense. * * * *
An offense, in its legal signification,
means the transgression of a law. A
man may be compelled to make repara
tion in damages to the injured party,
and be liable also to punishment for a
breach of the public peace, in conse
quence of the same act; and may be
said; in common parlance, to be twice
punished for the same offense. Every
citizen of the United States is also a
citizen of a State or territory. He may
be said to owe allegiance to two sove
reigns, and may be liable to punishment
for an infraction of the laws of either.
The same act may be an offense or trans
gression of the laws of both. Thus, an
assault upon the marshal of the United
States, and hindering him in the executioti( jf legal process, is a high offense
against the United States, for which the
perpetrator is liable to punishment ; and
the same act may be also a gross breach
of the peace of the State, a riot, assault
or murder, and subject the same person
to punishment under the State laws for
a misdemeanor or felony. That either
or both may (if they see fit) punish such
an offender, can not be doubted. Yet
it can not be truly averred that the
offender has been twice punished for
the same offense ; but only that by one
act he has committed two offenses, for
each of which he is justly punishable.
He could not plead the punishment by
one in bar to a conviction by the other ;
consequently this court has decided in
the case of Fox v. The State of Ohio,
that a State court may punish the
offense of uttering and passing false
coin as a cheat or fraud practiced on its
citizens, and in the case of the United
States v. Marigold, that Congress, in the
proper exercise of its authority, may
punish the same act as an offense against
the United States."
That distinguished jurist, the late Chief
Justice Taney, subsequently gave his
sanction to the decision in this case, but
he accompanied it with these remarks,
" In all civilized communities it is recog
nized as a fundamental principle of jus
tice that a man ought not to be punished
twice for the same offense." In the case
before him he intimated that, if the
State court had inflicted punishment, he
would have suspended sentence, to per
mit executive interference by pardon.
(See opinion of Eeves, J., 16 Grattan,
942).
These views, so manifestly humane,
commend themselves to my sense of jus
tice ; but the concurrent jurisdiction
must be regarded as settled.
The State and Federal courts both
having jurisdiction, the question then
naturally arises, How can a conflict be
avoided ? In the case before me, there
was no process issued by this court that
could reach the person of the prisoner
(U. S. v. Van Forsen, 1 Dillon, Cir. Ct.
Rep., p. 411 and note.) The Marshal
exceeded his authority in taking him
from the custody of the sheriff. He
should have made a return of the fact,

Whole No. 174.

that the officer held the prisoner in cus
tody for a violation of State laws. Had
this course been pursued, no apparent
conflict would exist. The Marshal hav
ing arrested the prisoner and brought
him before the court, it is for me to adopt
a rule which suggests itself as sound, and
which has been distinctly announced by
the Supreme Court of the United States
in several instances. ( Freeman v. Howe,
24 Howard, 583; Buck v. Colbroth, 3
Wallace, 334.)
It is true these cases were not of a
criminal nature, but I can see no dis
tinction in principle. The point to be
considered was, how to avoid embarrass
ment by a conflict of jurisdiction be
tween the two courts. The court, in
substance, say that the one which first
has control of the subject matter shall
continue to exercise jurisdiction until
judgment, without molestation or inter
ference from the other.
This, it seems to me, is not only the
prudent and wise course to pursue in
criminal as well as civil cases, but is due
to that common courtesy and comity
which must exist between courts, and
under a complex system like ours.
I shall sustain the indictment in this
case, but believing that the State exer
cised jurisdiction in good faith, leave
the State court to deal with the offender.
The Federal authorities can take such
steps as they may be advised of in the
future.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
December Term, A.D. 1871.No. 58.
John S. Toof, Chari.es J. Phillips, and Franx
M. Mahan. as Toof, Phillips & Co., Appellants,
v. Rufus W. Martin, Assignee in Bankruptcy of
W. P. Haines & Co.
Appealfrom the Circuit Court of the United States for
the District of Arkansas.
BANKRUPTCY PREFERENCES INSOL
VENCY.
1. Preferences.That under the Bankrupt Act,
in order to sustain the decree in his favor, the com
plainant must show four things :
1st. That at the time the conveyances were
made the bankrupts were insolvent, or contem
plating insolvency ;
2d. That;the conveyances were made with^a
view to give a preference to these creditors ;
Sd. That the creditors had reasonable cause to
believe the bankrupts were insolvent at the time;
and,
4th. That the conveyances were made in fraud
of the provisions of the bankrupt act.
2. The Term Insolvency.That this term is not
always used in the same sense. It is sometimes
used to denote the insufficiency of the property
and assets of an individual to pay his debts. It is
also used in a more restricted sense to express the
Inability of a party to pay his debts, as they be
come due, in the ordinary course of business, and
that it is in this latter sense that the term is used
when traders and merchants are said to be Insol
vent ; that with reference to persons not traders
the term, perhaps, may have a less restricted
meaning.
3. Insolvency.The Court states what consti
tutes insolvency.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the Court delivered by
Field, J.
This is a suit brought by the assignee
in bankruptcy of Haines and Chetlain
to cancel certain conveyances alleged to
have been made by them in fraud of
the bankrupt act. As appears from the
evidence in the case, Haines and Chet
lain were, in February, 1868, and had
been for some years before, merchants,
doing business under the firm name of
W. P. Haines & Company, at Augusta,
in the State of Arkansas." On the 29th
of that month they filed a petition for
the benefit of the bankrupt act, and on
the 28th of May following they were
adjudged bankrupts, and the complain
ant was appointed assignee of their es
tates. On the eighteenth of the pre
vious January, which was about six
weeks before the filing of their petition,
they conveyed an undivided half-inter
est in certain parcels of land owned by
them at Augusta, to Toof, Phillips &
Company, a firm doing business as
merchants at Memphis, in Tennessee,
for the consideration of 1,876, which
sum was to be credited on a debt due
from them to that firm. At the same
time they assigned to one Mahan, a
member of that firm, a title bond which

ii4

Chicago

Legal

they held for certain other real property sometimes used to denote the insuf
at Augusta, upon which they had made ficiency of the entire property and
valuable improvements. The considera assets of an individual to pay his debts.
tion of this assignment was two drafts This is its general and popular meaning.
of Mahan on Toof, Phillips & Company, But it is also used in a more restricted
each for 3,034, one drawn to the order sense, to express the inability of a party
of Haines, and the other to the order of to pay his debts, as they become due,
Chetlain. The amount of both drafts in the ordinary course of business. It
was credited on the indebtedness of is in this latter sense that the term is
Haines & Company to Toof, Phillips <fc used when traders and merchants are
Company pursuant to an understanding said to be insolvent, and as applied to
to that effect made at the time. There them it is the sense intended by the act
was then due of the purchase money of of Congress. It was of the bankrupts
the property, for which the title bond as traders that the district judge was
was given, about $700. This sum Mahan speaking when he used the language
paid and took a conveyance to himself which is the subject of criticism by
from the obligor who held the fee.
counsel.
The bill of complaint charges specific
With reference to other persons not
ally that at the time these conveyances engaged in trade or commerce this term
were made the bankrupts were insolvent, may perhaps have a less restricted mean
or in contemplation of insolvency ; that ing. The bankrupt act does not define
the conveyances were made with a view what shall constitute insolvency, or the
to give a preference to Toof, Phillips & evidence of insolvency, in every case.
Company, who were the creditors of the
In the present case the bankrupts
bankrupts ; that Toof, Phillips & Com were insolvent in both senses of the
pany knew, or had reasonable cause to | term at the time the conveyances in
believe, that the bankrupts were then controversy were made. They did not
insolvent, and that the conveyances then possess sufficient property, even
were made in fraud of the provisions of upon their own estimation of its value
the bankrupt act.
as given in their schedules, to pay their
The bill also charges that the assign debts. These exceeded the estimated
ment of the title bond to Mahan was, in value of the property by over twenty
fact, for the use and benefit of Toof, thousand dollars. And for months pre
Phillips & Company, for the purpose of vious the bankrupts had failed to meet
securing the property or its value to their obligations as they matured. Cred
them in fraud of the rights of the cred itors had pressed for payment without
itors, and that this purpose was known success ; their stock of goods had been
and participated in hy Mahan.
levied on, and their store closed by the
The District Court, by its decree, or sheriff under an execution on a judg
dered that the conveyances be annulled, ment against one of them. It would
and that the title of the property be serve no useful purpose to state in detail
vested in the assignee, the latter to re the evidence contained in the record
fund the amount of the purchase money which relates to their condition. It is
advanced by Mahan to obtain the deed enough to say that it abundantly estab
of the land described in the title bond, lishes their hopeless insolvency.
less any rents and profits received by
2d. That the conveyances to Toof,
him or Toof, Phillips & Company, from Phillips & Company were made with a
the property. This decree the Circuit view to give them a preference over
Court affirmed, and from that affirmance other creditors hardly admits of a doubt.
the case is brought before us on appeal. The bankrupts knew at the time their
The bill presents a case within the insolvent condition. A month previous
provisions of tha first clause of the they had made up a balance sheet of
thirty-fifth section of the bankrupt act. their affairs, which showed that their
That clause was intended to defeat pre assets were insufficient to pay their
ferences to a creditor made by a debtor debts. They had contemplated going
when insolvent, or in contemplation of into bankruptcy in December previous,
insolvency. It declares that any pay and were then pressed by numerous
ment or transfer of his property made creditors for payment. Their indebted
by him whilst in that condition, within ness at the time exceeded fifty thousand
four months previous to the filing of his dollars, and, except to Toof, "Phillips &
petition, with a view to give a prefer Company, they did not pay upon the
ence to a creditor, shall be void if the whole of it over five hundred dollars
creditor has, at the time, reasonable during the previous fall and winter. Mak
cause to believe him to be insolvent, ing a transfer of property to these cred
and that the payment or transfer was itors, under these circumstances, was, in
made in fraud of the provisions of the fact, giving them a preference, and it
bankrupt act. And it authorizes in such must be presumed that the bankrupts
case the assignee to recover the prop intended this result at the time. It is a
erty or its value from the party who re general principle that every one must
ceives it.
be presumed to intend the necessary
Under this act it is incumbent on the consequences of his acts. The transfer,
complainant, in order to maintain the in any case, by a debtor, of a large por
decree in his favor, to show four things : tion of his property, while he is insol
1st: That at the time the conveyances vent, to one creditor, without making
to Toof, Phillips & Co. and Mahan were provision for an equal distribution of its
made, the bankrupts were insolvent, or proceeds to all his creditors, necessarily
contemplating insolvency;
operates as a preference to him, and
2d. That the conveyances were made must be taken as conclusive evidence
with a view to give a preference to these that a preference was intended, unless
creditors ;
the debtor can show that he was at the
3d. That the creditors had reasonable time ignorant of his insolvency, and
cause to believe the bankrupts were in that his affairs were such that he could
solvent at the time ; and,
reasonably expect to pay all his debts.
4th. That the conveyances were made The burden of proof is upon him in
in fraud of the provisions of the bank such case, and not upon the assignee or
rupt act.
contestant in bankruptcy.
1st. The counsel of the appellants
No such proof . as made or attempted
have presented an elaborate argument in this case. But, on the contrary, the
to show that inability to pay one s debts evidence shows that the conveyances
at the time they fall due, in money, does were executed upon the expectation of
not constitute insolvency, within the the bankrupts, and upon the assurance
provisions of the bankrupt act. The of Toof, Phillips & Company, that in
argument is especially addressed to lan consequence of them they would con
guage used by the district judge when tinue to sell the bankrupts goods on
speaking of the statements ot the ap credit, as they had previously done ;
pellants in answer to one of the inter and that no arrangement was made by
rogatories of the bill, to the effect that the bankrupts with any other of their
at the time the transfers were made they creditors, either for payment or security,
did not believe the bankrupts were able or for an extension of credit.
to pay their debts in money, but were
The fact that the title bond was as
able to do so on a fair market valuation signed, and the property for which it
of their property and assets. The dis was given was conveyed to Mahan alone,
trict judge held that thiB was a direct and not to Toof, Phillips & Company,
confession of a fact which in law con does not change the character of the
stitutes insolvency, and observed that transaction. Mahan was a member of
" if the bankrupts could not pay their that firm, and the conveyance was made
debts in the ordinary course of business, to him with the understanding that the
that is in money, as they fell due, they sum mentioned as its consideration
should be credited on the indebtedness
were insolvent."
The rule thus laid down may not be of the bankrupts to them. Both of the
strictly correct as applied to all bank bankrupts testified that such was the
rupts. The term insolvency is not al understanding at the time. The pre
ways used in the same sense. It is tence that Mahan bought the lots as an

News.

investment on private account, will not fraud upon the act is not often pre
bear the slightest examination. It is in sented.
proof that the lots at the time were only
Decree affirmed.
worth four thousand dollars at the out
Mr. Justice Bradley was absent from
side, yet the consideration given was the court when this case was submitted,
nearly seven thousand. Toof, Phillips and consequently took no part in its
& Company might well have been will decision.
ing to credit this amount on their claim
against insolvent traders in considera UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
tion of obtaining from them the posses
Opinion Filed December, 1871.
sion of property of much less value, but
it is incredible "that an individual, seek John T. Semmes, Adm'r of Luckett, v. City Fire
Insurance Co. of Hartfoed.
ing an investment of his money, would
POLICYSUIT TO BE BROUGHT
be careless as to the difference between INSURANCE
WITHIN ONE YEARTIMENOT PROLONGED
the actual value of the property and 1SY CIVIL WAR.
the amount paid as a consideration for 1. Suit within one YearDisability Created
by the War.Held, where an action was brought
its transfer to him.
an insurance policy which contained a clause
3d. From what has already been said on
that no action should be maintained unless
it is manifest not only that the bank brought within twelve months Hfter the loss oc
that the period ol twelve months which
rupts were insolvent when they made curred,
contract allowed the plaintiff for bringing his
the conveyances in controversy, but that the
suit, does not open and expand itself so as to re
the creditors, Toof, Phillips & "Company, ceive within it three or four years of legality cre
by the war. and then close together at each
had reasonable cause to believe that ated
of that period so as to complete itself as
they were insolvent. The statute, to end
though the war had never occurred.
defeat the conveyances, does not require 2. Limitation by Statvte.That the time of
limitation by statute may be so computed, but
that the creditors should have had abso there
the law imposes the limitation, and the law
lute knowledge on the point, nor even imposes
the disability, but in this ease the defend
that they should, in fact, have had any ant imposed its nun special and hard provisions
on
that
subject.Ed.
Leuai. News.
belief on the subject. It only requires ]
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opin
that they should have had reasonable
cause to believe that such was the fact. ion of the court.
This is an action on a policy of insur
And reasonable cause they must be con
sidered to have had when such a state ance commenced on the 31st day of Oc
of facts was brought to their notice in tober, 1866, in the Circuit Court of the
respect to the affairs and pecuniary con United States for the district of Connec
dition of the bankrupts as would have ticut, for a loss which occurred on the
led prudent business men to the con 5th day of January, 1860.
The only plea of the defendant is that
clusion that they could not meet their
obligations, as they matured, in the the action was not brought within
ordinary course of business (Scammon, twelve months after the loss occurred,
Assignee v. Cole, Nat. B. R., vol. 5, p. as provided in one of the conditions of
257). That such a state of facts was the policy. To this plea there are repli
brought to the notice of the creditors is cations setting up, among other things,
plainly shown. Chetlain, one of the that the late civil war prevented the
bankrupts, testifies that previous to the bringing of the suit within the twelve
execution of the conveyances, he had months provided in the condition, the
several conversations with Mahan re plaintiff being a resident and citizen of
specting their finances, and told him the State of Mississippi and the defend
the amount, or near the amount, of their ant of Connecticut during all that time.
There is in the record a paper pur
indebtedness, and that they could not
pay it. Mahan advised them to get ex porting to be an opinion of the courtand
tensions, and sa'.d that he would help the finding of the facts by the court,
them to get through. Chetlain also which finding is so mixed up with the
testifies that such was the state of the argument of the court in support of its
finances of the bankrupts that on one decision that, under the construction so
occasion, in conversation with Mahan, frequently given to the act of March 3,
they offered to turn over to him their 1865, the paper cannot be treated as a
entire assets if he would assume their part of the record, and can give us noaid
liabilities and give them a receipt, and in deciding the case, except what ma}' be
derived from the able argument of the
that he declined the offer.
It also appears in evidence that the learned judge who decided it below.
lev}' by the sheriff upon the stock of
Fortunately, the pleadings themselves
goods of the bankrupts, already men set up facts of which this court can take
tioned, which was made in January. judicial notice sufficient to enable
1868, caused a temporary suspension of us to decide on the alleged error
their business, and that Mahan was in of the record, which is that the plea of
Augusta at the time and had an interview the defendant was held to present a good
with the bankrupts on the subject of the bar to the action, notwithstanding the
effect of the war on the rights of the par
levy.
It also appears that about the last of ties.
December, 1867, or the first of January,
The circuit court, in arriving at this
1868, Toof, Phillips & Company sent conclusion, held, first, that the condition
notes of the bankrupts which they held in the contract, limiting the time within
to an agent in Augusta for collection. which suit could be brought, was like
The agent presented the notes for pay the statute of limitation susceptible of
ment to the bankrupts, and was told by such enlargement, in point of time, as
them that they could not pay the notes was necessary to accommodate itself to
at that time. The agent then wrote to the precise number of days during which
Toof, Phillips iv. Company that they had the plaintiff was prevented from bring
better look to their interests, as his con ing suit by the existence of the war. As
viction was, that it was doubtful whether certaining this by a reference to certain
they would be able to collect their debts. public actsof the political departmentsof
Shortly after this Mahan went to Au the government, the court found that
gusta to look after the matter, and whilst there was, between the time which it fixes
there the conveyances in controversy as the commencement of the war and the
date of plaintiff's loss, a certain number
were made.
It is impossible to doubt that Mahan of days which, added to the time be
ascertained, while thus in Augusta, the tween the close of the war and the com
actual condition of the affairs of the mencement of the action, amounted to
bankrupts. The facts recited were suf more than the twelve months allowed
ficient to justify the conclusion that they by the condition of the contract.
were insolvent, or at least furnished
It is not necessary, in the view we
reasonable cause for a belief that such have taken of the matter, to inquire
was the fact.
whether the Circuit Court was correct in
4th. It only remains to add that the the principle by which it fixed the date,
creditors, Toof, Phillips & Company had either of the commencement or cessa
also reasonable ground tobelievethatthe tion of the disability to sue, growing out
conveyances were made in fraud of the of the events of the war. For we are of
provisions of the bankrupt act. This, opinion that the period of twelve
indeed, follows necessarily from the months which the contract allowed the
facts already stated. The act of Con plaintiff for bringing his suit, does not
gress was designed to secure an equal open and expand itself so as to receive
distribution of the property of an insol within it three or four years of legal dis
vent debtor among his creditors, and any ability created by the war and then close
transfer made with a view to secure the together at each end of that period so as
property, or any part of it; to one, and to complete itself, as though the war had
thus prevent such equal distribution, is never occurred.
It is true that, in regard to the limita
a transfer in fraud of the act. That such
was the effect of the conveyances in this tion imposed by statute, this court has
case and that this effect was intended by held that the time may be so [computed,
both creditors and bankrupts does not but there the law imposes the limitation
admit, upon the evidence, of any ra and the law imposes the disability. It is
tional doubt. A clearer case of intended nothing, therefore, but a necessary legal

Chicago
logic that the one period should be taken
from the other. If the law did not, by a
necessary implication, take this time out
of that prescribed by the statute, one of
two things would happen ; either the
plaintiff would lose his right of suit by a
judicial construction of the law which
deprived him of the right to sue yet per
mitted the statute to run until it became
a complete bar, or else, holding the stat
ute under the circumstances to be no bar,
the defendant would be left, after the
war was over, without the protection of
any limitation whatever. It was there
fore necessary to adopt the time provid
ed by the statute as limiting the right to
sue, and deduct from that time the peri
od of disability.
Such is not the case as regards this
contract. Defendant has made its own
special and hard provisions on that sub
ject. It is not said as in a statute that
plaintiff shall have twelve months from
the time his cause of action accrued to com
mence suit, but twelve months from the
time of loss; yet by another condition
the loss is not payable until sixty days
after it shall have been ascertained
and proved. The condition is that no
suit or action shall be commenced within
the time of twelve months next after the loss
shall occur, and in case such action shall
be commenced after the expiration of
twelve mouths next after such loss, the
lapse of time shall be taken ami deemed
as conclusive evidence against the va
lidity of the claim. Now, this contract
relates to the twelve months next suc
ceeding the occurrence of the loss, and
the court has no right, as in the case of a
statute, to construe it into a number of
days equal to twelve months, to be made
up of the days in a period of five years
in which the plaintiff could lawfully
have commenced his suit. So also if the
plaintiff shows any reason which in law
rebuts the presumption, which, on the
failure to sue within twelve months is, by
the contract, made conclusive against the
validity of the claim, that presumption is
not revived against the contract. It
would seem that when once rebutted
fully, nothing but a presumption of law
or presumption of facts could again re
vive it. There is nothing in the con
tract which does it and we know of no
such presumption of law. Nor does
the same evil consequently follow from
removing the absolute bar of the con
tract that would from removing abso
lutely the bar of the statute, for when the
bar of the contract is removed there still
remains the bar of the statute, and
though plaintiff may show by his disa
bility to sue a sufficient answer to the
twelve months provided by the contract,
he must still bring his suit within the
reasonable time fixed by the legislative
authority, that is by thestatute of limit
ations.
"We have no doubt that the disability
to sue imposed on plaintiff by the war,
relieves him from the consequences of
failing to bring suit within twelve
months after the loss, because it render
ed a compliance with that condition im
possible and removes the presumption
which the contract says shall be conclu
sive against the validity of the plaintiff's
claim. That part of the contract, there
fore presents no bar to plaintiff's right to
recover.
As the circuit court founded its judg
ment on the proposition that it did, that
judgment must be reversed and the case
remanded for a new trial.
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed Sept. 28, 1871.
Planing Mill Lumber Co. ct al. v. The City ok
Chicago, and thirty other cases.
Judgment Record.A placita or convening or
der is an obvious requirement of a good record.
This formal order, as old as the law itself, is
necessary to prevent legal proceedings from degen
erating into such looseness and confusion as to
render rights acquired under them insecure, and
the salutary maxim that a man shall not be twice
vexed for one and the same cause difficult if not
wholly impracticable of application.
Lacking it, the Itldgment Is not valid, because it
does not appear that there was the proper organi
zation of a court by which a lawful judgment
could be rendered.
[Xtjte.A record imports verity, and must be
tried by itself ; it must be full and perfect in itself
without reference to extraneous circumstances.
U HI., 381 : 20 111., 388 : 24 111., 220.]
A record thus defective must be reversed or
quashed when certified to a court of error for re
view upon appeal, certiorari or writ of error.
The defect caunot be aided by the bill of excep
tions.
When the record proper is complete, showing
the organization of the court and jurisdiction,
presumptions will be Indulged.
Bill of Exceptions.It is not the office of a bill
of exceptions to supply any part of the record
proper.

Legal

News.

When the court is composed of more than one

tiling the bill of exceptions in the
judge, and each authorized to hold the court, it of
should be sealed by the judge who tried the court below, and sending a transcript in
cause.
stead of the original to the appellate
The office of a bill of exceptions reviewed.
court, it is difficult to see how it has any
It is to preserve the rulings of the court upon operation
as a part of the record till after
matters of law for the purpose of- having them re
viewed by the appellate court, and is authorized judgment. In a large majority of the
by statute, because without it these matters would cases it is never signed and sealed till
form no part of the record.
It is really and practically no part of the record after judgment. But if actually done
till after judgment.
during the progress of the trial, it per
It would b a perversion of the uses of a bill of forms no office whatever in that court ;
exceptions to make it aid the defects of the judg the cause proceeds and judgment is
ment record.
as if there were no bill of excep
Opinion of the court by McAllister, J. given
tions. If the jury fail to agree, or a mis
It is a singular circumstance that in all trial occur for any other reason, so that
the thirty-one foregoing cases there is judgment does not follow, it goes for
not one record which contains a placita naught, and would be of no avail before
or convening order of the court. The or after judgment had upon another
same defect is apparent also in twenty- trial. If it be a part of the record be
two other cases, brought from the same fore judgment, it must become so the in
court to and decided at the present term stant it is signed and sealed by the judge
of this court. Rich and others v. The and filed by the clerk. To-day, while
City of Chicago. Thus making fifty- the cause is on trial, it is a part of the
three cases at one term, all coming from record. To-morrow, where the jury fail
the same clerk's office, in whim the to agree and are discharged, it ceases to
records are all wanting in this obvious be anything but a void paper. The more
requirement of a good record.
reasonable conclusion is, that it is really
It is a matter of regret that we are and practically no part of the record till
compelled to reverse these cases for such after judgment. And if so, with what
a defect. But the records are submitted propriety can it be used in aid of the
to us in this condition, and the point record of the judgment? In Wilber v.
made. We must, therefore, reverse or Widner, 1 Wend., 5fl, which was an ac
say that we will dispense altogether with tion of slander, the declaration through
a requirement of the common law as old out was in the name of David K. Widner,
as the law itself. So long us justice is and the judgment was in favor of Daniel
administered under the common law, we K. Widner. So that upon the face of the
must adhere to all the substantial forms record Daniel had recovered a judgment
of that system, except so far as they have against the defendant for a slander ut
been abolished by the legislative de tered against David. Sutherland, J.,
partment of the State. The experience said : " No doubt it was a mistake, and
and wisdom of ages have taught that enough appears in the bill of exceptions
these forms are necessary to prevent to authorize the amendment, on a proper
legal proceedings from degenerat ing into application for that purpose; but the
such looseness and confusion as to ren bill
of exceptions cannot be used in aid
der rights acquired under tliem insecure, of the record, and there is nothing in
and the salutary maxim that a man shall the record to amend by." Bay v. Gunn,
not be twice vexed for one and the same 1 Denio R., 108, was an action against
cause, difficult if not wholly impractica two
; noti assumpsit was pleaded by each,
ble of application.
and
by one. There was an issue
The counsel for the appellee lias sug uponinfancy
the
question
ratification of the
gested that the defect may be aided by promise ; the entry of
of
the
record showed
the bill of exceptions. This cannot be a verdict for plaintiff on the
issue of non
so. The reason why the judgment is assumpsit, but did notice the other
not valid, is because it does not appear and there was judgment against issue,
both
that there was the proper organization defendants. Bronson, C. J., said: "We
of a court by which a lawful judgment know by the bill of exceptions that the
could be rendered. If there were no question
of ratification was tried, but
authority, so far as the record shows, to that cannot
defect in the judg
render the judgment, where is there any ment record.aid Itthethere
appears that the
to make a valid bill of exceptions ? We court below gave judgment
the plain
take judicial notice that the Superior tiff's favor when the jury inhad
Court of Chicago was, at the time of upon only one of the two issues, inpassed
these proceedings, composed of three of which he held the affirmative. both
The
judges. The report of the collector is bill of exceptions furnishes evidence
addressed to these judges. Each judge that the record ought to be amended,
is authorized to hold a separate branch but that is no better than evidence by
of the court, at the same time. In such
case the bill of exceptions should be affidavit."
We are satisfied that it would be a per
sealed by the judge who tried the cause.
Law v. Jackson, 8 Com. R., 747. There version of the uses of a bill of excep
is nothing in either bill of exceptions, or tions to make it aid the defects of the
any part of any of the record, to show judgment record. For this defect the
that the case was tried before the judge judgment must be reversed and causes
who signed the bills of exceptions. remanded.
Edward Roby, Esq., for all the appel
Where the record proper is complete,
showing the organization of the court lants.
and jurisdiction, presumptions will be
Murray F. Tuley, Esq., for the ap
indulged. But here the proposition is, pellee.
to supply a defective record by a defec
tive bill of exceptions. It is not the SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA.
office of a bill of exceptions to supply
any part of the record proper. It is to Notes to opinions filed at the January Term
preserve the rulings of the court upon
1872.
matters of law, for the purpose of hav
WILLUNDUE
INFLUENCE.
ing them reviewed by the appellate
court. It is authorized by statute, be
1. The undue influence necessary to
cause without it those matters would overthrow a testamentary disposition of
form no part of the record. By the one's estate must be of such a character
English practice, thougli the bill of ex as to dominate the will of the testator,
ceptions was required to be tendered at and substitute the will of another in its
the time of the trial, and sealed by the stead. There must be such importunity
judge in court, yet the original bill was or coercion as could not be resisted, so
carried into the court of errors, and there that the motive impelling the testator is
annexed to the record.
tantamount to force or fear.(Opinion by
By our practice, the bill of exceptions Peters, J.)Super v. Taylor et al.
is fifed in the court below. The statute
UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND.
is, " If during the progress of any trial
in any civil cause either party shall al
2. The unsoundness of mind which in
lege an exception to the opinion of the capacitates one to make a valid will is not
court and reduce the same to writing, it mere impairment or weakness of intellect,
shall be the duty of the judge to allow which sometimes attends old age and dis
the said exception, and to sign and seal ease, but the mind must be so prostrated
the same, and the said exception shall as to lose the government of reason and
thereupon become a part of the record common sense.lb.
of such cause." (Scates' Comp., p. 263.)
3. In such a case as this, when all the
But whether it shall become a part of evidence in relation to the matter in con
the record of this cause before judgment
in the court below is set out in
and in the court below, the statute does troversy
the
bill
of
exceptions, this court, upon re
not say.
versal,
will
direct what judgment shall
Under the English practice, the bill of
rendered by the court below. Revis
exceptions was regarded as no part of be
the record till after judgment. Gardner ed Code, section 2251.lb.
change of venue not discretionary.
v. Baillie, 1 Bos. & Pull., 32 ; 2 Tidd's Pr.,
865. Notwithstanding the practice here
1. An application for a change of venue

in this State, no longer rests in the dis

cretion of the court. If denied in a
proper case, it is an error for which, after
conviction, the judgment will be re
versed on appeal ; or before trial the de
fendant may obtain the benefit of hia
application by mandamus. (Opinion by
Peck, C. J.)Birdsong v. The State.
COUNTER AFFIDAVITS.
2. A counter affidavit that does not
deny the truth of the defendant's affida
vits, but only that affiant does not be
lieve there is any such prejudice or ex
citement in the public mind of the
county against defendant, as would deny
him a fair and impartial trial, is not suf
ficient to defeat the application.Ib.
QUASHING VENIRE.
3. The venire or list of jurors sum
moned in a capital case, will not be set
aside or quashed, liecause one of the per
sons so summoned was a member of the
grand jury who found the indictment,
and was present when the witnesses
were examined by the grand jury, and
when the indictment was returned into
court, a true bill.lb.
GROUND OF CHALLENGE.
4. It is a good ground for challenge for
cause, to a juror put upon the defendant,
that he was one of the grand jury by
whom the indictment was found, and if
the challenge is disallowed and the de
fendant excepts, and then challenges
him peremptorily, the defendant is enti
tled to the benefit of his exceptions, al
though his peremptory challenges be
not exhausted before the jury is com
pleted.26.
RES GEST.E.
5. On a trial for murder it is improper
for the State to prove that defendant, on
the day the killing took place, proposed
to deceased that they should go and rob
a negro man, who was supposed to have
some money. Such evidence is not a
part of the res gesUe, and might create an
improper prejudice against the defend
ant.lb.
6. On a cross-examination of a witness
for the State, defendant may ask a ques
tion that may enable him to show that
an apparent inconsistency between con
fessions proved, and the evidence of said
witness could be reconciled, and both be
true.lb.
7. A defendant should not be permit
ted to prove his acts or declarations, in
his own behalf, unless they constitute a
part of acts or declarations proved by
the State, or properly form a part of the
res gestx of the main facts under consid
eration, and were contemporaneous with
it.lb.
JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC.
1. That on application to amend a
judgment nunc, pro tunc, parol testimo
ny is not admissible to supply the defi
ciencies of the record evidence.(Opin
ion by Saffold, J.) Tanner adm'r. v.
Hayes, et al.
2. The amendment' Or rendition of a
judgment nunc pro tunc is allowed in
furtherance of justice, and is obliged to
be, to some extent, discretionary. This
court will not reverse the judgment of
the lower court refusing such an appli
cation, unless it is made to appear that
otherwise injustice will be done to the ap
plicant, and that the rights ofothers will
not be invaded.Ib.
ACTION BY ASSIGNEE AGAINST ASSIGNOR.
1. In an action of debt or assumpsit by
the assignee against the assignor of a
promissory note, if the general issue is
pleaded " with leave to give in evidence
any matter that may be specially plead
ed," the allowance of a demurrer to a
special plea involving the same matter
settled on the plea of the general issue
so pleaded with leave as aforesaid, is
error without injury, if error at all, and
though the demurrer may be wrongfully
sustained, a refusal will not be allowed
for this reason.(Opinion by Peters, J.)
DILIGENCE NECESSARY.
2. In such a suit all the diligence nec
essary to bind the assignor is such as the
statute requiresthat is, the maker of the
note must be sued by the holder to the
first term of the court at which this can
be done after the note falls due. And
after such suit is so commenced against
the maker by the holder the continuance
of the cause by consent or other legal de
lay of the trial is not such an improper
suspension of the remedy against the
maker as will discharge the indorser.

u6

Chicago

Legal

Chicago Legal News. the latter case absence of the defendant

in the rebellion would suspend the
remedy, while in the former such ab
ILtx >7(nctt.
sence of the mortgagor or grantor in the
trust deed would not?
CHICAGO, JANUARY 27, 1872.
Judgment RecordBill of Excep
tionsPlacita.The
opinion of the
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
Supreme Court of this State, delivered
Tbk Chicago Legal News Co., by McAllister, J., holding that a placita,
AT 115 MADISON STREET.
or convening order, is an obvious re
quirement of a good record, defining the
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
uses of a bill of exceptions, and revers
Terms :
ing the judgments of the court below in
Two Dollars per annum, in advance. Single cop fifty-three cases because the records did
ies Ten Cents.
not contain a placita, or convening order
THE LEdlL MEWS OFFICE la at MS of the court, is of more than usual in
West Hadboa Street. Tbe Printing terest, and will have a tendency to make
EataMlahment la at 13 N. Jefleraon St.
attorneys and clerks more careful in the
preparation of their records for the
L egal NewsJob Printing.We call Supreme Court.
the special attention of our readers to
City Taxes and Special Assessments.
the fact that we are now doing all kinds The opinion of the Supreme Court of
of job printing with dispatch and in the this State reversing the judgments of
most approved style, and would solicit the Superior Court of this county ren
their patronage. We print briefs for deringjudgment for cit y taxes and special
$1.25 per page, and abstracts for $1.75. assessments, is a very important decision,
Printing from the country executed not only to the city, but to every one of
without delay, and proof carefully read. its tax-payers. The court holds, under
the present Constitution, until the Legis
We call attention to the following lature shall provide, that there is no of
opinions reported at length in this ficer authorized to make application for
judgment and sale of land for the non
issue:
Offenses Punishable both under payment of city taxes and assessments.
State and Federal Laws.The opin This decision is evidently only carrying
ion of the United States District Court out the intention of the members of the
for the District of Minnesota, delivered Constitutional Convention. The News
by Nelson, J., holding that in cases has often expressed itself in favor of this
where the same act is an offense against view of the question. The honor of be
a State and a United States statute, that ing the first judicial officer to decide this
the offender may be convicted in both question in harmony with the opinion of
the State and Federal courts, but that in the Supreme Court, belongs to Countysuch cases the court first obtaining juris Judge Crooke, of Springfield. His opin
diction of the prisoner will retain it. In ion is reported in 3 Legal News, 237.
this case the court refused to quash
Our Indicted Aldermen.The Su
the indictment, but held that the pris
oner was in the custody of the sheriff preme Court having refused a supersedeas
under the laws of the State, that he was in the case of Alderman Glade, who was
improperly taken by the Marshal, and convicted of bribery, it only remains for
ordered his return to the State authori his brother Aldermen who have been in
ties. The questions involved in this dicted and are guilty, to either flee the
opinion are important, and the learned county, or remain and suffer the punish
judge cites and comments upon the con ment prescribed by the law. Would it
flicting opinions of the State and Federal not be well to indict and convict some of
the justices of the peace and constables
courts.
BankruptcyInsolvencyWhat Con who are in the constant practice of tak
stitutes.The opinion of the Supreme ing illegal fees ?
Court of the United States, delivered by
Wood & Long's Digest.We are in
Field, J., construing the 35th section of
the Bankrupt Law, defining the meaning formed that this work is about going to
of the term " insolvency," and what con press. It will embrace, under one al
phabetical arrangement, all decisions
stitutes a preference under the law.
from Breesb to 54th Illinois, inclusive.
Policy Suit to be Brought within
twelve Months.The opinion of the
(Corcesponticiirf.
Supreme Court of the United States, de
livered by Miller, J., construing a clause Mrs. Myra Bradwell,
Editor Legal News :
in a policy of insurance which provided
Madame : Permit me to ask your opin
that suit should not be brought unless ion,
if a man residing in another county,
within twelve months from the time of can hold the office of justice of the peace
Attorney.
loss, and stating the effect of a state of war in this county.
Chicago, Jan. 25, 1872.
on such contract. This case was origin
Answer.A justice of the peace must
ally tried in 1869 before Judge Shipman,
be
a resident of the town for which he
of Connecticut, who delivered an elab
orate opinion, which attracted consider is elected or appointed one year previous
able attention at the time. It is reported to his election or appointment. See
Laws of 1861, p. 226.
in 2 Chicago Legal News, pp. 17, 18.
The Supreme Court make a discrimin
OUR JURORS.
ation between limitations fixed by stat
ute and limitations fixed by contract, in
There is no portion of the law which
the application of the rule of suspen needs reform more than that relating to
sion pending disabilities imposed by the our jury system. Litigants often know
war, making the former subject to the that their rights have been sold by some
rule, and leaving the latter as though it members of a jury, but just how it was
had not existed to be determined by the accomplished is very difficult for them to
local statutes. Under the principles laid determine. In saying this we do not
down in this opinion, would not the wish to reflect"upon all our jurymen, for
court hold that there is such a differ it sometimes happens that honest and
ence between a sale of land made under capable citizens are summoned on juries
a power of sale, mortgage or trust deed, and compelled to serve. The judges
and an execution or attachment, that in mean to do their duty in this matter.

News.

We are asked, then, who is to blame

We answer, the deputy sheriffs, who,
time after time, summon men whom
they know .are incompetent, and have
been on juries repeatedly within a year.
If Sheriff Bradley would discharge any
deputy who knowingly calls an incom
petent man to fill up a panel, much of
the present evil practice would be avoid
ed. Men serve on juries who have no
business of their own, and resort to
every conceivable means to get on, and
when once there, to make all the money
they can out of the position. It is not
uncommon for one of this class to go to
a person who claims to be an attorney,
and friendly with some deputy, and have
the attorney use his influence to induce
the deputy to fill the first vacancy with
his name. When this person has a case
on trial, of course Mr. Juryman does not
forget the power that called him and can
prevent his being again summoned.
When one of the lower order of these
professional jurymen is trying a case, he
will often make it a point to meet the
attorney of one of the parties going to
or returning from dinner, and insist upon
borrowing from one to twenty dollars,
which, of course, he never intends to
return, and the attorney knows unless
he complies with his improper demand,
his client will have a determined enemy
upon the jury. The professional does
not confine his bleeding to the attorneys,
but often follows the parties to their
places of business, pleads poverty, and
gets either money or goods. These
are only a few of the expedients resorted
to by blackmailing jurymen. The mem
bers of the Legislature are aware of the
defects in the working of our jury sys
tem, but as yet have not framed a law
that will remove them.
John Jones, who was chosen at the
last election one of our Board of County
Commissioners, is, we believe, the only
colored citizen that has ever been hon
ored by an elective county office in this
State. Mr. Jones, fully comprehending
the need of reform in our jury system,
introduced the following resolutions in
the Board of Commissioners, which were
adopted :
Whereas, The pay of jurors for our
courts of record amounts to a very op
pressive burden upon the county an
nually, and is constantly increasing, said
pay being $1.50 per day for five days in
the week, is inadequate as pay for good
business men, and does not tend to in
duce persons having other employment
to seek jury service, and the pay of $1.50
per day, or $7.50 per week, is an induce
ment for men h.i ving no regular business
of their own, and are, therefore, unfit to
be intrusted with the business of other
people, to foist themselves upon the
community as jurors, and in such ca
pacity to decide upon the most impor
tant interests of life and property, there
by bringing the time-honored system of
jury trials into ill-repute, and a short
term of service without jury compensa
tion, a lone exemption from jury duty
will secure better jurors and tend to the
promotion ofjustice and save the coun
try from a large amount of unnecessary
expense ; therefore, be it
Resolved, That the members of the
Legislature from Cook county he and
they are hereby requested to use their
influence to secure the passage of a law
embodying the following provisions as to
counties having over 100,000 population :
Jurors shall be summoned fckid serve
for one week only at a time, unless actu
ally impaneled in a case lasting longer,
and such service shall exempt from jury
duty for two years thereafter.
Jury service to be without compensa
tion, except that jurors summoned from
a greater distance than five miles from
the Court House, shall receive mileage
going and returning, at the rate of ten
cents per mile of actual travel.
A method of selecting jurors, by which
each citizen shall be subjected to jury
duty in his turn, and shall after such se

lection in no case be excused by the

court, except for sickness of self or fam
ily, or other legal disability.
We are under many obligations to
Woodbury M. Taylor, Clerk of the Su
preme Court at Ottawa, for the following
important opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed Jan. 25, 1872.
A. G. Webster v. The City of Chicago.
Error to Superior Court of Cook County.
ALL SALES OF LAND FOR MUNICIPAL TAXES
OR ASSESSMENTS ARE STOPPED BY THE
NEW CONSTITUTION UNTIL THE REQUI
SITE LEGISLATION CONTEMPLATED BY
THE 4th SECTION OF ARTICLE S OF THAT
instrument is provided.
Per Curiam.
At the March term of the Superior
Court of Cook county, in the year one
thousand eight hundred and seventyone, the collector of the city of Chicago
having filed his report of unpaid taxes
due upon the general tax warrant for
city taxes, and given the notice required
by law, application was made on behalf
of the city of Chicago for judgment
against the delinquent real estate men
tioned in the tax list.
The court below gave judgment in
favor of the city, and this case was
brought here by appeal.
The principal question presented in
this court is, whether, in view of the
fourth section of article nine of the new
constitution, judgment could be ren
dered upon the report of the city col
lector, the legal effect of which is to
authorize such collector to sell the real
estate in question.
The fourth section of article 9 is as
follows : The General Assembly shall
provide, in all cases where it may be
necessary to sell real estate for the non
payment of taxes or special assessments,
for State, county, municipal or other
purposes, that a return of such unpaid
taxes or assessments shall be made to
some general officer of the county hav
ing authority to receive State and county
taxes, and there shall be no sale of the
said propertv for any of said taxes or
assessments but by said officer upon the
order or judgment of some court of
record.
Upon a very careful consideration of
the question, we have arrived at the con
clusion that the prohibition in the last
clause of the section is self-executing,
and cannot be distinguished from other
prohibitory clauses in the same instru
ment. Legislation is necessary to carry
the provision of the section in respect to
municipal taxes or assessments into ef
fect. But the prohibition in the last
clause was clearly intended to require
such legislation by stopping all sales for
such taxes or assessments until th<*
requisite legislation should be provided.
The judgment of the court below must
therefore be reversed and the cause re
manded.
It may not be improper to say that
several cases upon the same general tax
warrant, as well also upon divers war
rants for special assessments, are beforeus upon appeals or writs of error involv
ing the same question, and in which full
opinions will be prepared and filed as
soon as the business of the court will
permit.
Reversed and remanded.
Edward Roby, for appellant.
M. F. Tuley, for appellee.
Fisher's Patent Reports. Members
of the profession interested in patent
cases will be glad to learn that the IVth
volume of Fisher's invaluable Reports
is in press, and will soon make its ap
pearance.
The Hon. Thomas Dbummond, Judge of
the United States Circuit Court for this
judicial district, has been absent from
our city this week, holding court at
Springfield.
Volumes of the Legal News.Will
parties having volumes of the Legal
News, bound or unbound, which they
will dispose of, write to us, stating con
dition and price of their volumes ?

Chicago
Statk ok Illinois, Bvpreme Court, Northern
Grand Division, Clerk's Office, Ottawa, III,,
Jan. 22, 1872.
The following cases have just been decided, and
opinions have been filed In thin office.
Woodbury M. Taylor, Clerk.
PKOPLK-'fl CAVflKS.
e. Taometer Vi The People, reversed and remanded.
7. Andrews vs The People. reversed and remanded.
14. Darst et al vs ^The People, reversed and re
manded.
civil causes.
Tlie State
of Illinois, affirmed.
11.8. Wallalmn
Gregory vsvnWells,
affirmed.
20. Bennett vs McFadden* reversed and remanded.
23. Carr vs Rising, reversed and remanded with
modifications.
21. Beveridge et ul vs Mulford et al, reversed and re
manded
plaintiffs.
2A. Carrasvsto Rising,
reversed and remanded.
34. Brown ts Brown, reversed and remanded.
3*.
Miles
vs
Weston,
reversed and
and remanded.
remanded.
3y. Aiken vs Hodge, reversed
41, Richardson vs Bcherta, affirmed.
M. Loomis vs Gerson, reversed and remanded,
68. Hubbard vs Hubbard, affirmed.
55.
uffiruied.and remanded.
56. Clark
HiekeyvsvsLnugblin,
Stone, reversed
n3. Arnold vs Gilford, reversed and remanded.
66. Dewe^vs Kckert. reversed and remanded.
67. Melnhill et al vs O'lVll. reverse<l and remaaded.
69. Beardslei*. adinr, vs Hill. admr. affirmed.
73. Cole vs Town of Geneva, affirmed.
77. T V St W R W Co vs Darst, affirmed.
BO. Claycomb
90.
Bixby et alvsvsMoehier,
Tribby, affirmed.
reversed and remanded.
92. Jerome vs City of Chicago, affirmed.
93. Bressler et al vs Kent reversed and remanded.
9f. Chicago. Danville ft Vineennos R R Co vs Smith,
reversed and remanded.
151. Jarris vs Shacklock et al, affirmed,
154.
vs affirmed.
Thomas, affirmed.
158. City
HurdofvsStrrline
Goodrich,
100. Warren et al vs Walbrldgo, admr, etc, reversed
and remanded,
161. Scott vs Milliken et al, reversed and remanded.
162. Anderson vs McCarty et al. affirmed.
163. Long, adinx, etc, vs Thompson, guardian, et al,
affirmed.
170. Frans vs The People ex rel Frans et al, writ of
error,
174. dis'd.
Warren et al vs Dooltttle, reversed and re
manded.
175. Fahey vs Prest A Trust of Town of Harvard,
versed and remanded.
180. McKonna et al vs Merry, reversed and re
manded.
181. City of Rockford vs Hildebrand, affirmed.
1*2. Olin vs Gifford. affirmed.
18.1. Delano vs Bennett, affirmed.
184.
Glass, reversed
and remanded.
1ST. Peaslee
Burns vsvsNottingham,
reversed
and remanded.
188. Welch vs Karstens, affirmed.
194. Mitchell, admr, etc, vs Town of Fond du Lac,
reversed and remanded.
195. Russell, admr, etc, vs Hubbard, reversed and re
manded.
198. Bellows vs Wheeler, affirmed.
199. Newkirk vs Milk et al. reversed and remanded.
200. Dickson vs Dickson, reversed and remanded.
201. Parker vs. Parker, affirmed.
202. Freeman et al vs Freeman, reversed and re
manded.
205. C B k Q R R Co vs Riddle, reversed and re
manded.
209. Gregory vsHealy, reversed and remauued.
226. Gilkerson vs Brown et al, affirmed.
227. Pierce vs B'd of Suprs of Kane Co, affirmed.
22?*. Foulk vs Eckert, affirmed.
230. Mix vs Osby. affirmed.
331. Of 1870, WlncheU vs Kdwards, reversed and re
manded.
232. Baxter vs Lamont. affirmed.
235. Williams vs Chicago Coal Co, reversed and re
manded.
240 Of 1*70, The People ex rol Spruance vgCAN W
B R Co. affirmed.
240. Walton vs The People ex rel Doveling. reversed
and remanded.
241.
vs Nichols,
affirmed.
242. Munson
Han- vs Stegall.
reversed
and remanded.
243. Bentley vs Wells, affirmed.
245. Harding vs Dilley, reversed and remanded.
246. Palmer vs Marshall, reversed and remanded.
247. Tedrlck vs Hiner, reversed and remanded,
253. Pierce vs. Millay, affirmed.
254. Great Wcst'n R R Co of Canada vs Burns et al,
affirmed.
255. Storey et al vs Wallace, affirmed.
25*. OBcQBBGon Seirer, reversed and re
manded.
261. Tne Catholic Bishop of Chicago vs Baur, af
firmed.
264. Goggins vs 0'Donnel, affirmed.
265.
al vs Brand,
affirmed. affirmed.
266. Burr
City ofet Chicago
vs Torgerson,
267. City of Chicago vs Rogers, reversed and re
manded.
269. City of Chicago vs Jouey, affirmed.
270. City of Chicago vs Fowler, affirmed.
274. Leggat vs Sand's Ale Brewing Co, affirmed.
276. Holderman vs Graham, reversed in part and re
manded.
277. Dyer vs Day et al, affirmed.
278. Newlan vs Dunham, affirmed.*
278. Of 1870. Donohue vs City of Chicago, affirmed.
279.
Newlan vs Lombard
288. Greeubaum
vs Gage, University,
reversed andaffirmed.
remanded.
292. Chicago City Railway Co. vs Youug, Adminis
trator,
etc..
affirmed.
293. vsThe
Insurance
Company of Chi
cago
PageMerchants'
et al., reversed
and remanded.
343. Brideitthall vs Davidson, affirmed.
J+4. and
Carl remanded.
Administrator etc., vs Marshall et al, re
versed
251. Zuckerman vs Sonnenschein, reversed and re
manded.
360. Smith vs Young et al., reversed and remanded.
362. Robinson et al. vs Parish, affirmed.
363. Sutton vs Jonson, reversed and remanded.
365. Johnson et al. vs. Sallisbnry, reversed and re
manded.
366. Myers
Remington
vs Campbell
et al., and
affirmed.
36*.
vs Gross
et ul., reversed
remanded.
371. Badger vs Kerber, affirmed.
377.
Palmer
vs
Converse,
affirmed.
378. Chase vs Frost ot al, reversed and remanded.
830. Frazer et al. vs Smith et al., reversed and re
manded.
384. The Security Insurance Co N Y vs Farrel, re
versed
remanded.
390. and
Wheeler
Impl'd etc vs McEldowney, affirmed.
393. Parker vs Garrison et al., reversed and re
manded.
_
396. Chicago & Iowa R R Co vs _Duggan, affirmed.
397. Bishop et al vs Georgeson reversed and re
manded.
398. Davis vs Walker, roversed and remanded.
403.
al., affirmed.
405. Buckley
Lamb et vs
al vsBoutellier
Holmes,etaffirmed.
410. Newman vs Wllletts, affirmed.
412. Cramer et al vs Willetts, reversed and re
manded.
413. Basset vs Lockard
et al,affirmed.
affirmed.
414.
vs Condor,
417. Thompson
Lowe vs Massey,
reversed
and remanded.
418. Steele Impl'd etc vs The First National Bank
of Jollet, reversed and remanded.
419. Hetfield
Fowler et al, reversed and re
manded
at cost ofvsappellant.
422. Hamilton vs Rook, afflrmod.
423. White
BourneetvsalStout,
affirmed.
431.
vs Glover
et al, affirmed.
432. Wilson vs R B I A St Louis R R Co, reversed
and remanded.
435. Graves vs Shoefelt, affirmed.
439. Finley et al vs McConnell, affirmed.
442. The .Winnesheik Ins Co vs Schueller, affirmed.

Legal

443. C B A CJ. R R Co vs Dunn, reversed and re

manded.
444. C B &. Q R R Co vs Lee Admr etc, reversed and
remanded.
4i.r>.}Barton et al vs Moshier, affirmed.
448.
451. West
WhitevsvsFrederick,
Robinson, reversed
reversedand
and remanded.
remanded.
456. Course)* vs Coursey, affirmed.
458. Wiley et al vs Sillinian et (al, reversed and re
manded.
459. Marshall vs Sillinian et al, reversed and re
manded.
46n. Pharet impl'd vs Barbour, reversed and re
manded.
463.
Drew v*
affirmed.
464. Acres
vs Deal,
(irorge,
reversed and remanded.
465. Cabill vs Wilson, reversed and remanded.
467. St Louis, Jacksonville & C 11 ItCo vsKilpatrick,
affirmed.
486. Smith vs Board of Supervisors of Peoria Co, re
versed
and remanded.
487. HamnnTs
vs Dole et al. affirmed.
48.9, Lincoln vs Stowidl, reversed and remanded.
491.
Good .JrFogg,
affirmed.
495. Howell
vs Albany
City Ins Co, affirmed.
496. Howell J r vs Security Ins ( 'o, affirmed.
497. Howell Jr vs Security Ins Co. affirmed.
49*. Howell Jr vs Merchants Ins Co, affirmed.
499.
Howell Jr
Jr vs
Merchants
Ins affirmed.
Co, affirmed.
500. Howell
vs Pacific
Ins Co,
501. Howell Jr vs Pacific Ins Co. affirmed.
502. Of
Howell
vs Ins Co
America,
5ii2
1*70. Jr
Spalding
et alof vsNorth
Mo/.ier
et al, affirmed.
affirmed.
503. Howell Jr vs Ins Co of North America, affirmed.
504. Howell Jr vs Putnam Ins Co, affirmed.
505. Howell Jr vs Putnam Ins Co, affirmed.
807. Of
Glasgow HIExtr
vsInsPickets
et al,'affirmed.
519
MutetcFreversed
Co and
vs Stanton,
affirmed.
523. Bell1*70.
vs Mallory.
remanded.
525. Howell Jr vs Albany City Ins Co, affirmed.
540. Reed et al vs Tyler, reversed and remanded.
556. Vanlandschoot vs Adams, affirmed.
565. T P A W R W Co vs Conro/ Admr etc, reversed
and remanded.
567. T P A W R W Co vs Firth, affirmed.
577. Stull et al vs Hance, reversed and remanded.
Theaffirmed.
Peru Beer Co vs The First National Bank
of587.
Peru,
Ml, Kankakee A Illinois River |R R Co vs Chester,
affirmed.
599. Equitable Ins Co of Chicago vs Cooper, reversed
and remanded.
6(13. Hayes vsOOAFRVRR Co affirmed.
604, McWllliams et al vs Morgan Jr, affirmed.
607. Stevens et al al vs Hoy Admr etc, affirmed.
624. Bartlett et al vs Board .of Education of Freeport, affirmed.
Utecrat VutiUcatfons.
A Treatise on the Law of Fraud and
Mistake. By William Williamson
Kerr, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-atLaw. With Notes to American Cases,
by Orlando F. Bump, Counselor-atLaw. New York : Baker, Voorhis &
Co., Publishers, 66 Nassau street. 1872.
Sold by E. B. Myers & Co., Law Book
sellers, Chicago. Price, .$0.00.
The publishers have brought out this
volume in the best law-book style. The
following subjects are treated in separate
chapters or sections: Fraud and Mis
take; Misrepresentation and Conceal
ment ; Fraud to be Presumed from the
Inequality of the Parties; Inadequacy
of Consideration ; Fraud upon Third
Parties; Miscellaneous Frauds; How
the Right to Impeach a Transaction on
the Ground of Fraud may be Lost;
Remedies ; Pleading Parties Proof,
etc. The English edition of this work
was not only received with favor in that
country, but attracted the attention of
the leading lawyers of America, and
wherever used has been regarded as a
full, thorough and scientific Treatise.
The references to the English authorities
were very full. So valuable was this
work considered by one of our Western
Supreme Courts, that it put off the filing
of an opinion in an important will case
until Kerr upon Fraud and Mistake
could be imported from England. The
volume before us contains all that is em
braced in the English edition, and, in
addition, notes to the American cases, in
the preparation of which Mr. Bump has
shown that care and judgment that has
justly made his work on Bankruptcy so
popular and valuable. To the American
lawyer Mr. Bump's edition will be more
useful than the English.
Patent Laws and Practice of Obtaining
Letters Patent for Inventions in the
United States and Foreign Countries,
including Copyright and Trade-Mark
Laws. By Charles Sidney Whitman,
of the Bar of the Supreme Court of
the United States. Washington : W.
H. & O. H. Morrison. 1871. Sold by
Callaghan & Co., Law Booksellers,
Chicago. Price, $5.00.
This is a neat octavo volume of 707
pages, and to those who wish to know
the laws, rules and regulations of the
Patent Office, and desire to obtain a
patent, it is indispensable. Although in
tended to convey practical information
to inventors, patentees, manufacturers
and others, it will be found useful to the

News.

members of the profession generally, as

it sets forth the state of the law result
ing from decisions more recent than
those found in any other work yet pub
lished, and contains the recent act of
Congress by which the entire legislation
in respect to patents and copyright was
repealed, and a more complete law
enacted in its place.
The Statutory Jurisdiction and Practice
of the Supreme Court of the United
States, together with Forms of Process
and Rules established for the Supreme
Court, the Court of Claims, the Courts
of Equity, the Courts of Admiralty, and
the Courts in Bankruptcy. By P.
Phillips, Counselor of the Supreme
Court of the United States. Washing
ton : W. H. & O. H. Morrison, Law
Booksellers and Publishers. 1872.
Sold by Callaghan & Co., Law Book
sellers, Chicago.
This is a handsome, octavo volume of
438 pages, prepared by the Hon P. Phil
lips, formerly a Representative in Con
gress from Alabama, but for many years
a resident in Washington, and an active
practitioner in the Federal Supreme
Court. It is well arranged and divided
into appropriate chapters. The textcontains briefabstracts and citations to all the
principal practice decisions of the U. S.
Supreme Court. At the close of the vol
ume is an appendix containing forms of
process, and the rules of the Supreme
Court. Many of our best attorneys are
not familiar with the practice of this
court, and often experience great diffi
culty in complying with its rules. The
forms for the removal of a cause by writ
of error from the Circuit Court, and ob
taining a supersedeas, are among the most
useful in the volume. Of all the works
upon Practice in the Federal Supreme
Court, that have come under our notice,
this of Mr. Phillips' is the best, most
scientific and useful, and we take pleas
ure in recommending it to the profes
sion. It will be sent, prepaid, by the
publishers upon receipt of price, $5.00.

117

KAY

&

BROTHER,

Law Publisher*, Booksellers and

Importers,
IT & 1 South Sixth St.,
PHILADELPHIA,
Have just publinhed
The Law of Contracts,
B> I KWdS IIII,I,IAKI>.
Author ol tin- " Law of Torts," "The Law of Injunc
tion?," etc.
S Vols., Nro. Price. 915.00.

Table of Contents of Volume I.

Chapter
IWhat Constitutes h Conlract ; Proposals, etc.
IIExecuted Contract*.
IIIImplied Contractu.
IVEntire and Devisable Contracts.
VConditional Contracts.
VIVerbal and Written Contracts.
VIITime, in Connection with Contracts.
VIIIStatute of Limitations.
IXConsideration of Contracts.
X(instruction of Contracts.
XIVoid and Voidable Contracts.
XIIStatute of Frauds.
XIIIParties to Contracts.
XIV-Partnership.
XVCorporations.
XVIPrincipal and Agent.
Table of Contents of Volume n.
Chapter
XVIIMaster aud Servant.
XVIIIPrincipal and SuretyGuaranty.
XlX-Offlcial Bonds.
XXLandlord and Tenant.
XXIHusband and Wife.
XXII-Infants.
XXIIIPerformance or Extinguishment of Con
tracts.
|XXIVDischarge in Bankruptcy, etc.
XXV-Set-Off; Tender.
XXVIBailment
XXVIIBailment ; Innkeepers; Common Carrier!.
XXVIIIBills of Exchange and Promissory.Notes.
XXIXInsurance.

TBEATI8E ON THE
costs.
CityAppeal.Where in a prosecution CONFLICT OF LAWS.
by a city to enforce an ordinance thereof
an appeal is taken, the city, if unsuccess
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW;
ful, is liable for costs in the appellate
WITH NOTICES OF
court.(Opinion by Downey, J.)City of Anglo - American, Roman, German, and French
Jurisprudence.
Kokomo v. Wills.
>.
D..
Author of "American Criminal Law," "Precedent*
of Indictments, "State Trials," etc.
IN PREPARATION,
One vol., 6vo. Price. $7.50.
Table of Contents.
and will shoktly be published.
Chapter.
IIntroductory Observations.
II-Domicil.
DICKSON'S ANALYSIS OFBLACKSTONE
IIIPersonal Status.
IVMarriage and Divorce.
VParental Relations.
Royal 8vo. Price $3.00.
VIGuardianship.
VLTLaw ofThings,
VIIIObligations and Contracts.
IXSuccession and Wills.
DICKSON'S ANALYSIS OF KENT.
XPractice.
XICriminal Law.
Royal 8vo. Price $3.00.
By FREDERICK B. DICKSON, Esq.
BOIJRQCIN &, WELSH,
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
Publishers and Importers,
No. 431 Walnut Street, Philadelphia.
4-l
L A. W HOOKS.

KERR ON RECEIVERS;
A Treaties on .the Law and Practice as to Receivers
appointed by the Court of Chancery. By Wm. W.
Kerr, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-law. With
American Notes, by G. Tucker Bispuam, Esq., of the
Philadelphia Bar. 8 vo.
IN PREPARATION,
A DIGEST OF THE
STATUTES AND DECISIONS

the law libbaby of wm. m. fowleb,

deceased, of
DIVORCE AND ALIMONY
160 VOLUMES,
IN i HE
Including WOOD'S and LONG'S DIGEST, and One
United States.
Set of Illinois Reports, all nearly new and in good or*
der, are
OFFEKKD FOR SALE AT A BARGAIN. By Wm. HARDCASTLE BROWN, Esq.
one volume. 8vo.
JOHN MARVIN, Administrator.
M*ll
16-18p
Sprinofixld, III.

1 18
MORTGAGE
SALE.-Whereas,
Patrick Holton,
anda. Bridget,
bis wife, uu
twenty-ninth
day
of June,
P., lwV.t, executed
andthedelivored
to me their
certain mortgage, which said mortgage was recorded
in the recorder's office of Cook county, in the State of
Illinois, on the thirtieth day of June, a. d., 1870, in
book number 1.13, of mortgages, at page
of the
premises hereinafter described, to secure the payment
of one certain promissory note made by the Haid Pat
rick
on ofthe
day ofJune,
a. d.,Holton,
1S6'.i. fordated
the sum
sixtwenty-ninth
hundred dollars
with in
terest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum, payable
semi-annually,
to
the
order
of
Janies
H.
Bees,
one
after the date thereof ; and wherearf, it is providedyear
in
said mortgage that in case of default of the payment
of
said
promissory
note,
either
of
principal
or
interest,
on the days when the name should become due and
payable, the said James H. Koch might, after publish*
ing a notice in a newspaper, printed in the city of Chi
cago, Cook county, Illinois, thirty days before the day
of such sale, sell tho said premises and all right and
equity of redemption of the said Patrick Holton and
Bridget,
his wife,
their
heirsCourt
and House
assignsdoor,
therein,
at
public auction,
at the
north
in said
city
of
Chicago,
to
the
highest
bidder,
for
cash.
And.
whereat, delault 1ms been inudi> in the payment of saij
note
inten^t,
ofthe power
in meandvested
by now,
said therefore,
mortgage,byI,virtue
the undersigned
mortgagee, will sell at ten o'clock, a. ni.. on Tuesday
the 27th day of February, a. p., at public auction, at
the
CourtIllinois,
House todoor,
in the bidder,
city of Chicago,
Cooknorth
county,
the lushest
for cash,
the premises in said mortgage described to wit : Lots
fifty-three (X\) and fifty-tour (M) in block one (l.) iu
James IT. Itees' subdivision ofblocks one (l)and (I!) in
the south hulfof the south-wi-.u quarter of the south
east quarter of section twenty (20), in township thirtynine t,;W), north of range fourteen ^u> east, in the
county of Cook, and State of Illinois, together with
all and singular the tenements, hereditaments, priv
ileges, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, and
all the right, title, benefit and equity of redemption
of the said Patrick Iiolton and Bridget, his wife, their
heirs and assigns, in and to the said premises*.
16-20
JAMES II. HKKS, Mortgagee.
JAMES B. BRABWELL,
Attorney, 115 W. Madimn Street.
ADMINISTRATRIX'
RKAL
ESTATE.and OF
decree
of the
County
By virtue of an orderSALE
Court
of
Cook
county,
Illinois,
made
on
the
of
the undersigned, DorotheaRingleb, formerlypetition
Dorothea
Medelman, administratrix of the estato of Friedrich
Medelman, deceased,for leave to sell the real estate ol
said deceased, at the December term, A. D. 1871, of said
court, to wit. on the sixth day of December, A. D. 1871,
I shall, on Mouday, the 11th day of March, A. D. 1872,
at 2 o'clock p. m., sell at public sale, at the east door
of the Court House, on Clark street, in the city of Chi
cago, in said Cook county, and State of Illinois, the
reai estate described as follows, to wit: the northeast
quarter(23),ofinthetownship
northeast
quarter(36).
of section
twentythree
thirty-six
range thirteen
(13). east of the 3d P. M.. in the town of Bremen, iu
Cook county, State of Illinois, containing forty acres,
on the following terms, to wit : cash on delivery of the
deed.
DOROTHEA RINGLEB,
(Formerly Dorothea Medelman.)
Administratrix
of
the
estate of Friedrich Medelman,
deceased.
Jauks B. Bradweli,. Att'y for Estate.
16-21
J. MILTON OLIVER,
Attorney. :i0 South Clinton Si.
ESTATE OF GEORGE GANIERE, DECEASED,
Notice
is hereby
giventheto estate
all persons
having
claims and demands
against
of George
Ganiere, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term ol the- County Court
of Cook comity, to be holden at the Court House, in
the city of Chicago, on the first Mouday of April, A. D.
1872, being the 1st day thereof.
MARGARETTA GANIERE, Administratrix.
J. Mii.ton Ouvkk, Attorney.
Chicago, January 22nd, A. D. 1372.
lfi-21a
MONROE
&
BISBEE,
Attorneys. ir2'A Wabash Avenue.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.State
of Illinois,
countyTerm,
of Cook,
set. Circuit
Court of Cook
county, March
A.I). 1*72.
Edgar
Loomis and Martin P. Follott v. Isabella S. Halliday
and John W. llttlliday.
Public notice iu hereby given to the said Isabella S.
Halliday and John W. Ilalliduy that a writ of attach
ment issued out of the office of the clerk of the Circuit
Court of Cook county, dated the 12th day of January,
A.D.
at the suit
of the said
EdgarofLoomis
Martiu1672,P. Follntt,
and against
the estato
IsabellaandS.
Halliday
and John
W. Halliday,
the sum
of fourto
teen
hundred
and sixty-one
&-lonfordollars,
directed
the Sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Isabella S. Hal
liday and John W. Halliday shall personally be and
appear before the said Circuit Court of Cook county,
on holden
or before
of theinnext
term ofthereof,
at the
the lirst
CourtdayHouse,
tho city
Chicago,to
be
on the third Monday of March, A.D. 1872, give special
bail and plead to the said plaintiffs' action, judgment
will be entered against you, and in favor of tho said
Edgar
Loomisattached
and Martin
P. Folictt,
and so tomuch
of
the
property
as may
be sufficient
satisfy
the said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the
same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Monroe A Bisbee, Att'ys.
16-18
HERVEY, ANTHONY A GALT,
Attorneys. Wabash Avenue. \
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois, county ol Cook, ss. Superior
Court of Cook county, February Term, A. D. 1872.
John Currie v, James Oliphant.
Public notice is hereby given to the said James Oli
phant
of attachment
issuedofout
of thecounty,
office
of
.thethat
clerka writ
of the
Superior court
Cook
dated the 24th day of November, A.D. 1871, at the suit
of the said John Currie. and against the estate of
James Oliphant, for the sum of three hundred and fifty
dollars, directed to the Sheriff of Cook county, which
said writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the Maid James Oliphant
shall personally bo and appear before tbe said Superior
court of Cook county, on or before the first day of the
next term thereof, to bo holden at tho Court House, In
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of February,
A.D. 1872. give special bail and pload to the said plain
tiff's action* judgment will be entered against you. and
in favor ofattached
the saidasJohn
and sotomuch
property
may Currie,
be sufficient
satisfyof the
tho
said judgment and costs will he sold to satisfy the
same.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Harvey, Anthony & Gait, Attorneys.
15-18
rpo WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.-We. the underX signed, have formed a limited copartnership to be
carried on iu Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, from
January 1, 1872, till January 1, 1874, to carry on the
business of buying, selling, and manufacturing and
selling,
harness
carriages.andTheGeorge
said undersigned,
F. I. Lazear.
M. and
E. Fletcher
A. Cheney,
are
the
general
partners,
and
John
Amerman,
Bron-of
son, and Josioa Parks, of Norwnlk, in the ofState
Ohio, are tho special partners, and have respectively
paid into tho common stock two thousand dollars in
cash.
M. f.E.iiA2An;
FLETCHER,
* . ' .
GEORGE A. CHENEY,
JOHN AMERMAN,
lft-20
,
JOS1AS PARKS. t
ESTATE
OF
ZEBINA
BLISS,
is hereby given to all personsDECEASED.-Notlce
having claims and
demands
of ZebinaandBliss,
deceased,
to presentagainst
the same,theforestate
adjudication
settlement
at
a regular term of the County court of Cook county, to
be holden at the courthouse, in the city of Chicago, on
the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872, being the fourth
day thereof.
( hicago, January 11, A.D. 1872.
14-19a
ELLEN S. BLISS, Administratrix.

Chicago

Legal

ROSENTHAL, PENCE & MOSES,

Attorneys, HoO Wabash Avenue.
QTATE OF ILLINOIS, County of Cook, ss, SuperiO or Court of Cook county. February term, a. d.
1872.
the estate
Israel Louisa
Heller,Heller,
deceased,administratrix
v. Rosa Hess, of
Abraham
Hess,of
Fanny McCreary, Robert McCreary, Caroline Schram,
Benedict Schram, Thcrese Porges, Henry Portree, Es
ther Schram. Jacob Schram und Elizabeth Heller.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Caroline Schram
and Benedict Schram, two of
defendants
above
named, having been filed in thotheoffice
of the Clerk
of
said Superior Court of Cook county, notice is hereby
given to the said Caroline Schram and Benedict
hchrarn, that the complainant heretofore filed her pe
titionestate,
in saidto Court,
real
wit: lottosixsell(t>)thein following
block threedescribed
(3), in
Quick's subdivision of Harlem, being part of the north
east
quarter
of
Section
twelve
(12),
in
township
thirtyuine (39) north of range twelve (12), east of 3d P. M.,
together with the buildings and improvements tlioreun.
and that a summons: thereupon issued out of said Court
against said defendants, returnable on the first Monday
ofNow.
February
as isCaroline
by law required.
unlessnext
you,(1872),
the said
Schram and Ben
edict Schram, shall personally be and appear before
said Superior Court of Cook county, on the first day ol
a term thereof, to be holden at ('hicago, iu said county,
on the first Monday of February, 1872, and plead, an
swer or demur to the said complainant's petition,
tho same, and tho matters and things therein charged
and stated,
will you
be taken
as contemned,
and a ofdecree
entered
against
according
to the prayer
said
bill.
A. JACOBSON. Clerk.
Rosenthal A Fbnce, Compl't's SoI'vb.
16-]y
(CHANCERY
county Toof
J Cook, ss. NOTICK.Stato
Superior court ofof Illinois,
Cook county.
February Term, A D. 1872. Sophia Brenhagen v. John
Brenhagen.
Affidavit ofIntheChancery.
'non-residence of John Brenhagen,
defend ant above named, havingbeen filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is herely given to the said John Brenhagen,
that the complainant heretofore tiled her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Mon
day of February next, (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, tho said John Brenhagen, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of
Cook countyT on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of February, next, 1372, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the\taken
mattersasand
things therein
and stated,
will
be
confessed,
and a charged
decree entered
againt
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, Compl't's. Sol'r. 16-18
( lHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
Cook, Term,
ss. Superior
of CookB. county.
To
February
A. D. 1872.Court
Jaroslav
Belnhradsky
and Max Koliu v. E. M. Arnstein, Sarah Arustuin and
Jacob Kuhn.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of E. M. Arnstmn and
Sarah Arnstein, two of the defendants above named,
having been filed in the office of the clerk of Baid
Superior court of Cook county, notice is hereby
given
to the
E. M. Arnstein
andfiled
Sarah
tein that
the said
complainants
heretofore
theirArns
bill
of
complaint
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
thereof, and that a summon* thereupon issued outside
of
said court against said defendant, returnable on tho
first Monday of February next (1872), as is by law re
quired.
Now, unless you, the said E. M. Arnstein and Sarah
Arnstein shall personally be and appear before said
Superior
courttoofbeCook
county,
on theinfirst
of a
term thereof,
holden
at Chicago,
saidday
county,
on
the
first
Monday
of
February,
1872,
and
plead,
an
swer or demur to the said complainant's bill of com
plaint, the same, and the matters and things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
taken as confessed,
and ofa
decree
againstwillyoubeaccording
to the prayer
said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Rosenthal, Pence & Muses, Compl't's Sol'rs. K>-18
GGUARDIAN'S SALE.State of Illinois, Cook counW ty, ss. Superior Court of Cook county. In the
matter of tbe application of Margaret L. Rockwell,
guardian of Athic Rockwell, a minor, to sell real
estate.
Public notice is hereby given that in pursuance of
the decree of said court heretofore entered in said
cause,
I shall,
dayA.M.,
of February,
A.D. 172,
at on
theMonday,
hour oftho10 12th
o'clock
upon the
premises hereinafter described, sell at public auction,
to the highest bidder, the following described prem
ises, viz., Lot seventy (70) in block forty-four (41) in
Canal Trustees' subdivision of section seven (7), town
thirty-nine (.'ty), North of range fourteen (11), East ol
three (3) P. M., in Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, with
theTerms:
tenements
thereon.
One half
cash in hand, balance duo in one
year from date of sale, secured by note and trust deed
upon said premises.
MARGARET
ROCKWELL,
Guardian
of Athie L.Rockwell,
a minor.
Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, Att'ys for Guardian.
1.V18
JAMES ENNIS.
Attorney, 232 Went Randolph Street.
flHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
^ Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county, March
Term, A.D. 1872. Magdaluna Straus vs. John Straus.
In Chancery.
Affidavit that sold John Straus, defendant above
named,
uponhaving
due inquiry
cannot
be found
the State
of Illinois,
been filed
in the
office ofin the
clerk
of said Circuit court of Cook county, notice is hereby
given to the said John Straus that the complainant
heretofore
bill of complaiant
in said court,
the
chanceryfiled
sideherthereof,
and that a summons
thereon
upon issued out of said court against said defendant,
returnable on the third Monday of March next, (1872,)
as Is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said John Straust shall per
sonally be and appear before suid Circuit court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county.on the third Monday
of March, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Jamba Ennia, Compl't's Sol'r.
14-17
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
court of Doerner
Cook county.
Term,Cook,
A. D.ss.1872.Circuit
Wilhelmina
v. JohnMarch
Peter
Doerner.In chancery
Affidavit of the non-residence of John Peter Doerner,
defendant above named, having been filed in the
office
clerkgiven
of saidto Circuit
CookDoerner
county,
noticeofis the
hereby
the saidcourt
JohnofPeter
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out ofsaid court
against said defendants, returnable on the third Mon
day of March next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said John Peter Doerner, shall
personally bo and appear before said Circuit court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to bo
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day of March, 1872. and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and adecroe sutured against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
James Ennis, Compl't's Sol'r.
!**"!6_
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
And U. S. Commissiouer.
Western Union Telegraph Office, 554 Wabash Ave.

News.

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
Barber and Lackner. 64 West Lake street.
Barker & YValte, 46 East Harrison.
Barker, J. C, 143 West Madison street, room 3.
Bates & Hodges, 113 West Madison street.
BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street
Bonney, Fay & Griggs, 120 West Washington st.
Bentley, Bennett, Ullraan & Ives, 376 Wabash av.
Brouse, O. R., 400 Wabash avenue.
Brown & Bickerts, 114 West Madison.
Burke and Allen , 18 W. Randolph.
Carmichael, D. L., 845 Prairie auenue.
Chase, F. L., 38G Wabash avenue.
Clarkson a Van Schaack, No. 454 Wabash Ave.
Condon, Win. H., 34 Canal street.
Deane & Cahill, room 7, Lind's Block.
Dent & Black, 740 Wabash avenue.
Ewlng & Leonard. 487 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. \V., 115 West Madison street.
Felker, Wm. S., 92 Desplaincs street.
Goodwin, D. jr., n. c. cor. Monroe and LaSalle.
Goudy & Chandler, 391 Wabash avenue, branch
office, 64 South Halsted street.
Graham, Geo. n., 60 South Canal,
Harrison and Whitehead, 143 W. Madison street.
Herbert & Quick, 61 Union Central Building,
and 520 State street.
Hervey, Anthony & Gait, 356 Wabash avenue.
Hopkins, Wm., 46 East Harrison.
Hoyne, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michi
gan and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne, Horton and Hoyne, 267 Michigan av.
Hitchcock, Dupee & Evarte, corner Wells and
Monroe streets.
Howe & Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
Knickerbocker, J. C. and J. J. 163 W. Washington.
Leary, D. James, 159 West Madison.
Magruder, B. D., 181 W. Madison.
Mattocks and Mason, 523 Wabash ave,
McClelland, Thos., S., 45 S. Canal, room 6.
Merriam, Alexander and Bolster, 149 W. Wash
ington street.
Miller, Frost <fc Lewis, 363 Michigan avenue.
Moore & Caulfield, S. E. cor. State and Madison.
Monroe, Bisbee & Gibbs, 523 Wabash ave.
Newcomb, G. W., 214 Warren avenue.
Norton, Jesse O,. 386 Wabash avenue.
Nlssen &. Bamum,126 W. Randolph, and 876 Stato
Otis, E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Paddock & Ide, 449 Wabash avenue.
Perkins, N.C.,479 Wabash aw,cor. Eldridge court.
Palmer, L. L.p 481 Wabash avenue.
Pfirshing, Jos. 47 Peck C't.bct. Wabash and State
Rich & Thomas, 945 Michigan avenue, and 468
Wabash avenue.
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 So Canal.
Rorke, M. A. & Son, Central Union Building
Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, Masonic Building, S
W., cor. Randolph and Halsted and 350 Wabash av.
Roys, C. D.. 677 Wabash avenue.
Scammon, McCagg and Fuller, 389 Wabash av.
Sheldon & Waterman, cor LaSalle and Monroe
Sleeper & Whiton, 441 Wabash avenue.
SinaU and Ingalls, 481 Wabash avenue.
Story and King, 149 West Washington street.
Tenny, McClellan & Tenny, 454 Wabash ave.
Thomas, Sidney, 95 East Harrison street.
Van Bureu, E. & A., 194 West Madison street.
Vallette, H. F., 59 West Madison street.
Waterman, A. N., 135 West Monroe street
White, Hugh A., 165 West Washington street
Williams & Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
Walker, Dexter & Smith, 562 Wabash avenue.
Wilson, Perry & Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
WIndett, Arthur W., 562 Wabash ave., and room
6 Lind's Block.
Waughop, J. W., 401 Wabash avenue.

LAW BOOKS.
J. It. McDIVITT,
81 MA8SA17 STREET, NEW YORK.
Second-hand Law Books Bought, Sold and Ex
changed.
6-19

LAW

DEPARTMENT,

Chicago University.
LECTURES were resumed in this institution on
Monday, Oct. 30th last, in the lecture room ol
the Second Baptist Church, corner of Monroe and
Morgan streets. All the old advantages obtained
by students in this law school are again ofl'ered.
For information address
JOHN A. HUNTER,
Sec. Law Dept.
5-13
135 \V. Monroe street, Chicago.
STATE OF JOHN S. CLASSEN, DECEASED._EJ Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of John S.Classen,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook comity, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January 10, A.D. 1872.
CATHARINA CLASSEN, Administratrix.
A. Enzenbachkk, Att'y.
U-19

FELKER & MARX,

Attorneys, 92 6*. Desplaines street.
CHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois,
Cook, ss. Circuit
court of Cook
county, County
Februaryof
term, A.I). 1672. Elizabeth Schuler vs. Charles Schuler.In
Chancery.
Affidavit
of the non-residence of Charles Schuler,(
defendant above named, having been tiled in the offica
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice
hereby given heretofore
to the said filed
Charles
that theis complainant
her Schuler
bill of
complaint
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said
court
against said defendants, returnable on the third Mon
day of February next, (1872,) as is by law required.
Now, unk'HH you, the said Charles Schuler, shallpersonally be and appear before said Circuit court of Cook
county, on the lirst day of a term thereof, to he holden
at Chicago, in said county, on the third Monday of
February, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the said
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things thtrein charged and stated, will be
taken aaxonfessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayrr of said bill.
NORMAN T, GASSETTE, Clerk.
Felker & Marx, Compl't's Sol'rB.
14-1T
STORY & KING,
Attorneys, 1-1'J W. Washington St.
PUBLICATION
IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois,NOTICE
Cook County,
ss. Circuit court
of Cook countv. March Term, A.D. 1872. Willliam
Patterson vs. C. S. Berg.
Public
notice
hereby given
to the
Berg
that
a .writ
of isattachment
issued
outaaid
of C.theS. office
of
the
clerk
of
the
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
dated
the 18th day of November, A.D. 1871, at the suit of the
said William Patterson and against the estate of C. S.
Berg, for the sum of two hundred and seventy
dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook county, which
said
writtherefore,
has been returned
executed.
Now,
unless you,
the said C. S. Berg,
shall personally be and appear before the said Circuit
court of Cook county, on or before the first day of the
next term thereof, to be holden at the court house, in
the city of ('hicago, on the third Monday of March,
A. D. 1872, give special bail and plead to the said plain
tiff's action, judgment will be entered against you, and
in favor of tho said William Patterson, and so much of
the property
maybebesold
sufficient
to satisfy
the
said
judgmentattached
and costsaswill
to satisfy
thu same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Story A Kino, Attorneys.
14-lT
ELBERT H. GARY,
Attorney, 09 West Afadison St.
CHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
Illinois,
County
Cook, ss. Superior court ofofCook
county,
Januof
ary Term. A.D. 1*72. John B. Livornois, alias Jean
B. Meloche Dit Liveruois, vs. Lucy C. Livernois.
In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Lucy C. Livernois,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Lucy C. Livernois
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that
a summons
thereupon
issuedonout
court
against
said defendant,
returnable
the offirstsaidMonday
of February next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Lucy C. Livernois, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, ou the first Monday
of February, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
aaid complainant's bill of complaint, thesame. and the
matters and things therein charged and stated^ will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Elbert II. Gary. Compl't's Sol'r.
14-17p
JAMES L. STARK,
Attorney'Nixon's Building, cor. La Salle and Monroe.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois. Cook county, ss. Circuit court
of Cook county. March Term, A. D. 1872. Augusta
Burkhardt v. James W. Dominic.
Public notice is hereby given to the said James W.
Dominic that a writ of attachment issued out of the
office
Circuit court
Cook
county,
dated of
thethe
21stclerk
day ofthe
of December,
A, D. of1871,
at the
suit
of the said Augusta Burkhardt. and against the estate
of
the
said
James
W.
Dominic,
for
the
sum
of
five
thousand dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook
county, which said writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore,
unless you,
the appear
said James
W.
Dominic,
shall personally
be and
before the
said Circuit court of Cook county, on or before the
first day of the next term thereof, to be holden at
the court house, in the city of Chicago, on the third
Monday of March, A.D. 1872, give special ball and
plead to the said plaintiff's action, judgment will be
entered against you, and in favor of tho said Augusta
Burkhardt.
and so
much of
as
may be sufficient
to satisfy'
thetho
saidproperty
judgmentattached
and coata
will be sold to satisfy tho same.
James L. Stark,NORMAN
Att'y. T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
13-17
SAMUEL STRAUS,
Attorney, 5(12 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE OF FRIEDRICH JAHN, (alias) YAHN,
deceased.
Notice
is hereby
to allofperson!
having
claims and
demands
againstgiven
the estate
Friederelch John (alias) Yahn, deceased ; to present the
same for adjudication and settlement at a regular
term of the County Court of Cook County, to behold
en at the Court House, in the city of Chicago, on the
first Monday of March, A. D. 1872. being the 4th day
thereof.
BERTHA JAHN,
Chicago, December 28th, 1871,
Administratrix.
Samuel Straus, Atty.
12-17a
O. A. FOLLANSBEE,
Attorney, No. 10 "West Randolph St.
estate of frederick biermann, de
ceased. Notice is hereby given to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate of
Friedrich Biermann, deceased, to present the same
for adjudication
settlement
regular
of
the
County courtand
of Cook
county,attoa be
holdenterm
at the
"inica on the first Monday of February,
city of Chicago,
A.D. 1872, heir
beine tho filth day thereof.
HEINRICH BIKRMANN, Aministrator.
Chicago. Dec. 20. A.D. 1871.
G. A. Follansbee, Att'y.
11-16&
TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.-This is to
certify that tho undersigned have this day formed
a copartnership under the firm name of Frank
Brothers.
The general nature of the business to be transacted
by said firm is the purchase and sale of dry goods and
notions
in the cityTheoffollowing
Chicago, county of
Cook,part
and
State
of said
Illinois.
ofthearecity,thecounty
ners of
firm: Joseph Frank,persons
and State of New York ; Henry L. Frank, of said Chi
cago: Isaac Meyer, of said Chicago; and Henry O.
Frank, ofpartners.
said Chicago. These four persons are all
general
Harrman Mack, of the city of Cincinnati, county of
Hamilton,
State has
of Ohio,
is the tospecial
partner.
Said specialand
partner
contributed
the common
stock the sum of fifty thousand (S-W.000) dollars in cash.
Said partnership is to commence January 1st, 1872,
andWitness
to terminate
December
our hands,
this 22d3lst,
day1873.
of December, 1871.
JOSEPH FRANK,
HENRY L. FRANK.
ISAAC MEYER.
HENRY C. FRANK,
General Partners
HARRMAN MACK.
UM8
Special Partner.

Chicago
NEWELL PRATT,
Attorney, 1124 Wabash Avenue.
CHANCERY NOTICE -State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
February Term, A.D. 1*72. liellen Rockfellow vs. John
Rockfellow.In
Affidavit of theChancery.
non-residence of John Rockfellow,
defendant Above named, having been tiled in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said John Rockfellow,
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com- ;
plaint in said court, on the chancery Hide thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court ,
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
ofNow,
February
as la John
by lawRockfellow,
required. shall '
unlessnext,
you,(172),
the said
personally be and appear before said Superior court of j
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,
in said
county,
on the
iir.-r Monday
of
February,
UJ72, and
plead,
answer
or demur
to the
aid complainant's bill ofcomplaint, the same, and the
matters aud things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, mid a decree entered against you
according to the prayer
of sAid bill,
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Nkwkll Pratt, Comp'ts sol'r.
14-17
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county ot
Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
February Term, A.I). 1872. Kathrena (lurgaro vs.
Angelo
Uargaro.In
Chancery. of Angelo Gargaro,
,. Affidavit
of the non-residence
defendant above named, having been tiled in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Angelo (lurgaro that
the complainant heretofore filed herbill of complaint
in said court,
on the chancery
andagainst
that a
summons
thereupon
issued outsideof thereof,
said court
aid
defendant,
returnable
on
the
first
Monday
of
Feb
ruary next, (1872,) as is by law required.
Now. unless you, the said Angelo Gargaro, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on tho first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, In said county, on the first Monday
of February. 1JS72, and plead, answer or demur to the
aid complainant's bill of complaint, tho same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to theAUGUSTUS
prayer of said
bill.
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
Newell Pratt, Comp'ts Sol'r.
14-17
CCHANCERY NOTICE. - State of Illinois. Cook
J Connty, ss, Superior Court of Cook county. To
February Term, A.D, 1*72. Alden P. Pierce Vs. Fran
cisAffidavit
J. Pierce.In
of theChancery.
non-residence of Francis J. Pierce,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
noticetheiscomplainant
hereby givenheretofore
to the said
that
filedFrancis
his billJ.ofPierce
com
plaint
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
and
that a summons thereupon issued out ofthereof,
said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of February next, (lf<72,) as is by law required.
Now, unless you. the said > rancis J. Pierce, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day ofa term theroof, to be
said plead,
county,answer
on theorfirst
Monto
holden
at Chicago,1872,in aud
day
of February,
demur
the said complainant's bill ofcomplaint, the same, and
the matters and things ther in charged and stated, will
be taken as confessed, and adecree entered against you
according to the prayer
ofsaid billJACOBSON, Clerk.
AUGUSTUS
Nkwull Pratt Compl't's Sol'r.
14-17
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
February Term, A.D. 1*72. Ella J. Sharp t. Oscar
Sharp.In choncery.
Affidavit of tho non-residence of Oscar Sharp, de
fendant
aboveofnamed,
having been
in thecounty,
office
of the clerk
said Superior
courtfiled
of Cook
notice is hereby given to the said Oscar Sharp,
that the complainant heretofore filed her hill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of February next (1672,) as is by law required.
Now, bo
unless
the before
said Oscar
Sharp, shall
sonally
andyou,
appear
said Superior
courtperof
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of February, 1872, and plead.answer or demur to the said
complainant's bill ot complaint, tho same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered againBt you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON", Clerk.
Newell Pratt, Compl't's Sol'r.
13-16
WATTE & CLARKE,
Attorney*. Van Buren, St. bet. II'abash and Mich. Ave.
ESTATE OF HARRIET K. GARFIELD. DEceased, Notice is hereby given to all persons hav
ingGarfield
claims and
demands
aganst the
thesame
estateforofadjudica
Harriet
E.
deceased,
to present
tion
and
settlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
Court of Cook County, to be holden at theCounty
court
house iu he city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
March, A.P. 1872, being the 4th day thereof.
Chicago, December ."V'th. A. D.. 1871.
CHARLES B. KING, Executor
Waite & Clarke, Attys.
12-17a
A. B. BALDWIN,
Attorney, Room (3, Lind's Block.
ESTATE OF HOMER HOPKINS, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Homer
Hopkins, deceeased, to present the same forodjudication and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
In
city1872,
of Chicago,
theday
firstthereof.
Monday of Febru
ary,theA.D.
being theonfifth
K1TTIE L. HOPKINS, Executrix.
Chicago, Dec. 12, A.D. 1871.
A. B. Balow in, AtCy.
10-15
A. W. ENOS,
Attorney, Room 6, LineTs Block,
ESTATE
OF JAMES
DECEASED,
Public notice
Is herebyO'MALLEY,
given to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of James
O'Malley,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
March, A.D. 1872, being the 4th day thereof..
Chicago, Dec, 30th, A. D. 1871.
ANN O'MALLEY, Administratrix.
A. V. Emos, Atty.
12-17 p
theo. schintz,
Attorney, 122 West Randolph St.
STATE OF CHARLES R. HAEUSSLER, Deceased.
is hereby given to all persons having
E Notice
claims
and demands against the estate of Charles R.
Haeussler, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court
county, toonbetheholden
at the court
house
In the ofcityCook
of Chicago,
first Monday
of Febru
ary, A.D. 1872, being the fifth day thereof.
ANNA HAEUSSLER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Dec. 15. A.D. 1871.
Thbo. Schintz, Att'y.
10-16a
ESTATE
OF
ELIZABETH
GOEDEN.DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demandB
againstthethesame
estate
Elizabeth Goeden,
decoased,
to present
torofadjudication
and set
tlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
Cookof
county, to be holden at the court house, court
in theofcity
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872, be
ing the 4th day thereof.
PETER GOKDEN,
Chicago, Jan. 3, A. D. 1872.
Executor.
Theo. Scuintz, Att'y.
13-I8a

Legal

THOMAS E. TURNER,
Attorney, cor. (Xtnal and Madison.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county, February
Term. A.D. 1872. Anna Elizabeth WAlbert vs. Charles
W.Affidavit
Walbert.In
of theChancery.
non-residence of Charles W. AVAl
bert,
named,
having
filed incoun
the
office defendant
of the clerkabove
of said
Superior
courtbeen
ofCook
ty, notice is hereby givou to the said Charlei W. Wal
bert that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a summon* thereupon issued out of said court
against
said defendant,
the first Monday
of February
next, (1*72.)returnable
as is by lawou required.
Now. unless you, the said Charles W. Walhert,
shall personally be and appear before said Superior
court
Cook county,
on theinfirst
of a term
of, to beof holden
nl Chicago,
saidday
county,
on thetherefirst
Monday of February, 1.^72, and plead, answer or dtmiur
to the said complainant'* bill of complaint, the same,
and
matteiv
and thingsand
therein
charged
andagainst
stated,
will the
be taken
as confessed,
a decree
entered
yuu according to theAUGUSTUS
pruver of mid
bill.
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
Thomas E. Turner, Compl't's Sol'r,
14-17p
CLARKSON A! VANSCHAACK,
Attorney*, 4"4 Walmsh Aw.
PUBLICATION
IN ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois,NOTICE
Cook connty,
ss. Circuit Court
of
Cook
county.
April
Term.
Charlesand
F.
Pierce and Frederick Paine v. A.D.
JosephIrt72.
Goodman
Manton
E.
Hoard.
Public notice is hereby given to tho saidJoseph Good
man
E. Hoard
a writ
attachment
issuedandoutManton
of tho office
of the(hat
clerk
of theofCircuit
court
of Cook county, dated the 12th day of January, A.D.
1j*72. at the suit of the said Charles f*. Pierce and Fred
erick Paine, and against the estate of Joseph Good
man and
h. Hoard,
the sumdirected
of two tothou
sand
andManton
ninety-six
43-lno fordollars,
tho
Sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been re
turned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Joseph Good
man and Manton E. Hoard, shall personally be and
appear
beforethethefirst
aiddayCircuit
of Cook
county,
on or before
of thecourt
next term
thereof,
to
be holden
at the
Court House,
the city
of Chicago,
on
the third
Monday
of April,inA.D.
IH72, give
special
bail
plead toagainst
tho saidyou,plaintiffs1
will and
bo entered
and in action,
favor ofjudgment
the said
Charles F. Pierce and Frederick Paine, and so much
of
the
property
attached
as
may
be
sufficient
to
satisfy
the said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy
the
same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Clakksos A Van Scuaack, Att'ys.!
1V1S
THOS. SHIRLEY,
AtCv. Masonic Jild'o, cor. Randolph aiid [[(third stu.
ESTATE OF JOHANN WILHELM (OTHERWISE
John William)
Mever.
deceased.No
tice isknown
herebyas given
to all persons
having
claims and
demands against the estate of Johann Withelm
(otherwise Known as John William) Meyer, de
ceased,attoa present
for adjudication
ment
regular the
termsame
of the
County Courtandofsettle
Cook
county, to be holdon at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872, be
ing the 4th day MARIA
thereof. CHATARINA MEYER,
Administratrix,
Thos. Shirley, Att'y.
15-2ua
L. 0. BRAINARD,
Attorney.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
^ Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
February Term. A.D. 1872. John W. Gaskin v. Hannah
C.Affidavit
Gaskin.In
Chancery.
of the
non-residence
defendant
above
named,
having of
beenHannah
filed inC.theGaskin,
office
of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Hannah C. Gaskin
that
heretofore
his bill
com
plaintcomplainant
in said court,
on the filed
chancery
side ofthereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said
court against said defendant, returnable on the first
Monday of February next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Hannah 0. Gaskin shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court ot
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,
in said
county,
on the
Monday
of February,
1872. and
plead,
answer
or first
demur
to the
said
complainant's
bill oftherein
complaint,
the and
same,stated,
and
the matters
and things
charged
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
L. G. Braikard, Compl't's Soi'r.
15-18p
HAMMER & SMITH,
Hammtr & Smith's Block, Room 1.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook county, To
February Term, A. D. 1872. D. Harry Hammer and
Frank J. Smith v. Addison L. Page.In Chancery.
Affidavitabove
of thenamed,
non-residence
of Addison
L. Page,
defendant
having been
filed in the
office
of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook county, no
tice 1b hereby given to the said Addison L. Page that
the complainants heretofore filed their petition for partion In said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
a summons thereupon issaed out of said Court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of
February next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Addison L. Page, shall
personally bo and appear before said Superior Court ol
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of
February,1872,
and plead,
answer ondemur
complainant's
petition
for partition,
the some,to the
andsaid
the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer
of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Hammer & Smith, Comp't's Sol'rs.
15-18
CARTER,
DALE,
Attorneys, BECKER
-vii Walmsh&Avenue.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois, county of Cook, ss. Superior
Court V.ofPlace
Cookand
county.
To April
Term,T.A.D.
1872.
Isaac
I. W. Place
v. Othneil
Atwood.
Public notice is hereby given to the said Othneil T.
Atwood that a writ of attachment issued oat of the
office of the clerk of the Superior Court of Cook
county, dated the twenty-fifth day of November, A.D.
1871, at the suit of the said Isaac V. Place and I. W.
Place, and against the estate of Othneil T. Atwood, for
the sum of two thousand dollars, directed to the
Sheriff
of Cook county, which said writ has been re
turned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you the said Othniel T. At
wood snail personally be and appear before the said
Superior Court of Cook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the Court
House, In the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
April. A.D.action,
1872, give
special bail
to the
said
plaintiffs
judgment
willand
be plead
entered
against
you, and in favor of the said Isaac Y. Place and I. W.
Place, and so much of the property attached as may
bo sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and costs will
be sold to satisfy the same.
JA09BS0N, Clerk.
Carter, Becker &AUGUSTUS
Dale, Attorneys.
15-18
INSTATE
LOUIS given
FRIEDMAN,
DECEASED.J Notice OF
is hereby
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Louis Fried
man, deceased, to present the Bame for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January 6, A.D. 1872.
SARAn FRIEDMAN, Administratrix.
Rosenthal. Pence A Mobes, Att'ys.
14-19a

News.

L. W. RAWSON,
Attorney, 3: West Randolph Street.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
\y
court of Cook
county.v. Mary
JannaryCook,
Term,ss.A. Superior
D. is"2. Benjamin
11. Bonner
Jane Bonner.In Chancery.
Affidavit of thenamed,
non-residence
of Mary
Bonner,
defendant
having
tiledJane
in
the
office
of the clerkabove
of said Superior
courtbeen
of Cook
county,
no
tice complainant
is hereby givenheretofore
to Llie soldtiled
Mary
that
the
bisJane
bill ofBonner
complaint
in said court, ou the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Feb
ruary
required.
Now,next.
unless< 1S72,)
you.ustheis by
saidlawMary
.June Homier, shall
personally be and appear before said .Superior court of
Cook county, on tho first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,
county,
ou orthodemur
lirr-t Monday
of February.
1*72, in
andsaid
plead,
answer
to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, tbe same, and
the
matters
and
things
therein
churned
and
stated,
will he taken as confessed, and a decree entered
against you according m the prayer of mid bill.
ACdl STI S JACOBSON, 'lerk.
L. W. Rawson, ComplTs Sol'r.
i;j-ltip
FURNESB & ABBOTT,
Attorneys. 30 South f,tinton Street.
CUIANCERY NOTICE.- -State of Illinois, County of
Cook,Term.
ss. Superior
CourtMartha
of CookE. County,
To the
February
A.D. 1*72.
Fisher. Rachel
C. Fisher
and Lucius
G. FisherJonathan
her hu*hand,
petition
ers,
vs. Peter
Quackeubush,
P. Armstrong,
William C. Goudy. John Forsythe. James D. Wullat e.
Henry Buruell, George A, Townsend and Robert T.
Lincoln.Iu Chancery.
Affidavit of the nou-rer*i<k-nee of Peter Quackenbush,
Jonathan P. Armstrong and George A. Townsend.
defendants above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the snid Peter Quackenbush,
Jonathan
P. Armstrong
andfiled
George
Townsend
that
the complainants
heretofore
theirA.bill
ofcomplaint
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
and
that
summons thereupon Issued out of said court againsta
said detendfint, returnable on the first Monday of
February
next. (1^72,)
n* is said
by lawPeter
required.
Now. unless
you. the
Quackenbnsh,
Jonathan P. Armstrong and George A. Townsend,
shall
personally
be
and
appear
before
court of Cook county, on the first daysaidofSuperior
a term
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said connty, on the
first Monday of February, 1872. and plead, answer or
demur to the said petitioners' bill of complaint, tho
same,
things and
therein
charged
and
stated,and
willthe
be matters
taken asand
confessed,
a decree
entered
against you according to the prayer of said bill
A. JACO"
" ' Clerk.
OBSON,
14-17
Fursess A Amiott, Compl't's Sol'rs.
J. C. ft J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
Attorneys, 103 W. Washington St.
NOTICE.-State of Illinois County of
c HANCERY
Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook County, To
February Term, A.D., 1S72. Joseph Harvey vs. Jane
Harvey.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Jane Harvey, de
fendant above named, having been filed in the office of
the clerk ofsaid Superior court of Cook county, notice
is hereby given to the said Jane Harvey that the com
plainant heretofore tiled his bill of complaint iu said
court,
on the chancery
and against
that a sum
mons thereupon
issued side
out ofthereof,
said court
said
defendant, returnable on the first Monday ol February
next. (1872.) as is by law required.
unless
you, before
the saidsaid
JaneSuperior
Harvey,court
shallofperson
allyNow,
be and
appear
Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
at
Chicago,
In
said
county,
on
the
first
Monday
February, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the saidof
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
mattersas and
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
willyou
be
taken
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
J. C. & J. J. Knickerbocker. Compl't's Sol'rs. 14-17

119
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney, IS East Harrison Street.
ASSIGNEE'S
District
nois, ss. AtNOTICE.-Northern
Chicago, in said District,
on of
the Illi
23d
day of October. A.D.. 1*71. The undersigned hereby
fives notice ol his appointment as assignee of the osate of Julius Scbreiber, of Chicago, in the county of
Cook and State of Illinois, who has been adjudged a
bankrupt, upon his own petition, by the District court
of the I nited States in and for said District.
15-17
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
TN
THE
DISTRICT
COURT
OF THE
UNITED
J. Siates, tor the Northern
District
of Illinois.
In
the
natter
of
Joseph
Childs.
Myer
W.
ChiIds
Harry Child*, bankrupts.In Bankruptcy. Noticeandis
hereby
thatbankrupts
a secondwill
general
meeting
the
creditorsgiven
of -aid
be held
on theofIftth
day
of
February,
IS7&
at
2
oVIoek.
P.M.,
at
No.
is
East
Hirrisoii street, in the city of Chicago, before H.N.
Hibbard. Esq.. Register, for the purposes named in the
27th section of the Bankrupt Act of March 2, 1>o7.
Chicago. Jan. l.'.ROBERT
\s"rj. E. JENKINS, Assignee.
N. B.-In the lute tire all Proofs of Debt in the hands
of the Register and As-'ignee in Bankruptcy were de
stroyed.
will he necessary for each nreditortomake
anothkh It
proof.
l.Vir,
ROBERT E. JENKINS. Assignee.
IN States,
THE for
DISTRICT
COURT
OF THE
UNITED
the Northern
District
of Illinois.
In
the matter of Robert H. Gillett. P. Cillett, A. P. Cun
ningham and L. M. Pierce, bankrupts. In Bank
ruptcy.
hereby given
thatbankrupts
u second general
meeting Notice
of the iscreditors
of! said
will be
held on the 2)>th day of" February, I>72, at 2 o'clock.
P. M., at No. is East Harrison street, in the city of
Chicago, before H. N. Hibbard, Esq., Register, for the
purposes
named2, isv>7.
in the 27th section of the Bankrupt
Act of March
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
Chicago,
19, IS72.
N.
B. InJan.
the late
fire all Proofs of Debt in the hands
of the Register and Assignee in Bankruptcy were de
stroyed. It will be necessary for each creditortoinake
AXOTHEB
15-16 proof. ROBERT E. JENKINS. Assignee.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the
11th
of notice
January,
A.D.appointment
1872. Theasundersigned
herebydaygives
of his
assignee of
tho estate of Louis Lindner, of Chicago, in the county
of Cook and State of Illinois, who has been adjudged
a bankrupt upon his own petition by the District
Court of tne United States in the said District.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
14 -la
Assignee.
ASSIGNEE'S
NOTICE.-Northern
District
nois, sh. At Chicago, in said District on of
theIlli
4th
day of January, A.D. 1S72. The undersigned hereby
gives notice of his appointment as assignee of the
estate of Franklin Person, of Chicago, in the county
ofbankrupt
Cook aud upon
State of Illinois, petition
who has bybeen
aCourt
theadjudged
District
of tho Unitedcreditors'
States in and for the
said
District.
ROBERT
E.
JENKINS.
14-lfi
Assignee.

ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi

nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the 9th
day of January, A.D. 1872. The undersigned hereby
gives notice of his appointment as assignee of the
estate
of Julius
Chicago,
in theadjudged
county ofa
Cook and
State ofWeise,
Illinois,ofwho
has been
bankrupt, upon creditors' petitition, by tho District
Court of the United States, in \nd for the said Dis
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
trict.
Assignee.
14-16
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
States
for the
Northern
District ofNotice
Illinois.is hereby
In the
matter
of Eli
N. Small,
Bankrupt.
flven that the undersigned will, on Saturday, the 3rd
ay of February. 1S72, at 10 o'clock, A.M., at No. 350
Wabash avenue, in tho City of Chicago, sell at public
BARBER & LACKNER,
auction
to tho highest bidder, for cash, all of the un
Attorneys, 64 West Lake Street.
collected accounts
duewhich
to the
bankrupt;
and alsoand
anyindebtedness
and all interest
tho said
said
INSTATE
OF
CHRISTIAN
ZIMMER.
DECEASED.
J Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims bankrupt may have in the estate of his father William
deceased.
and demands against the estate of Christian Zimnier, Small,
15-17
S. S. MERRILL, Assignee.
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
countv, to be holdon at the court house, iu tho city of
Chicago,
the day
firstthereof,
Monday of March, A.D. 1872,
F. W. LOWELL,
being the on
fourth
Attorney, Room 4. 9 S. Canal St.
Chicago, January 13. A.D. 1872.
ESTATE
OF
LARS
SELEMA
ZIMMER,
Administratrix.
is hereby givenP. toLARSON,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
Bakbeu & Lackner. Att'ys.
14-19a and Notice
demands
against
the
estate
of Lars P.Larson,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and set
ESTATE OF HUBBELL B. CONE, DECEASED.- tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims county, to be holden at tho court house, in the city of
and
demands
againstthethesame
estateforof adjudication
Hubbell B. Cone,
on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872,
deceased,
to present
ana Chicago,
being the fourth day thereof.
settlement at a regular term of the County court of Chicago, January 10, A.D. IS72.
LINE M. LARSON, Administratrix.
Cook
to beonnolden
the courtofhouse,
the 14-19
city ofcounty,
Chicago,
the firstatMonday
March,inA.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
MATTOCKS & MASON,
Chicago, January 11, A.D. 1872.
Attorneys, No. 523 Wabash Avenue.
WILLIAM W. KIMBALL,,
BENJAMIN
Deceased.
MARY M. CONE and '*\^ Exe<
Executors, ESTATE
Notice
isOFhereby
given toF.allHADDUCK,
persons having
claims
14-19a
RAPHAEL M. SKILTON.
and demands against the estate of Benjamin F. Hadduck,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
SN0WH00K & GRAY,
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
Attorneys, No. 85 West Monroe Street,
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in tho
of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMKNT- city
being the fourth9, day
State of Illinois, Cook county, ss. Superior court 1872,
A.D.thereof.
1S72.
of Cook county. January Term, A. D. 1872. John Chicago, January
JOHN DEKOYEN, Administrator.
Sollitt
v.
Philo
D.
Mickles.Attachment.
14-19&
Public notice is hereby given to the said Philo D. Mattocks & Mason, Att'ys.
Mickles that a writ of attachment issued out of the TESTATE OF PATRICK O'MALLEY, DECEASED.
office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook -LJ Notice is hereby given to all persons having
county, dated the 19th day of December, A. D. 1871, at claims and demands against 'the estate of Patrick
thePhilo
suit ofD,theMickles.
said John
andofagainst
estate O'Malley, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
of
for Sollitt,
the sum
eleventhe
hundred
tion ana settlement at a regular term of the County
and seventy-one 76-luo dollars, directed to the sheriff court
county, to be nolden at the court house
of Cook county, which said writ has been returned ex in the ofcityCook
ofChicago, on the first Monday of March,
ecuted.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Philo D. A.D. 1872, being the 4th day thereof.
PATRICK O'MALLEY,
Mickles, shall personally be and appear before the Bald
MARIA O'MALLEY,
Superior court of Cook county, on or before the first
Administrators.
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the court
12-18p
house, iu the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of Chicago, Jan. 5. 1872.
January. A. D. 1872, give special bail and plead to the
said plaintiff's action, judgment will be entered against EESTATE OF JOHN W. BROMLEY, DECEASED.
you. aud in favor of the said John Sollitt, and so much
Notice is hereby given to all persons hav
of the property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy
claims and demands against the estate of John
the said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the ing
WT Bromley, deceased, to present the same for ad
same.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk. judication
and settlement at a regular term of the
Snowhook & Gray, Attorneys.
14-17 County court
of Cook connty, to be holden at the
court
house.
In A.theD.city
Chicago,
on the
Mon
day
of
March,
1872,ofbeing
the 4th
day first
thereof.
ESTATE OF DANIEL O'BRIEN, DECEASED.ALEXANDER ALLEN and
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
THOMAS ALLISON.
and
demands
against
of Daniel O'Brien,
Ex.ecutors.
deceased,
to present
thethe
sameestate
for adjudication
and set
13-18*
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook Chicago, Jan. 3, A. D. 1872.
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872, be ESTATE OF THOMAS KELLEY, DECEASED.ing the fourth day thereof.
NoticeiB hereby given to all persons having claims
Chicago, January 13, A.D. 1872.
and demnnds againet the estate ol Thomas Kclley,
LAWRENCE
O'BRIEN,
Administrator.
deceased,
the term
same offortheadjudication
Snowhook A Gray, Att'ys.
14-19a settlementtoatpresent
a regular
County courtand
of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
ESTATE OF THOMAS KINNEY, DECEASED. 1872, being the fourth day thereof. of March, A.D.
Notice is against
hereby givenestate
to all persons
claims
Chicago, January
9, A.D.
1872. Administrator.
and
demands
Thomashaving
Kinney,
de 14-19a
JOHN
TILFORD,
ceased,
to present thethe
same forofadjudication
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
J. R. HOWLETT,
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Lanark, CarrollAND
Co., NOTARY
IllinoU, PUBLIC.
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872, POLICE MAGISTRATE
being the 4th day thereof.
the samo jurisdiction as any Justice of the Peace.
CATHARINE KINNEY, Administratrix. Has
Chicago, Jan. 3, A. D. 1872.
13-18a Prompt attention given to collections and remittances.

1 20
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
J. BEYBOLD, 497 Wabash avenue ; residence
F., 140 South Green street.
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
HERNDON & ORENDORF,
Office west side square. 27*
OLENWOOD (MO.) ATTORNEYS.
TTROOJIAN
A VROOMAN,
V
Glenwood, Missouri.

Chicago

Legal

News.
ATTORNEYS.

CALLAGHAN&Co.
NEW

GEORGE C. FRY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
SUCCESSORS TO
54 West Randolph Street, formerly 86 LaSatle Street,
Chicago.
E. C. LAXNED.
H. 8. TOWLR.
CALLAGHAN & C0CKCR0FT,
s. A. GOODWIN.
GOODWIN, LARKED ft TOWLE,
Respectfully call the attention of the profession to
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
.their large stock of
No. 376 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.

DILLON
LOQANSFORT (IND.) ATTORNEYS.
JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWABD (J. MASON.
MATTOCKS & MASON,
JM. HOWARD,
LAW
ON
5-16
.
Attorney at Law.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
No. 523 Wabash Avenue, S. W. cor. Harmon Court,
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
Chicago, IU.
Kmbracing the REPORTS of all the leading
PEPPER, WILSON A MARTIN,
Courts in this Country and England.
9-20 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
Room 2 Bank Building.
ELDRIDGE & TOURTELLOTTE,
A ttornctjs.
We have a very full assortment of
CHARLES J. BISHOP,
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.State
of
Illinois.
Cook
CircuitR.Court
Successor to J. Frrehan Silkk,
of Cook county, April term, county,
a. d. 1872.ss. Joshua
Hull
ACCOUNTANT AND EXPERT BOOK-KEEPER, We have In press, and will shortly issue, a
and William H. Lidell v. D. A. VanNamee. Jr.
122 W. Washington St.. Chicago, IU. 7-18p
Notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
I).
A.
Van
Namee,
New
Text
Books
and
Digests,
Jr., that a writ of attachment issued out of the office
TREATISE ON THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL
ofthe Clerk of the Circuit court ofCook county, dated
A USEFUL NEW LAW BOOK.
CORPORATIONS, with full reference to En
the
day B.of December,
a. D. 1871,H.at Lidell,
the suitand
of
and an unusually full line of
the eleventh
said JoBhua
Hull uml William
glish and American cases, by the Honorable
against the estale of D. A. Van Namee, Jr., for the Bum
of four hundred and seventy-four flfteeu-one-hunKERR ON FRAUD AND MISTAKE. JOHN F. DILLON, United States Circuit
.RARE AND VALUABLE WORKS,
dredth dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook county,
A TBEATISE ON TIIE LAW OF FRAUD AND MIS Judge.
which said writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, tho said D. A. Van Na
TAKE, MISREPRESENTATION, 'CONCEAL
out
of
print,
which
we
are
offering;
at
lowest
current
mee,
Jr., shall
be andonappear
the
MENT, *c. By W. W. Kerr, of Lincoln's Inu. This work Is designed to meet a want long
said Circuit
courtpersonally
of Cook county,
or beforebefore
the first
prices.
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the Court
With NOTES TO AMERICAN CASES, by Orlando
House, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of
felt by the members of the profession.
F. Busir, Esq.
April, a. D.action,
1872, give
special bail
plead to the
said
j9Q&~ Mr. Kerr*s Treatises have received the highest Judge Dillon has devoted several years to We would also call attention to our superior facili plaintiffs
judgment
will and
be entered
against
praise from the English and American Bar, and the
ties for importing, being in monthly receipt of
the
said
Joshua
It.
Hull,
and
Wil
you,
and
in
favor
of
present work Is esteemed as one of the author'B best. the most careful preparation of the text and
liam H, Lidell, and so much of the property attached
This first American edition, edited by Mr. Bump, has
as
maywillbe besufficient
to satisfy
the said judgment and
references to nearly
costs
sold to satisfy
the same.
notes ; and this fact, together with his high
CONSIGNMENTS FROM LONDON
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Twenty-five Hundred American Casei 1 reputation as a Jurist, guarantee the excel
Eldriuok &. Tqvrtellotti;, Attorneys.
16-19
and the publishers believe it Is a valuable and timelydirect, which we are selling at unusually low figures.
work.
" KERR ON FRAUD AND MISTAKE" la in a neat lence of the work.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
8vo volume. Best law book style. Price $6.00.
State of Illinois, Cook county, ss. Circuit court of
A largo collection of f9econd-hand TextComplete In one large octavo volume.
county. April term, a. i>. 1872. Michael B. McFor sale by all law booksellers.
Books, Rlffesla and Report* kept constantly on Cook
Donough
v. D, A. Van Namee, Jr.
BAKER, TOOBH1M A Co.,
Public notice is hereby given to the said D. A. Van
hand.
Namee, Jr., that a writ of attachment issued out of
Law Publishers and Law Booksellers,
the office of the Clerk of the Circuit court of Cook
Catalogues sent promptly upon application.
G6 Nassau St., New York.
county, dated the fifteenth day of December, a. d. 1871,
at the suit of the said Michael B. McDonough, and
JAMES COCKCROFT & CO.,
against the estate ot said D. A. Van Namee. Jr., for the
KERR ON FRAUD AND MISTAKE.
sum of six hundred dollars, directed to the sheriff of
Cook county, which said writ has been returned execu
For sale at wholesale and retail, by
ted.Now, therefore, unless you. the said D. A. Van Na
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
H. HYEB9.
mee. Jr., shall personally ho and appear l>efore the
said oTCircuit
court
of Cook
county,
or before
first
Law Booksklleb,
CALLA'GHAN & CO., day
the next
term
thereof,
to be on
holden
at thetheCourt
499 Wabash Avenue,
1022 Wabath Avenue.
House, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of
April, a. n. 1872. give special bail and plead to the said
plaintiff's
bo entered
against
525 Wabash Ave.,
READY FEBRUARY FIRST.
you,
and inaction,
favor ofjudgment
the said will
Michael
B. McDonough,
CHICAGO.
and so much of the property attached as may be suffi
cient to satisfy said judgment and costs will be sold to
STATUTES OF WISCONSIN.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE,
satisfy the same.
CHICAGO, ILL.
The Revised Statutes of Wisconsin, as altered and 1.V21
Clerk.
16.19
Eldridor & Tourtkllotte, Attorneys.
lfl-27
amended to the close ol the Legislature, 1871, with co
pious Notes and References to Judicial Decisions, etc.,
SIDNEY
SMITH,
GEO.
W.
KNOX,
AD VERTISEMENT.
etc. Prepared and arranged by David Taylor, Esq.
60 South Canal Street,
Attorney.
Two royal octavo volumes. Prici $16.00.
pHANCERY
Illinois,
of CHANCERY NOTICE. - State of Illinois, County
v Cook, ss. NOTICE,-State
Circuit court ofofCook
county.county
To the
of Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. Feb
Nearly ready, JONES' FORMS AND PROCED
term. A.D. 1872. Solomon Crane and Cyrus S. ruary term, A. D.. 1872. Franz Schardin v. Simon
STEVENS & HAYNES April
URE, in the various courts of Illinois.
Bixby v. Herman Gierke and Albert Crane. Me Furth, Daniel Furth, Joseph P. Schardin. Nicholas
Schardin,
Hubertus
Agnes
chanics'
lien.
WHITROW'S PRIVATE; CORPORATION CASES,
Krop. Lorenz
Rohl, Schardin,
MargarettaPeter
Rohl,Schardin.
Claarles Bangui,
Huarw Publishers,
ofthe non-residence
of saidhaving
Hermanbeen
Gierke,
on*Affidavit
of the defendants
above named,
filed Charlotte Billingmann. Hiram Gillett. JaneGillett,
JE. B. MYERS, Publisher.
in the office of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook Dominick Barbero, Julius Meyer. Frederick Busse,
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
1022 Wabash Avenue.
Sophia Spohrleder, John M. Bowers, Xawier Krus and
county,that
notice
is hereby given
to the filed
said their
Herman
Gierke
the complainants
heretofore
bill William H. Stickney.In Chancery.
of
complain
^
in
said
court,
on
the
common
law
side
Affidavit of the non-residence ofSimon IFurth, Daniel
AMERICAN
AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS, thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of Furth,
Joseph P. Schardin, Nicholas Schardin, Hu
said court against said defendants, returnable on the bertus Schardin, Agnes Krop and Peter Schardin,
.Trade ; Mark Oases.
third Monday of April next (1*72), as is by law required. seven of the defendants above named, having been
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
Now, unless you, the said Herman Gierke shall per filed in tho office of the clerk of said Circuit court of
sonally bo and appear before said Circuit court of Cook county, notice is hereby given to tl^e said Simon
A MARK
COMPILATION
of allin tho
REPORTED COURTS
TRADE
LONDON.
CASES decided
the AMERICAN
Cook county, at a term thereof, to be holden at Chi Furth, Daniel Furth, Joseph P. Schardin, Nicholas
cago, in said county, commencing on the third Monday Schardin,
Hubertus Schardin, Agnes Krop and Peter
firlor
to LEADING
the year 1871,ENGLISH
with an APPENDIX
contuinngtheSTATES
the
UNI
of April. 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the said Schardin that the complainant heretofore filed his
TED
ACT in relationCASES,
to the and
REGISTRA
complainant s bill of complaint, before or on the day bill of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
forks
in
all
Classes
of
Literature
TION of TRADE MARKS, with CONSTRUCTIONS
thereof,
that a summons
thereupon
issued out
the said cause shall be set for trial on the ..ocket of said
courtandagainst
said defendants,
returnable
on theof
said
court, the same, and the matters and things
of the COMMISSIONERS of PATENTS affecting
SUPPLIED TO ORDER.
therein charged and stated, will be taken as con third Monday of February next (1872), aa is by law re
the
same.
fessed, and a decree entered against you according to quired.
Edited by Rowland Cox, Counselor at Law, and edNow, unless you, the said Simon Furth, Daniel
tor of the American Late Times, avo. pp. xiii, 782. Catalogues and Estimates Fumishedt and the prayer of said NORMAN
bill.
T. GASSETTE, Clerk. Furth, Joseph P. Schardin, Nicholas Schardin, HuPrico,
$8.00.
bertuB
Schardin, Agnes Krop and Peter Schardin, shall
Geo.
W.
Knox.
Compl't's
Sol'r.
16-19
The cases in this volume are arranged in chronolog
Orders Promptly Filled.
personally be and appear before said Circuit court of
ical order, and are given lu almost every instance m The Trustee*
and Officer* of Public li
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
CARTER, BECKER & DALE,
the language of the original reporter, such alterations
holden
at Chicago,1872,in and
said county,answer
on The third
Monte
only being' made as appeared to be necessary.
m South Canal St.
braries may rely upon the moat
of February,
demur
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT. day
Dillon'* Circuit Court Report*. Cases de
careful attention to their
said
complainant's hillplead,
of complaint,orthe
same,
State of Illinois, Cook County, ss. Superior court the
termined in the United State* Circuit Courts for the
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
of Cook county, February term, a. n., 1*72. Sterling and
Eighth Circuit. Reported by Hon. John F. Dillon,
be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
P. Rounds and Alonzo L. Kane v. S. S. Wallahan and will
the Circuit Judge, volume l. Price, $6.00 Sent post
you according to the prayer of said bill.
T.
O.
Bigney.
paid anywhere, on receipt of price.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
By
importing
DIRECT
from
England
a
conaida
Public
notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
S.
S.
Walla
E. B. MYERS, Law Publisher,
16-19
O. Bigney that a writ ol attachment issued Sidney Shith, Compl't's SoPr.
able saving is effected, especially in the Custom* duty, han ofandtheT.office
of tho clerk of the Superior Court of
;t022 Wabash Avenue. from which Public Institutions in the United States are out
Cook
county,
dated
the
loin
day
of
January,
a.d.
1*72,
ELBERT H. GARY,
at the suit of the said Sterling P. Rounds and Alonzo
Attorney,
ESTATE OF LEVI M. MASON. DECEASED.- exempt.
L.
Kane,
and asainst
the estate
ofthousand
S. S, Wallahan
and CHANCERY NOTICE.
-State of Illinois, Cook
Public
notice
is
hereby
given
to
all
persons
having
SUNDRY
mistakes
have
been
made
by
our
Foreign
T.
O.
Bigney,
for
the
sum
of
two
seven
hun
claims and demands against the estate of Levi M. and Colonial Correspondents in addressing their let dred and fifty dollars, directed to the sheriff ofCook
county, bs. Circuit Court of Cook county, April
term,
A.
D.,
1872.
Emmet
Mason,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
we beg to notify that the members of our firm are county, which said writ has been returned executed. Chambers. In Chance."' . B. Chambers v. Helen J.
and settlement at a regular term of the County court ters,
Henry G. Stevens and Robert W. Haynes, the son Now, therefore, unless you, the said S.S. Wallahan "Affidavit
of the non-resi ne ' of Helen J. Chambers,
-of Cook county, Illinois, to be holden at the court and
stepson
ol the late Valentino Slovens, the eminent and T. O. Bigney shall personally be and appear be defendant above
named 1 i ing been filed] In the office
house in the city of Chicago, in said county, on the first Law Publisher.
our father's death we have con fore the said Superior Court of Cook county, on or be of the Clerk of said
Court ol Cook county, no
Monday of April, A. D. 1872, being the first day tinued to carry onSince
the business oflaw Publihcn, fore the first day ofthe next term thereof, to be holden tice Is hereby given Circuit
to the saidfiled
Helen J.billChambers
that
thereof. CORNELIA B. HALE, Administratrix. Rookaellera and
Exporters, at the above ad at the Court House, in the City of Chicago, on the 1st the complainant heretofore
of complaint
Monday of February, a. d., 1*72, give special bail and in said court, on the chancery sidehisThereof,
and
that
Beckwith, Ayes & Kales, Attys.
16-21a dress.
DuringRobert
his recent
to the
United
States
and plead to the said plaintiffs uction, judgment will bo a summons thereupon issued out ol said Court against
Canada,
W. visits
Haynes
secured
many
Friends
entered against you, and in favor ot the said Starling said defendant, returnable on the third Monday of
ESTATE
OF
FRANCIS
ROONEY,
DECEASED.
and
Correspondents
;
we
are
thus
enabled
to
give
ref
P. Roundsattached
and Alonzo
L. Kane,
and sotomuch
next. i71, as is by law required, which sum
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims erences of the highest character in most of the princi property
as may
be sufficient
satisfyof tho
tho December
was returned into said court '* not found," and
and demands
against
of Francis Rooney.de
said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfv the mons
cines.
th t afterwards an alias summons issued out of said
ceased,
to present
the the
sameestate
for adjudication
and settle palWeAmerican
have
no
connection
whatever
with
any
other
same.
A.
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
against said defendant, returnable on the third
ment
termat the
of the
County
Cookof house of business, and to prevent delay and miscar
Carter. Bicker A Dale, Attorneys.
16-iy court,
Monday
of Aprilyou.next,
county,at toa regular
be holden
Court
House,Court
in theofcity
our Correspondents abroad are respectfully re
Now, unless
the (1*72).
said Hfden J. Chambers shall
Chicago, on the first Monday ofApril, A. D. 1872, being riage,
quested
to
plainly
address
their
letters
to
us
as
fol
HITCHCOCK,
DUPEE
&
EVARTS,
personally
he
and
appear before said Circuit Court
the 1st day thereof.
Attorneys, cor. Fifth Ave. and Monroe. St.
of Cook county, on tho first day of a term thereof, to
JAMES FITZGERALD, Administrator, lows :
ESTATE
OF
BARTON
EDSALL,
DECEASED.at Chicago,
said county,
thirdtoMon
Chicago,
January
Notico is hereby given to all persons having claims bo holden
of April,
1872, andiiplead,
answeronorthedemur
tho
M. J. Dunne,
Att'y.26, A. D. 1872.
16-21a STEVENS & HAYNES,
and demands against the estate of Barton Edsall de day
complainant's bill of complaint, tho same, and
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle said
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
ment
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
Court
of
Cook
IS TREES ! SIN PLANTS I
be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
LONDON,
county, to be holden at the Court House, In the city of will
praver of said bill.
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be you according to theNORMAN
T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
ENGLAND.
ing
the
1st
day
thereof.
BELLE
W.
EDSALL.
flower occne I
Elbert
H.
Gary,
Compl't's
Sol'r.
16-19pd
Administratrix.
GARDEN OtCUO 1
Extract from " Report of Julius Rosenthal, Esq., Chicago, January 2:1, A. D. 1872.
NISSEN & BARNUM,
Librarian to the President and Members op Hitchcock, Dufke A Evarts, Attorneys
Apple and Crab, WO 2|to 4 ft., ti; 4 to 6 ft., $5.
16-21a
Attorneys. 12f> West Ranoolph street.
Chicago Law Institute." November, 1870.
Pear, stand., extra, llyear, Bartlett, etc., 3 to 4 Jft., 11 the
OF
JACOBgivenKLEIN,
DECEASED.
To our collection of English Reports a valuable ESTATE OF WTLLIAM SCHAEFER, DECEASED.-- ESTATE
per doz., <2..V>.
Notice
is hereby
all of
persons
Notice
is
hereby
given
to
all
persons
having
claims
addition has been made by the importation of a
claims and demands
against thetoestate
Jacobhaving
Klein,
Seeds, Peach,' bush., $2 Apple ;Osage, new, Imah., full
demands
against
the
eBtate
of
William
Schaefer,
and well preserved set of the House of Lords and
the same for adjudication and
to present the same for adjudication and set deceased, toatpresent
Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58 deceased,
$12.
a regular term of the County court of
tlement at a regular term ot the County Court of Cook settlement
Potatoes, EarlylRoie.a'Whitel Peuch Blow, per volumes.
holden
the court house, in the
Cook
county,
to
be
county,
to
be
holden
at
the
Court
House,
in
the
city
of
" English books were imported directly free of Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, city of Chicago, on the firstat Monday
of April, A.D.
bush, 82.
and their purchase was attended to by the being the first day thereof
1872, being CRESCENTIA
the first day thereof.
Needling*, Ul Soft Maple, $1; Ash, $3; Elm, $2. duty,
KLEIN,
Administratrix.
firm
of
Stevens
and
Haynes
in
London,
whose
ADOLPH
CANDLER,
Administrator.
Illustrated Catalogue 100 pages, and Price List, 10c. diligence, promptness, and care In in; inn our or James B. Bradwell, Att'y.
Nisskn
& Barnvm,
Attys.
, .
Chicago,
Jan. 25, 1372.
16-21a
Chicago, January 26, A.D. 1672.
16-21
19-27
F. K. PHCENIX, Bloomington, IU. ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."

Qhicago

Jegal

^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 17.

Cfje Courts.
Through the courtesy of I. C. Sloan, of
the Janesville bar, we have received a
copy of the following opinion:
U. S. DISTRICT COURT, W. D. OF
WISCONSIN.
In re Kablys and Manning.
In Bankruptcy.
DISCHARGETHE CLAUSE " FIFTY PEE CEN
TUM OF THE DEBTS PROVEN" CON
STRUED.
That under the bankrupt law, as amended, a
bankrupt Is entitled to his discharge without the
assent of his creditors, when his assets exceed fifty
per centum of the debts proven, and in determin
ing the question as to whether the assets do amount
to such sum, the costs and expenses of the pro
ceeding are not first to be deducted.Ed. Legal
News.
Opinion by Hopkins, J.
In this case the assignee received from
the estate of the bankrupts a sum ex
ceeding fifty per centum of the debts
proven, without deducting the costs and
expenses of the proceedings therefrom,
but after paying tne costs and expenses
it did not equal fifty per centum of the
debts. The debts were all contracted
since the 1st day of January, 18G9. Mr.
Kably, one of the bankrupts, now applies
(after having petitioned) for his dis
charge. He claims that he is entitled to
it without the assent of his creditors, as
the amount of his assets received />.- 'Im
assignee, exceeds fifty per centum ot'fio
claims proven. The creditors do not ap
pear to oppose. The determination of
the question involves a construction of
section 33 of the bankrupt actasamended by the act ofJuly 27, 18C8.
The counsel for the bankrupt contends
that in all cases, when tl*. jxdue of the
assets " equal fifty per centum of the debts
proven," a discharge should be granted
as a matter of right.
On the presentation of the question to
me, I thought it quite plain that such
was the meaning, but upon an examina
tion of the authorities, I found it not
quite so clear as I first thought.
I found that Judge Nelson in re Freder
ick 3 B. R., 117, and in re Graham 5 B. R.
155, had held that the term " assets" in
the 33rd section of the bankrupt act,
meant " the proceeds of the debtor's
property which are applicable to the
payment of his debts," and that Judge
Blatchford in re "Webb & Taylor, 3 B. R.
167, had concurred with Judge Nelson
in re Frederick and said " that the pro
ceeds of the bankrupt's property in the
hands of the assignee; subject to be
divided among the creditors at the time
of the hearing of the application for dis
charge, must De equal to fifty per centum.
of the debts proven."
These authorities being at variance
with my first impression of the meaning
of the section as amended, I have given
the subject a more thorough considera
tion than I at first thought it required.
I dislike to differ from those eminent
jurists, each of whom has done so much
toward eludidating the bankrupt act, and
in giving to it a harmonious and'efflcient
operation. I should ordinarily do so
with a good deal of distrust ana hesita
tion, but upon the question now under
consideration, I do not feel much embar
rassment, for, to me, it seems exceeding
ly clear, although at variance with their
views.
In re Frederick this question was not,
it seems to me, fairly before the court or
necessary to be decided, and the decis
ion may therefore be considered as obiter.
That was a case of voluntary bankruptcy
' and the bankrupt before any debts
were proven or assignee appointed, peti
tioned to have his assets appraised to
show that they exceeded fifty per cent,
of his provable debts. The judge denied
the application as no debts had been
proven or assignee appointed. The ap
plication was clearly premature, and
what the judge said upon the construc
tion of section 33, seems to'me to have
been unnecessary, and, therefore, not

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1872.

binding as authority. And in re Graham
the court had ordered certain property
subject to lien to be sold, discharged
therefrom and that the lien be transf'ered to the fund in court. The surplus of
the proceeds, after paying off that lien,
did not reach the required amount, and
the question before the court was as to
whether the amount of the fund applied
in discharge of the lien was to be reck
oned as a part of the " assets" in deter
mining whether they equaled 50 per
cent., and the court decided,that it could
not be, which disposed of that case, so
the portion of his opinion offering his
views in re French, as to the meaning of
section 23, was not strictly necessary. In
the report of the case in re Webb v. Tay
lor the facts are not stated, but from the
opinion I should infer that the question
was fairly before the court. Judge
Blatchford does not argue the question
or present any reasons for his opinion
but simply states his conclusions.
In order to determine the quest'on, it
becomes necessary to examine the his
tory of the legislation upon the subject.
Section 33 as originally adopted, declared
that " no discharge shall be granted to a
debtor whose assets do not pay fifty per
centum of the claims against his estate,
unless," etc. That clearly meant the pro
ceeds of the bankrupt's property appli
cable to the payment of the proven
claims. In other words net assets. The
ordinary definition of the term " assets"
was qualified and limited by other parts
of the sentence as much as if the word
" net" had been placed before it.
But Congress by the act of July 27,
1868, amended that clause so as to make
it read " no discharge shall be granted
to a debtor whose assets shall not be
equal to fifty per centum of the claims
proven," etc. 15 Stat, at large, page 228.
The Judge says in re Frederick " the
amendment of July, 1868, although more
favorable to the bankrupt, has not
changed the meaning of the word
'assets' in the section," and that as
the section now stands it must be con
strued as if it read " the proceeds of the
bankrupt's property in the hands of the
assignee, and subject to be divided among
his creditors, must be equal," etc. To
such construction I cannot yield my
assent. I think before the amendment
it was qualified by the context so that
it meant net assets as before stated.
But I think the amendment was adopted
for the purpose of removing that restric
tion, and that it should now receive its
ordinary signification, which is as com
prehensive as " estate" or " effects." We
must presume that Congress meant to
make some change in favor of the bank
rupt if the amendment was made in his
interest as is admitted by the learned
Judge in re Frederick. But if they did
not give him the right to a discharge,
based upon the gross value of his assets,
then they certainly did not improve his
condition at all, for before he was en
titled to a discharge upon paying fifty per
centum, and if he is not entitled to a dis
charge now unless " he has in the hands
of the assignee" fifty per centum to
pay upon his debts, the only change
made by it was that before the amend
ment he would have to see that it was
actually paid over, while under the
amendment he must see that it is in the
hands of his assignee ready to pay over.
Certainly such could not have been the
meaning of Congress in adopting the
amendment, and such a construction ef
fectually deprives him of any substan
tial benefit or advantage conferred upon
him or intended to have been given him
by the amendment.
The clear intention of the amendment,
to my mind, was to relieve the bankrupt
of the costs and expenses of the pro
ceedings. If the estate realized a sum
equal to 60 per cent., he should be dis
charged, whether it went to the pay
ment of costs and expenses or to the
creditors. The costs and expenses are
often, as in this case, largely increased

by litigation between the creditors and

by suits brought by the assignee, over
which the bankrupt has no control, and
if the creditors are willing to waste the
estate, or permit the assignee who is
their trustee to do so in expensive litiga
tion, they shall be responsible for the
consequences to that extent, that it shall
not be deducted from the proceeds of
the bankrupt's estate in determining
the amount nis assets would pay if ap
plied solely to the payment of his debts.
It seems to me that the ordinary mean
ing of the word "assets" comprises the
whole of a decedent's or insolvent's es
tate, unless limited by some qualifying
word or expression.
I think, as used in the section as
amended, it must receive its ordinary
signification, and be held to include all
the estate of the bankrupt, not that only
which is applicable to the payment of
debts, but that applicable to the payment
of costs and expenses as well. In sec
tion 47 it is certainly so used. It is there
stated " that if sufficient assets for the
payment of fees," etc., showing that it
may be used, and is used, in the act as
meaning the "estate" applicable alike
to the payment of debts and expenses.
I cannot find any authority in the act, or
any sufficient reason outside of it, for
giving to it more limited signification in
that section than in the others where it
is used. The word " estate " is used to
express a like purpose in section 30, and
the Supreme Court of the United States
has construed " no assets " in the 29th sec
tion as meaning that the assignee " has
not received or paid out any money on
account of the estate." (See form 35.)
The converse of the proposition would
be, that if he had received or paid out
money on account of the estate, he had
received assets.
Again, the amount to be divided
among creditors in section 28, is called
" estate and effects." I therefore think
the words " estate," " estate and effects,"
and " assets," are used synonymously in
the act. The term " assets" in that sec
tion, as amended, is not, in my opinion,
used to express the net balance to De dis
tributed among the creditors, as held by
the judges in the cases referred to. But,
on the contrary, it means the entire estate
of the bankrupt, irrespective of the use
to which it may be appropriated by the
court, and as the assets of the bank
rupts in this case exceeded fifty per
centum of the debts proven, the bank
rupt is entitled to his discharge without
the assent of his creditors, and in deter
mining the question as to whether the
assets do amount to such sum, the costs
and expenses of the proceedings are not
first to De deducted. I am aware that in
the administration of the bankruptcy
act, the District Courts occasionally differ
as to the true meaning of some of its
provisions. Such differences, I think,
ought, as far as possible, to be avoided,
for the good of tne profession as well as
of the parties, and I have, on questions
of practice not involving any substan
tial right or principle, often yielded my
opinion for the sake of conformity, but
I cannot allow the convenience or ad
vantages of conformity to control me
when to do so would deprive a party of
a valuable right secured to him by the
act.
I. C. Sloan, for bankrupts.
W are indebted to Edwabd Roby, of
the Chicago bar, for the following opin
ion:
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed Sept. 28, 1871.
Peter Beygeh et al. v. The City op Chicago.
Ward et al. v. The Same.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTSNEW ASSESSMENT
FOR DEFICIENCY.
1. Second Assessment not a Bar to a Thiud.
Where a deficiency exists upon an original assess
ment, and a second assessment has been made
therefor, and judgment has been rendered by the
court upon report and application of the collector,

Whole No. 175.

such Judgment is not a bar to a suit on a third
assessment for the same deficiency.
The fact that an appeal has been taken from the
judgment on the second assessment, and is pend
ing in the Supreme Court, does not change the
casethe judgment on the second is not a bar toa
third based on a different ordinance, the proceed
ings on the second having been abandoned by re
peal of the ordinance on which it was based.
2. Repokt of Commissioners : Rule.When a
statute of this character requires any matter to bo
specially reported, a report of something else from
which the special matter might possibly be in
ferred will not do.
Application.The clause authorizing second
assessment requires that it be made as nearly as
may be in the same manner as prescribed for the
first: for the first the commissioners must report,
as the basis for the ordinance, whether real estate
to be assessed can be found benefited to the extent
of the amount to be assessed : and this must be
found and reported as the basis for the second or
dinance, or the ordinance will be void.
3. The statute authorizing a new assessment
specifies the subject of that assessment, viz. : " de
linquent property."
Rule of Construction.Statutes imposing taxes
or burdens must be strictly construed, and the
subject liable to taxation must clearly appear.
Definition.Delinquent property is that hupon
i was
which an assessment nas been levied, which
due, and unpaid. Generally a demand must be
made, before this character attaches.
When th assessment is legally made, a duty
ariBes to pay it, and the failure is delinquency, the
ruukiiie the advertisement
uilvi-rUWtm- sufficient destatute making
mand.
In order to delinquency the assessment must bo
valid.
Where the first assessment was void for want of
notice, there was no delinquency, and could be no
second assessment.
4. Onus Probandi.The burden of proof is with
the party that holds the affirmation of the issue.
Rule of Construction.In a direct proceeding
whereby the officers clothed with a statutory power
derogatory to private property seek by a summary
motion in court to divest the owner of his prop
erty against his consent, the court can presume
nothing in favor of the proceeding.
Opinion by McAllister, J.
Although these cases are docketed as
separate suits, they arise out of the same
record. It appears that at the March
term, A. D. 1870, of the Superior Court
of Chicago, application was made by
appellee for judgment against the real
estate of appellants and others for what
is termed a new special assessment to
make up the deficiency of an original
assessment for curbing, etc., a portion of
Halsted street.
Several objections to the judgment
were filed, among which were the fol
lowing: 1st. The pendency on appeal in
the Supreme court of a former suit upon
an acsessment for the same deficiency
against the same lands. 2d. The assess
ment is void because the council ordered
the deficiency to be assessed absolute
ly upon delinquent real estate without
its being shown that the property was
delinquent, or that the same would be
benefited to the extent of the deficiency.
3d. That no legal notice was given of
the time and place of the meeting of
the commissioners to make the assess
ment.
These objections present the only
point which we deem worthy of con
sideration. Were these objections sus
tained by the facts, and were they
sufficient to defeat tne recovery in the
case ? To sustain the first objection, the
objectors gave in evidence the record of
the judgment of the Superior court at
the February term, 1869, from which it
appears that an application was made at
that term for judgment upon a new
assessment, ordered for the same alleged
deficiency by an ordinance passed in
September, 1868. Judgment was refused,
and an appeal taken to the Supreme
court, and from what appears, such ap
peal was still pending at the hearing in
this present suit. But it also appears
that in September, 1869, the council, by
ordinance, ordered another new assess
ment to be levied for the alleged de
ficiency, repealing the ordinance of 1868,
and annulling the assessment made un
der it. That the present suit was upon
the new assessment ordered in 1869.
Such former suit pending was therefore
upon a new assessment ordered in 1868,
wnile the present suit is for one ordered
in 1869, different assessments under dif
ferent ordinances. If the judgment in
the former case against the city would
not, if not appealed from, have consti
tuted a bar to the suit upon the assess
ment ordered in 1869, then most clearly

122
its pendency on appeal would not con
stitute a cause for the abatement of the
second suit. That such a judgment in
the former case would be no bar to the
second upon a different assessment is
clear upon both principle and authority.
The first objection, therefore, though
sustained by the facts, was insufficient to
prevent a recovery.
The second objection is of a more
serious character, and the first point to
be determined is whether or not it, in
fact, has any basis in the record. If we
assume that in this case the commission
ers were required to comply with the
provision of the 4th section of chap. 7
of the charter, via : " And shall also
specially report whether, in their
opinion, real estate to be assessed
for said improvement can be found
benefited to the extent of the dam
ages, costs and expenses necessary
to be incurred thereby," (Gary's Laws,
61,) then we are satisfied there is a
clear want of compliance. The only
language in their report that approxi
mates to it, is this, "and that according
ly said deficiency may be properly
chargeable to the delinquent property
of the real estate specially benefited by
said improvement." The conclusion
that the deficiency "may be properly
chargeable to the delinquent property "
might have been based upon other rea
sons than that it was in their opinion
benefited to the extent of the deficiency.
When a statute of this character requires
any matter to be specially reported, a
report of something else from which the
special matter might possibly be inferred
will not do. The 4th sec. above referred
to, does not seem to apply in terms to
the class of improvements in this case,
viz.: curbing, filling and paving a portion
of Halsted street, but to a case where
the Board recommend the opening,
straightening, widening or extending
any street. Curbing, filling or paving a
street is neither straightening, widening
or extending it.
However, the 36th sec. of chap. 7
(Gary's Laws, 75), the only provision
authorizing a new assessment, declares
that it shall be made as near as may be
in the same manner as is therein pre
scribed for the first assessment. The
case of Wright v. The City of Chicago,
46 Ills., 44, was an assessment for the
same kind of improvement, viz.: curb
ing and paving a part of Washington
street, and it was there held, that it was
an esential prerequisite that the report
of the commissioners should show that
there was real estate which would be
specially benefited to the extent of the
sum proposed to be assessed over and
above that for the benefit resulting to the
city at large. There is no perceptible
difference between that case and this.
We have examined with great par
ticularity all of the records of the pro
ceedings in levying this assessment, and
there is nothing in any part of them to
show that the lots, on which the sum of
$14,068 99-100 was assessed, were bene
fited to that extent by the improvement,
or that they were delinquent property.
The statute authorizing a new assess
ment specifies the subject of that assess
ment, viz : " delinquent property." Stattute imposing taxes or burdens ,must be
strictly construed, and the subject liable
to taxation must clearly appear. Dwarris
on Statutes, 749. The word "delinquent"
as here used has a definite legal meaning
which can not be disregarded. It means,
in its specification of the property sub
ject to the assessment, property upon
which an assessment has been levied
which was due and unpaid. Generally
a demand must be made before the char
acter of delinquency attaches. But by
tho 12th section of chap. 9 of charter
(Gary's Laws, 88) the advertisement of
notice of application for judgment " shall
be held a sufficient demand and refusal
to pay the said taxes and assessment.
When the assessment is legally made, a
duty arises to pay it, and the failure is
delinquency. In order to delinquency
the assessment must be valid. If void,
no duty is imposed to pay it, and no de
linquency imputed for the omission.
The power to levy the new assessment is
expressly limited to this class of prop
erty, and the commissioners had no
more authority to levy it on property
not delinquent than on property in the
most remote town in the county.
The appellants made the specific ob
jection that these lots were not delin
quent property. If the objection was
true in fact, then it was not subject to

Chicago

Legal

the assessment which as to such proper

ty would be void. Under this objection
upon whom was the onus probanda t In
proceedings where no common law
record comes into the case, and where
of course the onus probandi is not techni
cally presented, the courts will confirm
analogically, and as it were, upon a
mutual record, to the principles which
govern at common law. This rule is
recognized by the most reliable authori
ties. 1 Greenlf. Ev., ? 77. In sec. 74
same volume, this author gives the fol
lowing rule which governs in the pro
duction of evidence : " that the obliga
tion of proving of any fact lies upon the
party who substantially asserts the af
firmative."
If no objections are filed in these
cases, the court renders judgment upon
the collector's report with a proper cer
tificate of publication of the notice.
" The court, says the statute, " shall
pronounce judgment against the several
lots, etc., for which no objections shall
be filed." If objections are filed, he
cannot do so without first hearing and
determining the objections. Suppose a
party merely objects that there never
was any ordinance ordering the assess
ment. This objection goes to the foun
dation of the proceeding. Upon whom
then is the onus probandi f Does not the
appellee stand in the position substan
tially asserting the affirmative of the
issue? It must be so. The objector
can not, on general principles, be re
quired to prove a negative. The sub
ject matter of the negative averment
lies peculiarly within the knowledge of
the appellee. Greenlf. Ev., sec. 79. It is
a direct proceeding between appellee
and the property owner, wherehy the
former, clothed with a statutory power,
derogatory to private property, seeks, by
a summary motion in court, to divest the
latter of his property against his con
sent. In such case the court can pre
sume nothing in favor of the proceeding.
Alexandria v. Hunter, 2 Munf., 228.
Wright v. The Citv of Chicago, supra.
It is true the delinquency in the ab
stract involves a negative element, but
as here presented to prove delinquency
requires more affirmative proof. Where
as, for the objector to prove the want of
it, without prima facie evidence from the
other side, would be very embarrassing,
if not impracticable. If appellee had
shown a former original assessment on
these lots, the warrant and publication
of the notice, made constructively to
operate as evidence of demand and re
fusal, then a prima facie case of de
linquency would have been made. But
instead thereof, the objector gave in evi
dence copies of all the proceedings levy
ing the assessment in controversy cover
ing every step, and they, failing to show
anything on the subject, constituted
prima facie evidence against the delin
quency of the property.
From what appears by this record, the
application for judgment was improperly
allowed.
As has been already stated, the appel
lants introduced in evidence copies of
all the proceedings certified by the city
clerk. The certificate of publication, of
the notice of the assessment, is fatally
defective, and we cannot indulge in the
presumption that there was any other
proof of the notice. The certificate is
that the notice had been published in
the Chicago Republican, the corporation
newspaper, six days consecutively exclu
sive of Sundays and holidays, commen
cing on a particular day. We have re
peatedly held at this term, that, as the
court cannot, from the language used,
ascertain the date of the last paper con
taining the notice, the certificate is fatal
ly defective. The judgment of the court
below must be reversed and the cause
remanded.
Reversed.
Our thanks are due the Hon. Wm. H.
Underwood, of the Belleville bar, for
the following opinion to appear in the
Illinois Reports:
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Samuel J. Hayes v. The Ottawa, Oswego & Fox
River Valley R. R. Co.
1. Condemning Right of Way for a railroad
What facts to be considered in estimating damages and
benefits.In estimating the damages and benefits
to result from the construction and use of a rail
road over land which has been condemned for
that purpose, under the act of 1852, the jury are
not confined to the consideration of the state of
facts as they existed at the time the land was
taken, but may consider the subject in the light of
the facts as they exist at the time of the trial.
2. So a stipulation voluntarily entered into by

News.

the railroad company, to the effect that they would

erect a depot upon their road, near to the land in
respect to which the inquiry of damages and
benefits is being made, is admissible in evidence
on behalf of the company, upon such inquiry, al
though the location ol the depot at that point had
not been determined upon until the time of the
trial.
3. The question whether the company would be
bound by the stipulation to locate the proposed
depot at the place indicated, isnot one affecting its
admissibility. The jury could judge, from all the
evidence, whether It would be located at that or a
more remote point, and determine its effect upon
the value of the land accordingly.
1l4. SameOpinions of witnesses.Upon such an
nquiry, respecting the question of damage* and
benefits, the opinions of witnesses are admissible,
as to the benefit which would probably result to
land by the location of a railroad depot within a
certain distance of it.
5. SameOf the question of compensation and bene
fits.In fixing the compensation to the owner of
land condemned for the right of way for a rail
road, under, the act of 1852, ne must be paid, in
money alone, the full value of the land taken, ir
respective of any benefits or advantages which
may result to his remaining land from the con
struction and use of the road.
6. But in estimating and assessing his damages
by reason of the construction and use of the road,
apart from the question of the value of the land
taken, such benefits and advantages are then to be
taken into consideration and estimated.
7. Former Decision.The decision in the case of
The Alton and Sangamon Railroad Co. v. Carpen
ter, 14 111., l'JO, holding a different rule In regard to
compensation being made In benefits, was made
under another statutethe act of March 8, 1845
and does not control the construction of the act of
1852 on that subject.
8. VerdictIts requisites in such cose.The ver
dict upon such a trial, under the act of 1852, should
find tliu compensation and the damages sepa
rately.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of La
Salle county ; the Hon. E. S. Leland,
Judge, presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Messrs. Mayo & Widmer, for the ap
pellant, on the subject of rendering com
pensation for land condemned as a right
of way for a railroad, in benefits result
ing from the construction and use of the
road, cited James River & Kanawha Ca
nal Co. v. Turner, 9 Leigh, 334-0 ; Wino
na & St. Peters Railroad Co. v. Waldron
etal. 11 Minn. 511 ; State v. Miller, 3
Zabr. 383 ; Petition Mt. Washington Rail
way Co. 35 N. H. 147 ; Pacific Railroad
Co. v. Chrystal, 25 Mo. 546 ; Robbins v.
Milwaukee & H. Railroad Co. 6 Wis. 636;
Woodfolk v. Nashville & Chattanooga
Railroad Co. 2 Swan, 422 : Henry v. Dub
uque & Pacific Railroad Co. 2 Iowa, 288 ;
Horstein v. Atlantic & Great Western
Railroad Co. 51 Penn. St. 90 ; Meacham
v. Fitchburg Railroad Co. 4 Cush. 291 ;
Upton v. South ReadingBranch Railroad
Co. 8. Cush. 600; Isom v. Mississippi
Central Railroad Co. 36 Miss. 300 ; State
of Illinois v. Evans, 2 Scam. 208.
Mr. Washington Bushnell, for the ap
pellees.
Mr. Justice Sheldon delivered the
opinion of the court.
This was a proceeding to condemn
land of the appellant for the way of the
appellees' railroad, under the act of June
22, 1852.
An appeal was taken from the assess
ment made by the three commissioners,
to the circuit court of La Salle county.
On the trial, there was read in ev
idence to the jury, on the part of the
plaintiffs, an instrument in writing, sign
ed by the president, secretary and treas
urer of the company, as follows :
" The Ottawa, Oswego & Fox River Val
ley Raiirftd Co. v. Samuel J. Hays. In
the abov> entitled cause, now pending in
the circuit court of La Salle county, and
being tried by a jury empaneled for
that purpose by the said court, it is here
by expressly stipulated by the said rail
road company, that in the construction
of said railroad from Streator to Ottawa,
there shall be constructed and built as
follows :
" 1. A passenger and freight depot at
South Ottawa. 2. A passenger and
freight depot in the town of Farm Ridge,
to be located on the line of said railroad,
as near the centre of said town (north and
south) as shall be found practicable upon
examination. 3. Suitable farm crossings
shall be made and maintained, with sub
stantial bars, gates or cattle guards, at
such points as shall be found necessary
for the accommodation of the lands
through which the said railroad passes,
and a good four board fence shall be
built and maintained on each side of said
road track.
" Ottawa, June 23, 1870."
And it was in evidence that de
fendant's land lay in the town of Farm
Ridge, the north line of which was one
mile south of the northern boundary of
said town, and that said town was six
miles in extent, north and south.
The court then, against the objection
of the defendant, admitted in evidence
the opinions of witnesses in regard to

the benefit of the road to defendant's

land, on the supposition that the depot
should be located within two miles of hy
which is complained of as erroneous.
It is claimed that evidence in regard
to the location of the depot was not rel
evant, because it was not determined up
on at the time of the taking of the de
fendant's land, in August, 1869, and that
only the state offacts then existing could
be considered. That is the time in ref
erence to which the value of the land
taken is to be estimated.
But when damages and benefits come
to be estimated, by reason of the con
struction and use of the road, the man
ner in which the road is to be construct
ed and used is important ; the location of
a depot pertains to its construction and
use, and if that particular, in the manner
of the construction and use of the road,
has not been determined upon until the
trial, we think it may then be considered
upon the question of benefit and dama
ges.
It is said that the opinions of the wit
nesses should not have been received.
The opinions of witnesses are admissible
as to the value of property, and why not
as to what affects its value ? In Ottawa
Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Graham, 35 111'
346, it was held that the opinions of wit
nesses were properly received as to the
amount of damages done to premises on
account of gas works, and we think they
are equally receivable as to the benefit
which would probably result to land by
the location of a railroad depot within a
certain distance of it.
It is again urged that the testimony
should not have been inquired for and
elicited, on the hypothesis that the de
pot would be located within two miles
of defendant's land, as the stipulation,
in evidence did not bind the railroad
company to build it within that distance.
It was for the jury to judge whether
the hypothesis was supported by the
evidence or not.
Under all the evidence, they would
have been warranted in finding that the
location of the depot would have been
within, or not far from the assumed, dis
tance. And had they even believed
that it would have been established at a
greater distance off than the one as
sumed, still fhe evidence might have
been properly considered by them, in
coming to the conclusion of how the
land would be affected in value by a
depot at the spot where they believed it
would be placed. We find no error in
this admission of the testimony.
The giving of the following instruc
tions is assigned for error :
" The jury are instructed, that if they
believe, from the evidence, that Samuel
J. Hayes was, at any time prioa- to thecommencement of proceedings by said
company, to condemn the right of way
through his land, benefited by reason of
the contemplated construction and use
of said railroad, in an amount equal to,
or greater than, the compensation and
damages accruing to him by reason of
the contemplated construction and use
of said railroad through his farm, they
will award him neither damages nor
compensation. And it makes no differ
ence in this case, that some of Samuel
J. Hayes' neighbors have been in like
manner benefited without incurring any
damage or injury thereby.
" That is, the law is simply this : the
jury should estimate the compensensation for the land taken, and the damage
to the land not taken, if they find
any damage in addition to the compen
sation. If, however, they believe that
the benefits and advantages, general and
special, which Hayes derives from the
construction of the road, if any, equals
or exceeds said compensation and dam
ages, they should allow nothing, and as
much as they may believe the compen
sation and damages of the land owner
exceeds the said benefits and advan
tages, so they should find and state in
their finding, the assessment to be made
by the jury upon the state of facts at
the time of the taking, treating the road
as one which would be made."
The court are of opinion that these
instructions are erroneous, in allowing
benefits and advantages to be set off
against, or deducted from, comriensation
for land taken for the way of the road.
The act under which this proceeding
is had, requires the commisioners to
" fix the compensation to be made to
each party or owner of lands to be taken
and used as the way on which the road,
canal or other work shall be constructed

Chicago
and pass ; also for lands taken and used
for any of the other purposes specified
in this act ; and also estimate and assess
the damages sustained by any person or
persons, by reason of the construction
and use of the work specified in the
petition, taking into consideration and
estimating the benefits and advantages
to the parties resulting from the con
struction and use of the road, canal or
other improvement," and afterwards, to
" make reports in writing, stating separ
ately the compensation to be paid for,
the right of way over or upon each lot
of land, and the damages allowed to
each owner or party by reason of the
construction and use of the improve
ment or work," and on the trial, in case
of appeal, "the jury shall find and state
the amount, if anything, which shall be
paid as compensation for right of way ;
the amount, if anything, to be paid for
lands required for any other purpose ;
and the amount, if anything, assessed
or allowed as damages ; making the ver
dict conform to the questions and facts
in the case.
Under this act, in fixing the land own
er's compensation, he must be paid, in
money alone, the full value of the land
taken, irrespective of any benefits and
advantages which may result to his re
maining land from the construction and
use of the road. But in estimating and
assessing his damages, bv reason of the
construction and use of the road, such
benefits and advantages are then to be
taken into consideration and estimated.
The decision in Alton and Sangamon
Railroad Co. v. Carpenter, 14 111., 190, was
under a' different statute the act con
cerning the right of way, approved
March 3, 1845, and does not control in
the construction of the statute now un
der consideration.
The verdict of the jury was : " We, the
jury, find for Samuel J. Hayes, allowing
him $150, upon the basis that the rail
road company build and maintain
fences, crossings, gates or bars and cattle
guards," which was defective in not
finding as to compensation and damages
separately, as required by the statute.
The judgment is reversed and the cause
remanded.
Judgment reversed.
LIV. ILLINOIS REPORTS.
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman
L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following
head-notes to cases to appear in the 54th
volume of Illinois Reports :
HIGHWAYS.
1. Time of .filing order of commissioners
establishing a highway.Under the town
ship organization law, there is no time
prescribed within which to file, in the
town clerk's office, the order of commis
sioners of highways establishing a road ;
all that can be required is, that it should
be filed within a reasonable time.
(Opinion by Breese, J.)Allison et al. v.
Commissioners of Highways, p. 170.
2. In thiscase, the petition for the road
was posted on the eighth of May, and
the order of the commissioners estab
lishing the road was filed in the town
clerk's office on the twenty-second of
August, following. It was considered
that the requirements of the law were
fully answered by this action.lb.
3. Jurisdiction of commissionersNeces
sity of adjourning from day to day.The
omission of commissioners of highways
to adjourn from day to day, pending
proceedings before them upon a petition
for a public road, is not an irregularity
which is jurisdictional in its character,
and an appeal to the supervisors upon
the merits would operate as a waiver
thereof.lb.
evidence.
1. Admissibility.In reviewing the ac
tion of the Circuit Court upon questions
of objection to certain testimony, this
court say, the case was one in which
great latitude of examination and crossexamination was allowable, forgery be
ing charged on the one party and per
jury on the other; and it is impossible,
in such cases, to mark out by definite
boundaries, the field of inquiry proper
to be traversed.(Opinion by Bbeese, J.)
Faulk v. KeUums, p. 188.
SEVERAL DEFENDANTS.
2. Judgment must be against all or none.
In actions on contracts against two or
more, and all are served with process,
judgment must be rendered against all or
none.lb.

Legal

News.

123

3. Exception to the rule.The exception ing the mode in which it might be paid,
IDAHO.
From Rock Creek to Six Islands.
to this rule is where the defense is per it was held, in an action on the note by
sonal, as infancy, bankruptcy, and the an assignee after maturity, that the note
KENTUCKY.
and agreement having been executed
From Frankfort, via Peak's Mills, to
like.J*.
4. So in an action on a contract against together should be construed as one Owenton.
two defendants, where both are served agreement, and as the consideration
LOUISIANA.
with process and but one pleads to the moved from A B alone, A B & Co. and
From New Orleans to St. Bernard.
action, it is improper to enter judgment the assignee would be bound by the pro
MICHIGAN.
against the party pleading, and not visions of the agreement, and the maker
From Lapeer to North Branch.
From North Branch to Doyle's Mills.
against his co-defendant. The latter having performed, or shown a readiness
should be defaulted, when the same jury to perfornij the stipulations as to pay
From North Branch, via Clifford, in
could assess the damages against him, ment, consisting in the furnishing of a Michigan, to Newberry.
and so final judgment be entered against house by the maker to A B the rent to
From Lapeer to Hadley.
be applied on the note, no recovery could
both defendants.lb.
From Milford to Holly.
be had.(Opinion by Lawrence, C. J.)
MAINE.
JUDGMENT.
From Waldoboro', via North Waldo5. Its requisites.An entry was made Bradley v. Marshall, p. 173.
boro', to Washington.
upon the verdict of a jury as follows:
From Washington to Liberty Village.
" whereupon the court enters judgment
OFFICIAL.
MISSOURI.
upon the finding :" Held insufficient, as LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,
From Wheeling to Lindley.
having no element of a judgment other Passed at the Second Session of tlu FortyFrom Schell City to Stockton.
than a bare recognition of the finding of
Second Congress.
From Appleton City to Rosco.
the jury, no action of the court being
[General natureNo. 1.]
From Osceola to Stockton.
had upon that finding.lb.
AN ACT relating to the limitation of steam pressure
From Tuscumbia to Rocky Mount.
on
towing
and
freight
boats
on
the
Mississippi
VERDICT.
From O'Fallon, via Cottleville and
river and its tributaries.
6. May be put in form by tlie court.It
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Dalhoff, to O'Fallon.
is competent for the court to give proper Representatives of the United Stales of From St. Charles to Alton, in Illinois.
form to the finding of a jury, in their America in Congress assembled, That the
From Altona to Lucas.
presence, and with their assent, and even provisions of an act entitled "An act to
From State Line, via Jonesville and
without such assent.lb.
provide for the better security of life on Brosley, to Burdett.
vessels propelled in whole or in part by
From Hermitage to Nevada City.
PLEADING.
&c, approved February twentyFrom Barnumtown to Roney.
1 . Declarationwhether upon a bond with steam,
eighteen hundred and seventyFrom Newark to Locust Hill.
a condition.The first count in a declara eighth,
so far as they relate to the limita
MINNESOTA.
tion in debt described the instrument one,
tion of steam pressure of steamboats
From Carver to Henderson.
sued on as the writing obligatory of the used
exclusively for towing and carrying
MISSISSIPPI.
defendant, sealed with his seal, whereby freight
on the Mississippi river and its
From Brookville to Pickensville.
he acknowledged himself to be held and tributaries,
hereby so far modified as
MASSACHUSETTS.
firmly bound unto the plaintiff in a cer to substituteare
for such boats one hundred
From New Bedford to Rochester.
tain sum of money : Held, the count de and fifty pounds
of steam pressure in
NEW YORK.
clared upon a bond single for the pay place of one hundred
ten pounds, as
From Cuyler, via New Boston, to Tay
ment of money, and not upon a bond with provided in said actand
the standard lor.
a condition. Nor did the count show the pressure upon standardfor
boilers of fortyFrom Haskinville to Cohocton.
bondwas taken by the plaintifl'in anoffici- two
inches diameter, and of plates of From Carthage to Copenhagen.
cial capacity, so it did not fall within the one-quarter
of an inch in thickness; and
From Romulusville to Fayette.
rule that, in an action on an official bond, such boats may,
on the written permit of From Hale's Eddy, via New Balti
the condition must be set out and breach the supervising inspector
the district more and Danville, in Pennsylvania, to
es assigned.(Opinion by Lawrence, C. in which such boats shall of
carry on their Gulf Summit.
3.)I<oltz v. Stevens, p. 180.
business, for a period of six months from
NORTH CAROLINA.
DECLARING ON OFFICIAL BOND.
and after the passage of this joint resolu
From Burnsville to Pensacola.
2. Misjoinder of counts.Another count tion, be permitted to carry steam above
From Ridgeway to Hilliard's Store.
in the same declaration described the the standard pressure of one hundred and
From Boon to Bowling Rock.
bond sued upon as the writing obligatory ten pounds, but not exceeding the stand
OHIO.
of the defendant, whereby he acknowl ard pressure of one hundred and fifty
From Liberty, via Goodwin, to Fair
edged himself bound unto the plaintiff, pounds to the square inch.
Haven.
" constable of Jasper county," with a
J. G. Blaine,
From Van Wert, via Wolfcate's Mills
condition that the defendant should, on Speaker of tlie House of Representatives. and Blakie's Store, to Decatur.
a certain day, " deliver to the said con
Schuyler Colfax,
From Massilon to Wilmot.
stable, or to such other officer as might, Vice-President of the United States and
From Canton to Hartville.
by law, be entitled to receive the same,"
President of tlie Senate.
OREGON.
certain property which had been levied
Approved, December 20, 1871.
From Pendleton to Dalles.
on under execution against a third per
U. S. Grant.
NEBRASKA.
son, and placed in the custody of de
From Grand Island, in Hall County,
fendant as a bailee. It was held, this
[General natureNo. 2.]
via. St. Paul and the north fork of the
AN ACT to establish post-roads.
count did not declare upon an official
River, to Helena, Montana.
Be it enacted by tlie Senate and House of Loup
bond running to the plaintiff and his
From Norfolk, in Madison County, to
successors in office, and hence there was Representatives of the United States of Amer Fort Laramie, in Wyoming.
no misjoinder of this count with the for ica in Congress assembled, That the follow
From Red Cloud to Denver, in Colo
mer, which was upon a bond single for ing be established as post-roads :
rado.
ALABAMA.
the payment of money.lb.
From Niobrara to Fort Laramie, in
From Gordon, via Sellers, to Campbell- Wyoming.
BAILMENT.
in Florida.
TENNESSEE.
3. Property levied on under execution ton,
From Cross Plains, via Collinsville,
From Dover to Erin.
Trial of right of property.Where an of Gidleys,
Thompsonville, and Huff's Gap,
From Dover to Murray, in Kentucky.
ficer has levied an execution upon per to Brock's.
From Johnson City to Marion , in North
sonal property, and placed the same in
From Jasper to Elyton.
Carolina.
the hands of a third person merely as a
From Fulton to Bexar.
From Dyersburgh, via Roaller's,
bailee, the fact that a person other than
From Chepultepec to Springville.
Pearces, and Fishers, to Trenton.
the defendant in execution procures a
From Columbia to Fort Gaines, in
From Trenton, via Eaton and Friend
trial of the right of property to be had, Georgia.
ship, to Dyersburgh.
under the statute, which results in favor
ARKANSAS.
From Kenton, via Masons Hall, to
of the claimant, will not justify such
From Binkley to Jacksonport.
Deavenport.
bailee in refusing to deliver the property
dakotah.
WEST VIRGINIA.
to the officer who placed it in his cus
From Bon Homme to Springfield.
From Buckannon to Bealington.
tody, according to the terms of the bail
FLORIDA.
From Valley Head, via Webster C. H.,
ment.lb.
From Deadman's Bay) via Spring War to Summerville.
4. In such case, the finding on the rior,
Hampton Springs, Perry C. H.
VIRGINIA.
trial of the right of property would not Lovett's
St. Augustine Crossroads,
From
Gladeville
to Grundy.
authorize the bailee to surrender the McCall's Mills,
Academy, to Quitman, in
From Elk Creek to Carsonville.
property to the claimant, but he should, Georgia.
From Pattonsville, via Cedar Point, to
notwithstanding such finding, return the
From Mellonville, via Appopka and Sneydsville.
property to the officer.lb.
Oakland, to Orlando.
From King George, via Shiloh, Payne's
TRIAL OF RIGHT OF PROPERTY.
GEORGIA.
Store, and Leedstown, to Foneswood.
From Washington to Lincolnton.
5. Ms effect and object.- The object of a
From Heathsville to Burgess, Store.
INDIANA.
trial of the right of prt
property, under the
WISCONSIN.
From Huntingburg, via Bretzville and
statute, is merely to furnish an indem
From New London to Weyauwega.
nity to the officer in case he disposes of St. Anthony, to Schnelleville.
From
Pensaukee,
via Brookside, to
From Bennett's Switch to Waupecong. West Pensaukee.
the property in conformity with the ver
From Hillsborough to Jacksonville.
dict; but the officer may, notwithstand
Approved, January 16, 1872.
From Liberty to Fairhaven.
ing a verdict for the claimant, retain and
IOWA.
sell the property at his peril, if he choose
[General natureNo. 3.]
From Fontanelle to Custom.
AN ACT to establish post-roads.
to do so, though, in such case, the only
From Spencer, via Sibley and Rock
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
safe course for the officer is to surrender
Representatives of the United States of Amer
Rapids, to Sioux Falls, in Dakotah.
it.Ib.
ica in Congress assembled, That the follow
i rom Eldora to Waterloo.
ASSIGNEE AFTER MATURITY.
ing be established as post-roads:
From Lemars to Orange.
Concurrent agreement as to mode of pay
From Lemars to Beloit.
PENNSYLVANIA.
ment. Where a promissory note, paya
From Carroll to Winterset.
From Lebanon, via Fontana, Coleble on its face to A B & Co. was given
From Yatton to Columbus City.
brook, Mastersonville, Old Line, and
for a debt due to A B alone, and at the
From Stuart, via Arbor Hill, to Cres- Sporting Hill, to Manheim.
same time the note was executed there ton.
From Annville, via Bellview and Wa
was an agreement in writing between
ter Works to Jonestown.
ILLINOIS.
A B and the maker of the note, providApproved January 16, 1872.
From Colchester to Fandon.

124

Chicago

Legal

News.

of the work, the points decided in the

Chicago Legal News. profession. Judge Wallace, on Thursday cases of England and America relating
morning, appointed George Wheeler
clerk pro tern. Mr. Wheeler has been to contracts. The foot-notes contain ci
deputy clerk in the office for more than tations to the anthorities referred to in
six years, and no better appointment the text, and comments of the author
CHICAGO, FEBRUARY 3, 1872.
could be made. He is strictly honest, upon particular cases. Mr. Hilliard very
pleasing in his manners, understands properly says in his preface that " a text
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
and minds his own business,very nec book must now be substantially made
The Chicago Legal News Co., essary qualifications for a good clerk. We up from the current English and AmerAT 115 HADISON STREET.
hope his appointment may be perma can Reports." In a text-book the pro
nent. Mr. Pollock, the efficient probate fession are more desirous of finding
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
clerk, Mr. Herrick, who is always gen what the courts have decided upon the
tlemanly and obliging, and Col. Niles, questions involved, than the opinions of
Terms :
Two Dollars per annum, in advance. Singlecop- who writes a more beautiful record than the author, no matter how distinguished
les Ten Cents.
any man that ever wrote a record in this he may be, for the law is what the courts
County, all remain in their former po make it. We predict that these volumes
Scale of Advertising Rates.
will receive a warmer welcome from the
sitions.
Space. 1 w. 2 w. 3 w.| 4w. 3 m. 6 m. 1 yprofession, than ever accompanied any
88.00 "$15.50 "J30.00
1 sq $1.00 JL75 nxi
Sale of Law Books. More law books other of the valuable works of Mr. Hil
2.00 8.50 4.75 6.00 15.75 80.00 69.00 have been sold to the lawyers of Chicago liard, and advise all our readers who are
2 sq
2.80 5.00 6.50 8.00 23.00 44.00 87.00 within the past three months, than were in active practice to add them to their
3sq
X col.... 4.68 8.75 12 87 15.00 87.50 73.75 137.50 ever sold to the lawyers of any other libraries.
Hcol.... 8.75 14.37 21.50 27.50 72.50 135.00 262.50 city in many times that period. The A Treatise on the Principles of Plead
sales for the coming year will be very
ing in Civil Actions; comprising a
1 col 15.00 27.50 38.75 52.50 iai.no 262.50- 437.50 great. The News is the best medium for
Summary View of the whole Proceed
ings in a Suit at Law. By Henry John
Ten lines of Agate make a Square.
Advertisements must be paid for in advance, booksellers to reach the bar, and for the
Stephen, Sergeant-at-Law. From the
and when not so paid. 50 per oeut. will be added bar to make their wants known to the
Second London Edition, with a Pre
Legal Notices not included in the above.
booksellers.
face, an Introduction, a Dissertation on
Printed at the Chicago Legal News Press, 18
Parties to Actions, and Notes, by
North Jefferson street, Chicago.
Samuel Tyler, LL.D., Professor in the
ftecent ^uoltcatt'ons.
Law Department of Columbian Col
lege, Washington, D. C, and author of
THE LEflAL NEWS OFFICE Is mt 118 American Trade-Mark Cases. A Comthe Maryland Simplified Pleading, etc
Wt Xadlaon Street. The Printing
Snation of all the Reported Trade
Washington, D. C. : W. H. & 0. H.
Establishment la at 18 Iff. Jefferson sK.
lark Cases decided in the American
Morrison, Law Book Publishers and
Courts prior to the year 1871, with an
Booksellers. 1871. Sold by Callaghan
We call attention to the following
Appendix containing the Leading
& Co., Law Booksellers, Chicago.
English
Cases,
and
the
United
States
opinions, reported at length in this
This volume is a reprint of the second
Act in relation to the Registration of
issue :
Trade-Marks, with Constructions of edition of Stephen on Pleading, and is
Discharge of Bankrupt.The opinion
the Commissioners of Patents affect too well known to require any extended
ing the same. Edited by Rowland
of the United States District Court for
In our opinion, no one volume
Cox, Counselor-at-Law and Editor of notice.
the W. D. of Wisconsin, delivered by
the American Law Times. Cincinnati : ever published contains as much of the
Hopkins, J., holding that a bankrupt is
Robert Clarke & Co. 1871. Sold by pure science of pleading as this one.
entitled to his discharge without the as
E. B. Myers & Co., Chicago.
sent of his creditors, when his assets ex
This is a beautifully executed volume
We are under obligations to M. Mil
ceed fifty per cent, of the debts proven, of 782 pages, printed with new, clear lard, of the East St. Louis bar, for the
including in such sum the costs and ex type upon a superior quality of book following opinions :
penses of the proceeding.
paper, and strongly bound. It is a credit
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Special AssessmentsNew Assessment to the publishing-house from which it
Holms v. Fihlenburg.
emanates.
It
will
be
remembered
that
for Deficiency.The opinion of the Su
THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF SPARTA NO
Fisher's
Patent
Reports,
the
handsomest
POWER TO ISSUE ITS SUMMONS BEYOND
preme Court of this State by McAllis
CITY LIMITS. AND ACQUIRE JURIS
ter, J., construing important sections of reports ever printed in America, were THE
DICTION OVER DEFENDANT SERVED WITH
published
by
Robert
Clarke
&
Co.
With
OUT
THE
CITY.
the statute, in reference to special assess
Opinion by Lawrence, C. J.
ments and defining the mode of making the increase of commerce, the concen
This record presents the question,
a second assessment. This is an import tration of capital, and the multiplication whether the legislature, in creating the
of
great
monopolies
and
extensive
busi
ant opinion to property-holders in cities.
Court of Common Pleas in the city of
Since the opinion was in type, the Su ness houses, the law relating to Trade- Sparta, in Randolph county, at the
of 1869, had power to authorize
preme Court have granted a rehearing Mark Cases has grown in importance, session
and we think this volume prepared by the court to issue its summons beyond
in the case.
Mr. Cox will supply a much-needed want. the city limits, and acquire jurisdiction
Condemning Right of Way. The The leading American cases upon the over a defendant served without the city.
question was fully considered and
opinion of the Supreme Court, of this subject of trade-marks, as well as some This
decided by this court in The People v.
State, delivered by Sheldon, J., defining of the English cases, are gleaned from Evans, 18 Ills. 362, and we fully concur
what facts are to be considered in esti many volumes of reports, and brought in the reasoning and conclusion of the
in that case.
mating damages and benefits in con within the compass of a single volume. court
In the nse before us, the court acquir
demning the right of way for a railroad. The head-notes to the opinions are very ed no juiisdiction. and the demurrer to
This is an important decision, and may carefully prepared, exceedingly brief, the defendant's plea should have been
be studied with profit by our legislators and give only the points decided by the overruled. Judgment reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
before passing any law for the condem court. There are many important cases
Henry Gardner v. Henry A. Witbord.
nation of land for such purposes.
reported in this work, and we are satis TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE COM
Tax -DeedCloud upon TitleRe fied, when it becomes known to the pro
MON PLEAS COURT OF THE CITY OF
moval of.The opinion of the Supreme fession, that no lawyer will prepare a SPARTA.
Court of Illinois, delivered by Sheldon, brief in a trade-mark case without con
Opinion by Sheldon, J.
The error assigned upon this record is
J., in regard to the removal in equity of sulting its pages. It will be sent to any
a motion to quash the writ.
a tax-deed, which was a cloud upon the address by the publishers, charges paid, sustaining
The writ was properly directed " to the
title, the owner being in possession of upon receipt of the price, $8.
city marshal and all sheriffs, coronors
constables," as the act to establish the
the land.
The Law of Contracts, by Francis Hil- and
Court of Common Pleas in the city of
Common Pleas CourtsTerritorial
liard, author of " The Law of Torts," Sparta,
Randolph county, expressly
"The Law of Injunctions," etc. In providesinthat
Jurisdiction of.Two opinions of the
all process shall be so di
two
volumes.
Vol.
I.
Philadelphia
:
same court, holding that the Common . Kay & Brother, 17 and 19 south Sixth rected. Session laws of 1869, page 140,
8.
Pleas Court of the city of Sparta, had no
street, Law Boooksellers, Publishers, sec.
The venue of the court is well enough
jurisdiction over a defendant served with
and Importers. 1872. Sold by E. B. laid
in the writ. The proper State and
Myers <x Co., Chicago. Price $15.
its summons beyond the city limits.
County are named in the margin, accord
These two volumes have just been issu ing to the ordinary form, and the com
The Clerk of the Cook County ed from the press. They contain 1303 pa mand in the body of the writ is, to sum
the defendant " to be and appear
Court.On last Tuesday evening, John ges, and in mechanical execution are a mon
before the common pleas court of Sparta,
G. Gindele, who had been clerk of this credit to the well known publishing of said county, on the first day of the
court for the last two years, died at his house of Kay & Brother. Mr. Hilliard next term thereof, to be holden at the
residence in Lake View, after a very has prepared this work upon substantially court house in Sparta, in said Randolph
etc.
brief illness. Mr. Gindele was an expe the same plan as his work upon " The county,"
The territorial jurisdiction of this
rienced and scientific engineer, and had Law of Torts." He presents in the text court is limited by the constitution, to the
few if any superiors, in our city, in that which constitutes the warp and woof city of Sparta. The People v. Evans, 18

Ills., 361; Holmes v. Fihlenburg, 54 Ills.,

203.
Although the mandate of the writ is
"to summon Henry A. Witbord, if he
shall be found in your county." etc., the)
service, if it had been shown by the re
turn, to have been made in the city of
Sparta, would have been good ; it is now
defective as it does not appear by the
return to have been so made. But the
writ itself was not void, and should not
have been quashed.
The judgment of the court below is re
versed and the cause remanded.
Our thanks are due Geo. Sooville, of
the Chicago bar, for the following opin
ion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed Jan. 22, 1872.
William Kelsey Reed v. James E. Tyler.
Error to Cook.
SERVICE UPON CORPORATIONTAX DEEDCLOUD UPON TITLE - REMOVAL OF IK
EQUITY BY OWNER IN POSSESSION.
1. Service upon Corporation.Words may be
Implied In an officer's return, as well as In other
writings, where such implication is Justified by
what is expressed.
,
2. Tax DeedCloud on TitleRemoval op.
A party in possession of larld may maintain a bill
in equity to set aside a void tax title, of one not in.
possession. Ejectment will not lie in such case,
under our statute. But a court of equity must doequity, and in granting relief in such a case,
should require complainant to refund moneys ad
vanced for taxes by defendantEd. Legal News.
Opinion of the court by Sheldon, J.
This was a bill in equity to set aside as
invalid and a cloud upon the complain
ant's title, a sale for taxes and a deedthereunder of certain real estate in Cook
county, owned by the complainants, and
of which they were in possession, on theground of certain irregularities in the
proceedings whereby the tax deed was
acquired ; the bill alleging that the Illi
nois Land and Loan Company claimed
the land in fee under the tax-deed.
The first error assigned is. that the re
turn of Bervice was insufficient to author
ize the entry of the default of the Illi
nois Land and Loan Company. The
sheriff's return on the summons is ;
" Served this writ by reading to the
within-named William Kelsey Reed and
to George W. Reed, and to William
Kelsey Reed, cashier of the IllinoisLand and Loan Company, the president
not found in my county, ne being a non
resident, and delivered to each of them,
a copy thereof. March 25, 1870."
The statutory requirement in_ cases of
this kind is, that " process Bhall be served
upon the president of such company, if
he reside in the county in whicb suit is
brought ; and if such president be ab
sent from the county, or does not reside
in the county, then the summons shall
be served by the proper officer, by leav
ing a copy thefeof with anv clerk, cash
ier," etc. Gross Stat., 506. *
The objection taken is that thte return
does not show that the president did not
reside in the county. The whole return
is to be taken together. The Bheriff of
Cook county, to whom the writ was di
rected, had just mentioned" my County"
in his return, and when he undertakesto tell why the president was not found
in his county, by stating that he was a
non-resident, he could mean nothing
else than that he was a non-resident of
Cook county. That such was the reason
able and proper construction of the re
turn, we have no doubt. Words may be
implied in an officer's return, as well as
in other written evidence, where such
implication is justified by what is ex
pressed. Farnsworth v. Strasler, 12 HI.
482.
All the defendants were properly in
court, and the bill was regularly taken
for confessed against them.
The next error assigned is, that a court
of equity should not take jurisdiction of
a case of this kind, but should leave the
party to his remedy at law.
The appellant's counsel, in support of
his position, insists that it is the prov
ince of a court of law and not of equity
to try the validity of a tax title ; that the
complainants had an immediate remedy
at law ; that they might have brought an
action of ejectment to test their title at
once against the Illinois Land & L*an
Company, although the latter were not
in possession, and reference is made to
the decisions of different courts under
statutes similar to our own ; that eject
ment will lie against a party out of pos
session where he claims ime to unoccupied
land.
Admitting that to be the construction

Chicago
of our statute in the case of unoccupied
lands, we do not understand that ordin
arily a party in the actual occupation of
land can maintain ejectment against
one out of possession, who only claims
title to the land. The specific relief of
canceling the deed, could not be had at
law. Although contradictory decisions
are to be found on the point of jurisdic
tion, it appears to be now fully estab
lished, that where the claim of an ad
verse party to land is valid upon the face
of the instrument, or the proceedings
sought to be set aside, and it requires
the establishment of extrinsic facts to
show the supposed conveyance to be in
operative and void, a court of equity
may interfere to set it aside as a cloud
upon the real title to the land, and order
the same to be delivered up and can
celed. Hamilton v. Cummings, 1 John.
Ch. R., 517 ; Pettit v. Shepherd, 5 Paige
Rep., 493-9 ; Id., 388 ; Piersoll v. Elliott,
B Pet. Rep., 95 ; Ward v. Dewey, 16 N.
Y., 519. In the present case, the only
inquiry involved, is the regularity of a
tax safe proceeding and a deed thereun
der; by the showing of the bill, the
deed is void, no defense is attempted to
be made in its favor, but the bill is taken
as confessed. The complainants being
in actual occupation, can bring no suit at
law to test the title, the defendants will
not do so, conscious of the invalidity of
their title, and by the lapse of time vital
proof may be lost.
The deed is good on its face, its pres
ence on the record would be likely to
have the effect to deter from the pur
chase and impair the market value of
the land ; it is useless in the hands of
the holder, except as a means of annoy
ance and extortion; and it seems a fit
case for the interposition of the power
of a court of chancery to deprive the
instrument of its means of mischief, by
its cancellation.
Although two former decisions of this
court have been referred to, which seem
opposed to the exercise of this jurisdic
tion, it has been directly asserted in
recent decisions of the court from which
we do not feel disposed to depart. Gage
v. Rohrback, [3 Chicago Legal News,
147,] ; Gage v. Billings et al., decided at
the September term, 1870. [3 Chicago
Legal News, 307.]
Before filing the bill, the complain
ants tendered to the defendants the
amount of redemption money and ten
per cent, interest, in pursuance of an
act of the General Assembly approved
Feb. 21, 1861, requiring the same as a
prerequisite to questioning the validity
of the deed. Sess. Laws, 1861, 170. And
it is assigned for error that the court
erred in not requiring the complainants
to keep their tender good by bringing
the money into court for the use of the
defendants or some of them, and in not
requiring any money to be refunded to
the defendants.
In Wilson et al. v. McKenna, 52 111.,
44, it was held that the position of the
general revenue law (Rev. Stat., 448, { 73)
requiring payment of all the taxes due
and assessed upon land before a tax title
to it can be questioned, was unconstitu
tional, the effect of it being to compel a
party to buy justice.
For the same reason, the requirement
in the act of 1861, of the payment of the
redemption money and interest as there
in named, as a condition precedent to
questioning the validity of a tax deed,
must be held to be nugatory. The re
demption money and interest, although
tendered, was not brought into court ;
and the mere tender of it would not
create a liability to pay it, where none
existed before, and in this respect no
error is perceived.
But the interference of a court of
equity in such a case is a matter of dis
cretion, and the court will, in granting
relief, impose such terms upon the party
as it deems the real justice of the case
to require, the maxim here being em
phatically applied, that he who seeks
equity must do equity, 2 Story Eq. Jur.,
I 693, and the condition of relief in this
case should have been, the refunding to
the Illinois Land and Loan Company of
all taxes paid on the land.
It is lastly assigned for error, that the
court should have done equity to all
Earties by its decree, and should not
ave declared void tbe deed from Wil
liam Kelsey Reed to the Illinois Land
and Loan Company without at the same
time decreeing a return of the consider
ation paid by the company to Reed.
It is sufficient to say, that it doeB not

Legal

appear that any consideration was paid,

nor that there were any covenants in
the deed.
For the error before indicated the
decree is reversed, and the cause re
manded for further proceedings in con
formity with this opinion.
[From Xorman L. Kkeeman, to appear in LIYIh Itt.\
statute op frauds.
Promise to pay the debt of another.A.
had secured a contract for the building
of a house. B. took the contract from
him at a certain price, agreeing, verbal
ly, to pay for some hauling of materials
for the building, which had been done
by third parties for A. : Held, in an ac
tion by one of those who had done the
hauling, against B., the promise of B.
was not within the statute of frauds,
which requires a promise to answer for
the debt of another to be in writing.
(Opinion by Breese, J.)Rabermann v.
Wukamp, p. 179.
FRAUD AND CIRCUMVENTION.
1. Diligence required of the maker of a
note.The mere fact that a party can
read, will not cut him off from alleging,
even against an assignee before maturity,
that a promissory note executed by him
was obtained by fraud and circumven
tion. But he should use reasonable and or
dinary precautions to avoid imposition ;
if able to read readily, he should exam
ine the instrument ; if unable to read, or
only with difficulty, he may have it read
to him by some person present. A party
cannot act recklessly, disregarding all
the usual precautions to learn the con
tents of the instrument, and then inter
pose the defense as against the assignee.
(Opinion by Walker, J.) Taylor v.
Atchxnson, p. 196.
2. Duty of the assignee to use diligence.
The assignee in such case is, equally
with the maker, bound to use proper dil
igence. Where agents of patent rights,
who are strangers, offer to sell promisso
ry notes, a prudent man would have his
suspicions aroused from that fact, and
could protect himself by making inquiry
of the party who appeares to be the
maker.
3. Application of the rule in this case. So
in an action upon a promissory note, by
an assignee before maturity, against the
maker, the defense being that the payer
obtained the note by fraud and circum
vention, it appeared the payee and an
other person, who were strangers to the
defendant, went to his house and pro
posed to him to become an agent for the
sale of certain farming implements,
which he at first declined to do, on the
ground that he would not become bound
for anything. The strangers assured him
he would incur no obligation, and he
then assented. The implements were to
be sent to him to be sold on commission,
the terms being agreed upon. They then
Eroposed to give liim an instrument for
is protection in making sales, as the ar
ticles were patented. The payee pre
pared an instrument and handed it to
the defendant for his signature, but be
ing unable to read it without difficulty,
he requested that it be read to him,
which was pretended to be done by the
?erson in company with the payee,
hey then produced another paper,
which they assured defendant was a du
plicate of the one read to him, and he
signed both papers. These papers were
much larger in size than the note, and
that which was read to the defendant
did not appear, as read, to contain any
obligation of the character of a note, and
he was not aware he signed one. The
inference was, the note was embraced in
one of the papers signed, and afterwards
detached therefrom and assigned, and
the device or trick was resorted to in or
der to get the maker to sign a note with
out knowing the fact. It was held, the
defendant used reasonable caution to
guard against the imposition, while the
assignee acted imprudently in taking the
note from the payee. The defense was
sustained.lb.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA.
CONSIDERATIONCONFEDERATE STATES.
1. It is no defense to a suit upon a
promissory note that the consideration
was a horse purchased from the plaintiff
for the military service of the Confeder
ate States, within the knowledge of the
plaintiff, and that the horse was so used.
(Opinion by Saffold, J.) Thedford v.
McClintock.
2. Secus, if an intention or purpose of
the plaintiff to have the horse so used
be shown.lb.

News.

3. Upon the trial of such an issue, any

evidence is admissible which tends to
show the purpose of the parties in mak
ing the contract.lb.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
PROCEEDINGS OF.
Wednesday, January 24.
No. 84. The Steamer Cayuga, etc., appellants, v.
The Hoboken land and Improvement Company.
The argument of this cause was continued by Mr.
W. J. A. Fuller, of counsel for the appellee, and
concluded by Mr. C. Van Santvoord, for the appel
lants.
No. 85. The Steamboat Bridgeport, etc., appel
lants, v. George and David Shaw. This cause was
submitted on printed arguments by Mr. E. H.
Owen, of counsel for the appellants, and by Mr. D.
D. Lord for the appellee.
I: No. 86. The Steamboat Telegraph, etc., appel
lant, v. John Gordon et al.
No. 87. The Propeller Mary J. Vaughan, appel
lant, v. John Gordon et al.
These causes were argued by Mr. C. Van Sant
voord, of counsel for the appellants, in No. 87, and
by Mr. F. J. Flthian, for appellants in No. 86 ; and
by Mr. Samuel E. Lyon, for appellees In both cases.
Thursday, January 25.
On motion of Mr. S. W. Johnson, Joseph P. Carr,
Esq., of Georgia, was admitted to practice as an
attorney and counselor of this court.
On motion of Mr. T. J. D. Fuller, Bion Bradbury,
Esq., of Maine, was admitted to practice as an at
torney and counselor of thiB court.
On motion of Hon. L. P. Poland, Osslan Ray,
Esq., of New Hampshire, was admitted to practice
as an attorney and counselor of this court.
On motion of Hon. A. G. Thurman, William T.
Dlttoe, Esq., of Iowa, was admitted to practice as
an attorney and counselor of this court.
No. 88. The Steamship Western Metropolis, ap
pellant, v. John Low, Jr. This cause was argued
by Mr. J. H. Ashton and Mr. William Marvin, of
counsel for the appellants, and by Mr. R. D. Bene
dict for the appellee.
No. 89. The Norwich and New York Transporta
tion Co., appellant, v. William J.Wright etal. The
argument of this cause was commenced by Mr. E.
H. Owen, of counsel for the appellant.
Friday, January 26.
On motion of Mr. Solicitor General Bristow,
John M. Butler, Esq., of Indiana, was admitted
to practice as an attorney and counselor of this
court.
On motion of Mr. Charles Donohue, Franklin
A. Wilcox, Esq., of New York, was admitted to
practice as an attorney and counselor of this
court.
No. 292. Wells, Fargo & Co.. plaintiffs in error, v.
A. McGregor, assignee.
The argument of the motion to dismiss this cause
was continued by Mr. F. A. Dick, in opposition to
the motion, and continued by Mr. Robert Leech In
support of the same.
No. 469. The United States, appellants, v. Edward
Laplante. Appeal from the Court of Claims. On
motion of Mr. Assistant Attorney General Hill,
ordered by the court that this appeal be dismissed.
No. 39. The Houston Direct Navigation Com
pany, plaintiffs in error, v. Charles Gage and E. E.
Parker.
On motion of Mr. W. W. Boyce, ordered by
the court that this writ of errror be dismissed
with costs.
No. 568. Samuel G. Wheeler, Jr., appellant, v,
George Harris, et al. The motion to dismiss this
cause was submitted by Mr. C. Donohue, counsel
for the appellee, and leave granted Messrs. Good
rich and Wheeler to file printed arguments for
appellant by Friday next.
No. 7. Original. Ex parte. Alexander McNlel,
and No. 8, Ex parte. Henry W. Loud. The mo
tion for a prohibition to the district judge for the
eastern district of New York, was argued by Mr.
C. Donohue in support of the same, and by Mr. F.
A. Wilcox In opposition thereto.
No. 205. The United States, appellants, v,
Thomas W. Kelly. Appeal from the court of
claims. On motion of Mr. Solicitor-General Bris
tow, ordered by the court that this appeal be dis
missed.
No. 523. First National Bank of Washington,
et al., plaintiffs in error, v. The State of Texas,
The motion to dismiss this cause was argued by
Mr. T. J. Durant in support of the same, no coun
sel appearing in opposition to the motion.
No. 89. The Norwich and New York Transpor
tation Company, appellant, v. William A. Wright,
et al. The argument of this cause was continued
by Mr. E. H. Owen, of counsel for the appellants,
and by Mr. R, H. Huntley for the appellees.
Monday, January 29.
No. 142. C. Adolph Low et al., plaintiffs In error,
vs. Alexander Austin. In error to the Supreme
Court of the State of Iowa. Mr. Justice Field de
livered the opinion of the court, reversing the
judgment of the said Supreme Court, and remand
ing the cause for further proceedings, in conform
ity with the opinion of this court.
No. 63. The Nicholson Pavement Company,

plaintiff In error, vs. Charles E. Jenkins. In error

to the Circuit Court of the United States for the
District of California. Mr. Justice Davis delivered
the opinion of the court, reversing the Judgment
of the said Circuit Court, and remanding the
cause, with directions to award a venire facias de
novo.
No. 21. The Bark Delaware, etc., Nicholas Birch,
ard claimant, appellant, vs. The Oregon Iron.
Company. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the
United States for the District of California. Mr..
Justice Clifford delivered the opinion of the court,,
affirming the decree of the said Circuit Court lnu
this cause, with costs and interest.
No. 6. Original. The Commonwealth of Ken
tucky, petitioner, vs. George S.Boutwell, Secretary
of the Treasury of the United States. Mr. Chief
Justice Chase announced the order of the court
granting a rule to show cause why a mandamus
should not issue to the defendant.
No. 17. The United States, appellants, vs. John
A. Klein, surviving administrator of Victor F.
Wilson, deceased. Appeal from the Court ot
Claims. Mr. Chief Justice Chase delivered the.opinion of the court, affirming the decree of the
said Court of Claims in this cause. Dissenting,
Mr. Justice Miller and Mr. Justice Bradley.
No. 431. William A. Freeborn & Co., appellants^
vs. The Ship Protector, etc. Appeal from the Cir
cuit Court of the United States for the Southern,
District of Alabama. Mr. Chief Justice Chase de
livered the opinion of the court, dismissing this,
appeal with costs.
No. 79. Lemuel W. Mason, appellant, vs. Edward
A. Rollins. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et
al.; and No. 80. Parker R. Mason, appellant, vs. S.
S. Mann, deputy collector of Internal revenue, et.
al.; and No. 81. Parker R. Mason, appellant, vs. 1'.
W. Hart, deputy collector of internal revenue, et
al. Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United
States for the Northern District of Illinois. Mr.
Chief Justice Chose delivered the opinion of tho
court, affirming the judgments of the said Circuit
Court in these cases with costs.
No. 467. The Northwestern Union Packet Com
pany, plaintiff In error, vs. The Home Insurance
Company. In error to the Supreme Court of the
State of Iowa. Mr. Chief Justice Chase delivered
the opinion of the court, dismissing the writ of.
error in this cause with costs.
No. 623. The First National Bank of Washington
et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. The State of Texas.
Mr. Chief Justice Chase announced the order of
court, denying the motion to dismiss this cause.
No. 89. The Norwich and New York Transporta
tion Company, appellant, vs. William A. Wright
et al. The argument of this cause was continued,
by Mr. C. R. Ingersoll, of counsel for the appellee,,
and concluded by Mr. Jeremiah Halsey, of coun sel for the appellants.
No. 70. The Chicago and Northwestern Railroad
Company, plaintiff in error, vs. Henry K. Whiton,
administrator, etc. The argument of this cause
was commenced by Mr. T.O. Howe, of counsel for
the plaintiff in error.
Tuesday, January 30.
On motion of Mr. E. H. Owen, T. James Glover,
Esq., of New York, was admitted to practice as an
attorney and counselor of this court.
On motion of Hon. T. O. Howe, Luclen L. Gil
bert, Esq., of Ohio, was admitted to practice as an
attorney and counselor of this court.
No. 70. The Chicago and Northwestern Rail
road Company, plaintiff in error, v. Henry K.
Whlton, Administrator.
The argument of this cause was continued by
Mr. T. O. Howe, of counsel for the plaintiff laerror, and by Mr. J. A. Sleeper, for the defendant
In error, and concluded by Mr. T. O. Howe, for the
plaintiff in error.
No. 90. The Norwich and New York Transpor
tation Company, plaintiff In error, v. John Flint.
This cause was argued by Mr. J. Halsey, of
counsel for the plaintiff In error, and by Mr. R.
H. Dana, Jr., for the defendant in error.
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Cleek's Office, Ottawa, Jan. 29, 1872.
The following opinions were filed and orders
made by the Supreme Court, in this office, on the
dates indicated below. W. M. Tavloe, Clerk.
Jan. 24, 1872Beygeh v. City of Chicago. Re
hearing allowed.
Jan. 27, 1872173. Bumam v. Muller. Reversed
and remanded.
286. Culver v. Flemming. Affirmed.
287. Schultz v. Hay. Reversed and remanded.
386. (Of 1870.) Morton et al. v. Noble. Reversed!
and remanded.
895. Brown, impleaded, v. Divine. Affirmed.
411. Bridgeford v. Riddell. Reversed and re
manded.
424. Stilwell v. Bornett Reversed and re
manded.
434. Gardner v. Moore. Dismissed for want of
briefs and abstracts.
453. Thompson v. Sornberger. Reversed and re
manded.
490. Grob v. Cushman. Reversed and remanded.
538. Goit et al. v. Joyce. Reversed and re
manded.
666. Toledo. Peoria and Warsaw Railway Com
pany v. Hobble. Affirmed.
610. Abrahams v. Levy. Affirmed for want of
briefs.
621. Smith et al. v. Sheldon. Submitted and set
aside, and appeal dismissed .
635. Cook v. Norton et al. Affirmed.

126

Chicago

LAW BOOKS.
J. K. McDIVITT,
81 NASSAU 1TBEET, STEW YORK.
Second-hand Law Books Bought, Sold and Kx6-19

BOOKS.
THE LAW LIBRARY OF WM. M. FOWLER,
deceased, of
160 VOLUMES,
Including WOOD and LONG'S! DIGEST, and One
Set of Illinois Report**, all nearly new and in good or
der, are
OFFERED FOR S U.K AT A BARGAIN.
JOHN MARVIN, Administrator.
16-18p
Spkisofield, III.
IK TREES! Skill" PLANTS!
WE SEEDS !
Apple and Crab, loo 2 |to 4 ft.,$i; 4 to 6 ft., $5.
Pear, stand., extra, ljyear, Bartlett, etc., 3 to 4 ;u .,
per doz., $2.50.
Seeds, Peach, bush., $2; Apple Osage, new, bush.,
$12.
Potatoes, Early; Ro?e, WhiteJ Peach Blow, per
bush, $2.
Seedllnsra, lorn Soft Maple, Si: Ash, $3; Elm, $2.
Illustrated Catalogue loo pages, and Price List, 10c.
15-27
F. K. PHCENIX. Bloomington. 111.
ADAMS & LINCOLN,
Attorneys.
CHANCERY
Illinois,
County
Cook, ss. NOTICE.-State
Circuit court of ofCook
county.
Aprilof
term, A. D. 1872. Trustee* of Schools of Township
Thirty-nine (39), North Range Thirteen (13). east of
the
third principal
meridian,
in Cook county, Illinois,
v. Joseph
Gothelf.In
Chancery.
Affidavit that the above named defendant. Joseph
Gothelf, upon due inquiry, cannot be found, having
been filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit
court of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the
eaid Joseph Gothelf that the complainants heretofore
filed their bill of complaint in said court, on the chan
cery sidejthereof, and that a summons thereupon issued
outtheof third
said court
against
saidnext,
defendant,
on
Monday
of April
(1872,) asreturnable
is by law
required.
Now, unless you, the said Joseph Gothelf, shall
personally be and appear before said Circuit court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
tiolden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day of April. 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainants' bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
-According to the prayer of said bill.
T. GASSKTTE,
Clerk.
Francis Adams ANORMAN
H. Lincoln,
Compl'ts' Sol'rs.
17-20
SIDNEY SMITH,
Attorney.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County
of Cook, bs. Circuit court of Cook county. Feb
ruary
D., 1872.
Franz
Simou
Furth. term,
DanielA.Furth,
Joseph
P. Schardin
Schardin, v.Nicholas
; Schardin, Hubertus Schardin, Peter Schardin, Agnes
Krop. Lorenz Rohl, Margaretta Rohl, Charles R&gglo,
Charlotte Billigmann, Hiram Gillett, Jane GUlett,
Dominick Barbero, Julius Meyer, Frederick Busse
Sophia Spohrleder, John M. Bowers, Xavier Krus and
William
H. Stiekney.
In Chancery.
Affidavltof
the non-residence
ofSimon Furth. Daniel
Furth, Joseph P. Schardin. Nicholas Schardin, Hu
bert
Schardin,
Agnes
Krop
Peterhaving
Schardin,
seven of the defendants above and
named,
been
filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit court of
Cook
county,
notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
Simon
Turth, Daniel Furth. Joseph P. Schardin. Nicholas
Schardin, Hubertus Schardin, Agnes Krop and Peter
Schardin that the complainant heretofore filed his
bill of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof, and that a snmmons thereupon issued out of
said court against said defendants, returnable on the
third Monday of February next (1872), as is by law re
quired.
Now, Joseph
unless you,
the said Nicholas
Simon Furth,
Daniel
Turth.
P. Schardin,
Schardin,
Hu
bertus Schardin, Agnes Krop and Peter Schardin, shall
personally
bo
and
appear
before
said
Circuit
court
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to heof
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day of February, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same,
and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMANSol'r.
T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Sidney Smith, Compl't's
16-11
GEO. W. KNOX,
60 South Canal Street.
CHANCERY :NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
court of Cook
To the
Cook, ss.A.D.Circuit
Solomon
Cranecounty.
and Cyrus
S.
April
A.I 1872,Gierke
Bixbyterm.
v. Herman
and Albert Crane. Me
chanics*
lien.
Affidavit ofthe non-residence of said Herman Gierke,
on* of the defendants above named, having been filed
in
the office
of the
said Circuit
of Cook
county,
notice
is clerk
herebyof given
to thecourt
said Herman
Gierke
that theincomplainants
filed their
bill
of
complaint
said court, onheretofore
the common
law side
thereof;
and
that
a
summons
thereupon
issued
out
said court against said defendants, returnable on theof
third Monday ofApril next (1*72), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Herman Gierke shall per
sonally be ana appear before said Circuit court of
Cook county, at a term thereof, to be holden at Chi
cago, in said county, commencing on the third Monday
of April, IH72, and plead, onswer or demur to the said
complainant a bill of complaint, before or on the day
the Baid cause shall be set for trial on the docket of
said court, the same, and the matters and things
therein charged and stated, will be taken as con
fessed, and a decree entered against you according to
the prayer of said NORMAN
bill.
T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Geo. W. Knox, Compl't's Sol'r.
16-19
ESTATE OF JOHN S. CLASSEN, DECEASED.Notlce Is hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demands
against the
the same
estateforof adjudication
John S. Classen,
deceased,
to present
and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cookconnty, to be holden at the courthouse, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January 10, A.D. 1872.
CATHARINA CLASSEN, Administratrix.
A. Enzrnbaciier, Att'y.
14-19

Legal

_ ft MARX,
Attorneys, 92 8. Dcsplaines street.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
\J Cook, bs. Circuit court of Cook county, February
term,
U72. Elizabeth Schuler vs. Charles Schuler.InA.D.
Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Charles Schuler,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Charles Schuler
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in Baid court, on the chancery side thereof,
and
thatsaid
a summons
thereupon
issuedonout
said court
against
defendants,
returnable
theofthird
Mon
dayNow,
of February
next,
(1872.)
aa
is
by
law
required.
unless you, the said Charles Schuler, ahull per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit court of Cook
county,
on theinfirst
of a term
he holdenof
at
Chicago,
saiddaycounty,
on thereof,
the thirdto31onday
February, 1872, bill
and of
plead,
answer orthedemur
the said
complainant's
complaint,
same,to and
the
matters and things thtrein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T, GASSETTE. Clerk.
Felkeb & Makx, Compl't's Sol'rs.
14-1T
STORY & KING,
Attorneys, 149 W. Washington St.
PUBLICATION NOTICS IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois, Cook County, ss. Circuit court
of Cook county. March Term, A.D. 1*72. Willliam
Patterson vs. 0, S. Berg.
Public
notice
hereby given
to the
Berg
that
a .writ
of isattachment
issued
outsaid
of C.theS. office
of the clerk of the Circuit court of Cook county, dated
the 18th
day ofPatterson
November,andA.D.
1871, the
at the
suitofofthe
said
William
against
estate
C. S.
Berg, for the sum of two hundred and seventy
dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook county, which
Baid writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said C. S. Berg,
shall personally be and appear before the said Circuit
court of Cook county, on or before the first day of the
nextcity
termofthereof,
the courtofhouse,
in
the
Chicago,toonbe holden
the thirdat Monday
March,
A.
D.
1872,
give
special
bail
and
plead
to
the
said
plain
tiff's action, judgment will be entered against you. and
In favor of the said William Patterson, and so much of
the property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy the
said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the name.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Story A King, Attorneys.
14-17
ELBERT H. GARY,
Attorney, 59 West Madison St.
NOTICEState of Illinois, County of
C1HANCERY
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county, Janu
ary Term. A.D. 1872. John B. Livernois, alias Jean
B. Meloche Dit Livernois, vb. Lucy C. Livernois.
InAffidavit
Chancery.
of the non-residence of Lucy C. Livernois,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of
the
clerk
of said
courtLucy
of Cook
county,
notice is hereby
givenSuperior
to the said
C. Livernois
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summona thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of February next, (1872,) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Lucy C Livernois, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of February, 1*72. and plead, answer or demur to the
sold complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
token as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
A. JAC0BS0N, Clerk.
Elbert H. Gary. Compl't's Sol'r.
14-17p
JAMES L. STARK,
Attorney, Nixon's Building, cor. La Salle and Monroe.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.Statecounty'.
of Illinois.
CookTernij
county,
Circuit
court
of Cook
March
A. ss.
D. 1872.
Augusta
Bnrkhardt v. James W. Dominic.
Public notice is hereby given to the said James W.
Dominic that a writ of attachment issued out of the
office of the clerk of the Circuit court of Cook county,
dated the 21st day of December, A, D. 1871, at the suit
of the said Augusta Burkhardt, and against the estate
of the said James W. Dominic, for the sum of five
thousand
dollars,
directed
to thereturned
sheriff executed.
of Cook
county, which
said writ
has been
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Jamee W.
Dominic, shall personally be and appear before the
said Circuit court of Cook county, on or beforo the
first day of the next term thereof, to be holden at
the court house, in the city of Chicago, on the third
Monday of March, A.D. 1872, give special bail and
plead to the said plaintiffs action, judgment will be
entered against you, and in favor of the said Augusta
Burkhardt. and so much of the property attached as
may be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and costs
will be sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
James L. Stark, Att'y.
13-17
ELBERT H. GARY,
Attorney,
pHANCERY NOTICE. -State of Illinois, Cook
V-,' county, bb. Circuit Court of Cook county, April
terra,
A. D.,In1872.
Emmet B. Chambers v. Helen J.
Chambers.
"\ffldavit
of theCbancerx
non-resi . * nc of Helen J. Chambers,
defendant above named 1 -i > ing been tiled in the office
of the Clerk ofsaid Circuit Court ol Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Helen J. Chambers that
thesaid
complainant
beretofore
bill of complaint
In
court, on the
chanceryfiled
sidehisthereof,
and that
a summons thereupon issued out of said Court against
said defendant, returnable on the third Monday of
December
next. 1871,into
as 1bsaid
by law
required,
which sum
mons
was returned
cont't
" not found,"
and
th t afterwards an alias summons issued out of said
court, against said defendant, returnable on the third
Monday of April next, (1872).
Now, unless you. the said Helen J. Chambers shall
personally be and appear before said Circuit Court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to
be
at Chicago,
said county,
third toMon
dayholden
of April,
1872, anditplead,
answeronorthedomur
tha
aaid complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NoRMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Elbert H. Gaby, Compl't's Sol'r.
W-19pd
TOcertify
ALL that
WHOM
IT MAY CONCERN.-This
is to
the undersigned
have this day formed
a copartnership under the firm name of Frank
Brothers.
The general nature of the business to be transacted
by said firm is the purchase and Bale of dry goods and
notions in the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and
State of Illinois. The following persons are the part
ners of said firm: Joseph Frank, of the city, county
and State of Now York ; Henry L. Frank, of said Chi
cago; Isaac Meyer, of said Chicago; and Henry 0.
Frank, of Baid Chicago. These four persons are all
general partners.
Harrman Mack, of the city of Cincinnati, county of
Hamilton, and State of Ohio, is the special partner.
Said
contributed
the common
stockspecial
the sumpartner
of fifty has
thousand
(850,000)todollars
in cash.
Said partnership Is to commence January let, 1872,
andWitness
to terminate
December
31st,
1873.
our hands, this 22d dav of December, 1871.
JOSEPH FRANK,
HENRYMEYER,
L. FRANK,
ISAAC
HENRY C. FRANK,
General Partners
HARRMAN MACK.
13-18
Special Partner.

News.

ROSENTHAL, FENCE & MOSES,

Attorneys, 3o0 Wabash Avenue.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, County of Cook, ss, Superi
or
Court
of Cook administratrix
county. Februarytheterm,
a. d.of
1872.
estate
Israel Louisa
Heller, Heller,
deceased, v. Rosa Hess, ofAbraham
Hess,
Fanny McCreary, Robert McCreary, Caroline Schram,
Benedict Schrain, Therese Porges, Henry Porges, Es
ther Schram, Jacob Schram and Elizabeth Heller.
of the
non-residence
Caroline Schram
andAffidavit
Benedict
Schram.
two of theof defendants
above
named, having been filed in the office of the Clerk of
said
Superior
Court
of
Cook
county,
notice
is
hereby
given to the said Caroline Schram and Benedict
Schram, that the complainant heretofore filed her pe
tition In said Court, to Bell the following described
real estate, to wit: lot six (6) in block three (3), in
Quick's subdivision of Harlem, being part of the north
east quarter of Section twelve (12), in township thirtynine (39) north of rango twelve (12), east of 3d P. M.,
together
the buildings
and improvements
thereon,
and
that with
a summons
thereupon
issued out of said
Court
against said defendants, returnable on the first Monday
of February next (1872), as is by law required.
Now. unless you. the said Caroline Schram and Ben
edict Schram, shall personally be and appear before
said Superior Court of Cook county, on the first day ol
aonterm
thereof,
to beofholden
at Chicago,
in said
county,
the first
Monday
February.
1872, and
plead,
an
swer or demur to the said complainant's petition,
the same, and the matters and things therein charged
and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree
entered against you according to the praver of said
bill.
A. JACOBSON. Clerk,
Rosenthal & Pence, Compl't's Sol'rs.
16-19
(CHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of
Illinois,
county
J Cook, aa. Superior court of Cook county. Toof
February Term. A D. 1872. Sophia Brenliagen v. John
Brenhagen. In Chancery.
Affidavit
of thenamed,
|non-residence
of John
defend
ant above
having been
filed Brenhagen,
in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is here! y given to the said John Brenhagen,
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chaucery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Mon
day of February next, (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said John Rrcnhagen, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of
Cook
on theinfirst
of a onterm
to be
holdencounty,
at Chicago,
saidday
county,
the thereof,
first Monday
of February, next. 1N72. and plead, answer or demur to
the
complainant's
of complaint,
thestated,
same, will
and
the said
matters
and things bill
therein
charged and
be ;taken as confessed, and a decree entered againt
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, Compl't's. Sol'r. 16-19
| lHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
Vj
Cook, Term,
ss. Superior
Court
of Cook11, Belohradsky
county. To
February
A. D. 1872.
Jaroslav
and Max Kohn v. E. M, Arnstein, Sarah Arnstein and
Jacob
Kuhn.In
Chancery. of E. M. Arnstein and
Affidavit
of the non-residence
Sarah Arnstein, two of the defendants above named,
having been filed In the office of the clerk of said
Superior court of Cook county, notice is hereby
given to the said E. M. Arnstein and Sarah Arns
teincomplaint
that the complainants
filed their side
bill
of
in said court,heretofore
on the chancery
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of
said
against
said defendant,
returnable
on the
first court
Monday
of February
next (1872),
as is by law
re
quired.
Now, unless you, the Baid E. M. Arnstein and Sarah
Arnstein shall personally be and appear before Baid
Superior court of Cook county, on the first day of a
term
to be holden
at Chicago,
county,
on thethereof,
first Monday
of February,
1872, in
andBaidplead,
an
swer or demur to the Baid complainant's bill of com
plaint,
the
same,
and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a
decree entered against you according to the prayer of
said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
Rosenthal. Pence & Moses, Compl't's Sol'rs. 15-18
GUARDIAN'S SALE.State of Illinois, Cook coun
ty, bs. Superior Court of Cook county. In the
matter of the application of Margaret L. Rockwell,
guardian of Athie Rockwell, a minor, to sell real
estate.
Public notice is hereby given that in pursuance of
the decree of said court heretofore entered in said
cause, I shall, on Monday, the 12th day of February,
A.D. 1872. at the hour of 10 o'clock A.M., upon the
premises hereinafter described. Bell at public auction,
to the highest bidder, the following described prem
ises,
Lot seventy
(70) inofblock
in
Canalviz.,
Trustees'
subdivision
sectionforty-four
seven (7),(41)
town
thirty-nine ^39), North of range fourteen {14), East of
threo
(3) P. M.,thereon.
in Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, with
the tenements
Terras: One half cash in hand, balance due in one
year from date of sale, secured by note and trust deed
upon said premises.
MARGARET
ROCKWELL,
Guardian
of Athie L.Rockwell,
a minor.
Rosenthal, Pence k Moses, Att'ys for Guardian.
15-18
JAMES ENHIS,
Attorney, 282 Wat Randolph Street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county, March
Term,
A.D. 1872. Magdalena Straus vs. John Straus.
In Chancery.
Affidavit that said John Straus, defendant above
named, upon due inquiry cannot be found in the State
of Illinois, having been filed in the office of the clerk
of said Circuit court of Cook county, notice 1b hereby
given to the said John Straus that the complainant
heretofore filed her bill of complaiant in said court, on
the chancery side thereof, and that a summons there
upon issued out of said court against said defendant,
returnable on the third Monday of March next, (1872,)
asNow,
is by law
required.
unless
you, the said John Straus, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Monday
of
1872, andbillplead,
answer or
to the
saidMarch,
complainant's
of complaint,
the demur
same, and
the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you
according to the prayer of Baid bill.
NORMAN
T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
James Ennis, Compl't's
Sol'r.
14-17
SAMUEL STRAUS,
Attorney, 562 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE OF FRIEDRICH JAHN, (alias) YAHN.
deceased.
Notice
is hereby
to allofpersons
having
claims and
demands
againstgiven
the estate
Friedereich
John
(aliaa)
Yahn,
deceased;
to
the
same for adjudication and settlement at present
a regular
term of the County Court of Cook County, to behold
en
the Courtof House,
Chicago,
on dav
the
firstatMonday
March,inA.theT*. city
1-7.'.ofbeing
t He 4th
thereof.
BERTHA JAHN,
Chicago, December 28th, 1871,
Administratrix.
Samuel Straus, Atty.
I2-17a
NISSEN & BARNUM,
Attorneys, 126 West Randolph street.
TESTATE
JACOBgivenKLEIN.
JCi Notice OF
is hereby
to all DECEASED.
persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Jacob Klein,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication ana
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city
Chicago,
thethereof.
first Monday of April, A.D.
1872, of
being
the firstonday
CRESCENTIA KLEIN, Administratrix.
Nissen
A Barnum,
Chicago,
Jan. 25, lAttys.
372.
16-Zla

MORTGAGE
Patrick Holloa,
and Bridget,SALE.-Whereas,
his wife, on the twenty-ninth
day
of Jnne, a. d 1869, executed and delivered to me their
certain mortgage, which said mortgage was recorded
in the recorder's office of Cook county, in the State of
Illinois, on the thirtieth day of June, a. d., 1870, in
book
number
133, ofdescribed,
mortgages,
at pagethe291,payment
of the
premises
hereinafter
to secure
of one certain promissory note made by the said Pat
rick Holton, dated on the twenty-ninth day ofJune,
A. D., 1809. for the sum of six hundred dollars with in
terest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum, payable
semi-annually,
to the order
James H.it Rees,
one year
after the date thereof
; and ofwhereas,
is provided
in
said mortgage that in case of default of the payment
of said promissory note, either of principal or interest,
on the days when the same should become due ana
payable, the said James H. Rees might, after publish
ing
in a newspaper,
printeddays
in the
citythe
of Chi
cago,a notice
Cook county,
Illinois, thirty
before
day
ofsuch sale, Bell the said premises and all right and
equity of redemption of the Baid Patrick Holton and
Bridget,auction,
his wife,
their
heirsCourt
and House
osslgiiadoor,
therein,
at
public
at the
north
in said
city
of
Chicago,
to
the
highest
bidder,
for
cash.
And
whereas, default has been made in the payment of satJ
note and interest, now. therefore, by virtue ofthe power
in mo vested by said mortgage, I, the undersigned
mortgagee, will sell at ten o'clock, a. m oil Tuesday
the 27th day of February, a. d., at public auction, at
the north Court House door, in the city of Chicago,
Cook county, Illinois, to the highest bidder, for cash,
the premises in said mortgage described to wit : Lots
fifty-three (53) and fifty-four (54) In block one (I,) in
James H. Bees' subdivision ofblocks one (l)and (2) in
the
halfofofsection
the south-west
of the thirtysouth
eastsouth
quarter
twenty (20),quarter
In township
nine (39), north of range fourteen pi) cast, in the
county
of
Cook,
and
State
of
Illinois,
together
with
all and sinirular the tenements, hereditaments, priv
ileges, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, and
all the right, title, benefit and equity of redemption
ofthe
said;iPatrick
his wife, their
In 1 1 - ;uid
. ii - , inHolton
and to and
tin- Bridget,
sun I premisea.
16-20
JAMES _IL_ RKKS. Mortgagee.
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
Attorney. 115 W. Madison Street.
ADMINISTRATRIX'
REAL
ESTATE.
By virtue of an orderSALE
and OF
decree
of the
County
Court
of
Cook
county,
Illinois,
made
on
the
the undersigned, Dorothea Ringleb, formerlypetition
Dorotheaof
Bledelman.
of the
of Kriedrich
Medelman. administratrix
deceased, for leave
to sellestate
the renl
estate of
Bald deceased, at the December term, A. D. 1871, of said
court, to wit, on the sixth day of December, A. D. 1871,
I shall, on Monday, tho 11th day of March, A. D. 1872,
at 2 o'clock p. m.. Bell at public aale, at the east door
of the Court House, on Clark street, in the city of Chi
cago,estate
in saiddescribed
Cook county,
and toState
Illinois,
the
real
as follows,
wit:ofthe
northeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of section twentythree (23), in township thirty-six (36), range thirteen
(13). east of tho 3d P. M.. in the town of Bremen, in
Cook
Stateterms,
of Illinois,
forty of
acres,
on thecounty,
following
to wit : containing
cash on delivery
the
deed.
._
DOROTHEA
RINGLEB,
(Formerly Dorothea Medelman.)
Admini8tratrix of I"the estate of Friedrich Medelman,
deceased.
James B. Bradwell. Att'y for Estate.
16-21
J. MILTON OLIVER,
Attorney, 30 South Clinton St.
ESTATE OF GEORGE GANIERE, DECEASED.Notico is hereby given to all persons having
claims
and demands
againstthethesame
estateforofadjudication
George Ganiere, deceased,
to present
and settlement at a regular term of the County Court
of Cook county, to be holden at the Court House, in
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D.
1872, being
the 1st day thereof.
MARGARETTA
GANIERE, Administratrix.
J.
Milton
Oliver,22nd,
Attorney.
Chicairo, January
A. I). 1872.
16-21a
MONROE
&
BISBEE,
Attorneys, 523 Wabfuth Avenue.
"PUBLICATION
NOTICE
.1 State of Illinois,
countyINof ATTACHMENTCook, bs. Circuit
Court of Cook county, March Term, A.D. 1872. Edgar
Loomis and Martin P. Follett v. Isabella S. Halliday
and John W. Halliday.
Public notice
is hereby
given tothat
theasaid
Halliday
and John
W. Halliday
writIsabella
of attachS.
ment Issued out of the office of tho clerk, of the Circuit
of four
Halliday
and John
W. illiday,
I
teen
hundred
and sixty-one
25-100fordollaxs,
directed to
the Sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
returned
executed.unless you, the said Isabella S. Hal
Now, therefore,
liday and John W. Halliday shall personally be and
appear before the said Circuit Court of Cook county,
on or before the first day of the next toxin thereof, to
be
at Monday
tho CourtofHouse,
the 1*7
cityu, give
of Chicago,
on holden
the third
March,inA.D.
special
bail and plead to the said plaintiffs' action, judgment
will be entered against you, and in favor of the said
Edgar Loomis and Martin P. Follett, and so much of
the property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy
the aaid judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the
same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Monroe & Bisree, Att'ys.
15-18
HERVEY, ANTHONY & GALT,
Attorneys, 356 Wabash Avcnue.l
PUBLICATION
NOTICE
ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois,
county IN
of Cook,
as. Superior
Court of Cook county, February Term, A. D. 1872.
John
Currie
y.
James
Oliphant.
Public notice is hereby given to the said James Oli
phant that a writ of attachment issued out of the office
of
.thetheclerk
Cook
county,
dated
24th ofdaytheof Superior
November,court
A.D.of1871,
at tho
suit
of
tho
said
John
Currie,
and
against
the
estate
of
James Oliphant, for the sum of three hundred and fifty
dollars, directed to the Sheriff of Cook county, which
said
writtherefore,
has been unless
returned
Now,
you,executed.
the said James Oliphant
shall personally be and appear before the said Superior
court of Cook county, on or before the first day of the
next term thereof, to he holden at the Court House, iu
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of February,
A.D.
1872, give
special bail
plead toagainst
the said?0,,i.ftPd
plain
tiff's action,
judgment
will and
be entered
In
favor
of
tho
said
John
Currie,
and
so
much
of
property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy the
the
said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the
same.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Hebvey, Anthony & Gait, Attorneys.
!~jz
TOsigned,
WHOMhave
IT formed
MAY aCONCERN.-We.
the under
limited copartnership
to be
carried
onin under
the Cook
name county,
of Fletaher,
Lazear
*
Cheney,
Chicago,
Illinois,
January 1, 1872. till January 1, 1874, to carry onfrom
tne
business of buying, selling, and manufacturing ami
selling, harness and carriages. The said undersigned,
F. I. Lazear. M.partners,
E. Fletcher John
and George
A. Cheney,
are
Amerman,
Branol
son,theandgeneral
Joslas Parks, and
of Norwalk,
in the ofState
Ohio,
are
the
special
partners,
and
have
respectively
paid into the common stock two thousand dollars in
cash.
M. E. FLETCHER,
F. I. LAZEAR.
GEORGE
A.CHENKT,
JOHN AMERMAN,
17-22
J08IA8 PARKS.
I/ - Iis VTEOl
ZKBINA
ISS. DK<having
'EASED-r^'IfJ
Xj
hereby given
to allIUpersons
claims ana
demandB against the estate of Zebfna Bliss, decease,
to present the same tor adjudication and settlement a
aberegular
the County
county, ouw
holden term
at theofcourt
house, incourt
the of
cityCook
of Chicago
the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872, being the foan
dav thereof.
Chicago, January
11, A.D.
1872. Adminhnrstrix.
.,_
14-19a
ELLEN
S. BLISS,

Chicago
NEWELL PRATT,
Attorney, 1124 Wabash Avenue.
/CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
\j
Cook,Term,
ss. Superior
Cook county.
To
February
A.D. 1-7:',court
HellenofRockfellow
vs. Jolin
Rockfellow.In
Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of John Rockfellow,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of
the clerk
of said
Superior
of Cook county,
notice
hereby
givenheretofore
to the court
saidJohu
that theiscomplainant
filed her Rockfellow,
bill of com
plaint in naia court, on the chancery lide thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of February next, (1*72), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said John Rockfellow, shall
Ssrsonallybe
appear
beforeof said
Superior
court
of
ook county, and
on the
first day
a term
thereof,
to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of
1872. and
plead, answertheor same,
demurand
to the
saidFebruary,
complainant's
bill ofcomplaint,
the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newell Pratt, Comp'ts sol'r.
14-17
CHANCERY NOTICE -State of Illinois, county ot
Cook. Term,
sa. Superior
courtKathrena
of Cook Gargn.ro
county. tb.
To
February
A. P. 1872.
Angelo
Gargaro.In
Chancery,
Affidavit of the non-residence of Angelo Gargaro,
above named, having been filed in the office
of
the isclerk
of said
court
of Cook
couuty,
notice
hereby
givenSuperior
to the snid
Angelo
Gargaro
that
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
and
that
summons thereupon issued out of said court againsta
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Feb
ruary next. (172.) " if hy law required.
Now, unless you, the said Angelo Gargaro, shall
personally be aud appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on tli** first Monday
of February, 1*72. and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
bill oftherein
complaint,
the and
same,
and
the matters
and thlnirs
charged
stated,
will be taken asconfe.-*ed, ami a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of *aid bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newell Pratt, Comp'ts Sol'r.
14-17
CHANCERY NOTICE. - State of Illinois. Cook
County, ss, Superior Court of Cook county. To
February Term, A.D, 1*72. Aldeu P. Pierce vs. Fran
cisAffidavit
J. Pierce.In
of theChancery.
non-residence of Francis J. Pierce,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Francis J. Pierce
he complainant heretofore filed his bill ofcom
plaint in saia court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
ofNow,
February
as is by> rancis
law required.
unlessnext,
you,(1872.)
the said
J. Pierce, shall
tonally
be
and
appear
before
said
Superior
court
person
ik county,
on the first day of a term
thereof,
to beof
Cook
c
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Mon
day Bald
of February,
1872, and
plead, answertheorsame,
demurand
to
the
complainant's
bill ofcomplaint,
the matters and things ther In charged and stated, will
be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the praver of Hnid bill
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newell Pratt Compl't's SoPr.
14-17
WAITE ft CLARKE,
Attorneys, Van Buren. St. bet. Wabash and Mich. Ave.
ESTATE
HARRIET
E. GARFIELD,
DEceased, OF
Notice
is hereby given
to all persons hav
ing claims and demands aganst the estate of Harriet
E. Garfield deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the court
house iu he city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
March, A.D. 1872, being the 4th day thereof.
Chicago, DecemberCHARLES
fl'th. A. DB.1871.
KING, Executor
Waits ft Claree, Attys.
12-17*
A. B. BALDWIN,
Attorney, Room 6, Lind's Block.
ESTATE
HOMERgiven
HOPKINS,
DECEASED.
Notice OF
is hereby
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Homer
Hopkins, dereeased, to present the same for adjudica
tion
settlement
the County
courtand
of Cook
county,attoaberegular
holdenterm
at theof court
house
in the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
the fifth dav thereof. of February,, A.D. 1872, being
KITTIE L. HOPKINS, Executrix.
Chicago, Dec. 12, A.D. 1871.
PWIN, Att'y.
A. B. Balpw
A. W. ENOS,
Attorney, Boom 6, Lind's Block,
ESTATE
OF
JAMES
DECEASED,
Public notice is herebyO'MALLEY,
given to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of James
O'Malley,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
March, A.D. 1872. being the 4th day thereof..
Chicago, Dec, ANN
30th. A.O'MALLEY,
D. 1871. Administratrix.
A. V. Enob, Atty.
12-17 p
ESTATE
OF
ELIZABETH
GO
EDEN,
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Elizabeth Goeden,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872, be
ing the 4th day thereof.
PETER GOEDEN,
Chicago, Jan. 3, A. D. 1872,
Executor.
Theo. Schintz. Att'y.
13-18a
TESTATE
OF LEVI
M. given
MASON.
I j Public notice
is hereby
to all DECEASED.
persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Levi M.
Mason, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, Illinois, to be holden at the court
s in the city of Chicago, in said county, on the first
of April, A. D. 1872, being the first day
CORNELIA B. HALE, Administratrix.
Chicago,
January
A. D. 1872.
Beckwith,
Aykr A26.Kales,
Attys.
16-21a
"T7STATE OF FRANCIS ROONEY, DECEASED.
1j Notice is hereby given to allpcrsons having claims
and demands against the estate of Francis Rooney.deceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday ofApril, A. D. 1872, being
the 1st day thereof.
JAMES FITZGERALD, Administrator,
Chicago,
January
M.
J. Duhnk,
Att'y.2"% A. D. 1872.
16-21a
HITCHCOCK, DUPEE ft EVARTS,
Attorneys, cor. Fifth Ave. and Monroe St.
ESTATE OF BARTON EDSALL, DECEASED.Notice
Is hereby
all persons
having
claims
and demands
againBtgiven
the toestate
of Barton
Edsall
de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settlenent at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872,2, *~
being the 1st day thereof.
BELLE W. EDSALL.
Administratrix.
Ohicago,
January
a23,ftft Evarts,
Ev
A. D. 1872.Attorneys.
16-2la
HiTcncocK,
Dupes

Legal

THOMAS E. TURNER,
Attorney, cor. Canal and Madison.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
Coiik.Bs. Suporior court of Cook county, February
Term. A.D. 172. Anna Elizabeth Walbert vs. Charles
W.Affidavit
Walbert.In
of theChancery.
non-residence of Charles W. wal
bert, defendant abovo named, haviug been filed in the
office
of
tbo
clerk
of
said Superior
court
of Cook
ty, notice is hereby given
to the said
Charles
W. coun
Wal
bert that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
agaiiiHt said defendant, returnable ou the first Monday
ofNow.
February
is byCharles
law required.
unlessnext,
you,(1872.)
tho assaid
W. Walbert,
shall personally be and appear before said Superior
court of Cook county, on the first day of a term there
of, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first
Monday of February, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur
to thethesaid
complainant's
of complaint,
thestated,
same,
and
matters
and thingsbill
therein
charged and
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Thomas E. Tvrner, Compl't's Sol'r.
14-17p
CLARKSON & VANSCHAACK,
Attorneys, 464 Wabash Ave.
PUBLICATION
NOTICEcounty,
IN ATTACHMEXT.8tate
of
Illinois,
Court
of Cook county
AprilCook
Term, A.D.ss.1872.Circuit
Charles
F.
Pierce and Frederick Paine v. Joseph Goodman aud
Mauton
E.
Hoard.
Public notice is hereby given to tho said Joseph Good
man
andoutMauton
Hoard
a writ
attachment
of thethat
clerk
of theofCircuit
court
issued
of the E.
office
of
theCharles
12th dayF. ofPierce
January,
A.D.
1872Cook
at thecounty,
suit ofdated
the said
and Fred
erick Paine, and agaiiiht the estate of Joseph Good
man and Mauton K. Hoard, for the sum of two thou
sand and ninety-six 43-liiu dollars, directed to the
Sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been re
turned
Now, executed.
therefore, unless you, the said Joseph Good
man and Manton E. Hoard, shall personally be and
appear
before
saiddayCircuit
of Cook
county,
on or before thethefirst
of thecourt
next term
thereof,
to
be holden at the Court House, in the city of Chicago,
on the third Monday of April, A.D. 1>72, give special
ball and plead to the said plaintiffs' action, judgment
will be entered against you. and in favor of the said
Charles F. Pierce and Frederiek Paine, and so much
of the property attached as may Uj sufficient to satisfy
the said judgment and costs will bo sold to satisfy- the
some.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk
~Clarkson ft Van Schaack, Att'ys.
L. 0. BRAINARD,
Attorney.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
^ Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
February Term, A.D. 1872. John W. Gaskin v. Hannah
C.Affidavit
Gaskin.In
of theChancery.
non-residence of Hannah C. Gaskin,
defendant
above
named,
havingCourt
been filed
in thecounty,
office
of the Clerk of said
Superior
of Cook
notice Ib hereby given to the said Hannah C. Gaskin
that
heretofore
his bill
com
plaintcomplainant
fn said court,
on the filed
chancery
side ofthereof,
and that a summous thereupon issued out of said
court against said defendaut, returnable on the first
Monday of February next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Hannah 0. Gaskin shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court ot
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,
in said
county,
on the
first Monday
of
February,
172. and
plead,
answer
or demur
to the
said complainant s bill of complaint, the same, and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
15-lbp
L. G. Brainard, Compl't's Soi'r.
HAMMER & SMITH,
Hammer & Smith's Block, Room 1.
1HANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of
C Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook county, To
February
Term,v.A.D.
1872.L. D.Page.In
Harry Hammer
Frank J. Smith
Addison
Chancery.and
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of
Addison
L. Page,
defendant above named, having been filed in the
office
of
the
Clerk
of
said
Superior
Court
of
Cook
county,
no
tice is hereby given to the said Addison L. Page that
the complainants heretofore filed their petition for partion in said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
a Bummons thereupon issued out of said Court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of
February next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Addison L. Page, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior Court ot
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,andin plead,
said county,
tho firsttoMonday
of February.1872,
answeron
orklemur
the said
complainant's petition for partition, the same, and the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
willyou
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Hammer & Smith, Comp't's SoPrs.
15-18
CARTER, BECKER & DALE,
Attorney*. 528 Wtttxish Aivnue.
PUBLICATION
NOTICE
ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois,
county IN
of Cook.
ss. Superior
Court of Cook county. To April Term, A.D. 1872.
Isaac
V.
Place
and
I.
W.
Place
v.
Othneil
Atwood.
Public notice fs hereby given to the saidT.Othneil
T.
Atwood that a writ of attachment issued out of the
office of the clerk of the Superior Court of Cook
county,
dated
dayY.ofPlace
November,
1871, at the
suittheoftwenty-fifth
the said iBaac
and I.A.D.
W.
Place, and against the estate of Othneil T. Atwood, for
the sum of two thousand dollars, directed to the
Sheriff
of Cook county, which said writ has been re
turned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you tho said Othniel T. At
wood shall personally be and appear before the said
Superior Court of Cook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the firBt Monday of
April,
A.D.action,
1872, give
special bail
to the
said
plaintiff's
judgment
willand
be plead
entered
against
you, and in favor of the said Isaac V. Place and I. W.
Place, and so much of the property attached as may
be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and costs will
be sold to satisfy the same.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Carter. Becker ft Dale, Attorneys.
15-18
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
Statecounty,
of Illinois,
Cook County,
court
of Cook
February
terra, a.ss.d.,Superior
1H72. Sterling
P. Rounds ana Alonzo L. Kane v. S. S, Wallahan and
T. O. Blgnoy.
Public notice is hereby given to the said S. S. Wallaban
0. Bigney
of attachment
issued
out ofandtheT.office
of the that
clerka writ
of the
Superior Court
of
Cook county, dated tho 10th day of January, a, d. 1872,
at the suit of the said Sterling P. Rounds and Alonzo
L. Kane, and against the estate of S. S. Wallahan and
T. 0. Bigney, for the sum of two thousand seven hun
dred
andwhich
fifty said
dollars,
the sheriff
of Cook
county,
writdirected
has beentoreturned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, tho said S. S. Wallahan
at the Court House, in the City of Chicago, on the 1st
Monday of February, a. d., 1872, give special bail and
plead to against
the saidyou,
plaintiffs
action,ofjudgment
will be
entered
and in favor
the said Sterling
P. Rounds and Alonzo L. Kane, and so much of the
property
attached
maywill
be sufficient
satisfy the
the
saidjudgment
and ascosts
be sold toto satisfy
same.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Casteb, Bicker ft Dale, Attorneys.
16-19

News.

FURNESS * ABBOTT,
Attorneys, 30 South Clinton Street.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook County, To the
February Term, A.D. 1872. Martha E. Fisher, Rachel
C. Fisher and Lucius G. Fisher her husband, petition
ers, vs. Peter Quackenbush, Jonathan P. Armstrong,
William C. Goudy. John Foraythe, James D. Wallace,
Henry Burwell, George A. Townseud and Robert T.
Lincoln.In
Chancery.
Affidavit of the
non-residence of Peter Quackenbush,
Jonathan
P.
Armstrong
and George
A. iuTownseud,
defendants above
named, having
bet-u filed
the office
of the clerk ofsaid Superior court of Cook county, no
tice Is hereby given to the ssid Peter Quackenbush,
Jonathan P. Armstrong and George A. Towusend that
the complainants heretofore filed their bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of
February next, (1*72,) as is by law required.
Now, unless
you, the and
said George
Peter Quackenbush,
Jonathan
P. Armstroug
A. Townsend,
shall personally be and appear before said Superior
court
of
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of aonterm
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
the
first Monday of February, I-::', and plead, answer or
demur to the said petitioners bill of complaint, the
same, and the matters and things therein charged and
stated, will be taken n- confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to the prayer of said bill.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Fi'rness ft Abbott, Compl't's Sol'rs.
14-17
J. C. & J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
Attorneys, 1C3 W. Washington SL
TUIANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois. County of
^
Cook,
ss. Superior
CourtJoseph
of Cook
County,
To
February Term,
A.D., 1872.
Harvey
vs. Jane
Harvey.In
Chancery'.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Jane Harvey, de
fendant above named, having been filed in the office of
the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, notice
is hereby given to the said Jane Harvey that the com
plainant heretofore tiled his bill of complaint iu said
court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a sum
mons thereupon Issued out of said court against said
defendant,
the first Monday of February
next. (1872.)returnable
as is by lawourequired.
Now, unless you, the said Jane Harvey, shall person
ally be and appear In-fore said Superior court of Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
at Chicago, in said couuty, on the first Monday of
February, W2, and plead, answer or demur to the said
complainant's bill of complaint, the Bame, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken
as confessed,
and ofa decree
according
to the praver
said bill.entered againBt you
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
J. C. A J. J. Knickerbocker, Compl't's Sol'rs. 14-17

127
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney, 18 East Harrison J
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the 23d
day of October, A.D.. 1871. The undersigned hereby
gives notice of his appointment as assignee of the es
tate of Julius Scbreflier, of Chicago, In the county of
Cook
and State
who has
l*enDistrict
adjudged
bankrupt,
upon ofbisIllinois,
own petition,
by the
courta
of the L uited States in and for said District.
,
Assignee.
1W7
ROBERT E. JENKINS, A
IN States
THEforDISTRICT
COURT
THE UNITEDthe Northern
DistrictOFof Illinois.
In thematter of Eli N. Small, Bankrupt. Notice is hereby
Siven that the undersigned will, on Saturday, the 3rd
ay of February, 1872. at 10 o'clock, A.M., at No. 350
Wabash avenue, in the City of Chicago, sell at public
auction to the highest bidder, for cash, all of the un collected acounts and Indebtedness due to the said
bankrupt;
andhave
also any
all interest
whichWilliam
the said
bankrupt may
in theandestate
of his father
~ nail,
deceased.
15-17
S. S. MERRILL, Assignee.

F. W. LOWELL,
Attorney, Room 4, 9 8. Canal St.
ESTATE
LARS
Notice isOF
hereby
givenP. toLARSON.
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of LarB P. Larson,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication aud set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at tho court house, iu the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872,
being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago. January
1872. Administratrix.
H-iy
LINE10.M.A.D.
LARSON,
MATTOCKS & MASON,
Attorneys, NO. 623 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE
BENJAMIN
Deceased.
Notice isOFhereby
given toF.allHADDUCK,
persons having
claims
and demands against the estate of Benjamin . Hadduck, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
the County
and
settlement
of Cook
county, atto aberegular
holden term
at theofcourt
house, incourt
the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
U8JL being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January
9, A.D.
1872.
JOHN
DEKOVEN,
Administrator.
Mattocks ft Mason, Att'ys.
14-19a
ESTATE OF PATRICK O'MALLEY, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the eBtate of Patrick:
O'Malley, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
BARBER & LACKNER,
court of Cook county, to t>e holden at the court house
Attorneys, 64 West Lake Street.
in
the1872,
city being
of Chicago,
first Monday of March,
A.D.
the 4tbondaythethereof.
TESTATE
CHRISTIAN
DECEASED.
PATRICK O'MALLEY,
JZi Notice isOFhereby
given to allZIMMER.
persons having
claims
MARIA O'MALLEY,
and
demands
againstthethesame
estate
Christian Ziminer,
Administrators.
deceased,
to present
forofadjudication
aud set
12-18p
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook Chicago, Jan. 5. 1872,
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of EESTATE OF JOHN W\ BROMLEY, DECEASED.
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872,
Notice 1b hereby given to all persons hav
being the fourth day thereof.
claims and demands against the estate of John
Chicago, January
1.1, A.D.
1872. Administratrix, ing
WT Bromley, deceased, to present the same for ad
SKLEMA
ZIMMER,
and settlement at a regular term of the
Barber ft Lacknrr, Att'ys.
14-19a judication
Countyhouse,
courtin oftheCook
to on
be the
holden
the
court
city ofcounty,
Chicago,
first atMon
ESTATE OF HUBBELL B. CONE, DECEASED.- day
of
March,
A.
D.
1872,
being
the
4th
day
thereof.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
ALEXANDER ALLEN and
and demandB against the estate of Hubbell B. Cone,
THOMAS ALLISON,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
Executors.
settlement at a regular term of the County court of Chicago, Jan. 3, A. D. 1872.
13-18a
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. T7STATE OF THOMAS KELLEY. DECEASED.1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Xj Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
Chicago. WILLIAM
January 11, A.D.
1872.
and deiunnds against tho estate ot Thomas Kelley
W. KIMBALL,)
to present the same for adjudication and
MARY M. CONE
and
> Executors. deceased,
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
14-l?a
RAPHAEL M. SKILTON. )
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on tho first Monday of March, A.D.
SN0WH00K & GRAY,
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Attorneys, Ab. 85 West Monroe Street.
Chicago, January
9, A.D.
1872. Administrator.
JOHN
TILFORD,
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.- 14-lV'a
State of Illinois, Cook county, ss. Superior court
LOUIS given
FRIEDMAN,
DECEASED.of Cook county. January Term, A. D. 1872. John T7STATE
Hi Notice OF
is hereby
to all persons
havln
Sollitt
Philo D.
Mickles.Attachment.
and demands against the estate of Louis Frie
Publicv. notice
is hereby
given to the said Philo D. claims
man,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication,
Mickles that a writ of attachment issued out of the
settlement at a regular term of the County court
office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook andCook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the
county, dated the 19th day of December. A. D. 1871, at of
city
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
the suit of the said John Sollitt, and against the estate 1872. ofbeing
the fourth day thereof,
of Philo D. Mickles. for the sum of eleven hundred Chicago, January
6, A.D. 1872.
and seventy-one 7(-10n dollars, directed to the sheriff
SARAH FRIEDMAN, Administratrix.
of Cook county, which said writ has been returned ex
Rosenthal. Pence ft Mobes. Att'ys.
14-19*
ecuted.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Philo D.
ELDRIDGE
&
TOURTELLOTTE,
Mickles, Bhall personally be and appear before the said
Attornci/s.
Superior court of Cook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the court PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
house, In the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
State
of
Illinois,
Cook
CircuitR.Court
January,
A. D.action,
1872, give
specialwill
bailbeand
pleadagainst
to the of Cook county, April term, county,
a. d. 1872.ss. Joshua
null
said
plaintiff's
judgment
entered
and
William
H.
Lldell
v.
D.
A.
VanNamee.
Jr.
you. and in favor of the said John Sollitt, and so much Notice is hereby given to the said D. A. van
Namee,
of
attached
as may
to satisfy
a writ of attachment issued out of the office
thethe
saidproperty
judgment
and costs
willbebesufficient
sold to satisfy
the Jr.,thethat
courta.ofd.Cook
dated
Clerk ofdaytheofCircuit
same.
A. JACOBSON. Clerk. of
the eleventh
December,
1871.county,
at the suit
of
Sxowhook ft Grat, Attorneys.
14-17 the said Joshua R. Hull and William H. Lldell, and
against
the
estate ofand
D. A.seventy-four
Yan Namee,fifteen-one-hun
Jr., for the sum
of
four
hundred
INSTATE OF DANIEL O'BRIEN, DECEA8ED.- dredth dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook county,
j Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims which said writ has been returned executed.
and demands
against
of Daniel O'Brien
Now, therefore, unless you, the said D. A. Van Na
deceased,
to present
the the
sameestate
for adjudication
and set
Jr., shall personally be and appear before the
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook mee,
said Circuit court of Cook county, on or before the first
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of day
of the next term thereof, to be holden at tho Court
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872, be* House,
in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of
ing the fourth day thereof.
a. 11. 1872, give special bail and plead to the said
Chicago, January
13, A.D.O'BRIEN,
1872. Administrator. April,
plaintiff's
will beR.entered
against
LAWRENCE
and inaction,
favor ofjudgment
the said Joshua
Hull, and
Wil
Snowhook ft Gray, Att'ys.
14-19a you,
liam H.Lidell, and so much of tho property attached
as
may
be
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
said
judgment
and
ESTATE
OF
THOMAS
KINNEY,
DECEASED.satisfy the same.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims costs will be sold toNORMAN
T.
GASSETTE.
Clerk.
and demands against the estate of Thomas Kinney, de
16-11
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set- Eldeidge ft Tourtellotte, Attorneys.
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872,
of Illinois, Cook county, ss. Circuit court of
being the CATHARINE
4th day thereof.KINNEY, Administratrix. CookState
couuty. April term, a. d. 1872. Michael B. McDonougu
v.
D. A.is Van
Namee,
Chicago. Jan. 3, A. D. 1872.
13-18a a Public notice
hereby
given Jr.
to the said D. A. Van
I Namee, Jr., that a writ of attachment issued out of
THOS. SHIRLEY,
the
office
of
the
Clerk
of
the
Circuit
court of Cook
AtCy. Masonic BltTa, cor. Randolph and Hoisted sts. county, dated the fifteenth day of December,
a. d. 1871.
T7STATE OF JOHANN WILHELM (OTHERWISE at the suit of the said Michael B. McDonough, ana
against the estate ot said D. A. Van Namee. Jr., for the
Xj
known
as
John
William)
Meyer,
deceased.No
tice is hereby given to all persons having claims and sum of six hundred dollars, directed to the sheriff of
demands
estate William)
of JohannMeyer,
Wilhelm
(otherwiseagainst
known the
as John
de Cook countv, which snid writ has been returned execuceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
Now, therefore, unless yon. the said D. A. Van Na
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook mee, Circuit
Jr., shall
be andonappear
before
the
courtpersonally
of Cook county,
or before
the first
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of said
of the next term thereof, to be holden at the Court
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872, be day
House,a.ind.the1872,citygive
of Chicago,
the plead
third Monday
of
ing the 4th day MARIA
thereof. CHATARINA MEYER.
April,
special bailon and
to the said
plaintiff's action, judgment will be entered against
Administratrix. you,
in favor of the said Michael B. McDonough,
Thop. Shirley, Att'y.
15-20a and soandmuch
the property attached
maybebesold
suffito
cient to satisfyof saidjudgment
and costsaswill
ESTATE
OF
WILLIAM
SCHAEFER,
DECEASED.-YNotice is hereby given to all persons having claims satisfy the same.
GORMAN T. GASSET
and demands against the estate of William Schaefer,
Eldridge ft Tourtellotte, Attorneys.
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term ot the County Court ofCook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872,
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
being the firstADOLPH
day thereof.
CANDLER, Administrator.
And U. S. Commissioner.
Jon - B. Bradwell, Att'y.
16-21 Western Union Telegraph Office, 664 Wabash Aw.
Chicago, January 26, A.D. 1S72.

128

Chicago

Legal

News.

ATTORNEYS.
AD VER TISEMENT.
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
KAY & BROTHER,
J. SEYBOLD, 4S7 Wabash avenue ; residence
GEORGE C. FRY,
F 140 South Green street.
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
STEVENS &HAYNES Law Publishers, Booksellers and
61
Wat
Randolph
Street, formal]) 86 LaSalle Strut,
ARTIN A. CBRENNAN, LL.D.,
Importers,
Chicago.
Law Publishers,
659 State street.
M
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
VT & 10 South Sixth St.,
JAMES B. BRADWBL,
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS,
ERNDON <t ORENDORF,
No. 113 West Madison Street, Chicago.
PHILADELPHIA.
Office west side square. 07.
H
Special Attention Given to Probate Matters.
Hell Yard, Temple Bar,
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
GLENWOOD (MO.) ATTORNEYS.
Have just published
LONDON.
ESTATES SETTLED.
VROOMAN * VROOMAN.
em.
-r
_ / sy
s.-..-.
\ " Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die.
H-17*
Glenwood, Missouri.
Works in all Classes of Literature Th e Law of Contracts, \ and not uve."-2 kings *x. i.
. GOODWIN.
K. C. LARNED.
H. S. TOWL*.
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
SUPPLIED TO ORDER.
By t'BASCH HILLU8D,
Sepfer, wii.sox a martin.
GOODWIN,
LARNED
&
TOWLE,
9-20
Room 2 Bank Building.
Author of the " Law of Torts," " The Law of Injunc
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
tions." etc.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
ST. LOUIS (MO.) ATTORNEYS.
Orders Promptly Filled.
No. S76 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
The
Trunleeii
and
Officer*
of
Public
Li
a
Tola..
8vo.
Price,
915.0V.
J. P' I,B\,onn8elor-at-Law. St. Louie. Mo.
braries may rely upon the moat
JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWARD O.
careful attention to their
ALFRED PAXSON.
Commission*.
MATTOCK8 & MASON,
Insurance Exchange Building.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
Table of Contents of Volume I.
By importing DIRECTfrom England a consider
No. 523 Wabash Avenue, S. W. cor. Harmon Court,
CHARLES J. BISHOP,
able saving is effected, especially in the Customs duty,
Chicago, IU.
Successor to J. Fbeeman Silke,
from which Public Institutions in the United States are CltAPTKH
IWhat Constitutes a Contract ; Proposals, etc
ACCOUNTANT AND EXPERT BOOK-KEEPER, exempt.
BATES A HODOES,
IIExecuted Contracts.
122 W. Washington St., Chicago, III. 7-18p
Attorneys at Law, 13 W. Madison St.
8UNDRY mistakes have been made by oar Foreign
IIIImplied Contracts.
and Colonial Correspondents in addressing their let
IVEntire and Devisable Contracts.
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Laxa, Utah.
ters, we beg to notify that the members of our firm are
Henry O. Stevens and Robert W. Haynks, the son
VConditional Contracts.
and stepson ot the late Valentine Stevens, the eminent
VI-Verbal
and
Written
Contracts.
H. M. HERMAN,
Law Publisher. Since our father's death we have con
VIITime, in Connection with Contracts.
tinued to carry on the business <>f Iaw Publlsvher*,
ATTORNEY AT LA >V ,
Bookseller* and Exporters, at the above ad
VIIIStatute of Limitations,
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.
dress.
IXConsideration of Contracts.
During his recent visits to the United States and
52*
XConstruction of Contracts.
Canada, Robert W. Haynes secured many Friends
LE&AL NEWS PRINTING DEPARTMENT and
Correspondents ; we are thus enabled to give ref
XIVoid and Voidable Contracts.
W.
H.
WING,
erences of the highest character in most of the princi
XIIStatute of Frauds.
palWeAmerican
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
connection whatever with any other
have nocities.
XIIIParties to Contracts.
Elgin, IU.
house of business, and to prevent delay and miscar
XIVPartnership.
riage,
are respectfully
re
5-18
Collections promptly attended to.
XVCorporations.
questedourto Correspondents
plainly addressabroad
their letters
to us as fol
Briefs & Abstracts. lows:
XVIPrincipal and Agent.
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
STEVENS & HAYNES,
Table of Contents, of Volume II.
Barber
ft
Lackncr, 64 Wost Lake street.
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
Barker ft Waito, 46 East Harrison.
Chaptxe
The attention of Attorneys is called to our superior
LONDON,
Barker, J. C, 143 West Madison street, room 3.
XVIIMaster and Servant.
acuities for printing BRIEFS and ABSTRACTS.
ENGLAND. XVIIIPrincipal and SuretyGuaranty.
Bates ft Hodges, 113 Went Madison street.
BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison atreot.
XIXOfficial
Bonds.
Our prices are :
Extract
from
"
Report
of
Julius
Rosenthal,
Esq.,
Bonney, Kay ft Griggs, 120 West Washington street.
XXLandlord and Tenant.
HIM,
per page,
... |LN
Librarian to the President and Members ok
Bentley, Bennett, TJlIman ft Ives. 376 Wabash are.
XXIHusband and Wife.
Chicago Law Institute." November, 1870.
ABSTRACTS, " "
...
1.75 "the
Brouse, 0. R., 400 Wabash avenue.
XXIIInfanta.
To our collection of English Reports a valuable
addition
has
been
made
by
the
importation
of
a
Brown ft Rickerts, 114 West Madison.
Orders left either at the office of the Lmii News,
or Extinguishment of Con
and well preserved set of the House of Lords XXIIIPerformance
Burke A Allen, 18 West Randolph.
115 W. Madison St., or at the Printing Office, 13 North full
tracts.
Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58 PCXIVDischarge
Carmichacl, D. L 8(5 Prairie avenue.
in
Bankruptcy,
etc.
Jefferson St., will be promptly executed.
volumes.
Chase, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue.
XXV-Set-OfT; Tender.
" English books were imported directly free of
Clarkson .v Van Schuack, 454 Wabash avenue.
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the XXVI-Bailment.
firm of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose XXVIIBailment; Innkeepers; Common Carriers, Condon, Wm. H., 34 Canal street,
diligence, promptness, and care In filling our or XXVIIIBills of Exchange and Promissory|Notes.
Dcane ft CallHi, room 7, Llnd'fl Block.
ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
Pent ft Black, 740 Wabash avenue.
XXIXinsurance.
Ewing ft Leonard, #87 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. W., 115 West Madison street.
CALLAGHAN&Co.
Felker, Wm. S., 92 Detiplaines street.
TREATISE ON THE
Goodwin, D., jr., n. e. corner Monroe a nd La Salle.
NEW
Goudy ft Chandler, 30] Wabash avenue, branch office,
successors to
64 South Halstcd street.
CONFLICT OF LAWS, Graham, Geo. N., 60 South Canal.
Harrison A Whitehead, 143 West Madiaon street.
lorn
CALLAGHAN-& COCKCROFT,
Herbert ft Quick, 61 Union Central Bui lding, and 529
State street.
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW;
Hervey,
Anthony ft Gait, 356 Wabash a*veuue.
'Respectfully call the attention of the profession to
WITH KOTICES Or
Hopkins,
Win.,A.,rCongress
46 East Harrison.
;heir large stock of
Hoyne,
Phil.
Hall, between Michigan
Anglo American, Roman, Qcrman, and French
Jurisprudence.
and Wabash avenues.
BY FRANCIS WHABTOI, U* D
Hoyne, Horton ft Hoyne, 267 Michigan avenue.
DILLON
Author of " American Criminal Law," " Precedents Hitchcock, Dupec A Evarts, corner Wells and Mon
roe streets.
of Indictments, "State Trials," etc.
LAW!
Howe ft Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
ON
One vol., 8to. Price, f7.50.
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
"Embracing the REPORTS of all the leading
Table of Contents.
Knickerbocker, J. C, ft J. J.. 163 West Washington.
Courts in this Country and England.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Chapter.
Learning ft Thompson, 119 Wabash avenue.
IIntroductory Observations.
Leary,
B. James, 159 West Madison.
IIDomicil.
We have a very full assortment of
Magruder, B. D., 181 West Madison.
IIIPersonal Status.
Mattocks ft Mason, 523 Wabash avenue.
IVMarriage and Divorce.
McClelland, Thos. 8., 45 South Canal, room 6.
VParental Relations.
We have In press, and will shortly Issue, a
New Teit Boots and Digests
Morriam/Alexander ft Bolster,'149 W. Washington st.
VIGuardi unship.
Miller, Frost ft Lewis, 363 Mi(iigan avenue.
TREATISE ON THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL
VII-Law of Things,
Moore A Caulfield, southeast cor. State and Madison,
and an unusually full line of
VIIIObligations and Contract*.
CORPORATIONS, with full reference to En
Monroe, Bisbee ft Gibbs, 523 Wabash avenue.
IXSuccession
and
Wills.
glish and American cases, by the Honorable
Newcomb, G. W., 214 Warren avenue.
XPractice.
RARE AND VALUABLE WORKS,
Norton, Jessie <>.. 386 Wabash avenue.
JOHN F. DILLON, United States Circuit
XICriminal Law.
Nissen it Barnum, 126 W. Randolph, and 376 State.
out of print, which we are offering; at lowest current Judge.
Otis. E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Paddock ft Ide, 449 Wabash avenue.
prices.
This work Is designed to meet a want long
NEARLY BEADY.
Perkins, N. ft, 479 Wabash av., cor. Eldridge conrt.
Palmer, L. L.( 481 Wabash avenue.
We would also call attention to our superior facili felt by the members of the profession.
Pflrshing, Jos., 47 Peck court, bet. Wabash and State.
Judge Dillon has devoted several years to
ties for importing, being in monthly receipt of
KERR ON RECEIVERS;
Rich ft Thomas, 945 Michigan av., and 468 Wabash.
the most careful preparation of the text and
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 South Canal.
CONSIGNMENTS FROM LONDON
TaEATisx on |the Law and Practice as to Receivers Rorke, M. A. ft Son, Central Union Building.
notes ; and this fact, together with his high Aappointed
by
the
Court
of
Chancery.
By
Wm.
W.
Rosenthal, Pence ft Moses, Masonic Building, . W.
of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-law. With cor. Randolph and Halsted, and 350 Wabash avenue.
direct, which we are selling at unusually low figures. reputation as a jurist, guarantee the excel Kibb,
American Notes, by G. Tccxxa Bispham, Esq., of the Roys, C. D., 677 Wabash avenue.
lence of the work.
Philadelphia Bar. 8 vo.
Text^
Scammon, McCagg ft Fuller, 389 Wabash avenue.
A large collection of
Sheldon ft Waterman, corner La Salle and Monroe
kept constantly on Complete In one large octavo volume.
and
Sleeper ft Whlton, 441 Wabash avenue.
Small ft Ingalls. 481 Wabash avenue.
IN PREPARATION,
Catalogues sent promptly upon application.
Story A King, 149 West Washington street.
A DIGEST OP THE
Tenny, McClellan ft Tenny, 454 Wabash avenue.
JAMES COCKCROFT & CO.,
Thomas, Sidney, 95 East Harrison street.
Van Buren, E. ft A., 194 West Madison street.
Address
OH
Vallette, H. FM 59 West Madison street.
DIVORCE AND ALIMONY Waterman, A. N., 135 West Monroe street.
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
White, Hugh A., 165 West Washington street.
CALLAGHAN & CO.,
IH THH
Williams ft Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
499 Wabash Avenue,
United States'.
Walker, Dexter ft Smith, 562 Wabash avenue.
525 Wabash Ave.,
Wilson,! Perry ft 8turges, 47y Wabash avenue.
By Wm. HARDCA8TLE BROWN, Esq
Windett, Arthur W., 562 Wabash aveuue, and room
CHICAGO.
6, Llnd's Block.
ONE VOLUME. 8VO.
CHICAGO, ILL.
Waughop, J. W.( 401 Wabash avenue.
1-18
13-24
15-27

Qwicago

Jegal

Mews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 18.

&fie Courts.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Elias Ward, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of
Maryland.
In Error to the Qjurt of Appeal) of the State of
Marylana.
1. State Poweh to Lay and Collect Taxes.
That State power to levy and collect taxes may
reach every subject over which the unrestricted
power of the State extends, but the State cannot,
without the consentof Congress, levy any impost or
duties on imports or exports except what may be
absolutely necessary for executing theirinspection
laws ; nor can they without the consent of Con
gress, lay any duty of tonnage as they are express
ly prohibited from so doing by the Constitution.
2. Implied Prohibitions.That implied prohi
bitions, restricting the power of the States to lay
and collect taxes also exist, which are as effectual
to that end as those which are express : that the
State may tar every subject of value within the
sovereignty of the State, belonging to the citizens
as mere private property, but the power of taxation
does not extend to the instruments of the Federal
government, nor to the Constitutional means em
ployed by Congress to carry into execution the
powers conferred in the Federal Constitution.
3. Exclusive Power in States.That the pow
er to tax ior State purposes is as much an exclusive
power in the States, as the power to levy and col
lect taxes to pay the debts, and provide for the
common defense and general welfare of the United
States is an exclusive power in Congress. Both
are subject to certain prohibitions and restrictions,
but in all other respects they are supreme powers
possessed by each government, entirely independ
ent of the other.
4. Articles ExportedJudges" Salaries.That
articles exported from any State cannot be sub
jected to any tax or duty, nor is it competent for
Congress to tax the salaries of the judges of the
State Courts, as the exercise of such a power is re
pugnant to the admitted right of the States to cre
ate courts, appoint judges and provide for their
Compensation.
5. Power ok U. S. and State to Tax.That out
side of the prohibitions express and implied, con
tained in the Federal Constitution, the power of
the States to tax for the support of their own gov
ernmeuls is co-extensive with the subjects within
their unrestricted sovereign power ; .that the pow
er to tax may be exercised at the same time and
upon the same subjects of private properly by the
Imited States and by the States without inconsist
ency or repugnancy.
Excise Taxes.That excise taxes levied by a
State upon commodities not produced to any con
siderable extent by the citizens of the State may,
perhaps, be so excessive and unjust in respect to
the citizens of the other States as to violate that
provision of the Constitution, even though Con
gress has not legislated upor. that precise subject ;
that the statute of Maryland, prohibiting non-resi
dents from selling any goods, etc., within the State
without first obtaining a license, etc., is repugnant
to the second section of Article IV of the Constitu
tion, which provides that the citizens ofeach State
shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities
of citizens of the several Stales.
7. Taxes by State.That taxes may be imposed
by aState on all sales made within aState, whether
the goods sold were the produce of the State
imposing the tax or of some other State, provided
the tax imposed is uniform, but a tax discriminat
ing against the commodities of the citizens of the
other States, is inconsistent with the provisions
of the Federal Constitution.Ed. Legal News.
By the courtClifford, J. Power to
re-examine final judgments of the State
courts rendered in criminal prosecutions,
as well as those rendered in civil suits, is
conferred upon the Supreme Court when
it appears that the judgment was ren
dered in the highest court of law in
which a decision in the case could be
had, and that there was drawn in ques
tion the validity of a statute of a State,
on the ground of its being repugnant to
the Constitution of the United States,
and that the decision of a State court
was in favor of the validity of the stat
ute (1 Stat, at Large, 85.)
Persons not permanent residents in
the State, are prohibited by the laws of
Maryland from selling, offering for sale,
or exposing for sale, within a certain dis
trict ofthe State,any goods whatever other
than agricultural products and articles
manufactured in the State, either by card,
sample, or other specimen, or by written
or printed trade list orcatalogue, whether
such person be the maker or manufac
turer or not without first obtaining a
license so to do. Licenses may be grant
ed by the proper authorities of the State
for that purpose, on the payment of three
hundred dollars, " to run one year from
date."
Both residents and non-residents of
that district are also forbidden to suffer or
permit any person, not a permanent
resident of the State, and not in their
regular employment or service, to sell
any goods in that way under their name

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1872.

or the name of their firm, or at their
store, warehouse, or place of business.
Offenders against either of those pro
hibitions are made liable to indictment,
and, upon conviction, may be fined not
less than four hundred nor more than
six hundred dollars for each offense
(Sess. Acts 1868, p. 786.)
Ward, the defendant, is a citizen of
New Jersey and not a permanent resident
of Maryland, and the record shows that
he, on the day therein named, at a place
within the prohibited district, sold to
the persons therein named, " by speci
men, to wit, by sample," certain goods
other than agricultural products or arti
cles manufactured in the State, without
first obtaining a license so to do, and that
he was indicted for those acts in the
proper criminal court, and was arraigned
therein and pleaded not guilty to the in
dictment. Apart from the plea of not
guilty is the further statement in the
record that the defendant " puts himself
upon the judgment of the court here,
according to the act of assembly in such
cases made and provided," and" that the
attorney for the State doth the like.
All matters of fact having been agreed,
the parties submitted the case to the
court, to the end that the judgment of
the court might be obtained, whether the
statute of the State was or was not con
stitutional and valid. Judgment was
rendered for the State, and the criminal
court sentenced the defendant to pay a
fine of four hundred dollars and costs,
and the court below, upon appeal, af
firmed the judgment.
Adjudged constitutional as the State
law was by that decision, the defendant,
as he had a right to do, sued out a writ
of error and removed the record into
this court for re-examination.
Congress possesses the power to regu
late commerce among the several States
as well as commerce with foreign na
tions, and the Constitution also provides
that the citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all privileges and immunities
of citizens in the several States, and the
defendant contends that the statute of
the State under consideration, in its
practical operation, is repugnant to both
of those provisions of the Constitution,
as it either works a complete prohibition
of all commerce from the other States in
goods to be sold by sample within the
limits of the described district, or at least
creates an unjust and onerous discrimi
nation in favor of the citizens of the
State enacting the statute, in respect to
an extensive and otherwise lucrative
branch of interstate commerce, by secur
ing to the citizens of that State, if not the
exclusive control of the market, very
important special privileges and immu
nities by exemption from burdensome
requirements, and onerous exactions im
posed upon the citizens of the other
States desirous of engaging in the same
mercantile pursuits in that district.
Attempt is made, in argument, to show
in behalf of the State, that the statute in
question does not make any such dis
crimination against the citizens of the
other States, as is supposed by the de
fendant ; that the citizens of the State
are in fact subjected to substantially the
same requirements and exactions as are
imposed upon the citizens of other
States, but it is too clear for argument,
in a judicial opinion, that the articles of
the code referred to as establishing that
theory do not support the proposition,
nor do they give it any countenance
whatever. Those enactments forbid resi
dent traders, other than the grower,
maker, or manufacturer, to barter or sell
any goods or chattels without first ob
taining a license in the manner therein
prescribed, and they also point out the
steps to be taken by the applicant to ob
tain it, and what he must state in his ap
plication for that purpose.
Small traders, whose stock generally
kept on hand at the principal season of
sale does not exceed one thousand dol
lars, and are not engaged in selling spir
ituous or fermented liquors, are required

to pay for the license the sum of twelve

dollars. If more than one thousand dol
lars, and not more than fifteen hundred
dollars, they are required to pay the sum
of fifteen dollars, and so on through ten
other gradations, the last of which re
quires the applicant to pay the sum of
one hundred and fifty dollars, where his
stock generally kept on hand at the prin
cipal season of sale exceeds forty thou
sand dollars, which is the largest exac
tion made of any resident trader, not
engaged in the sale of spirituous or fer
mented liquors. Compare one set of the
regulations with the other, and comment
is unnecessary, as the comparison shows
to a demonstration that the statute in
question does discriminate in favor of
the citizens of the State, and that the
opposite theory finds no support from
the articles of the code which forbid
resident traders from bartering or selling
goods or chattels without first obtaining
a license for that purpose, as therein pre
scribed.
State power to lay and collect taxes
may reach every subject over which the
unrestricted power of the State extends,
but the States cannot, without the con
sent of Congress, lay any imposts or du
ties on imports or exports except what
may be absolutely necessary for execut
ing their inspection laws ; nor can they,
without the consent of Congress, lay any
duty on tonnage, as they are expressly
prohibited from so doing by the Consti
tution.
Implied prohibitions, restricting the
power of the States to levy and collect
taxes also exist, which are as effectual to
that end as those which are express.
Undoubtedly the States may tax every
subject of value, within the sovereignty
of the State, belonging to the citizens as
mere private property, but the power of
taxation does not extend to the instru
ments of the Federal government, nor to
the constitutional means employed by
Congress to carry into execution the
powers conferred in the Federal Consti
tution (McCulloch v.Maryland, 4 Wheat.,
424.)
Power to tax for State purposes is as
much an exclusive power in the States
as the power to levy and collect taxes to
pay the debts and provide for the com
mon defense and general welfare of the
United States is an exclusive power in
Congress. Both are subject, however, to
certain prohibitions and restrictions, but
in all other respects they are supreme
powers possessed by each government
entirely independent of the other. Con
gress may lay and collect tuxes, duties,
imposts and excises to pay the debts and
to provide for the common defense and
general welfare, but direct taxation must
be apportioned among the several States
according to their respective numbers,
and all duties, imposts and excises must
be uniform.
Articles exported from any State can
not be subjected to any tax or duty, nor
is it competent for Congress to tax the
salaries of the judges of the State courts,
as the exercise of such a power is repug
nant to the admitted right of the States to
create courts, appoint judges, and provide
for their compensation. Subject to those
prohibitions and restrictions, and others
of a like character, the power of Congress
to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts
and excises to pay the debts and pro
vide for the common defense and gener
al welfare is without limitation, but the
powers granted to Congress are not in
every case exclusive of similar powers
existing in the States, unless where the
Constitution has so provided, or where
the nature of the power granted, or the
terms in which the grant is made, are of
character to show that State legislation
upon the subject would be repugnant to
the federal grant, or that the framers of
the Constitution intended that the power
should be exclusively exercised by Con
gress.
Outside of the prohibitions, express
and implied, contained in the federal
Constitution, the power of the States to

Whole No. 176.

tax for the support of their own govern
ments is co-extensive with the subjects
within their unrestricted sovereign pow
er, which shows conclusively that the
power to tax may be exercised at the
same time and upon the same subjects
of private property by the United States
and by the States without inconsistency
or repugnancy. Such a power exists in
the United States by virtue of an express
grant for the purpose, among other
things, of paying the debts and provid
ing for the common defense and general
welfare, and it exists in the States for the
support of their own governments, be
cause they possessed the power without
restriction before the federal Constitution
was adopted, and still retain it, except
so far as the right is prohibited or re
stricted bv that instrument (Gibbons v.
Ogden, 9 Wheat., 199; Nathan v. Louis
iana, 8 How., 82.)
Possessing, as the States do, the power
to tax for the support of their own gov
ernments, it follows that they may enact
reasonable regulations to provide for the
collection of the taxes levied for that
purpose, not inconsistent with the power
of Congress to regulate commerce, nor
repugnant to the laws passed by Con
gress upon the same subject. Reasona
ble regulations for the collection of such
taxes may be passed by the States,
whether the property taxed belongs to
residents or non-residents, and in the
absence of any Congressional legislation
upon the same subject no doubt is enter
tained that such regulations, if not in
any way discriminating against the cit
izens of other States, may be upheld as
valid : but very grave doubts are enter
tained whether the statute in question
does not em! tj.ee elements of regulation
not warranted by the Constitution, even
if it be admitted that the subject is left
wholly untouched by any act of Con
gress.
Excise taxes levied by a State upon
commodities not produced to any con
siderable extent by the citizens of the
State may, perhaps, be so excessive and
unjust in respect to the citizens of the
other States as to violate that provision
of the Constitution, even though Con
gress has not legislated upon Jthat pre
cise subject, but it is not necessary to de
cide any of those questions in the case
before the court, as the court is unhesi
tatingly of the opinion that the statute
in question is repugnant to the second
section of the fourth article of the Con
stitution, which provides that the citizens
of each State shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in
the several States (Woodruff v. Parham,
8 Wall., 139 ; Hinson v. Lott, 8 Ibid., 151.)
Taxes, it is conceded in those cases,
may be imposed by a State, on all sales
made within the State, whether the
goods sold were the produce of the State
imposing the tax, or of some other State,
Erovided the tax imposed is uniform,
ut the court at the same time decides
in both cases that a tax discriminating
against the commodities of the citizens
of the other States of the Union would
be inconsistent with the provisions of
the federal Constitution, and that the
law imposing such a tax would be uncon
stitutional and invalid. Such an exac
tion, called by what name it may be, is &
tax upon the goods or commodities sold,
as the seller must add to the price to
compensate for the sum charged for
the license, which must be paid by
the consumer or by the seller himself,
and in either event the amount charged
is equivalent to a direct tax upon the
goods or commodities (Brown v. Mary
land, 12 Wheat., 444 ; People v. Marine,
3 Keyes, N. Y., 374.)
Imposed, as the exaction is, upon the
persons not permanent residents in the
State, it is not possible to deny that the
tax is discriminating with any hope that
the proposition could be sustained by the
court. Few cases have arisen in which
this court has found it necessary to ap
ply the guaranty ordained in the clause

130
of the Constitution under consideration
(Conner v. Elliott, 18 How., 593.)
Attempt will not be made to define
the words " privileges and immunities,"
or to specify the rights which they are
intended to secure and protect, beyond
what may be necessary to the decision
of the case before the court. Beyond
doubt those words are words of very
comprehensive meaning, but it will be
sufficient to say that the clause plainly
and unmistakably secures and protects
the right of a citizen of one State to pass
into any other State of the Union for the
purpose of engaging in lawful commerce,
trade or business without molestation, to
acquire personal property, to take and
hold real estate, to maintain actions in
the courts of the State, and to be exempt
from any higher taxes or excises than
are imposed by the State upon its own
citizens (Cooley on Const, 16; Brown v.
Maryland, 12 Wheat., 449.)
Comprehensive as the power of
the States is to lay and collect tax
es and excises, it is nevertheless clear
in the judgment of the court, that the
power cannot be exercised to any extent
in a manner forbidden by the Constitu
tion ; and inasmuch as the Constitution
provides that the citizens of each State
shall be entitled to all privileges and im
munities of citizens in the several States,
it follows that the defendant might law
fully sell or offer or expose for sale, with
in the district described in the indict
ment, any goods which the permanent
residents of the State might sell, or offer
or expose for sale in that district, with
out being subjected to any higher tax
or excise than that exacted by law of
such permanent residents (State v. North
et al., 27 Missouri, 467 ; Fire Department
v- Wright, 3 E. D. Smith, 478 ; Paul v.
Virginia, 8 Wall., 177).
Grant that the States may impose dis
criminating taxes against the citizens of
other States, and it will soon be found
that the power conferred upon Congress
to regulate interstate commerce is of no
value, as the unrestricted power of the
State to tax will prove to be more effi
cacious to promote inequality than any
regulations which Congress can pass to
preserve the equality of right contem
plated by the Constitution among the
citizens of the several States. Excise
taxes, it is everywhere conceded, may
be imposed by the States, if not in any
sense discriminating, but it should not
be forgotten that the people of the sev
eral States live under one common Con
stitution, which wasordained to establish
justice, and which, with the laws of Con
gress and the treaties made by the prop
er authority, is the supreme law of the
land, and that that supreme law requires
equality of burden and forbids discrim
ination in State taxation when the
power is applied to the citizens of the
other States. Inequality of burden as
well as the want of uniformity in com
mercial regulations was one of the
grievances of the citizens under the con
federation, and the new constitution was
adopted, among other things, to remedy
those defects in the prior system.
Evidence to show that the framers of
the Constitution intended to remove
those great evils in the government is
found in every one of the sections of the
Constitution already referred to, and
also in the clause which provides that
no preference shall be given, by any
regulation of commerce or revenue, to
the ports of one State over those of an
other, showing that Congress, as well as
the States, is forbidden to make any dis
crimination in enacting commercial or
revenue regulations. Strong support to
the same view is also derived from the
succeeding clause in the same section of
the Constitution, which provides that
vessels bound to or from a State shall
not be obliged to enter, clear, or pay du
ties in another.
Important as these provisions have
been supposed to be, still it is clear that
they would become comparatively value
less if it should be held that each State
possesses the power in levying taxes for
the support of its own government to
discriminate against the citizens of every
other State of the Union.
Much consideration was given to those
clauses of the Constitution in the Pas
senger Cases, 7 How., 400 to 414, and
they were there regarded as limitations
upon the power of Congress to regulate
commerce, and as intended to secure en
tire commercial equality, and also as
prohibitions upon the States to destroy
such equality by any legislation pre

Chicago

Legal

News.

had no right, after receiving the freight

Those decisions establish the doc company
the amiellees, to put a portion of it in store, and
trine that for an insolvent debtor to of
receive fresh shipments which would prevem tho
make a general assignment of all his performance of its duties in regard to shipments
already made. It was their duty to have deliv
property for the benefit of all his credit ered
them in their order, and it Bhould have said
ors an act of bankruptcy, it must be to persons
seeking to ship live stock or perishable
made on his part with the intent there goods, that the road, without the fault of the de
fendant, had become so blocked with freight that
by to defraud and hinder his creditors, no
further goods could be received until tne accu
or with intent to defeat or delay the mulation
had been removed.Ed. Legal News.
operation of the bankrupt law. It be
Opinion of the court by Lawrence,
comes a question of fact. The innocence a j!
or guilt of the act depends upon the
the 26th of January, 1865, Burns &
mind of him who did it, and it is not a Co.Ondelivered
to the Michigan Central
fraud within the meaning of the bank
Railroad Companv, at Chicago, two hun
rupt law, unless it was meant to be so. dred
and eighty-three bales of wool con
This being the recognized law in this
circuit, I am obliged to say, that the signed to Boston. On the 2d and 4th of
making the assignment by this insurance February, the wool was received by the
company was not necessarily an act of Great Western Railway Company, the
bankruptcy. It appears plainly and de appellant, at Detroit, and on the 7th and
cidedly from the evidence, that the offi 8th of the same month forwarded east
cers and stockholders of this company ward to Hamilton, a point forty-three
when they ordered this assignment to miles west of its eastern terminus at
be made were actuated with the most Suspension Bridge. It was there un
honest intentions, and with the laudable loaded and placed in a warehouse, where
purpose of giving their creditors their it all remained until March 13, when six
entire assets. They meant no fraud ; bales were forwarded, and on the 3d, 7th
and 8th of April, 277 bales, comprising:
either legal or moral fraud.
But it is claimed by the petitioners the rest of the wool, were sent forward
that the payment of the rent of the to their destination. In the meantime
had been a great decline in the
premises occupied by them to Mr. Crit there
of wool, and this suit was brought
tenden, and the permitting the secretary price
to
recover
this damages suffered by the
of the company and other agents of the
company to pay their salaries out of appellees in consequence of this deten
money in their hands, were evidence of tion.
It appears, from the evidence, that the
payment by way of preference to cred winter
1864-5 was one of great sever
itors, and therefore a fraud upon the ity, andofthe
snow fell to a very unusual
bankrupt law. If the proof satisfied me depth over the
region traversed by the
that those payments were made with an New York Central
railroad, which con
intent to make a preference in favor of nects with the appellant's
road at Sus
these persons, and against the interests pension Bridge. One of the
of
of and to the injury to the rights of the this kind of weather had been effects
block
creditors, then I must decide that they up with snow the track of theto N.
Y.
constituted an act of bankruptcy. But Central, and disable its locomotives and
the proof is not satisfactory. I find that cars to such an extent that it was wholly
by the payment of the rent, the forfeit unable to carry all the freight brought
ure of the lease and the consequent loss over the Great Western. This state of
of their office furniture and other prop affairs began about the middle of De
erty were avoided, and by subsequent
and continued to the middle of
acts of the company and its assignees cember,
April. When the wool in question was
certain valuable privileges and a consid shipped,
the means of storage at the
erable sum of money over and above the eastern terminus
of the road had been
amount paid for rent, were saved and already exhausted,
the appellant
added to the assets. A failing or insolv was obliged to unloadand
freight as the
ent debtor has undoubtedly the right to N. Y. Central could notsuch
at the sta
pay out money or make changes in his tions most convenient carry,
for safekeeping
property, before an actual adjudication and reshipment, one of which
was Ham
of bankruptcy, if he does it in good faith
ilton.
We are indebted to M. R. Keith, Re without injury to the rights of his cred
appears, however, the stoppage in
itors, and especially as in this case when theIt transfer
gister in Bankruptcy, for the following he
of freight from one road tosaves property and increases the as the other was
not complete. From the
opinion:
sets.
2d of February, when the wool was
Although there was no formal charge stored
U. S. D1ST. COURT, W. D. OF OHIO. made
at Hamilton, to the 5th o>f April,,
in the petition, as to any other
OrixioN Filed January, 1872.
taking that day as the average date of"
payment, except the payment of the shipment
from that point, the N. Y. Cen
A. W. Smith ct al. vs. Tectonia Ins. Co. of rent, yet proof was admitted and consid
Cleveland.
erable stress was laid upon the payment tral received from the appellant an av
WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ACT OF BANK- of
loaded cars per diem,
the secretary's salary and that of oth erage of thirty-one
RUITCY.
in the aggregate, to nineteen
Effect of Assignment, and payino Salaries. er officers and agents. It is true that the amounting,
Held, that an insurance company after its Insol salaries of the secretary and those of hundred and twenty-two cars. At thevency was known by making a general assign agents were paid at the close of the time the wool was delivered to defend
ment of all Its property for the benelit of all its month of October, and after the insolv ant, the accumulation upon its line al
creditors and paying its running expenses for the
month previous including rent, was not guilty of ency of the company was known, but ready amounted to about twelve hun
an act of bankruptcy within tho meaning of the they were paid in good faith, with no dred cars.
bankrupt law.Ed. Legal News.
It thus appears that during the period
intent to prefer them, and in fact in
Opinion ofthe court by Sherman, J.
every instance the sums paid were re when this wool lay in store, the defend
This is a petition, seeking for causes al tained out of moneys in the hands of ant actually transferred to the N. Y.
leged, to have an adjudication of bank those agents, and on which they had a Central an" amount of freight equal to
ruptcy rendered against this Insurance lien for their monthly salaries. The about seven hundred cars more than the
Company. There is no question as to money received by Hessenmueller, the entire accumulation at the time the de
the insurance company being subject to secretarv, was for his own monthly sal fendant received the wool. A great
the provisions of the bankrupt law, nor ary, and" that of the clerks in the office amount of freight was received by the
is there any dispute as to the facts. It was paid by his own check as secretary defendant at Detroit, carried to Suspen
appears from the petitions, answer and and treasurer of the company, on the sion Bridge, and there delivered to the
evidence, that this insurance company bank where the company account was N. Y. Central, while the appellees' wool
has been in existence for a number of kept, and he was the only person who was in store at Hamilton.
Upon this state of fact the jury rightly
years, and in good credit and condition could sign checks, and this was done by
until the great fire at Chicago on Oct. 9th. him with no proof that the officers ap found a verdict for the appellees. If
there were no other question in the case,
That the company sustained a loss in proved or sanctioned the act.
that city of over one million dollars,
Finding the law of the case thus set we should be much inclined to hold this
while their capital and assets is but little tled and applying the facts proven to railway company had committed a
over two hundred thousand dollars. the law, I am satisfied that no act of wrong to the appellees by receiving their
That about the 1st of November, 1871, bankruptcy, within the meaning of the wool for shipment without explainingto
and after they had fully ascertained and bankrupt law, has been committed by the them that there was a vast amount of
knew the extent of their losses, and after insurance company, and I must dismiss freight in store upon its lines, and en
titled to precedence in being forwarded,
paying their running expenses for the the petition with costs.
month of October previous including
By the mere act of accepting the freight
their rent, and the salaries of their offi
Our thanks are due the law firm of without explanation, the company un
cers, agents and solicitors, they made a Tenney, McClellan & Tenney, of this dertook to transport and deliver it with
in a reasonable time, and although the
deed of assignment under the laws of
defendant was in no wise responsible
Ohio, of all their assets, to three of their city, for the following opinion :
for the condition of the N. Y. Central,
stockholders, in trust, and for the equal
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
vet as a consequence of that condition,
benefit of their creditors.
Opinion Filed Jan. 22, 1872.
its own lines were already blocked with
This state of facts, unexplained and
The G. W. R. R. Co. of Canada v. Thomas W.
twelve hundred car-loads of freight en
uncontrolled by other considerations,
Burns et al.
titled to immediate delivery, and which
would in my opinion render them sub
Appeal from Superior Court of Cook County.
ject to an adjudication of bankruptcy and ACTION AGAINST A R. R. CO. FOR NOT TRANS could not under the most favorable cir
PORTING FREIGUT WITHIN A REASONA cumstances, be delivered for many days.
cause their assets to be administered un
TIME.
company knew that its lines were in
der the provisions of the bankrupt law. BLE
1. Perishable Freight.That as to perishable The
But it is urged that the decision of freight
or live stock, if shipped at the same time such condition as to incapacitate it for
Judge Swavne in the cases of Langhay with other freight, the company might properly performing its full duty as a common
it precedence if necessary to its preservation ; carrier, by delivering goods not only in
v. Perry, 2 B. Reg. 180, and Tearrin v. givecourt
sees no reason why dutiable goods should safety but in a reasonable time. In
Crawford 2 B. Reg. 181, renders such as the
in any case be entitled to precedence.
2. Ulty of Company as to Freight.That the order to save itself from liability, it
signments valid.

scribing any conditions upon which

vessels bound from one State to another
shall be permitted to enter the ports of
another State. Congress, said Mr. Jus
tice Grier, has regulated commerce by
willing that it shall be free, and it is
therefore not left to the discretion of
each State either to refuse a right of
passage through her territory, or to ex
act a duty for permission to exercise
a such privilege.
Viewed in any light the court is of the
opinion that the statute in question im
poses a discriminating tax upon all per
sons trading in the manner described in
the district mentioned in the indict
ment, who are not permanent residents
in the State, and that the statute is re
pugnant to the federal Constitution, and
invalid for that reason.
Judgment reversed and the cause re
manded with directions to the court be
low to conform its judgment to the opin
ion of this court.
Bradley, J.(Concurring.) I concur
in the opinion of the court, that the act
of the legislature of Maryland com
plained of in this case discriminates in
favor of residents and against non-resi
dents of the State, and consequently is
in violation of the fourth article of the
Constitution of the United States, and
thereforefore, pro tanto, void. But I am
further of opinion that the act is in vio
lation of the commercial clause of the
Constitution, which confers upon Con
gress the power to regulate commerce
among the several States ; and it would
be so, although it imposed upon resi
dents the same burden for selling goods
by sample as is imposed on non-resi
dents. Such a law would effectually pre
vent the manufacturers of the manu
facturing States from selling their goods
in other States unless they established
commercial houses therein, or sold to
resident merchants who chose to send
them orders. It is, in fact, a duty upon
importation from one State to another,
under the name of a tax. I therefore
dissent from any expression in the opin
ion of the court which, in any way, im
plies that such a burden, whether in the
shape of a tax or a penalty, if made
equally upon residents and non-resi
dents, would be constitutional.

Chicago

Legal

received a copy of the following opin

ion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed Jan. 22, 1872.
Angeline Long, Adm'r, v. Elinor B. Thompson
et al.
Appeal from Dupage.
ORDER OF DISTRIBUTION IN PROBATE COURT
WITHOUT NOTICE VOIDPOWER OF COURT
OVER RECORD.
1. Okder of Distribution without notice Void.
That the principle is very general, subject to few
exceptions, that all persons whose rights are to be
afleeted by an order or judgment of a court, must
have notice, actual or constructive, of the pend
ency of the proceeding against him; that parties
in interest must be parties to suit or proceeding
which may affect their interests : that it this were
a bill in chancer}' for distribution, it would not be
denied that all the distributees should be made
parties to it : that this proceeding does not differ
in principle from a bill in chancery.
2. Power of Prorate Court to set aside Order
of Previous Term.The court, without notice to
the heirs, stated the final account of an adminis
trator, and entered an order of distribution, it was
held that the order was void for want of notice to
the heirs, and that the court could retrace its steps
for any error which it might have committed in
its progress, and correct them at a subsequent
term.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the court by Breese, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment
rendered by the Circuit Court of Dupage
County. Appellant, Angeline Long, as
administratrix of her deceased husband,
Abram Long, who died intestate, obtain
ed an order of the County Court of
Dupage county, to sell the real estate of
the intestate to pay debts, subject to the
dower right as widow.
A sale was made and after the pay
ment of the debts there remained a sur
plus in the hands of the administratrix,
subject to distribution, the sum of nine
hundred forty-two 53-100 dollars.
At a special term of that court, held on
the 5th of September, 1866, without
any notice served upon the heirs, or any
notice published; or notice of any kind
to the heirs, and in their absence and in
the absence of their guardians, an order
of distribution of this surplus was made
by the court, distributing to the admin
istratrix one third part thereof, being
three hundred and fourteen 17-100 dol
lars, and to the heirs the remainder ac
cording to their respective rights and
interests. It was further ordered in and
by the same order, that the administra
trix make payment and distribution of
the sum remaining in her hands, to the
parties entitled according to their rights
and interests as determined and decreed
by the court, and that the administratrix
file in court, receipts of the parties for
the amounts to which they are respect
ive!}' entitled, taking, in case of minors,
the receipts of their guardians.
The administratrix did nothing under
this order, or take any steps in the direc
tion of carrying it out, when a notice
was served upon her by the parties in
terested in said order, "that they would
apply to the probate court at the Febru
ary term, 1870, for an order vacating and
setting the same aside.
Tne motion was heard by the probate
court at that term, and an order duly
entered vacating the same.
From this order the administratrix
appealed to the circuit court, and on a
hearing there the order was affirmed.
To reverse this order the administratrix
appeals.
Two principal questions are made by
appellant on this record. The first is,
That notice to the heirs of the distribu
tion of the fund was unnecessary, the
statute no where requiring notice. Sec
ond : The probate court being a court of
record, its judgments and orders entered
at one term cannot be vacated and set
aside at a subsequent term.
These questions are elaborately argued,
and we concur in much that has Deen
urged in support of them.
Of the first question, counsel cites the
proviso of the 8th section of the act of
1857, amendatory of the statute of wills,
by which it is declared that the overplus
arising from the sale of lands of an intes
tate, under an order of court, if there be
any, shall be distributed among heirs
and devisees, owners or such other per
sons as may be entitled thereto. Laws of
1857, p. 140.
As this statute does not in terms re
quire notice to heirs and distributees, it is
insisted distribution could be legally
made without any notice.
We apprehend" that the principle is
very general, subject to few exceptions,
that all persons whose rights are to be
aflected by an order or judgmeut of a
court, must have notice, actual or con
Through the courtesy of the law firm structive, ofthe pendency of the proceed
of Page & Plum, of this city, we have ings against them.

should have discVoS r^}0 shippers the

condition of its xoad. *-hese appellees, if
thus informed, might have sought an
other line of transportation, or have
chosen to sell their wool for what it
would bring in Detroit. They could
then have exercised their own judgment.
As it was, the company, by receiving
their freight without explanation, placed
it for a very unusual period beyond the
control of appellees, although its imme
diate sale may have been of vital import
ance, and did this without their consent.
But independently of this question,
the verdict of the jury was correct, be
cause after this wool was in store at
Hamilton, the defendant continued to
receive freight at Detroit, large amounts
of which were carried to Suspension
Bridge and there delivered to the New
York Central without delay.
It is urged by counsel for appellant,
that the freight to which precedence
was thus given consisted either of dutia
ble goods, or was of perishable character,
or live stock. By dutiable oods are
meant such goods coining to this country
from Canada, as were liable to the pay
ment of a duty. Such goods leaving
Detroit in locked cars, could, if the cars
remained unopened, recross the bounda
ry at Suspension Bridge, without the
payment of a duty.
As to perishable freight or live stock,
it is very true, if shipped at the same
time with other freight, the com
pany might properly give it precedence
if necessary to its preservation, As to
dutiable goods, we see no reason why
they should in any case be entitled to
precedence over other goods of the same
character. But the question here is, not
between the wool of appellees and per
ishable freight shipped at the same
time, but between that and perishable
freight shipped subsequently, and at a
time when the defendant knew that by
accepting such shipment, it was to that
extent delaying the forwarding of ap
pellees' property. The defendant had
no right to consign appellee's wool to a
warehouse at Hamilton for two months,
and during that period deliver to the
N. Y. Central large amounts of freight
received subsequently to the shipment
by appellees.
This was, in substance, the instruction
given by the court below to the jury,
upon which they doubtless found their
verdict, and the instruction was clearly
right. The company had no right to re
ceive fresh shipments which would pre
vent the performance of its duties in re
gard to shipments already made. Its
duty was to deliver these in their order,
and it should have said to persons seek
ing to ship live stock or perishable goods,
that the road, without the fault of the
defendants, had become so blocked with
freight that no further goods could be
received until the accumulation had been
removed.
It is urged by appellants that when
the contents of the warehouse at Ham
ilton were sent forward, the wool in
question was forwarded in advance of
other freight in the warehouse received
at an earlier date and entitled to prece
dence.
That may be true, but the fact remains
that, if the company had declined to re
ceive any new through freight from West
to East, after the appellees' wool was
shipped until the blockade of its lines
was removed, the latter would have
reached its destination some weeks ear
lier than it did, and that is the solid
ground on which this verdict rests. A
common carrier has certainly no right to
place a part of his freight in store, and
there leave it, while he continues to re
ceive and transport new freight. This
company was sacrificing the rights of the
appellee in order to keep up, to a con
siderable extent, the through business of
the road. It may have been so situated
that it could not well decline to do this,
but it must make compensation to in
jured parties.
The instruction given by the court on
its own motion, stated the law to the
jury with substantial correctness, and
the verdict upon the evidence was just.
Judgment affirmed.
Walker, Dexter & Smith, for appel
lant.
Tenney, McClellan & Tenney, for ap
pellees.

News.

Parties in interest must be parties to a

suit or proceeding which may affect their
interests. Mitford's Ch. 39 ; Story's Eq.
PI. 185. This case is a good illus
tration of the propriety of this rule,
for had the distributees or their guar
dians been notified that an order of dis
tribution was to be entered, they could
have resisted that portion of the order
which allowed appellant, as widow, onethird of the surplus, the legality of which
is not pretended by the counsel.
Was this a bill in chancery for distri
bution, it will not be denied all the dis
tributees should be made parties. Mor
ris et al. v. Hogle et al., 37 111., 150.
Wherein this proceeding differs from a
bill in chancery in principle we can not
discover. The principle that notice to
parties must be given to conclude them,
pervades the entire realm of jurispru
dence. Hopkins et al. v. McCann, 19
111., 116.
As to the second point, it will be ob
served the administratrix had made no
final settlement of the administration,
nor had she paid the distributees under
this order. Until this was done the
whole matter was in fieri.
Under such circumstances, nothing
having been settled, we do not question
the power of the probate court to retrace
its steps for any error which may have
marked its progress.
The order entered at the special term
in September, 1866, was ex parte, and re
maining unexecuted up to the date of
the motion to vacate it, we can see no
reason whv it should not, on notice to
the administratrix, be vacated.
The authoritv so to do we must regard
as incident to those general powers such
a court possesses, and which are indis
pensable to their right exercise. It saves
the delay and expense of appeals and
writs of error or proceedings in equity,
and is otherwise productive of conven
ience and productive of the ends of jus
tice.
The order of distribution being void
as to the heirs, they having had no notice,
and nothing having been done under
the order, there was no error in the
court, at a subsequent term, in proceed
ing to set aside such order.
Perceiving no error in the record the
judgment is affirmed.
\ an Arman & Valette for appellant
Page & Plum for appellees.
We are under obligations to the law
firm of Hitchcock, Dupee & Evarts, of
this city, for the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed Jan. 8, 1872.
Toledo, W. & W. Railway Co. v. David B. Smith.
Appeal from Greene.
DAMAGESPECUNIARY ABILITY OF CODEFENDANT.
1. Pecuniary Ability' of one Defendant.
Held, that the pecuniary ability of one defendant
cannot be considered by the jury in determining
the amount of damages which a co-defendant
shall have assessed against him.
2. Punitory Damaoes.That evidence of the
pecuniary ability of a defendant is admissible only
in the class of cases where the injury was willful,
wanton, or malicious, and in which punitory dam
ages may be allowed.Ed. Legal News.
OpinionPer curiam.
In this case the railway company and
its conductor were sued for damages for
the expulsion of appellee from the train.
Numerous errors have been assigned,
both upon the evidence and the instruc
tions. We shall consider only one in
struction, for the giving of which the
judgment must be reversed.
In the fourth of the series of instruc
tions for appellee, the court informed
the jury that in assessing damages
against the defendants, it was proper for
the jury to consider the ability of the
company to pay damages.
The verdict was against both the com
pany and the conductor, and they both
prayed an appeal.
There was no proof in the record that
Tray, the conductor, owned any prop
erty whatever. For aught that appears
he may have been hopelessly insolvent
at the time of the trial. The instruction
referred to, recognizes the principle that
the pecuniary ability of one defendant
may be considered by the jury in deter
mining the amount of damages which a
co-defendant shall have assessed against
him.
The law is not so unjust and unreasonble, even if the jury were satisfied in re
gard to the ability of the company, this
would not enable them to determine the
damages which should be awarded
against the conductor.
Evidence of the pecuniary ability of a

defendant is admissible only in the class

of cases where the injury was willful,
wanton or malicious, and in which pun
itory damages may be allowed. The
reason of the rule which authorizes a
jury to take into consideration the pecu
niary circumstances of a wrong doer, in
fixing the amount of damages, in the
class of cases mentioned, is, that a sum
which would be a severe punishment to
a man of small means, would be little or
none to a man of great means.
There was no evidence of the pecu
niary ability of either of the appellants,
and the question of such ability was
therefore submitted to the jury without
evidence. We cannot say that this in
struction, which was wrong in principle,
was not calculated to prejudice appel
lant, and especially Tray. It would be
natural for the jury to assume that the
railroad company was possessed of great
means, simplv because it was a railroad
company, and nothing appearing to the
contrary. But in this they might have
been wholly mistaken. This supposi
tion or assumed wealth on the part of
the company was made a basis of puni
tory damages against Tray, who might
not have been worth a dollar.
That some such consideration must
have entered into the question of dam
ages, is quite apparent from the amount
of the verdict, which seems, under the
circumstances of the case disclosed by
the evidence, to have been largely in ex
cess of any actual damages sustained by
appellee.
The judgment of the court below must
be reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN.
June Term, 1871.
guarantyusury.
1. Where A. sells and transfers to B.
the note of C, and guarantees its collec
tion, the transfer is valid, and B. may
enforce the note against C, even though
the guaranty is void for usury.(Opin
ion by Lyon, J.)Armstrong v. Gibson.
2. Equity will not interfere to set aside
for usury an executed contract.lb.
3. Where the guaranty was made by
A. of his own motion, and not at B.'s re
quest, equitv will not interfere to annul
it, but will feave A. to his defense at law
in case an action should be commenced
against him.lb.
4. The objection that the complaint
does not state a cause of action is not
waived by failing to demur on that
ground, or to appeal from an order over
ruling such a demurrer, but may still be
urged against a judgment in plaintiff's
favor.Po.
5. It seems, also, that on appeal from
such a judgment, the order overruling
such a demurrer is reviewable under
Sec. 6, Ch. 264, Laws of 1860, as "an in
termediate order involving the merits,
and necessarily affecting the judgment."
lb.
DIVORCEALIMONY.
1. In a complaint by a wife for divorce,
an application for alimony, with an aver
ment of facts to show what amount of
alimony should be granted, does not con
stitute a misjoinder of causes of action ;
such application being, by our practice,
merely an incident to the divorce suit.
(Opinion by Lyon, J.)Damon v. Damon,
imp.
2. In such an action, one who know
ingly and without consideration took a
conveyance of the husband's property,
made before the action was commenced,
but after the right of action accrued, for
the purpose of defeating a recovery of
alimony, may (under R. S., ch. Ill) be
joined as a defendant, and subjected tosuch judgment in respect to said prop
er^ as plaintiff's equities may require.
liability of husband for attorney fees.
1. A husband who prosecuted his wife
to compel her to find sureties to keep
the peace (under ch. 175, R. S.) and fail
ed to sustain the charges brought against
her, held liable for the reasonable fees
of attorneys employed by her to defend
her against such prosecution, on the
ground that such legal services were nec
essaries.(Opinion by Lyon, J.) Warner
et al. v. Heiden.
2. It appearing that the husband was
present when such services were render
ed and did not object thereto, Lyon J., is
of the opinion that he might for that
reason be held bound by an implied
promise to pay for them.Ib.

132

Chicago

Chicago Legal News.

3Lei Ufncft.
CHICAGO, FEBRUARY 10, 1872.
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
The Chicago Legal News Co.,
AT 115 MADISON STREET.
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
Terms :
Pwo Dollars per annum, In advance. Single cop
ies Ten Cents.
Scale of Advertising Rates,
Space. 1 w. 2 w. 3 w.| 4w. 3 in. 6 m. iy.
'mob
1 sq tTob *L75 k3o S&25 $8.00
2.00 8.50 4.75 6.00 15.75 30.00 59.00
2.80 5.00 6.50 8.00 23.00 44.00 87.00
S sq
K col.... 4.68 8.75 12 87 15.00 37.50 73.75 187.50
'A col.... 8.75 14.37 21.50 27.50 72.50 135.00 262.50
lcol 15.00 27.50 38.75 52.50 135.00 262.50- 437.50
Ten lines of Agate make a Square.
Advertisements must be paid for in advance,
and when not so paid. 50 per cent, will be added
Legal Notices not included in the above.
Printed at the Chicago Legal News Press, 13
North Jefferson street, Chicago.
THE LEGAL NEWS OFFIC E la at 110
West Wl
Street. The Printing
Eatablfenmrnt Is at 18 jr. Jefleraon St.
Our Printing Establishment.We
ould remind our readers that we are
doing all kinds of book and job printing,
and that we give special attention to all
legal printing, including Law Books,
Pamphlets, Briefs, Abstracts, Circulars,
Btil Heads, Cards, &c, &c. "When paid
promptly on delivery, we print Briefs
for $1.25 per page, and Abstracts for
$1.75. When not paid on delivery, 25
cents per page will be added.
We call attention to the following
opinions, reported at length in this
issue :
License Tax on Non-residents.The
opinion of the Supreme Court of the
United States, delivered by Clifford, J.,
holding that the statute of Maryland,
imposing a license tax upon non-residents
offering for sale, selling, etc., certain
goods, either by card, sample, etc., and im
posing a penalty of from $400 to $600 for
each offense, while the license tax on
residents of that State is fixed at from
$12 to $150 is in violation of Article IV,
Sec. 2 of the Federal Constitution. The
learned Judge, in commenting upon the
powers of the United States and the
States to levy and collect taxes, says,
without any qualification whatever, that
it is not " competent for Congress to tax
the salaries of the Judges of the State
Courts, as the exercise of such a power
is repugnant to the admitted right of
the States to create courts, appoint
judges and provide for their compensa
tion."
Act of Bankruptcy.The opinion of
the U. S. District Court at Cleveland, de
livered by Sherman, J., holding that an
insurance company, after its insolvency
was known, by making an assignment of
all its property for the benefit of its
creditors, paying its running expenses,
including rent, was not guilty of an act
of bankruptcy within the meaning of the
bankrupt law. This decision is in direct
conflict with the opinion of Blodgett,
J., in re The Merchants' Ins. Co., report
ed IV. Legal News, 73, and is not in ac
cordance with the principles laid down
by the Supreme Court of the United
States, in the opinion delivered by Field,
J., in Toof et al. v. Martin, reported IV.

L egal

News.

Legal News, 113. Judge Sherman's plea, if the bankrupt offers in evidence
opinion is, in our judgment, against the of its truth his certificate of discharge
weight of authority, and a misconstruc authenticated as required by law ; that
tion of the bankrupt act.
on such an issue the certificate is con
Duty of R. R. Co. as to Transporta clusive evidence in favor of such bank
tion of Freight.The opinion of the rupt of the fact and regularity of such
same court, delivered by Lawrence, discharge, if it has not been set aside
C. J., holding that it is the duty of a and annulled by a direct proceeding in
railroad company to transport freight a proper Federal court.
within a reasonable time, and that after
Lien for Freight.The mere manual
the reception of freight such company delivery of merchandise by the carrier
has no right to put it in store and re to the consignee does not of itself op
ceive fresh shipments which would pre erate necessarily to discharge the lien for
vent the performance of its duties in re freight. The delivery must be made
gard to shipments already made. The with the intent of parting with his inter
opinion also states when perishable est in it, or under circumstances from
freight or live stock has precedence over which the law will infer such intent.
other freight. There will undoubtedly Nelson, J., in Granghran v. 151 tons of
be many suits brought against railroad Coal, 15 Int. Rev. R., 34.
companies under this decision for delay
Lien Against Bankrupt The Su
in transporting freight to Chicago within preme Court of Iowa, in an opinion de
the last four months.
livered by Day, C. J., reported 6 W.
Order of DistributionNoticePow Jurint, 23, held after the filing of a peti
er of Court over.The opinion of the tion in bankruptcy, which is followed by
Supreme Court of Illinois, delivered by an adjudication of bankruptcy, that no
Breese, J., holding that an order of dis valid lien can be acquired against the
tribution made by a probate court, upon property of the bankrupt by proceed
the application of the administrator of ings instituted in the State Court subse
an intestate, without notice to his heirs, quently to the filing of such petition.
is void, and that upon stating the final
Recent ^ufilications.
account of an administrator, the court
may retrace its steps and correct any
Manual of Equity Jurisprudence,
errors it may have made in his former A specially
designed for the use of Law
accounts. This is a timely decision,
Schools, and of the Practicing Lawyer.
sound in principle and well supported
Comprising the Fundamental Prin
ciples and the Points of Equity usually
by the authorities. It has been the prac
occurring in General Practice. By
tice in many of the counties of this State
Josiah W. Smith, B. C. L., Q. C. First
for the administrator and the County
American from the Ninth London
Judge, without any notice to the heirs,
Edition. Washington : W. H. & O. H.
Morrison, Law Booksellers and Pubto fix up the administrator's final ac
Ushers. 1871. Sold by Callaghan &
count and make an order of distribution . Co.,
Chicago.
of the personal estate.
This volume gives a succinct yet com
Judge Bradwell was the first county , prehensive view of the leading princi
Judge in this State who, by order of ples of equity jurisprudence, and con
court, provided that the final accounts of tains citations to the important English
executors, administrators and guardians equity cases. It is entirely free from
should not be approved, except upon no surplus matterall wheat and no chaff
tice to the parties in interest. The pro and will be found a valuable aid to
ceedings i n our county courts are too much actual practitioners as well as students.
ex parte. Would it not be well for our
Manual of Common Law. Comprising
legislature to give this subject the con A the
Fundamental Principles and the
sideration its impo rtance demands ?
Points most usually occurring in Daily
Life and Practice : for the Practitioner,
Punitory DamagesAbility of De
Student, and General Reader. By
fendant.The opinion of the same
Josiah W. Smith, B. C. L., Q. C, Judge
court, holding that the pecuniary ability
of Countv Courts. First American
from the Fourth London Edition, with
of one defendant cannot be considered
Notes and References by Edward
by the jury in determining the amount
Chase Ingersoll, of the Washington
of damages a co-defendant shall have
Bar. Washington City: W. H. and
assessed against him, and that evidence
O. H. Morrison, Law Booksellers and
Publishers. 1871. Sold by Callaghan
of the pecuniary ability of a defendant
& Co., Chicago.
is admissible only in the class of cases
This
volume will be of great assistance
where the injury was willful, wanton, or
malicious, and in which punitory dam to students and the younger members
ages may be allowed. This opinion is of the profession. The author informs
us that it is founded on about seventy
unquestionably sound in principle.
text-books, which are referred to in it
as often as any use has been made of
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
them, and is designed as a companion
Bond Taken During Rebellion.The to the Author's Manual of Equity, which
Supreme Court of Alabama held in Estes has long been used for examination by
v. Prince, decided on the 1st inst., that the Council of Legal Education at Lin
an injunction bond taken by a register coln's Inn. Mr. Smith is one of the
in chancery, in pursuance of an order of clearest and yet the most concise of law
the chancellor granting an injunction, in writers. No person can read this Man
1863, is not void on the ground that ual with care without becoming con
these oflicers represented a government versant with the principles of the com
in rebellion against the United States.
mon law. Mr. Ingersoll's Edition is to
Validity of Bankrupt's Discharge be preferred to the English, as it con
cannot be contested in State Court. tains his notes to American cases.
The same court .in an opinion filed at
the same time, in Oates, admr., v.
Jurisdiction of Justices. Judge
Parish, et al. held that the bankrupt act Rogers, of the Circuit Court of this
of March, 2, 1867, vests exclusively in the county, on last Tuesday, very properly,
Federal court the power to contest the in the case of Leddy v. O'Connor, on
validity of a bankrupt's discharge on the appeal from a judgment of a justice of
ground that it was fraudulently obtained ; the peace for 177.00, held that the bill
that this cannot be done, in the first in assuming to increase the jurisdiction of
stance, in the State courts j that upon justices of the peace to S200 was not
plea of bankruptcy pleaded in a State passed in accordance with the provisions
court, that court is bound to allow the of the Constitution, and that such officers

had jurisdiction only to the extent of

$100. We, from the first, advised justfces
not to exercise this jurisdiction, and in
formed them that the act was not constituionally passed, but we regret to say
that many of our ^Chicago justices have
issued writs under it whenever they
were requested so to do, and of course,
having no jurisdiction have made them
selves liable to an action for damages.
Through the kindness of Adolph
Moses, of the Chicago bar, we have re
ceived the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed Jan. 22, 1872.
Jacob Zlckerhann v. Adolph Sonnknschein.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County.
1. In an action for slander, the 9110 animo is the
controlling consideration. The implication of
malice may be explained and rebutted by the sur
rounding circumstances.
2. It was error to instruct the jury " that If the
defendant used words imputing a crime, they
must find for the plaintiff." The intent to impute
a crime should have been submitted to the jury_
Opinion of the court by Thornton, J.
The slanderous words charged are,
" He is a robber, " He is a thief," " He is
a forger." " He gets notes for ten dollars
and changes them to one hundred dol
lars." Some of the words are actionable
per te. and the law implies malice from,
the publication of actionable words.
This implication, however, may be ex
plained and rebutted by the circumstan
ces. Brandt, an attorney, had a note for
collection against appellant's father. The
father and son were both Germans, and
the father was unable to converse in theEnglish language. They were together
in Brandt's office, at his request, to talk
about the note. The slanderous words
were then used in the hearing of Brandt,
Higby and Hoffman, all attorneys at law
in the same office.
The plaintiff, in the suit below, obtain
ed his information of the speaking of the
slanderous words from Brandt, who was
the attorney in the suit.
It was error to instruct the jury that if
the defendant used words imputing a
crime, they must find for plaintiff. Theinstruction asked by defendant that if he
did not intend imputing a crime by thespeaking of the words he was not guilty,
should not have been modified by thecourt.
The intent of the publication should
have been submitted to the jury under
the proof.
The evidence is not satisfactory that
appellant spoke the words in any other
manner than as a translation from the
German into the English language, at
the solicitation of Brandt. The conver
sation about the note and the publication
of the slander charged, were at the same
time. If the words were used by ap
pellant merely for the purpose of trans
lating from the German into English,,
and at the request and for the informa
tion of the attorney, then they might be
excusable on account of the cause of pub
lication. There would then be no mal
ice in law, and the malice in fact 'should
be determined by the jury. The use of
the words might properly come within
the range of privileged communications..
In McKu v. Ingalls, 4 Scam., 30, theslanderous words were, " You are a thief.
If you have got money you stole it."
The general issue only was pleaded,
and the court sustained the following in
struction as correct : "That if the jury
believed from the testimony that Ingalls,
at the time he called McKu a thief, did
not intend to impute felony to him, the
words are not actionable, and they must
find for the defendant."
The controlling consideration is the
quo animo. Cummerford v. McAvoy, 15
111., 311.
In the case of Read v. Ambridge, 6 C.
and P., 308, the words were :
He is
the most blasted thief in the world, and
ought to have been hung," etc " He is
a bloody thief." " He robbed Mrs. Read."
Denman, C. J., in summing up, told
the jury " that the first question for their
consideration was, whether they thought
the words showed an intention to import
felony." Words standing alone may im
port malice and indicate a wicked intent ;
surround them with the circumstances
under which they were spoken and the
malice disappears.
The judgment is reversed and the
cause remanded.
Adolph Moses for appellant.
G. W. Brandt, for appellee.

Chicago
xxxiv. im>u$A Reports.
Our thanks are due 3 Ames B. Black,
Reporter of the Supreme Court of Indi
ana, for advance sheets of the 34th vol
ume of his Reports, from which we take
the following head-notes :
CO-ADMINISTRATORS.
1. Joint bond.Where co-administra
tors execute a joint bond as such, each
is liable thereunder for the acts and
omissions of the other.(Opinion by
Downey, J.)Prichard et al. v. State ex
rel. Keller et al., p. 137.
SUIT ON BOND.
2. SuretiesExecution.Where, in an
action on such joint bond, judgment is
rendered for the plaintiff, the sureties on
the bond have a right to an order direct
ing that the execution to be issued on
the judgment be first levied on the prop
erty of the principals, although one of
the principals may have taken posses
sion of the entire assets of the estate and
administered the estate, so far as it has
been administered, and the other ad
ministrator has never received any of
said assets.16.
CITY STREET IMPROVEMENT.
1. Change of grade. The common
council of a city incorporated under the
general act for the incorporation of cities
may, by a two-thirds vote, without any
petition, cause the grade of a street
which has been improved, such improve
ment having been paid for by the owners
of the property bordering on such street,
and is in good repair, to be changed, and
the street as so changed to be improved,
and may pay the damages occasioned by
the change out of the general revenue of
the city, and assess the expense of the
improvement against the owners of the
adjoining property, or cause such ex
pense to be paid out of such general
revenue.Opinion by Downey, J.)City
of Lafayette et al. v. Fowler et al., p. 140.
2. Extension of time of completion.The
mere extension by the common council
of the time within which the contractors
are to complete a street improvement
will not constitute a ground for enjoining
the collection of an assessment for such
improvement.lb.
LENGTH OF IMPROVEMENT.
3. A street in a city incorporated under
the general act for the incorporation of
cities may be improved by grading, etc.,
for a greater length than one whole
square, or block, under one order and
one contract.lb.
ESTOPPEL.
4. Where the owner of real estate in a
city stands by and Bees a street improved
adjoining said property, on a contract
made under an order of the common
council, without attempting by injunc
tion to prevent such improvement, he
cannot, after the work is completed or
nearlv completed, refuse to pay for it.
Ib."
PARENT AND CHILD.
Custody of MinorIndiana Soldiers' and
Seamen's Home.On the 6th of Novem
ber, 1868, a minor, an orphan child of a
deceased Indiana soldier, was received
into the Indiana Soldiers' and Seamen's
Home, upon a written instrument signed
by the mother of said child, reciting,
that she thereby surrendered said child
" to the care and guardianship " of the
trustees of said Home, to be under the
control of said trustees, td do with said
child as they might think best for the
interest of the child, without specifying
any time during which the child should
so remain.
Held, that in the absence of anything
showing that the mother was not a suita
ble person to have the custody of the
person of said minor, she was entitled to
regain such custody at any time.
(Opinion by Downey, J.) Wtihard v.
itedaris, p. 168.
REPLEVIN.
1. AffidavitJustice of the Peace.In an
action of replevin before a justice of the
peace, though the complaint need not be
separate from the afhdavit, it may be ;
and where the defendant appears to the
action and goes to trial on the merits,
without objecting to the affidavit or the
writ issued thereon, he cannot, on ap
peal to the court of common pleas, raise
any objection to the affidavit as such, or
to the writ.(Opinion by Worden, J.)
Eddy v. Beat, p. 159.
2. Pleading.It seems that in an ac
tion of replevin before a justice of the

Legal

peace, there is no necessity for the plain

tiff's affidavit as such to state that he
claims a judgment for the possession of
the property, or that he demands dam
ages for the detention thereof, though
these statements will not vitiate the affi
davit ; and that the action of replevin
may be maintained without asking dam
ages for the detention of the property.
lb.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA.
January Term, 1872.
accord and satisfaction.
1. Where a debtor pays the principal
of his debt, which is received by the
creditor, in full satisfaction, whether the
debt be past due or running to matu
rity, it is a good defense, and may be
pleaded as an accord and satisfaction.
(Opinion by Peck, C. J.) Westcolt v.
Waller.
2. A compromise made in good faith,
and without fraud, where the debtor is
in doubtful circumstances, by which a
less sum than the whole debt is received
by the creditor in satisfaction, the debtor
is thereby discharged from all further
liability.Ib.
NOTE GIVEN FOR THE HIRE OF SLAVES.
1. A contract in the form of a promis
sory note for the hire of a slave in 1860
may be declared on as a promissory note,
notwithstanding, besides the promise to
pay a certain sum of money, there is also
a promise in the same instrument to
" furnish said slave with two suits of
summer clothes, one suit of winter
clothes, two pairs of shoes, a hat and
blanket, also to pay his taxes, and return
him to said Shelton on the 25th of De
cember, 1860," without taking any notice
of the latter stipulations in the com
plaint, if no recovery is sought upon
these stipulations.(Opinion by Peters,
J.)Gaines v. Shelton.
2. In a suit on such a contract, the
court may refuse to permit the answer to
a question by the defendant, "because the
answer tended to add to, vary and
change the written contract between the
parties " on which the suit is founded.
CONSIDERATION.
3. When the parties have fixed the
consideration, and stated it in the con
tract, as part of the agreement, this pre
cludes an inquiry into the question of
a failure of consideration, unless there is
fraud, misrepresentation or deceit.Ib.
INDICTMENT FOR ROBBERY.
1. In an indictment for robbery a de
scription of the property taken as " ten
dollars in money of United States cur
rency" is too indefinite.(Opinion by
Saffold, J.)Cook v. State.
2. Property taken in the presence of
the owner, under circumstances consti
tuting robbery, is taken from his person.
Ib.
SERVICE OF COPY OF INDICTMENT.
3. The failure to serve a copy of the in
dictment and a list of the jurors on the
defendant, who was in custody one en
tire day before the trial, is a reversible
error.76.
FAILURE TO ASK PRISONER.
4. So is the failure to ask him, when
convicted, if he has anything to say why
sentence should not be passed on him.
Ib.
MISCONDUCT of jury.
5. The misconduct of the iury in dis
persing and mingling with other persons
after the cause has been submitted to
them, is ground of new trial, but not of
arrest of judgment.Ib.
6. Quere, where the verdict, " We, the
jury, find the defendant guilty of rob
bery ; imprisonment ten years in penitentary," sufficiently ascertains the sub
ject of the punishment.Ib.
SALE OF REAL ESTATE BY PROBATE COURT.
1. An application to the Probate Court,
by an executor or administrator of a de
ceased person, to sell the lands of the
estate for distribution, is, essentially, a
proceeding in rem, and when the court
has required jurisdiction, by a petition
filed, containing the jurisdictional facts,
an order of sale will not be void, for
errors that may intervene in the after
proceedings of the case.(Opinion by
Peck, C.J.)Standemire Heirs v. Standemire et al.
WHEN SALE VOID.
2. If, however, the petition is insuf
ficient to give the court jurisdiction, the
order of sale, and a sale made under it,

News.

will be void, and may be set aside and

vacated in the court by which the order
was made, on the application of any per
son or persons interested in, or preju
diced by said order of sale.Ib.
SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION.
3. The petition need not pursue accu
rately the language of the statute, any
words that necessarily convey to the
mind all that the statute requires will be
sufficient, and the words used should be
construed liberally and favorably, to sus
tain the jurisdiction of the court, and
the validity of the order of sale.Ib.
4. If the petition omits in words to
state that the lands are in the county, or
within the jurisdiction of the court in
which the application is made, yet if such
a description is given as to leave no real
difficulty in identifying the lands in
tended, "it will be sufficient, especially if
no objection is interposed before the
final order of sale is made.Ib.
WILLS.
1. Will, what instrument is : how revoca
ble. A writing purporting to be a will,
executed by two persons, making a pos
thumous disposition of the property of
the one who may first die in favor of the
other, and requiring the survivor to pay
the expenses of the last sickness and
burial of the decedent and such debts as
may be proved against his estate, is the
separate will of the first decedent, and is
revocable as other wills are. Schumaker
v. Schmidt et al., 44 Ala., 454.
2. Joint will : how will operate. Two or
more persons may execute a joint will,
which will operate as if executed sepa
rately by each, and will be entitled to
and require a separate probate upon the
death of each, as his will. But if the
will so provides, and the disposition made
of the property requires it, the probate
should be delayed until the death of
both or all the testators.lb.
3. Mutual wills, how may sometimes be en
forced. Mutual wills, duly executed,
may, after the death of either party, in
some cases, be enforced in equity as a
compact.lb.
[From Nokman L. Freeman, to appear in LIVth IU.\
TRESPASS.
1. Upon land.Although the land of a
party still in the occupancy thereof, has
been sold under execution, and the title
passed to the purchaser thereunder, still,
that does not authorize a stranger, in no
way connected with such title, going
upon the land and cutting timber, and if
he does so, the former owner, still in
possession, may maintain trespass against
him.(Opinion by Walker, J.) Wig
gins v. Chance, p. 175.
HOMESTEAD.
2. Sale thereof under execution When
void.Where premises occupied as a
homestead are of value not exceeding
$1,000, they are not subject to levy and
sale under execution against the owner ;
and should premises thus situated, be
sold under such process, and, there be
ing no redemption, a sheriffs deed made
to the purchaser, no title will pass there
by. The sale would be void.lb.
3. AbandonmentIts effect upon such a
sale.Even an abandonment of the
homestead by the owner, after the exe
cution of the sheriff's deed, would not
operate to render the void sale a valid
one, and the purchaser could claim noth
ing by reason of such abandonment.lb.
4. What constitutes an abandonment.A
judgment debtor owning a homestead
and residing thereon, rented the prem
ises for three years, and removed from
them with his family, in the fall of the
year, to a town in the same county, for
the purpose of earning money to pay his
debts, but with the intention of return
ing, and did return the following spring,
and resume the occupancy of his home
stead with his family : Held, there was
no abandonment of the homestead.Ib.
WISCONSIN CASE.
CHATTEL MORTGAGE SALE BY SECOND
MORTGAGEE.
1. Where the second mortgagee of
chattels takes and sells them with the
consent of the first mortgagee, the latter
cannot maintain an action against him
as for a conversion, although such con
sent was given under a false impression
as to the respective rights of the parties
to the proceeds of such sale, or as to
the views of the second mortgagee on
that subject, such false impression not

having been created by fraud on his

part.(Opinion by Lyon, J.)
DISTINCTION BETWEEN ACTIONS.
2. The distinction between an actions
ex delicto and one ex contractu is not
merely formal but substantial, in that an
execution goes against the body in theformer, and only against property in thelatter.Ib.
3. A judgment for plaintiff in an ac
tion for a conversion will therefore bereversed for erroneous instructions, al
though the record shows that he would
have been entitled to a judgment for
the same amount in an action for money
had and received.76.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
PROCEEDINGS OF.
Wednesday, January 31.
On motion of Mr. J. R. Doolittle, William W.
Foote, Esq., of California, was admitted to practice
as an attorney and counselor of this court.
No. 492. Hibernia Armstrong, appellant, vs. The
United States. This cause was submitted on print
ed argument by Mr. R. M. Corwine, of counsel for
the appellant, and by Mr. Solicitor General Brietow for the appellees.
No. 91. Truman G. Wright, appellant, vs. Alex
ander N. Fullerton. This cause was argued by
Mr. J. R. Doolittle, of counsel for the appellant
and by Mr. C. Beckwith for the appellee.
No. 92. Hiram O. Alden. plaintiff in error, vs.
The First National Bank of Chicopee. The argu
ment of this cause was commenced by Mr. Bion
Bradbury, of counsel for the plaintiff in error, ands
continued by Mr. M. P. Knowlton for the defend
ant In error.
Thursday, February 1.
No. 394. F. Bartemeyer, Sr., plaintiff in error, vs.
The State of Iowa. This cause was submitted on
printed arguments by Mr. William T. Dittoe, of
counsel for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr.
Henry O'Connor for the defendant in error.
No. 92. Hiram O. Alden, plaintiff in error, vs.
The First National Bank of Chicopee. The argu
ment of this cause was continued by Mr. M. P.
Knowlton, of counsel for the defendant in error,
and concluded by Mr. Bion Bradbury, for the
plaintiff in error.
No. 105. The New Haven Steam Transportation
Company, appellants, vs. The Steamboat Conti
nental. (Substituted for No. 93.) This cause was
argued by Mr. C. R. Ingersoll and Mr. C. Donohue,
of counsel for appellants, and by Mr. E. H. Owens,
for the appellee.
Friday, February 2.
On motion of Mr. T. W. Bartley, Thomas E.
Powell, Esq., of Ohio, was admitted to practice as
an attorney and counselor of this court.
On motion of Hon. H. Hamlin, E. A. Harding,
Esq., of Maine, was admitted to practice as an
attorney and counselor of this court.
No. 2S1. Benjamin H. Zellner, appellant, vs. The
United States. The motion to remand this cause
was argued by Mr. Riddle, in support of the same,
and by Mr. Assistant Attorney General Hill in
opposition thereto.
No. 144. John H. Haughton et al., appellants, vs.
Anna E. Srnallwood. The motion to dismiss this
cause was argued by Mr. W. S. Cox, in support of
the same, and by Mr. J. R. Doolittle, in opposition
thereto.
No. 144. John H. Haughton et al.. appellants, vs.
Anna E. Srnallwood. Appeal from the Circuit
Court of the United States for the District of North
Carolina. Ordered by the court that the appeal in
this cause be dismissed with costs.
No. 604. Frederick Hoeltye, appellant, vs.Charles
Hocller et al. Appeal from the Circuit Court of
the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.
On motion of Hon. A. F. Perry, ordered by the
court that this appeal be docketed and dismissed
with costs.
Chicago Law Institute.We are re
quested to ask persons who were elected
as officers, or members of the Board of
Managers of the Chicago Law Institute,
at the annual meeting held in Novem
ber, 1867, to at once notify Charles MSturges, Secretary, No. 479 Wabash ave
nue, that the list of officers about to be
published with the charter and by-laws
of the Institute may be made complete.
Valuable Law Library.It is pos
itively refreshing in these days, when
nearly every law library in our city is in
ashes, to gladden our eyes with the sight
of so many rare and valuable works as
we find in the office of Harding & Mc
Coy, 368 Wabash Ave. This library con
sists of over 3000 volumes, and cost over
$13,000.

134
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
Barber & Lackner, 64 West Lake street.
Barker & Waite, 46 East Harrison.
Barker, J. C, 143 West Madison street, room 3.
Bates Jt Hodges, 113 West Madison street.
BKADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street.
Bonney, Fay & Griggs, 120 West Washington street.
Bentley, Bennett, Ullman & Ives. 376 Wabash are.
Brouse, 0. R., 400 Wabash avcnne.
Brown A Rickerts, 114 West Madison.
Barke & Allen, 18 West Randolph.
Carmichael, D. L,. 8.3 Prairie avenue.
Chase, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue.
Clarkson & Van Schaaek, 464 Wabash avenue.
Condon, Win. H.,34 Canal street.
Deane & Cahill, room 7, land's Block.
Dent A Black, 740 Wabash avenue.
Ewing A Leonard, 4S7 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. W., 115 West Madison street.
Felker, Wm. S., 92 Desplaines street.
Goodwin, D., jr., n. e. corner Monroe and La Salle.
Goudy A Chandler, 391 Wabash avenue, branch office,
64 South Halsted street.
Graham, Geo. N., 60 South Canal.
Harrison A Whitehead, 143 West Madison street.
Herbert A Quick, 61 Union Central Building, and 529
State street.
Hervey, Anthony A Gait, 356 Wabash avenue.
Hopkins, Wm., 46 East Harrison.
Hoyne, Phil. A.,'Congress Hall, between Michigan
and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne, Horton A Hoyne, 267 Michigan avenue.
Hitchcock, Dupee A Evarta, corner Wells and Mon
roe streets.
Howe A Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, 0. P., 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
Knickerbocker, J. C. A J. J., 163 West Washington
Learning A Thompson, 449 Wabash avenue.
Leary. D. James, 95 West Madison.
Magruder, B. D., 181 West Madison.
Mattocks A Mason, 523 Wabash avenue.
McClelland, Thos. 8., 45 South Canal, room 6.
Merriatn/Alexander & Bolster,|149 W. Washington st.
Miller, Frost A Lewis, 363 Michigan avenue.
Moore A Caulfield, 54 Central Union Block.
Monroe, Bfebee A Gibbs, 523 Wabash avenue.
Newcomb, G. W., 214 Warren avenue.
Norton, Jessie O., 386 Wabash avenue.
Kissen A Barnum, 126 W. Randolph, and 376 State.
Otis. E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Paddock A Ide, 449 Wabash avenue.
Perkins, N. C, 479 Wabash av., cor. Eldridge court.
Palmer, L. L., 481 Wabash avenue.
Pfirshing, Jos., 47 Peck court, bet. Wabash and State.
Rich A Thomas, 945 Michigan av., and 468 Wabash.
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 South Canal.
Rorke, M. A. A Son, Central Union Building.
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, Masonic Building, a. w.
cor. Randolph and Halsted, and 350 Wabash avenue.
Roys, C. D., 677 Wabash avenue.
Scammon, McCagg A Fuller, 389 Wabash avenue.
Sheldon A Waterman, corner La Salle and Monro*
Sleeper A Whiton, 441 Wabash avenue.
. Small A Ingalls. 451 Wabash avenue.
Story A King, 149 West Washington street.
Tenny, McClellan A Tenny, 454 Wabash avenue.
Thomas, Sidney, 95 East Harrison street.
Van Buren, E. A A., 194 West Madison street.
Vallette, H. F., 59 West Madison street.
Waterman, A. N., 135 West Monroe street.
White, Hugh A., 165 West Washington street.
Williams A Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
Walker, Dexter A Smith, 562 Wabash avenue.
Wilson,!Perry A Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
Windett, Arthur W., 562 Wabash avenue, and room
> 6, Lind's Block.
Waughop, J. W., 401 Wabash avenue.

LAW BOOKS.
J. It. McDIVITT,
81 STASSAtl
Second-hand Law Books Bought, Sold and Ex
changed.
6-19
Iffi TREES! SffiN PLANTS!
SSSS SEEDS !
Apple and Crab, 100 2 |to 4 ft., $4 ; i to 6 ft., $5.
Pear, stand., extra, llyear, Bartlett, etc., 3 to 4 %t.t
per doz., 82.30.
Meeds, Peach,!bmh.,'$2; Apple Osage, new, busb.,
$12.
Potatoea, Early; Bose, White! Peach Blow, per
basb, 82.
Seedlings, 1000 Soft Maple, Si; Ash, $3; Elm, $2.
Illustrated Cataloguo 100 pages, and Price List, 10c.
15-27
F. K. PHCENIX, Bloomington, 111.
D. J. CROCKER,
Attorney, 48 Smith Omal Street.
ESTATE
OK
CAROLINE
HKINES,
DECEASED.
Public notice is hereby given
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Caroline
Heines,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
holden
the court
house
court
Cook
county, toonbethe
In
theofcity
of Chicago,
first atMonday
of April,
A.D. 1872, being the first day thereof.
JACOB HEINES, Executor.
D. J. Crocker, Att'y for Estate.
18-23
STATE OF JOHN S. CLASSEN, DECEASED.
is hereby given to all persons having claims
Ei Notice
and
demands against the estate of John S. Classen,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement
regular
of the
County
ot
Cook connty,at toa be
noldenterm
at the
court
house.court
In the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago.CATHABINA
January 10, A.D.
1872. Administratrix.
CLASSEN,
A. ENZENBACH'.R, Att'y.
14-19

Chicago

Legal

rPRUSTEE'S SALE.Whereas. Theodore Stone and

X Mary 1*. Stone, his wife, ot" the city ut' Chicago, iu
Cook
county,
Illinois,
did miand
theseventy,
sixth daybyoftheir
Juue,cerin
the year
eighteen
hundred
tain deed ot trust of that date, which was duly execu
ted, acknowledged and delivered as prescribed by law.
grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the undersigned
trustee, his successor in trust, and his and their heirs
and assigns, all the following described lands and
premises, situate in the city of Chicago, county of
Cook ami State of Illinois, to wit: Lot numbered oue
(1), in Armstrong's subdivision of the uorth three (3)
acres of block numbered thirty-nine <:0, in the canal
trustees' subdivision, in section thirty-three (."Wj town
ship forty (-mi north, range fourteen (14), east of the
third
meriaian,
portion
of said
lot oneprincipal
(1) described
by excepting
metes and that
hounds
as follows,
to wit: commencing at u point on the southwesterly line
of Lincoln
avenue, (which
line is
also
the northeasterly
line ofsuid
saidlastlotmentioned
one (1), seventysix (76) feet southeast of the westerly line of said lot
one (1), and running thence northwesterly on the
northeasterly line of said lot one (I), seventy-six feet
to the west line of said lot one (1); thence south on
the west line of said lot one (It eighty-two i*2> feet;
thence cast on a Hue parallel with" the south line of
said lot one (1) twenty-nine CM) feet; thence northeast
on a line parallel with the southeasterly line of said
lot oue (1) forty-two and one half (42^) feet more or
less to the place of beginning: subject, however, to a
certain other trust deed, dated the 11th day of April,
A.D. 18IW, upon the whole of said lot one (I) to one
Lyman Baird, recorded in book M7 of deeds, page 27,
in the Recorder's office of Cook county, to secure pay
ment of the sum of four thousand dollars and interest,
and
duehereditaments
April 11th, A.D.
; together with
the tene
ments,
and1874
appurtenances:
to have
and
to hold the same unto the undersigned,his said successor
in trust, and his and their heirs and assigns forever, in
trtmt, to secure the payment of a certain promissory
note witti
madesaidby deed
the said
Theodore
Stone,
even
date
of trust,
payable
to hisbearing
own order,
due in one year after date without grace, for the sum
of
withdate
interest
at thepaid,
rateand
of
tentwo
per thousand
cent, per dollars,
annum after
and until
payable at room 3y Reynolds' block, Chicago; and up
on
defaultor ofin any
payment
said note,
or any partof
thereof,
interestofthereon,
on application
the legal holder of said note, the undersigned as such
trustee as aforesaid, or his said successor in trust, was
authorized to sell and dispose of the said premises, and
all the riant, title, benefit and equity of redemption of
the Baid Theodore Stone and Mary S. Stone, their heirs
and assigns, at public auction, at the north door of the
court house of said county of Cook, in Baid city of
Chicago, (or on the said premises, as may be specified
in
notice
suchbring
sale.,)inforcash,
the highest
and best
pricethethe
sameofwill
upon previously
giving at least two weeks public notice of the time and
place of said salo by advertisement thereof in a daily
or weekly newspaper at that time published in the said
city
of Chicago,
and to make,
execute
deliver
the
purchaser
or purchasers
at said
sale,andgood
and tosuffi
cient deed or deeds of conveyance for the premises so
sold; and out of the proceeds or avails of said sale,
after
first paying
coststrustee,
thereof,
including
and
commissions
of thethesaid
other
expensesfeesof said
trust and taxes and other liens and assessments on
said
premises
with
interest,
then torendering
pay the principal
of said
note and
interest
thereon,
the over
plus,
if
any,
unto
the
said
Theodore
Stone
and Mary
S. Stone, their heirs, representatives and
assigns;
said
purchaser not being req tired to see to the application
of the purchase money, and which sale should be a
perpetual bar at law and in equity, against the said
grantors, their heirs and assigns, and all persons
claiming said premises under them as aforesaid ; and
thewaive
said Theodore
and Mary
S. Stone
did there
by
all right Stone
and benefit
of the
exemption
and
homestead laws of the State of Illinois in said prem
ises, and the undersigned as such trustee was author
ized to adjourn such sale from time to time in his dis
cretion ; and which said deed contained the usual
covenants of warranty, and was duly recorded in the
Recorder's office of Cook county, in the State of
Illinois, on the seventh day of June, A.D. 1670. in book
602And
of deeds,
150. been made in the payment of
defaultpage
having
the
said
note
secured
the tosaid
trust,owner
and
application having beenbymade
me deed
by theoflegal
thereof to sell the said lands and premises above de
scribed, according to the provisions of said deed of
trust:
Now, therefore, notice is hereby given, that by virtue
of
the said
inlauds
the said
of trust
con
tained,
I willpowor
sell ofthesale
said
anddeed
premises
therein
and herein
described,
at public
auction,
to the highest
bidder
at the north
doortwenty-sixth
of the court day
houseof
in the for
citycash,
of Chicago,
on the
February, A.D. l>72, at the hour of ten o'clock in the
forenoon,
to interest,
pay and taxes,
satisfyfees
the and
money
note, and the
costs.due on said
Chicago, February 10, 1*72.
HA1MAN LOWY, Trustee.
E. A. Otis, Att'y.
18-20
JNO. J. McKINNON,
Attorney, Room 6 Sherman House.
TRUSTEE'S SALE.-Whereas, on the seventh day of
June,
Benjamin
Newell
andState
Harriet
Newell
his wife, of 1871,
Princeton,
Bureau
county,
of Illinois,
the
real
executed
their
trust
deed
of
that
date
of
hereinafter described, which was recorded onestate
the
eighth day of June, 187), In the Recorder's office of
Bureau county. State of Illinois, in book V. of mort
gages, at page 378, which trust deed was given to secure
a certain promissory note of said Newell, of even date
with said trust deed, payable to the order of Alice M.
Ireson, for the sum of sixteen hundred dollars, with
interest thereon at ten percent, per annum, payable
semi-annually in advance, said note being payable in
three years after date, and being given for money
loaned the said Newell by the said Alice M. Ireson ;
and whereas,
note to be1871,
paidhas
in
advance
from the
the interest
seventh on
daysaid
of December
not been paid, nor any part thereof, as provided in
said trust deed ; and whereas, the legal holder of said
note has requested the undersigned to make sale of
said real estate, as authorized ny said trust deed, to
Say said note and interest: Now, therefore, notice Is
oreby given, that under and by virtue of the power
and authority given by said trust deed, and for the
purpose of paying the note and interest aforesaid, on
the thirtieth day of March. 1872, at ten o'clock in the
forenoon of that day, at the north door of the court
house of said
Cook
county,
of Chicago,
provided
in said
trust
deed.)inIsaid
shallcity
proceed
to sell (as
at
public auction, to the highest cash bidder therefor, the
said real estate, to wit: the northeast quarter (n. e. 3.0
of section two (2), township fifteen (Id) north, range
ten (10), east of fourth (4) principal meridian, contain
ing one hundred and sixty (160) acres, more or less, in
the county of Bureau and State of Illinois, and all the
right,trust
titledeed,
and interest in the same conveyed to me by
said
EDWIN W. CHAMBERLAIN, Trustee.
Dated February 9, 1872.
Jno. J. McKinnon, Att'y.
18-22
HIGH ft TRUMAN,
Attorneys, 4*7 Wabash Avenue.
STATE
OF
ELI N.given
SKINNER,
DECEASED.E Notice is hereby
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Eli N.
Skinner, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in
the city of Chicago, In said county, on the first Monday
of April, A.D 1872, being the first day thereof.
BETSEY SKINNER and
JEREMIAH S. CL0UGII,
Chicago, February 5, A.D. 1872.
Executors.
High <fc Truman, Attys.
18-23a
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
And U. S. Commissioner.
Western Union Telegraph Ofice, 554 Wabash Av*

News.

GEORGE W. SMITH,
Attorney, So. 47o Wabash Ave.
THIS is to certify that Chauncey T. Bowen,GeorgoW.
Shaw, William It. Fitch, Jonathan Richards, The
odore A. Shaw, audAluienn II. Winslow, have formed
a limited partnership in accordance with the laws of
the State of Illinois, and that, First, the name or firm
under which the partnership Is to be conducted is
Richards, Shaw A Winslow: Second, The general na
ture sale
of theof business
transacted 'Third,
is the Chauncey
purchase
and
dry goodsto atbewholesale;
T. Bowen and George W. Shaw are the special part
ners Theodore
therein, and
William
Fitch, Jonathan
ards,
A. Shaw,
andH.Almeriu
H. Winslow,Rich
are
the general partners therein; that the place of resi
dence
of
said
George
W.
Shaw
is
the
city
of
Dayton,
in the State of Ohio : that the place of residence of
said Chauncey T. Bowen, William U. Fitch, Jonathan
Richards, Theodore A. Shaw, and Alinerin H. Wins
low, is the city of Chicago, in the State of Illinois:
Fourth, The said Chauncey T. Bowen has contributed
to the capital
stock ofdollars,
suid partnership
the sum
of one
hundred
thousand
and the said
George
W.
Shaw has contributed thereto the sum of fifty thousand
dollars; Ftfth, The period at which said partnership is
to commence is the first day of February. A.D. 1872,
and the period at which it is to terminate is the thirtyfirst day of January. A.D. 1*75; Sixth, The principal
place of business of said partnership is the city of Chi
cago,
in the State
of Illinois.
In witness
whereof,
the said parties have hereto
signed their names this first day of February, A.D.
1 (Signed)
WILLIAM H. FITCH,
JONATHAN
TllEnDORE A.RICHARDS.
SHAW,
ALMERIXW.H.SHAW.
WINSLOW,
GKoRGE
CHAUNCEY T. BOWEN.
State of Illinois,)
County of Cook, [-88.
City
of Chicago,J
1, city,
Edward
W. Russell,
Notary
Public
and for
said
do hereby
certifya that
on this
day inpersonally
came before mo, Chauncey T. Bowen, George W. Shaw,
William II. Fitch, Jonathan Richards, Theodore A.
Shaw, and Almeriu H. Winslow, to me known to be
the persons whose names are subscribed to the fore
going instrument, and severally acknowledged the
suid Instrument, by them signed, to be their act and
deed, and that they executed the same for the uses and
purposes
thereinmysethand
forth.
Given under
and official seal, this third day
of February, A.D. 1672.
r-^
(Signed)
fr m \
EDWARD W. RUSSELL.
1>8-;
Notary Public.
State of Illinois,)
County of Cook, fss,
City
of Chicago.)
Alinerin
H. W inslow, being duly sworn, says that he
is one of the general partners of the limited partner
ship of Richards, Shaw & Winslow ; that Chauncey T.
Boweu has contributed to the common stock of said
partnership the sum of one hundred thousand dollars
in cash, and that such amount has been actually and
in good faith applied to the same ; that George W.
Shaw has contributed to the common stock of said
partnership
sum of has
fiftybeen
thousand
dollars
and
that suchtheamount
actually
and inin cash,
good
faith applied to the same.ALMERIX H. WINSLOW.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this third day of
February, A.D. 1872. EDWARD W. RUSSELL.
Notary Public.
LIMITED PARTNEItSHIP.-To whom it may con
cern : Whereas, the undersigned have formed a
limited partnership, aud have filed articles of copart
nership in the office of the clerk of the county of Cook,
State
agreeably
the statute
in such case
made ofandIllinois,
provided,
and saidtoclerk
has designated
the
Chicago Legal News as the newspaper in which notice
of such partnership shall be published, now therefore
notice
given that the terms of said copartner
ship areis hereby
as follows:
1st. The style of said firm Is, " M. T. Sworthout A C.
H.2d.Nichols.4
The business to be conducted by said firm is that
of the Retail Boot and Shoe business, in the city of
Chicago, Cook county, Illinois.
3d. The general partners are Manley T. Sworthout
and Charles H. Nichols, the special partner George
Nichols,
residentsof of
said city
Chicago.
4th. Theallamount
capital
stockofwhich
the said spe
cial partner. George Nichols, has contributed to said
copartnership is the sum of one thousand dollars.
Mh. The said copartnership is to commence on the
first day of February, A.D. 1*72, and terminate on the
first day of February, A.D. 1873.
MANLY T. SWORTHOUT,
CHARLES H. NICHOLS,
18-23
GEORGE NICHOLS.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook County, March
Term, A.D. 1872. John Ruber vs. William M. Zearing,
Charles W. Pierce, Sarah Edwards and Enoch
Edwards.In
Affidavit of Chancery.
the uon-reBidence of Sarah Edwards
and Enoch Edwards two of the defendants above
named, having been filed in the office of the clerk of
said
courtSarah
of Cook
county,
hereby
givenSuperior
to the said
Edwards
andnotice
EnochisEdwards
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that
a summons
thereupon
issued out
of said
against
said defendants,
returnable
on the
first court
MonofNow,
Marchunless
next,you,
(1872.)
as
is
by
law
required.
the said Sarah Edwards and Enoch
Edwards, shall personally be and appear before said
Superior court of Cook county, on the first day of a
termthethereof,
to be holden
at Chicago,
said county,
on
first Monday
of March,
1872, andinplead,
answer
or demur to the said complainant's bill of complaint,
the
same,
and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree
entered against you according to the prayer of said
bill.
A. JAOOBSON, Clerk.
Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, Compl't's Sol'rs. 18-21
MORTON CULVER,
Attorney, 109 W. Washington St.
ESTATE OF HANS CHRISTIAN BROCK HAN80N, Deceased.Pubic notice is hereby given to
all persons having claims aud demands against the
estate of Hans Christian Brock Hanson, deceased, to
present the same for adjudication and settlement at a
regular term of the County court of Cook connty, to
be holden at the court house in the city of Chicago,
on the first Monday of April, A.D. 1872. being the first
day thereof.
SIGTSMOND D. JACOBSON, Aministrator.
Chicago. Cvi.ver,
FebruaryAtt'y.
7. A.D. 1872.
Morton
18-23
INSTATE
EDWARD
DECEASED.
J Notice OF
is hereby
given CASTLE,
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Edward
Castle,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook County, to bo holden at the Coort
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
April, A.D. 1872, being the first day thereof.
LESTER D. CASTLE, Executor.
Chicago, February, A.D. 1872.
18-23*
ESTATE
OF
ELIZABETH
GOEDEN,
DECEASED,
Notice is hereby given to all persons naving claims
and demands against the estate of Elizabeth Goeden,
deceased, to present the samo lor adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872, belng the 4th day thereof.
PETER GOEDEN,
"
"
Executor.
Chicago, Jan. 3, A. D. 1872.
13-lSa
Teieo. Scuintz, Att'y.

P. W. LOWELL.
Attorney, Room 4, 9 6'. Canal St.
STATE
OF
LARS
is hereby givenP. toLARSON,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
Ei Notice
and
demands against the estate of Lars P.Larson,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872,
being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January
1872. Administratrix.
14-iy
LINE10,M.A.D.
LARSON,
MATTOCKS & MASON,
Attorneys, No. b'23 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE OF BENJAMIN F. HADDUCK, Deceased.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Benjamin!*. Hadduck, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and
settlement
the County
of Cook
county, atto aberegular
holden term
at theofcourt
house, incourt
the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January 9, A.D. 1872.
JOHN DEKOVEN, Administrator.
Mattocks & Mason, Att'ys.
14-19a
ESTATE
OF
PATRICK
O'MALLEY,
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Patrick
6' Malley, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion
settlement
the Connty
courtand
of Cook
county,attoa beregular
holdenterm
at theofcourt
house
in the city ofChicago, on the first Monday of March,
A.D. 1872, being the 4th day thereof.
PATRICK
O'MALLEY,
MARIA O'MALLEY,
Administrators.
Chicago, Jan. 5. 1872.
12-ldp
EESTATE
OF
JOHN
W.
BROMLEY,
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of John
W.
Bromley,
to present
the same
judication anddeceased,
settlement
at a regular
term for
of ad
the
County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
day of March, A. D. 1872, being the 4th day thereof.
ALEXANDER
ALLEN and
THOMAS ALLISON.
Executors.
Chicago, Jan. 3. A. D. 1872.
13-18a
huu uvuiuuub against the estate ot Thomas Kellcy,
deceased, to present the same tor adjudication and
settlement
of the
County
of
Cook connty,at toa regular
be noldenterm
at the
court
house,court
in tha
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
March,
A.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January
9, A.D.
1872. Administrator.
14-iya
JOHN
TILFORD,
ESTATE
LOUIS given
FRIEDMAN,
DECEASED.Notlce OF
is hereby
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Louis Fried
man, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January
A.D. 1872. Administratrix.
SARAH6, FRIEDMAN,
Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, Att'ys.
14-19a
ELDRIDGE & TOTJRTELLOTTE,
Attorneys.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
State
of
Illinois,
Cook
CircuitR.Court
of Cook county, April term, county,
a. d. 1872.ss. Joshua
Hull
and William H. Lidcll v. D. A. VanNamee, Jr.
Notice is hereby given to the said D. A. Van Namee,
Jr., that a writ of attachment issued out of the office
of the Clerk of the Circuit court of Cook county, dated
the eleventh day of December, a. d. 1871, at the Buit of
the said Joshua R. Hull and William H. Lidell, and
against the estate of D. A. Van Namee, Jr., for the sum
of
fourdollars,
hundred
and toseventy-four
dredth
directed
the sheriff fifteen-one-hun
of Cook county,
which said writ has been returned executed.
Now,
therefore,
unless
you,
the
said
D. A.before
Van Na
mee, Jr., shall personally be and appear
the
said Circuit court of Cook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the Court
House,a.ind.the1872,
citygive
of Chicago,
on the
of
April,
special bait
and third
plead Monday
to the said
plaintiffs action, judgment will be entered against
you, and in favor of the said Joshua R. Hull, and Wil
liammayH,beLidell.
and sotomuch
the said
property
attached
as
sufficient
satisfyofthe
judgment
and
costs will be Bold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE. Clerk.
Eldridoe & Tourtellotte, Attorneys.
16-19
PUBLICATION
NOTICE
IN
ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois, Cook county, ss. Circuit court of
Cook county,
a. d.Jr.1872. Michael B. Mc
Donough
v. D.April
A. Vanterm,
Namee,
Public
notice
is
hereby
given
to the said
D. A.outVanof
Namee, Jr., that a writ of attachment
issued
the office of the Clerk of the Circuit court of Cook
county, dated the fifteenth day of December, a. d. 1871,
at the suit of the said Michael B. McDonough, and
against the estate of said D. A. Van Namee. Jr., for the
sum
six hundred
dollars,
directed
to the sheriff
Cookofcounty,
which said
writ has
been returned
execuof
ted.
Now,Jr.,therefore,
unless you.be the
D. A.before
Van Na
mee,
shall personally
andsaid
appear
the
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
on
or
before
first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at thetheCourt
House, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of
April, a. d. 1872, give special bail and plead to the said
plaintiff's
be entered
against
you, and inaction,
favor ofjudgment
the said will
Michael
B. McDonough,
and
so
much
of
the
property
attached
as
may
be
suffito
cient to satisfy said judgment and costs will be sold
satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE,
Clerk.
Eldripqe & Toubtellotte, Attorneys.
16.19
BARBER ft LACKNER,
Attorneys, 64 West Lake Street.
ESTATE
CHRISTIAN
ZIMMER.
DECEASED.
Notice isOFhereby
given to all
persons having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
Christian
deceased, to present the same for adjudicationSummer,
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1S72,
being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January 13, A.D. 1872.
SELEMAAtt'ys.
ZIMMER, Administratrix.
Barber & Lackner,
14-19*
ESTATE OF HUBBELL B. CONE. DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Hubbell B. Cone,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook
to beonnolden
the courtofhouse,
the
city ofcounty,
Chicago,
the firstatMonday
March,inA.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago. January 11, A.D. 1872.
WILLIAM^
W. KIMBALL.)
MARY M. CONE
and
[ Executors.
14-19a
RAPHAEL M. SK1LT0N. j
ESTATE OF THOMAS KINNEY, DECEASED.Notlce Isagainst
hereby givenestate
to all persons
claims
and
demands
Thomashaving
Kinney,
de
ceased,
to present thethe
same for ofadjudication
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
couuty, to be holden at the court house. In the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872,
being the 4th day thereof.
CATHARINE KINNEY, Administratrix.
Chicago, Jan. 3, A. D. 1872.
13-18a

Chicago
ITGAGE SALX.-mw***1 tS*L<* Holton,
JXORTGAGE
mil
his
wife, onan*Wc,,?rc,l
Viv J""'"">
*y
e,mortgage,
A.a Bridget,
D.. IBM, which
executed
to recorded
nie their
of June,
a
said morlE,.Ke.
was
certain
m^.
in the recorder^ offiot of Uook. coU**vy , in tne state of
Illinois, on the thirtieth day of June, a. d., 1870, iu
book
number
138, ofdescribed,
mortgagee,to secure
ft* PHgethe291.payment
of the
premises
hereinafter
of one certain promissory note made by the said Pat
rick Holton, dated on tne twenty-ninth day of June,
a. d., 1869.
theofHum
hundred
dollars with
in
terest
at thefurrate
tenofpersixcent,
per annum,
payable
semi-annually, tu the order of JaiuesH. Rees.one year
after the date thereof ; and whereas, it is provided in
said mortgage that in case of default of the payment
of said promissory note, either of principal or interest,
on the days
whenJames
the same
should
become
due and
payable,
the said
H. Kees
might,
after publish
ing
a
notice
in
a
newspaper,
printed
in
the
city
of Chi
cago, Cook county, Illni'UH, thirty days before the
day
ofsuch sale, sell the said premises and all right and
equity of redemption of the said Patrick Holton and
Bridget, his wife, their heirs and assigns therein, at
public auction, at the north Court House door, in said
Mty of Chicago,
highest
for cash.of And
whereas,
defaulttphasthebeen
made bidder,
in the payment
sau
note and interest, now, therefore, by virtue ofthe power
In me vested by said mortgage, I, the undersigned
mortgagee, will sell at ten o'clock, a. in., on Tuesday
the 27th day of February, a. v.. at public auction, at
the north Court House door, in the city of Chicago,
Cook county. Illinois, to the highest bidder, for cash,
the premises in said mortgage described to wit : Lots
fifty-three
(M) and fifty-fourofblocks
(M) inone
block
(1.)
James
H. Kees'
f of
It one
and
(2) in
in
the south
half ofsubdivision
the sourli-wf-t quarter
the south
east
quarter
of
section
twenty
(80),
in
township
thirtynine (39), north of range fourteen <Iti east, in the
county
of Cook, and
State of Illinois,
together priv
with
all
and singular
the tenements,
hereditaments,
ileges,
and
appurtenances
thereunto
belonging,
nnd
all the right, title, benefit and equity of redemption
of the said Patrick Holton and F
heirs and assigns, in and to the 1
I6-20
JAMBS H.
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
Attorney, 115 W. Madison Street.
ADMINISTRATRIX'
REAL
ESTATE.By virtue of an orderSALK
and OF
decree
of the
County
Court of Cook county, Illinois, made on the petition ot
the undersigned, Dorothea Riugleb, formerly.Dorothea
Medelman,
of the
of Friedrich
Medelman, administratrix
deceased, for leave
to sellestate
the real
estate ot
D.
said
said
deceased,
at
the
December
term,
A.
court, to wit, on the sixth dav of December,1671,
A. D.of 1671,
I shall, on Monday, the Uthday of March, A. D. 1*72,
at 2 o'clock p. m.. sell at public sale, at the east door
of the Court House, on Clark street, in the city of Chi
cago, in said Cook county, and State of Illinois, the
real estate described as follows, to wit: the northeast
quarter(23).ofinthetownship
northeast
quarter(36),
of section
twentythree
thirty-six
range thirteen
(13). east of the 3d P. M., in the town of Bremen, in
Cook
State
of Illinois,
forty of
acres,
on
thecounty,
following
terms,
to wit: containing
cash on delivery
the
deed.
._ DOROTHEA RINGLEB,
(Formerly Dorothea Medelman.)
Administratrix of the
f estate of Friedrich Medelman,
deceased.
James B. Bradwell. Att'y for Estate.
16-21
J. MILTON OLIVER,
Attorney. 30 South Clinton St.
ESTATE OF GEORGE GANIERE, DECEA8ED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of George Ganiere, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term ot the County Court
of Cook county, to be holden at the Court House, in
the city of Chicago. on the first Monday of April, A. D.
1372, being the 1st day thereof.
MARGAKETTA
GANIERE, Administratrix.
J. Mii.ton
Oliver, Attorney.
Chicago. January 22nd, A. I). 1ST2.
!6-21a
MONROE & BI3BEE,
Attorneys. 5*J3 Wabash Avenue.
PUBLICATION
NOTICE
State of Illinois,
countyINof ATTAOHMENT.Cook, ss. Circuit
Court of Cook county. March Term. A. D. 172. Edgar
Loomis and Martin P. Follett v. Isabella S. Halliday
and John W. Halliday.
Public notice is herebv given to the said Isabella S.
nalliday
andout
John
W. office
Halliday
a writ
of Circuit
attach
of thethatclerk
of the
ment
issued
of the
Court of Cook county, dated the 12th day of January.
A.D.
the suit
of the said
EdgarofLoomis
Martin1372,P. at
Follett,
and against
the estato
IsabellaandS.
Halliday and John W. Halliday, for the snm of four
teen hundred and sixty-one 2V-100 dollars, directed to
the SherifT of Cook county, which said writ has been
returned
executed.unless you, the said Isabella S. Hal
Now, therefore,
liday and John W. Halliday shall personally be and
appear before the said Circuit Court of Cook county,
on or before the first day of the next term thereof, to
be holden at the Court House, in the city of Chicago,
on
of March,
A.D. action,
1872, give
special
bailthe
andthird
pleadMonday
to the said
plaintiffs'
judgment
will be entered against you, and in favor of the said
Edgar Loomis and Martin P. Follett, and so much of
the
attached
maywillbebesufficient
to satisfy
the property
said judgment
andascosts
sold to satisfy
the
same.
NORMAN
T.
CASSETTE,
Clerk.
Monroe <fc Bisree, Att'ys.
1.V1S
HERVEY, ANTHONY & OALT,
Attorney!. 85(1 Wabash Avenue.}
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois, county of Cook, ss. Superior
Court
of Cook
county,Oliphant.
February Term, A. D. 1872.
John Currie
v. James
Public notice is hereby given to the said James Oli
phant that a writ of attachment issued out of the office
of .the clerk of the Superior court of Cook county,
dated the 24th day of November, A.D. 1671, at the suit
of the said John Currie, and against the estate of
James Oliphant, for the sum of three hundred and fifty
dollars,
the Sheriff
of Cook county, which
said writdirected
has beento returned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said James Oliphant
shall personally be aud appear before the said Superior
court of Cook county, on or before the first day of the
next term thereof, to be holden at the Court House, in
the city
Chicago,
the and
first plead
Monday
February,
A.D.
1872,ofgive
specialonbail
to theof said
plain
tiff's action, judgment will be entered against yon, and
in favor of the said John Currie, and so much of the
property
attached
may will
be sufficient
said judgment
andas costs
be sold to
to satisfy
satisfy the
the
same.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
Hektet, Anthony A Gait, Attorneys.
15-18
rpo WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.We. the underX signed, have formed a limited copartnership to be
carried on under the name of Fletaher, Lazear A
Cheney, in Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, from
January 1,of1*72.
till January
1, 167-1,
to carry on and
the
business
buying,
selling, and
manufacturing
selling, harness and carriages. The said undersigned,
F. I. Lazear. M. E. Fletcher and George A. Cheney,
are
John Amerman,
Bronson,theandgeneral
Josiaspartners,
Parks, and
of Norwalk,
in the ofState
of
Ohio, are the special partners, and have respectively
paid into the common stock two thousand dollars in
M. E. FLETCHER,
F. I. LAZEAR,
GEORGE
A. CHENEY,
JOHN AMERMAN,
17-22
JOSIAS PARKS.
ESTATE
OF given
ZEBINA
is hereby
to allBLISS,
personsDECEASED.-Notlce
having claims aud
demands against the estate of Zebina Bliss, deceased,
to present the same for adjudication and settlement at
a regular term of the County court of Cook county, to
be holden at the courthouse, in the city of Chicago, on
the
Monday of March, A.D. 1872, being the fourth
dav first
thereof.
Chicago, January 11. A.D. 1872.
14-iea
ELLEN S. BLISS, Administratrix.

Legal

ROSENTHAL, PENCE & MOSES,

Attorneys, 350 Wabash Avenue.
STATE
OF ofILLINOIS,
CountyFebruary
of Cook, ss,
or Court
Cook county.
term,Superi
a. d.
1*72. Louisa Heller, administratrix of the estate of
Israel Heller, deceased, v. Rosa Hess, Abraham Hess,
Fanny McCreary, Robert McCreary, Caroline Schram,
Benedict Schram, Thereat Porges, Henry Porges, Es
ther Schram, Jacob Schram and Elizabeth Heller.
of the
non-residence
Caroline Schram
andAffidavit
Benedict
Schram.
two of theof defendants
above
named,
having
been
filed
In
the
office
of theisClerk
said Superior Court of Cook county, notice
herebyof
given
the thesaidcomplainant
Caroline heretofore
Schram andfiledBenedict
Schram,to that
her pe
tition in said Court, to sell the following described
real
estate,
to
wit:
lot
six
(6)
in
block
three
Quick's subdivision of Harlem, being part of the (3),
northin
east quarter of Section twelve (12), in township thirtynine (39) north of range twelve (12), east of 3d P. M.,
together with the buildings and improvements thereon,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
against said defendants, returnable on the first Monday
of February next (1672), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Caroline Schram and Ben
edict Schram, shall personally be and appear before
said Superior Court of Cook county, on the first day ol
a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
on theorfirstdemur
Monday
1872. and plead,
an
swer
to oftheFebruary,
said complainant's
petition,
the
same,
and
the
matters
aud
things
therein
charged
and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree
entered against you according to the prayer of said
bill.
A. JACOBSON. Clerk,
Rosenthal ft Pence, Compl'i's Sol'rs.
16-lfl
CCHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of
J Cook, bb. Superior court of Cook county. To
February
1672. Sophia Brenhagen v. John
Brenhagen.Term,
In A.D.
Chancery.
Affidavit of the 'non-residence of John Brenhagen,
defend ant above named, having been filed iu the office
of the isclerk
courtJohn
of Cook
county,
notice
here)ofysaid
givenSuperior
to the said
Brenhagen,
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
against sid defendant, returnable on the first Mon
day of February next, (1672), as is by law required.
Now, unless yon, the said John Brenhagen, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of
Cook county, on tne first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of February, next. 1672, and plead, answer or demur to
the
complainant's
of complaint,
thestated,
same, will
and
the said
matters
and things bill
therein
charged and
be .taken as confessed, and a decree entered againt
you according to the prayer of said bill.
JACOBSON.
Rosenthal, PenceAUGUSTUS
k Moses, Compl'i's.
Sol'r.Clerk.
16-19
/CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
\~J
Cook, Term,
bs. Superior
Court
of CookB. county.
To
February
A. D. 1672.
Jaroslav
Belohradsky
and Max Kohn v. K M. Arustein, Sarah Arustein and
Jacob Kuhn.In Chancery.
Affidavit
of thetwo
non-residence
of E. M.above
Arnstein
and
Sarah
Arnstein,
of the defendants
named,
having been filed in the office of the clerk of Baid
Superior
courtsaidof E.Cook
county, and
noticeSarah
is hereby
given
to the
M. Arnstein
Arns
tein that the complainants heretofore filed their bill
of
complaint
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued outsideof
said court against said defendant, returnable on the
first Monday of February next (1672), as is by law re
quired.
Now, unlesB you, the said E. M. Arnstein and Sarah
Arnstein shall personally be and appear betoro said
Superior
courttoofbeCook
county,
on theinfirst
of a
term thereof,
holden
at Chicago,
saidday
county,
on the first Monday of February, 1672, and plead, an
swer or demur to the said complainant's bill of com
plaint, theandsame,
and will
the be
matters
things therein
charged
stated,
taken and
as confessed,
and a
decree entered against you according to the prayer of
said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Rosenthal. Pence ft Moses. Compl'i's Sol'rs. 15-18
i^i UARDIAN'8 SALE.State of Illinois, Cook counVJ ty, ml Superior Court of Cook county. Iu the
matter of the application of Margaret L. Rockwell,
guardian of Athie Rockwell, a minor, to sell real
estate.
Public notice is hereby given that in pursuance of
the decree of said court heretofore entered in said
cause, I shall. 011 Monday, the 12th day of February,
A.D. 1872.hereinafter
at the hour
of 10 o'clock
A.M., upon
the
premises
described,
sell at public
auction,
to the highest bidder, the following described prem
ises, viz., Lot seventy (70) in block Torty-four (4-1) in
Canal Trustees' subdivision of section seven (7), town
thirty-nine (39), North of range fourteen (H), East of
three (3) P. M., in Chicago, Cook county. Illinois, with
theTerms:
tenements
thereon.
One half
cash in hand, balance due in one
year from date of sale, secured by note and trust deed
upon said premises.
MARGARET L. ROCKWELL,
Guardian of Athio Rockwell, a minor.
Rosenthal, Pence ft Moses, Att'ys for Guardian.
15-18
ELBERT H. GARY,
Attorney. 59 West Madison St.
CHANCERY NOTICE. -State of Illinois, Cook
county, ss. Circuit Court of Cook county, April
term, A. D.,In1672.
Emmet. B. Chambers T.Helen J.
Chambers,
Chancer\
Affidavit
of
the
non-resi-V
Helen
defendant above named ' * nc
ing ofbeen
filedJ.InChambers,
the office
of the Clerk of said Circuit Court ot Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Helen J. Chambers that
theBald
complainant
heretofore
bill of complaint
in
court, on the
chanceryfiled
sidehisthereof,
and that
a summons thereupon issued out of said Court against
said defendant, returnable on the third Monday of
December
next. 1871,into
as issaid
by law
required,
which sum
mons
was returned
court
not found,"
and
th t afterwards an alias summons fBsued out of said
court, against said defendant, returnable on the tin 1 4
Monday
of Aprilyou.next,
Now, unless
the (1672).
said Helen J. Chambers shall
personally be and appear before said Circuit Court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to
be holden at Chicago, it said county, on the third Mon
day of April, 1672, and nlead. answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same.nnd
the
things thereindecree
charged
'and stated,
will matters
be
taken and
astoconfessed,
you
according
the praverandof asaid
bill.entered against
NORMAN
T.
GASSETTE,
Clerk.
Elbert H. Gary, f'umpl't's Sol'r.
16-19pd
rpo ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.-This is to
X certify that the undersigned have this day formed
aBrothers.
copartnership under the firm name of Frank
The
nature
of theand
business
be transacted
by saidgeneral
firm is the
purchaso
sale oftodry
goods and
notions
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
county
and
State of Illinois. The following persons of
areCook,
the part
ners
of
said
firm:
Joseph
Frank,
of
the
city,
county
and State of New York ; nenry L. Frank, of said Chi
cago: Isaac Meyer, of said Chicago; and Henry C.
Frank, of said Chicago. These four persons are all
general partners.
Harrman Mack, of the city of Cincinnati, county of
Hamilton,
State has
of Ohio,
is the tospecial
partner.
Said specialand
partner
contributed
the common
stock the sum of fifty thousand ($.Wtf>fl) dollars in cash.
Said partnership is to commence January 1st, 1672,
andWitness
to terminate
December
our hands,
this 22d3lst,
day1873.
of December, 1671.
JOSEPH FRANK,
HENRY L. FRANK.
ISAAC MEYER,
HENRY C. FRANK,
GeneralMACK.
Partners,
HARRMAN
13-18
Special Partner.

News.

CLARKSON & VANSCHAACK,

Attorneys, 4o4 Wabash Ave.
"PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
X State of Illinois, Cook county, ss. Circuit Court
of
Cookandcounty,
AprilPaine
Term,f, Juseph
A.D. 1672.
Charlesand
F.
Pierce
Frederick
Goodman
Mauton E. Hoard.
Public notice is hereby givan totho said Joseph Good
man and Mauton E. Hoard that a writ of attachment
issued out of the office of the clerk ot the Circuit court
of Cook county, dated the 12th day at January, A.D.
1672. at the suit of the said Charles F. Pierce and Fred
erick I'aiue, and against the estate uf Joseph Good
man
k. Hoard,
the sumdirected
of two tothou
sand and
andManlon
ninety-fix
43-Iihi fordollars,
the
Sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been re
turned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Joseph Good
man and Mauton E. Hoard, shall personally be and
appear
beforethethefirst
saiddayCircuit
of Cook
county,
on or before
of thecourt
next term
thereof,
to
be holden at the Court House, in the city of Chicago,
on the third Monday of April, A.D. 1S72. give special
ball
plead toagainst
the saidyou,plaintiffs'
will and
be entered
and iu action,
favor ofjudgment
the said
Charles F. Pierce and Frederick Paine, and bo much
of the property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy
the said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the
same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Clarkson & Van Schaack, Att'ys.
13-18
L. 0. BRAINARD,
Attorney.
CHANCERY
NOTICE.State
of Illinois,county.
county Toof
Cook.
bs.
Superior
February Term. A.D. 1672.court
JohnofW.Cook
Gaskin v. Hannah
C. Gaskin.In Chancery.
Affidavit ol the non-residence of Hannah C. Gaskin,
defendant above named, having been filed iu the office
of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Hannah C. Gaskin
that complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plaint In said court, on the chancery side thereof,
aud
a summons
thereupon
issued out
of said
courtthat
against
said defendant,
returnable
on the
first
Monday of February next (1672), as is by law required.
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
Hannah
0.
Gaskin
shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court ot
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,
iu said
county,
on the
first Monday
of
February,
l>Vl. and
plead,
answer
or demur
to the
said complainant s bill of complaint, the same, and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
L. G. Bhainard, Compl'i's
Soi'r.JACOBSON, Clerk
13-18p
HAMMER & SMITH,
Hammer cfc Smith's Block, Room 1.
(1HANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
J Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook county. To
February Term. A. D. 1672. D. Harry Hammer and
Frank J. Smith v. Addison L. Page.In Chancery.
Affidavit above
of thenamed,
non-residence
of Addison
L. Page,
defendant
having been
filed in the
office
of
the
Clerk
of
said
Superior
Court
of
Cook
county,
no
tice is hereby given to the said Addison L. Page that
the complainants heretofore filed their petition for par
don in said Court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
a summons thereupon issued out of said Court against
said
defendant,
returnable
first Monday of
February
next (1672),
as is byonlawtherequired.
Now, unless you, the said Addison L. Page, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior Court ot
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,andin plead,
said county,
the firsttoMonday
of February.1871,
answeron
oridemur
the said
complainant's
petition
for
partition,
the
same, and
matters and things therein charged aud staled,
willthe
bo
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Hammer & Smith. Comp't's Sol'rs.
15-13
CARTER, BECKER & DALE,
Attorneys, 5'J:i Wabash Avenue.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois, county of Cook, ss. Superior
Court
Cookand
county.
To AprilOthneil
Term.T.A.D.
1672.
Isaac V.ofPlace
I. W. Place
Atwood.
Public notice is hereby given to the said Othneil T.
Atwood that a writ of attachment issued out of the
office of the clerk of the Superior Court of Cook
county, dated the twenty-fifth day of November, A.D.
1671, atand
the against
suit of the
said Isaac
V. Place
and I. W.
Place,
the estate
of Othneil
T. Atwood,
for
the sum of two thousand dollars, directed to the
Sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been re
turned
Now, executed.
therefore, unless yon the said Othniel T. At
wood shall personally be and appear before the said
Superior Court of Cook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
April, A.D. 1872, give special bail and plead to the Baid
plaintiff's action, judgment will be entered against
you, and iu favor of the said Isaac V. Place and I. W.
Place, and so much of the property attached as may
be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and costs will
be sold to satisfy theAUGUSTUS
same.
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Carter. Becker 4 Dale, Attorneys.
16-18
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENTState of Illinois, Cook County, bs. Superior court
of Cook county, February term, a. d., 1*72. Sterling
P. Rounds and Alonzo L. Kane v. S. S. Wallahan and
T.Public
0. Bigncy.
notice is hereby given to the said S. S. Walla
han
O. Bigney
of attachment issued
out ofandtheT.office
of the that
clerka writ
of the Superior Court of
Cook
county,
dated
the
10th
day
of
January,anda. Alonzo
d. 1672,
at the suit of the said Sterling P. Rounds
L. Kane, and against the estate of S. S, Wallahan and
T. O. Bigney, for the sum of two thousand seven hun
dred and fifty dollars, directed to the sheriff ofCook
county, which said writ has neon returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said S. S. Wallahan
and T. O. Bigney shall personally be and appear be
fore the said Superior Court of Cook county, on or be
fore the first day ofthe next term thereof, to be holden
at the Court House, in the City of Chicago, on the 1st
Monday
of February,
a. n., \tRX
givejudgment
special bail
plead
to the
said plaintiffs
action,
willand
be
entered against you, and in favor ot the said Sterling
P. Rounds and Alonzo L. Kane, and so much ofthe
property
attached
maybe
satisfy the
said
judgment
and ascosts
will sufficient
be sold toto satisfy
the
same.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Carteb, Becker A* Dale, Attorneys.
16-19
HITCHCOCK, DUPEE & EVARTS,
Aftornejfs, ear. Fifth Air,, and Monroe St.
ESTATE
BARTON
Notice isOFhereby
given toEDSALL,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Barton Edsall de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1672, be
ing the 1st day thereof.
BELLE W. EDSALL.
Administratrix.
Chicago, January 23, A. D. 1872.
Hitchcock, Dupee & Evabts, Attorneys.
16-21a
NISSEN & BARNUM,
Attorneys, 126 West Randolph street.
T7STATE
JACOBgivenKLEIN.
JCi Notice OF
is hereby
to all DECEASED.
persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Jacob Klein,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication ana
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city
Chicago,
thethereof.
firBt Monday of April, A.D.
1872, of
being
the firstondav
CRES0ENTIA KLEIN, Administratrix.
NiMEX A Barnum, Attys.
Chicago, Jan. 25, 1872.
16-21a

i35
SIDNEY SMITH,
Attorney.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County
\~J of Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. Feb
ruary term, A. D., 1872. Franz Schardin v. Simon
Furth. Daniel Furth, Joseph P. Schardin, Nicholas
Schardin, Hubertus Schardin, Peter Schardin, Agnea
Krop. Loreni Rohl, Margaretta Rohl, Charles Raggio,
Charlotte Billigmann, Hiram Gillett. Jane Gillott,.
Dominick
Barbero, John
JuliusM. Meyer,
Busse
Sophia
Spohrlcder,
Bowers,Frederick
Xavier Krus
and
William H. Stlckney.In Chancery.
Affidavitof the non-residence ofSimon Furth, Daniel
Furth, Joseph P. Schardin. Nicholas Schardin, Hu
bertus
Agnes above
Krop and
Peterhaving
Schardin,
seven ofSchardin,
the defendants
named,
been
filed In tho office of the clerk of said Circuit court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said Simon
Furth, Daniel Furth. Joseph P. Schardin, Nicholas
Schardin, Hubertus Schardin, Agnes Krop and Peter
Schardin that the complainant heretofore filed his
bill of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of
said court againRt said defendants, returnable on the
third Monday of February next (1672), as is by law re
quired.
Now, unless you, the said Simon Furth, Daniel
Furth. Joseph P. Schardin, Nicholas Schardin, Hu
bertus
Schardin,
andsaid
PeterCircuit
Schardin,
persoually
be andAgnes
appearKrop
before
courtshall
of
Cook county, on tho first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day
of February,
1872, and
answer orthe
demur
to
the said
complainant's
billplead,
of complaint,
same,
and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill,
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Sidney Smith, Compl'i's Sol'r.
16-11
ADAMS & LINCOLN,
Attorneys.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook,
ss.
Circuit
court ofofSchools
Cook county-.
April
term, A. D. 1872. Trustees
of Township
Thirty-nine
(39),
North
Range
Thirteen
(13),
east
of
the third principal meridian, in Cook county, Illinois,
v. Joseph Gothelf.In Chancery.
Affidavit that the above named defendant. Joseph
Gothelf, upon due inquiry, cannot be found, having
been filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit
court of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the
said Joseph Gothelf that the complainants heretofore
filed their bill of complaint in said court, on the chan
cery Bidejthereof, and that a summons thereupon issued
out
said court
against
saidnext,
defendant,
on theof third
Monday
of April
(1672,) asreturnable
is by law
required.
Now, unless you, the said Joseph Gothelf, shall
personally be and appear before said Circuit court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day of April. 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainants'
of complaint,
the stated,
same, and
matters
and things bill
therein
charged and
willthe
bo
taken as confessed, aud a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
Francis Adams & H. Lincoln, Compl'ts' Sol'rs.
17-20
GEO. W. KNOX,
60 South Canal Street.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
^ Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. To tho
April term. A.D. 1872. Solomon Crane and Cyrus S.
Bixbjr v. Herman Gierke and Albert Crane. Me
chanics' lien.
ofthe non-residence
ofsaidhaving
Hermanbeen
Gierke,
oneAffidavit
of the defendants
above named,
filed
in
the
office
of
the
clerk
of
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county, notice is hereby given to the said Herman
Gierke that the complainants heretofore filed their bill
of complaint in said court, on the common law side
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of
said court against said defendants, returnable on the
third Monday of April next (l.->72),as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Herman Gierke shall per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit court of
Cook county, at a term thereof, to be holden at Chi
cago, in said county, commencing on the third Monday
of April, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the said
complainant s bill of complaint, before or on the day
the said cause shall be set for trial on the docket of
said
the same,
nnd the
andasthings
thereincourt,
charged
aud stated,
willmatters
be taken
con
fessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you
according
to
the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Geo. W. Knox, Compl'i's Sol'r.
16-19
TESTATE
OF LEVI
M. given
MASON.
DECEASED.
Jlj Public notice
is hereby
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Levi M.
Mason, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, Illinois, to be holden at the court
house In the city of Chicago, in said county, on the first
Monday of April, A. D. 1872, being the first day
thereof. CORNELIA B. HALE, Administratrix.
Chicago.
January
A. D. Itffi
Beckwith,
Ater &26Kales,
Attys.
16-21a
ESTATE
FRANCIS
Notice isOFhereby
given toROONEY,
allpersonsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the eBtate of Francis Rooney.deceased, to present tho same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1S72, being
the 1st day thereof.
JAMES FITZGERALD, Administrator,
Chicago, January 26, A. D. 1672.
l6-2la
M. J. Dunne, Att'y.
SN0WH00K & GRAY,
Attorneys, No. 85 West Monroe Street.
ESTATE
DANIEL
Notice isOF
hereby
given toO'BRIEN,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Daniel O'Brien,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1S72, be
ing the fourth dav thereof.
Chicago, Jnnuary
13, A.D.O'BRIEN.
1672.
LAURENCE
Administrator.
SxownooK A Gray, Att'ys.
14-19a
TH0S. SHIRLEY,
AWy, Masonic Bld'g, cor. Randolph and Hoisted sis.
ESTATE
OF
JOHANN
WILHXLM
(OTHERWISE
as given
John
William)
Meyer,
deceased.No
tice known
is hereby
to all persons
having
claims and
demands
against
the
estate
of
Johann
Wilhelm
(otherwise known as John William) Meyer,
de
ceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
and
ment at a regular term of the County Court ofsettle
Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, In the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872, be
ing the 4th day thereof.
MARIA CHATARINA MEYER,
Administratrix.
Thos. Shirlet, Att'y.
15-20a
ESTATE
WILLIAM
tNotice OF
is hereby
giveuSCHAEFER,
to all personsDECEASED.having claims
and demandB against the estate of William Schaefer,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term ol the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872,
being the firstAD0LPH
day thereof.
CANDLER, Administrator.
James B. Bradwell, Att'y.
Chicago, January 26, A.D. 1872.
16-21

136

Chicago

Legal

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
AD VERTISEMENT.
jl J. SEYBOLD, 497 Wabash avenue ; residence
! . MO South Green street.
STEVENS &HAYNES
MARTIN A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D,
659 State street.
Law Publishers,
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
HERNDON & ORF.XDORF.
Office west side square. 27* AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
LONDON.
T)EPPKR. WILSON Jt MARTIN,
JT Room 2 Bank Building.
Works in all Classes of Literatnre
ST. LOUIS (MO.) ATTORNEYS.
SUPPLIED TO OBDEB.
fjounselor-at-Lsiw, St. Louis. Mo.
J.
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
ALFRED PAX80N.
Insurance Exchange Building.
Orders Promptly Filled.
The Trustee* and Officer* or Public Li
CHARLES J. BISHOP,
braries may rely upon the moat
Successor to J. Freeman Silee,
careful attention to their
ACCODNTANT AND EXPERT BOOK-KEEPER,
I'ooiniiiMloni.
122 Tr. Washington St., Chicago, IU. 7-18p
By importing DIRECT from England a consider
able saving is effected, especially in the Customs duty,
from which Public Institutions in the United State* are
LAW BOOKS.
exempt.
mistakes have been made by our Foreign
THE LAW LIBRARY OF WM. M. FOWLER, andSUNDRY
Colonial Correspondents in addressing their let
ters,
we
beg
to
notifyandthatRobert
the members
of our firm
are
deceased, of
Henry G. Stevens
W. Haynes,
the son
and
stepson
ol
the
late
Valentine
Stevens,
the
eminent
160 VOLUMES,
Law Publisher. Since our father's death we have con
the business of Law Pnbllaliers.
Including WOOD and LONG'81 DIGEST, and One tinued tocarry onand
Exporters, at the above ad
Set of Illinois Reports, all nearly new and in good or- Booksellers
dress.
der, are
During
his
recent
visits
to the
United
States
and
Robert W. Haynes
secured
many
Friends
OFFERED FOB HALE AT A BARGAIN. Canada,
and Correspondent* ; we are thus enabled to give ref
erences of the highest character in most of the princi
JOHN MARVIN, Administrator.
cities.
!6-18p
Sprisopield, IlL. palWeAmerican
have no connection whatever with any other
house of business, and to prevent delay and miscar
riage, our Correspondents abroad are respectfully re
quested to plainly address their letters to us as fol
LEGAL NEWS PRINTING DEPARTMENT lows
:
STEVENS & HAYNES,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
Briefs & Abstracts.
LONDON,
ENGLAND.
Extract from " Report of Julius Rosenthal, Esq.,
The attention of Attorneys Is called to oar superior
Librarian to the President and Members of
the Chicago Law Institute." November, 1870.
ftcilitieB for printing BRIEFS and ABSTRACTS.
" To our collection of English Reports a valuable
addition has been made by the importation of a
Our prices are :
and well preserved set of the House of Lords
per page,
... 91.S3 full
Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 68
volumes.
ICTS,
"
...
1.75
" English books were imported directly free of
Orders left either at the office of the Legal News, duty, and their purchase was attended to by the
115 W. Madison St., or at the Printing Office, 13 North firm of Stevens and Havnes In London, whose
diligence, promptness, and care in filling our or
Jefferson St., will be promptly executed.
ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
CALLAGHAN & Co.
NEW
SUCCESSORS TO
CALLAGHAN & COCKCROFT,
Respectfully call the attention of the profession to
;heir large stock of
DILLON
LAW

ON

Embracing the REPORTS of all the

Courts In this Country and England.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

We have a very full assortment of

lew Teit Books anil

Digests,

And an unusually full line of

RARE AND VALUABLE WORKS,
out of print, which we are offeringlat lowest current
prices.
We would also call attention to our superior facili
ties for importing, being in monthly receipt of
CONSIGNMENTS FROM LONDON
direct, which we are selling at unusually low figures.
A large collection of Kvroiad-linud TextBooks, IMg-rulM and Report* kept constantly on

We have In press, and will shortly Issue, a

TREATISE ON THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS, with full reference to En
glish and American cum, by the Honorable
JOHN F. DILLON, United States Circuit
Judge.
This work is designed to meet a want long
felt by the members of the profession.
Judge Dillon has devoted several years to
the most careful preparation of the text and
notes ; and this fact, together with his high
reputation as a jurist, guarantee the excel
lence of the work.
Complete in one large octavo volume.

Catalogues sent promptly upon application.

JAMES COCKCROFT & CO.,
Address
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
CALLAGHAN &

CO.,
499 Wabash Avenue,

525 Wabash Ave.,

CHICAGO.
CHICAGO, ILL.
15-27

13-24

News.
ATTORNEYS.

KAY

&

BROTHER,

GEORGE C. FRY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
34 Clinton Street, Room 5, Chicago.
S. A. GOODWIN.
K. C. LARNED.
H. S. TOWLE.
\Y & 19 South Sixth St.,
GOODWIN, LARNED & TOWLE.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
PHILADELPHIA.
No. 376 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
Have just published
JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWARD G.
MATTOCKS ft MASON.
The Law of Contracts,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
No. 523 Wabash Avenue, S. W. cor. Harmon Court
By FRANCIS HILLIABD,
Chicago, IU.
Author of the " Law of Torts," " The Law of Injunc
BATES
A HOlDCtM,
tions." etc.
Attorneys at Law, 13 W. Madison St.
YOU.. 8to. Price, 813.00.
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.
Table of Contents of Volume I.
52*
Chapter
IWhat Constitutesa Contract ; Proposals, etc.
SMALL & 1NGALLS,
Attorneys, 481 Wabash Aivnuc.
IIExecuted Contracts.
PUBLICATION
NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
IIIImplied Contracts.
State of Illinois. Cook county, ss. Circuit court
IVEntire and Devisable Contracts.
of Cook county. April Term, A.D. 1872. James Allan
vs.Public
Thomas
S. Burton
andgiven
JameBtoH.theAdams.
VConditional Contracts.
notice
is hereby
said Thomas S.
VIVerbal and Written Contracts.
Burton aad James H. Adams that a writ ofattachment
issued out of the office of the clerk of the Circuit court
VIITime, in Connection with Contracts.
of Cook county, dated the second day of February.
VIIIStatute of Limitations.
A, D. 1872. at the suit of the said James H, Allan, and
IXConsideration of Contracts.
against the estate of the said Thomas S. Burton and
James H. Adams, for the sum of six hundred ninetyXConstruction of Contract*.
six dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook county,
XI-Void and Voidable Contracts.
which
said writ has been returned executed.
XH-Statute of Frauds.
you,shall
the said
Thomas be
S. BurtonNow,
andtherefore,
James H.unless
Adams,
personally
and
XHI-Parties to Contracts.
appear
before
the
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
XIVPartnership.
on or before the first day of the next term thereof, to
be bolden at the court house, in the city of Chicago,
XVCorporations.
on the third Monday of April. A.D. 1872. give special
XVIPrincipal and Agent.
ball
plead toagainst
the saidyou.plaintiffs
will and
be entered
and in action,
favor ofjudgment
the said
James H. Allan, and so much of the property attached
Table of Contents of Volume II.
as may be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and
costs will be sold to satisfy the same.
Chapter
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
XVIIMaster and Servant.
Small A Ingalls, Att*ys,
18-21
XVIIIPrincipal and SuretyGuaranty.
HUGH A. WHITE,
XlX-Olftcial Bonds.
Attorney,
XXLandlord and Tenant.
PUBLICATION
IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois.NOTICE
Cook county,
ss. Superior court
tXXIHusband and Wife.
of
Cook
county.
February
Term,
A. D. 1872. John
XXIIInfants.
Doane, Patrick J. Towle, John Roper and John B.
XXIIIPerformance or Extinguishment of Con W.
Raymond, vs. S. B. Paige and J. A. Paige.Attach
ment.
tracts,
Public notice is hereby given to the said S. B. Paige
(XXIVDischarge in Bankruptcy, etc.
and J. A. Paige that a writ of attachment issued out
XXV-Set-Off; Tender.
of the office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook
county, dated the 12th day of January, A.D. 1872, at the
XXVI-Bailment.
of the said John W. Doane. Patrick J. Towle,
XXVIIBailment ; Innkeepers; Common Carriers. suit
John Roper and John B. Raymond, and against the
estate of S. B. Paige and J. A. Paige, for the sum of
XXVIII-Bills of Exchange and ProniissorytNotes.
five hundred and eighty-eight 68-100 dollars, directed
XXIXInsurance.
to the sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
returned
executed.unless you, the said S. R. Paige and J.
Now, therefore,
A. Paige, shall personally be and appear before the said
Superior court of Cook county, on or before the first
TREATISE ON THE
day of the next term thereof, to be bolden at the court
house,
in the
city1*72,
of give
Chicago,
theand
firstplead
Monday
of
February.
A.D.
specialonbail
to the
said plaintiff's action, judgment will be entered against
and in favor of the said John W. Doane, Patrick
CONFLICT OF LAWS, you,
J. Towle, John Roper and John B. Raymond, and so
much of the property attached as may be sufficient to
Ion
satisfy the said judgment and costs will be sold to sat
isfy the same.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW;
Hugh A. White, Attorney.
18-21
WITH KOTICRB OP
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois, Cook County, ss. Superior court
Anglo - American, Roman. German, and French of Cook
county, February Term, A.D. 1872. John W.
Jurisprudence.
Doane, John Roper. Patrick J. Towle and John B.
Raymond, vs. C. M. Taylor.Attachment.
BY FRANCIS WHABTOX,
D..
Public notice is hereby given to the said C. M. Taylor
Author of " American Criminal Law," " Precedents that a writ of attachment issued out of the office
ofthe
clerk ofthe Superior court of Cook county, dated
of Indictments, "State Trials," etc.
the 18th day of January, A.D. 1*72, at the suit of the
said John W. Doane, John Roper, Patrick J. Towle
One vol., 8to. Price, $7.50.
and
Raymond,
andsum
against
estate of the
said John
C. M.B.Taylor,
for the
of sixthethousand
six
Table of Contents.
hundred and eighteen and 45-1-to dollars, directed to
the sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
Chapter.
returned executed.
IIntroductory Observations.
Now,personally
therefore,be unless
you, before
the saidtheC.said
M.Superior
Taylor,
II-Domicll.
shall
and appear
court of Cook county, on or before the first day of the
IIIPersonal Status.
next
term
thereof,
to
be
holdeu
at
the
court
house,
in
IVMarriage and Divorce.
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of February,
A. D. 1872, give special bail and plead to the said plain
VParental Relations.
tiff's
action,
will beW.entered
against
and
VIGuardianship.
in favor
of judgment
the said Johu
Doane.
Johnyou,
Roper,
VIILaw of Things,
Patrick J. Towle and John B. Raymond, and so much
of the property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy
VHI-Obligations and Contracts.
the said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the
IXSuccession and Wills.
.me.
Hugh A. White, Attorney.A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
18-21
XPractice.
XICriminal Law.
R0UNTREE & McHTJGH,
Attorneys. Nixon's Biiildinfj. cor. iMSalle and Monroe.
ESTATE
MARGARET
F. C0MERF0RD,
DEceaeed.OFNotice
is hereby given
to all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Margaret
F. Comerford,
deceased,attoa regular
present term
the same
adju
dication
and settlement
of theforCounty
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the court
house
in he1872,
city being
of Chicago,
first Monday of
KERR ON RECEIVERS;
Apri , A.D.
the firstondaythethereof.
JOHN
TWOHEY,
Executor.
A Treatise on |the Law and Practice as to Receivers Chicago, Feb. 9, A.D. 1872.
l<-23
appointed by the Court of Chancery. By Wm. W. Rountkkk- A McHi'OH, Attys.
Kerr, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-law. With
E. L. KNOTT,
Attorney, 49 S. Ifalsted St.
American Notes, by G. Tucker Bisphak, Esq., ofthe
HANCERY NOTlCE.-State of Illinois, County of
Philadelphia Bar. 8 vo.
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county, April
c
term, A.D. K72. Jonathan C. Bowles vs. Belle Bowles.
In
Chancery.
A ffldavit
of the
non-residence
Belle
Bowles,
defendant
above
named,
having beenoffiled
in the
office
IN PREPARATION,
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice
1b
hereby
given
to
the
said
Belle
Bowles
A DIGEST OP THE
that the complainant heretofore tiled his bill of
complaint
in said court,
on theissued
chancery
thereof,
STATUTES AND DECISIONS
and that a summons
thereupon
out side
of said
court
against
Baid
defendant,
returnable
on
the
third
OR
day of April next, (1872.) as is by law required. Mon
Now, unless you, the said Belle Bow-les, shall per
DIVORCE AND ALIMONY sonally
be and appear before said Circuit court ofCook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
IK THE
at
Chicago,
in said
third toMonday
of
April, 1872, and
plead,county,
answeronorthe
demur
the said
United States*.
complainant's
bill thtrein
of complaint,
the
same,
and
the
matters
and
things
charged
and
stated,
will
be
By Wm. HARDCASTLE BROWN, Esq taken as confessed, and a decree entered against yon
according to the praver of said bill.
ONE TOLUME. 8V0.
NORMAN T, GASSETTE, Clerk.
E. L. Knott, ComplTs Sol'r.
18-21
IMS
Law Publishers, Booksellers and
Importers,

QmcAGo

Jegal

]Vews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, In the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 19.

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1872.

Whole No. 177.

son" (and " person " includes " corpora and members of the association. * * This is necessary in order to guard
tion") " who, with intent to create a cir If the issuing of the drafts was prohib
fraud and peculation. Persons
culating medium, shall issue, without ited, and if they were also void, Berry, against
dealing with such officers and agents are
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. authority of law, any note or other secu nevertheless, had a right to demand and chargeable with notice of the powers
rity, purporting that money or other recover the sums of money which he which the corporation possesses, and are
No. 22. December Term, 1871.
thing of value is payable by, or on be actually loaned to the defendant." This to
be held responsible accordingly. The
Jambs P. Thomas et al.. Partners, etc., Plaintiffs in half of, such person, and every officer is in accordance with the general prin
issuing of bills as a currency by such a
Error, v. The City of Richmond.
and
agent
of
such
person
therein,
shall
ciples
of
law
on
this
subject.
Lord
corporation without authority is not
In Error to the Circuit Oturt of the Vnited States Jor be confined in jail," etc. By section 17,
Mansfield, in Smith v. Bromley, as long only contrary to positive law, but, being
the District of Virginia.
"
If
a
free
person
pass
or
receive
in
pay
ago
as
1760,
laid
down
the
doctrine,
ultra vires, is an abuse of the public fran
NOTES ISSUED BY CITY COUNCIL OF RICH ment any note or security, issued in vi
which has ever since been followed, in
MOND TO CIRCULATE AS MONEY VOIl>
which have been conferred upon
MONEY PAID FOR SUCH NOTES CANNOT BE olation of either of the two preceding these words : " If the act be in itself chises
it ; and the receiver of the bills, being
RECOVERED BACK.
sections, he shall be fined not less than immoral, or a violation of the general chargeable
with the notice of the wrong,
1. Notes Void.This action was brought by the
nor more than $100." By section laws of public policy, both parties are in is in pari delicto
with the officers, ana
plaintiffs below against the city of Richmond to $20
recover the amount of 812 two-dollar notes, and 19th, where a note of less denomination pari delicto, but where the law violated should have no remedy, even for money
418 one-dollar notes, issued by the City Council in than five dollars is offered or issued as is calculated for the protection of the had
and received, against the corpora
April, 1801. and it was held that the notes were money, whether by a bank, corporation, subject against oppression, extortion and
tion upon which he has aided in inflict
void when they were issued, because they were
Issued to circulate as currency in violation of the or by individuals, they shall pay a fine deceit, and the defendant takes advan ing the wrsng. The protection of pub
law aud policy of the State of Virginia, and that of $10.
tage of the plaintiff's condition or situa lic corporations from such unauthorized
the city was not bound thereby.
The issue of the notes in question was tion, then the plaintiff' shall recover" acts
of their officers and agents is a mat
2. Bills Illegally Issued.That in cases of clearly
in
violation
of
this
law
;
and
it
(2 Doug., 696, n.) In that case the plain
bills, or other obligations, Issued by a banking or
of public policy in which the whole
other private corporation which has received the will be perceived that the 17th section tiff had given the defendant money to ter
consideration therefor, it would enable them to makes the receipt of such notes in pay sign her brother's bankrupt certificate, community is concerned. And those
who aid in such transactions must do so
commit a double wrong to hold that they might ment, as well as the issue and passing of
and she was allowed to recover it back, at their peril.
repudiate the illegal obligations and also retain
the proceeds. Hence, where the parties are not in them, a penal offense.
the
law
prohibiting
any
creditor
from
According to these principles no re
pari delicto, actions are sustained to recover back
But the charter of the city of Rich receiving money for such a purpose. cover}'
could have been had against the
the money or other consideration received for such mond
has been referred to for the pur Whilst the general principle has been city, either
obligations, though the obligations themselves be
on the bills themselves or on
ing against law, cannot be sued on ; that the cor pose of showing that the common coun frequently recognized, the application of a claim for money
had and received. It
poration issuing the bills contrary to law and cil had power to issue such notes. One it to particular cases has been somewhat
was against the law of the State to issue
against penal statutes, is deemed more guilty of the grants of power relied on is, that
diverse. Mr. Frere in his note to them. It was a penal offense in both
than the members of the community who receive
them, whenever the receiving them is not ex the city is made a corporation with pow Smith v. Bromley, (2 Doug., 697, a,) thus the person who paid and the person who
pressly prohibited : that the latter arc regarded as er to contract and be contracted with, sums up the result of the cases: A re
them, and they were issued by
the persons intended to be protected by the law ; and
generally with "all the rights, fran covery can be had, as for money had and received
and if they have not themselves violated an ex
a municipal corporation which had no
press law in receiving the bills, they may recover chises, capacities, and powers appertain received (1st,) where the illegality power,
which was known to have
the money received by the bank of them, but If
to municipal corporations." In a consists in the contract itself, and that no powerand
to issue them.
the parties are In pari delicto, as If the considera ing
tion as well as the bill or other obligation is taint community in which it is against public contract is not executedin such case
was insisted further, however, that
ed with illegality or immorality, or if the receiv policy, as well as express law, for any there is a locus pimitentiie, the delictum is theIt legislature,
in March, 1862, passed
ing as well as the passing of the bills is forbidden person or body corporate to issue small incomplete,
and
the
contract
may
be
laws which authorized, and even requir
by law, then the holder is without legal remedy, bills to circulate as currency, it is
rescinded by either party ; (2d,) where ed, the city to redeem these bills. But
and the parties are left to themselves.
8. Laws Passed in Aid or the Rebellion. certainly not one of the ' lplied powers the law that creates the Illegality in the
Secondly. The court found that these
That a contract made or law passed in aid of the of a municipal corporati
issue such transaction was designed for the coercion laws
rebellion is void.Ed. Legal News.
were passed by a legislature not
bills. Such a corporate "
A
one
party
and
the
protection
of
the
recognized by the United States and in
Opinion of the court by Bradley, J.
no power which is not,

ijj
other,
or
where
the
one
party
is
the
prin
aid of the rebellion, and, therefore, that
This was an action of assumpsit or dv fair implication
. ! .j<Ji\<b__
offender and the other only crim these notes were not made valid therebrought by the plaintiffs below, who are it" (Thompson v. Lee '' "u"" : '^jSS? cipal
inal
from
a
constrained
acquiescence
in
by.
the plaintiffs in error, against the city of 320.) Another clause '
Vto
illegal conductin sucn cases there
The fact thus found, that the laws re
Richmond, to recover the amount of S42 which reference has I.eeL " .... ,i '_,.nor- such
is
no
parity
of
delictum
at
all
between
the
ferred to were passed in aid of the rebel
two - dollar notes and 814 one-dollar izes the council to borrow .
(
<und
to
parties,
and
the
party
so
protected
by
tiflcah_ , the city jhj law or so acting under compulsion, lion, is conclusive on the subject. We
April, lEFWe ScWfc^S^
have already decided, in Texas v. White
a special count on the notes and the corn- urged as conferring the right to issue his reiftgJy', 'iflUli^TP'MWt ,t,Q jhn ]nw fnr tl Wnll 700.1 and in the case of Han/in
suit.
Such
city
tion
be
completed.
(Seethe
cases
collect(See
a contract made in aid oi vne reuuiuun
mon money counts. The defendant such bills as those now in
pleaded the general issue and the statute securities as those authorized by the ed in 2 Comyn on Contracts. 108-131 ; 1 is void and cannot be enforced in the
Selwyn's
N.
P.,
87-100
;
3
Phil,
on
Evid.,
of limitations. A jury being waived, the charter are totally different from bills
courts of this country. The same rule
case was tried by the court, which found issued and used as a currency or circu 119;2Greenl. on Evid., \ 121, p. 112 would apply, with equal force, to a law
Chitty
on
Contracts,
550,
552,
553,
and
(1) that the notes were void when they lating medium. The distinction is well
passed in "aid of the rebellion. Laws
were issued, because they were issued to understood and recognized by the whole notes.)
made for the preservation of public or
Now,
in
cases
of
bills,
or
other
obliga
circulate as currency, in violation of the community. A power to execute and
der, and for the regulation of business
tions,
illegally
issued
by
a
banking
or
law and policy of the State of Virginia, issue the one class cannot, without doing
transactions between man and man, and
other
private
corporation,
which
has
and (2) that the said notes were not violence to language, be deemed to in
not to aid or promote the rebellion,
received
the
consideration
therefor,
it
made valid or recoverable by the acts of clude power to issue the other. We do
though made by a mere de facto govern
would
enable
them
to
commit
a
double
19th March, 1862, and 29th of March, not hesitate to say, therefore, that the
ment not recognized by the United States
1862, or either of them, because the said common council of Richmond had no wrong to hold that they might repudiate would be so far recognized as to sustain
the
illegal
obligations,
and
also
retain
acts were passed by a legislature not rec power or authority to issue such paper,
the transactions which have taken place
ognized by the United States, and in aid and that they could not bind the city the proceeds. Hence, where the parties under them. But laws made to pro
are
not
in
pari
delicto,
actions
are
sus
of the rebellion ; and the court accord thereby.
mote and aid the rebellion can never be
It is contended, however, that although tained to recover back the money or recognized by, or receive the sanction of
ingly gave judgment for the defendant.
other
consideration
received
for
such
First the court finds as a fact that the the notes themselves should be deemed
the courts of the United States as valid
notes were issued to circulate as curren void, yet the city received the money obligations, though the obligations and binding laws. To recognize them
cy ; and, as matter of law, that this was therefor, and ought not, in conscience, themselves, being against law, cannot be as such would be derogatory to the dig
in violation of the law and policy of Vir to retain it ; and, therefore, that the ac sued on. The corporation issuing the nity and authority of the government of
ginia, and that, therefore, the notes were tion can be maintained on the count for bills contrary to law, and against penal the United States", and would be setting
sanctions, is deemed more guilty than the too light an estimate upon so great an
money had and received.
void.
The first question is, whether the issue
If the defendant were a banking or members of the community who receive offense.
of notes as currency by the common other private corporation, and had issued them whenever the receiving of them The judgment is affirmed.
council of the city of Richmond, in April, notes contrary to law, and had incurred is not expressly prohibited. The latter
1861, was against the law and policy of penalties therefor, no penalty being im are regarded as the persons intended to
From Josiah H. Bissell, to appear in
Virginia. The issue of notes as a com posed upon the receiver or holder of the be protected by the law ; and, if they have
mon currency, or circulating medium, notes, this argument might be sound. not themselves violated an express law his series of Reports :
is guarded with much jealousy by all gov In the case of the Oneida Bank v. The in receiving the bills, the principles of
COURT, N. D. OF
ernments as touching one of its most val Ontario Bank (21 N. Y. Rep., 496,) in justice require that they should be able U. S. DISTRICT
ILLINOIS.
uable prerogatives, and as deeply affect which the defendant had issued post to recover the money received by the
January Term, 1872.
ing the common good of the people. Al notes contrary to a statute of New York, bank for them. But if the parties are
most every State has stringent laws on it was held that the holder could recover in pari delicto, as, if the consideration as The Sands' Ale Brewing Co.In Bankruptcy.
the subject, and it may be said to be the money advanced therefor. " The well as the bills or other obligation is COVENANT TO INSURE IN MORTGAGE
against the public policy of the country argument for the defendant against this tainted with illegality or immorality, as EQUITABLE LIEN OF MORTGAGEE ON PRO
to allow individuals, or corporations, to position," says Chief Justice Comstock, it would be if loaned or advanced for the CEEDS OF POLICIES.
1. Covenant to InsureRights of Mortgagor
exercise this prerogative without express rests wholly on the idea that Perry, in purpose of aiding in any illegal or im
and MortgageeThe grantor covenanted.in a trust
legislative sanction. The State of Vir receiving the post-dated drafts, was as moral transaction, or if the receiving as deed
given to secure the iiuyment of money, to in.
ginia, like all other States, had a law of much a public offender as the bank or well as passing or issuing the bills is for sure and
keep insured in a company to be selected
this kind in operation at the time the its officers issuing them. * * * But bidden by law, then the holder is with by the grantee, etc., and the grantor did insure for
one
or
two
years as directed by the grantee, and
notes in question were issued. By the such were not the relations of the part out legal remedy, and the parties are did assign the
policies, but after that time insured
law, section 15, " All members of any as ies. * * Whatever there was of guilt left to themselves.
the premises, without the direction of the grantee,
sociation, or company, that shall trade in the issuing of the drafts, it was the
But, in the case of municipal and other in his own name for near their insurable value,
and became a bankrupt: held, that the covenant
or deal as a bank, or carry on banking, creature of the statute. * * By that public corporations, another considera by
the bankrupt to insure, operated to assign, in
without authority of law, and their offi authority, and that alone, the bank is tion intervenes. They represent the equity,
to the grantee In the trust deed the benefit
cers and agents therein, shall be confined prohibited from issuing, but not the public, and are themselves to be pro ol any insurance effected by the bankrupt on the
mortgaged
property.
in jail not more than six months, and dealer from receiving ; and the punish tected against the unauthorized acts of 2. Creditors
Bocnd to Take Notice.That
fined not less than $100, nor more than ment is denounced only against the in their officers and agents, when it can be creditors who have
trusted the bankrupt must be
$500." By section 19, " Every free per dividual banker, or the officers, agents, done without injury to third parties. held to have done so with full notice of the coveCfje Courts.

138
nant to Insure, and of the legal and equitable ef
fect of that covenant.
3. Covenant to Insi re.That a covenant In a
trust deed or mortgage runs with the land as much
as a covenant to repair or rebuild, or for another
term, because it is a charge upon the land.
4. Rights of Assignee.That the assignee in
bankruptcy in this case can hold nothing which
the grantor in the trust deed could not have held
if bankruptcy had not intervened.Ed. Legal
News.
Opinion by Bi.odgett, J.
This is an application by petition of
Francis B. Peabody, as trustee, for an
order on the assignee of the estate of
the bankrupt to pay over to the petition
er the proceeds of certain policies of in
surance. The material facts in the case,
and in regard to which there is no dis
pute, seem to be as follows : The bank
rupt is a corporation created and exist
ing under the general law of this State.
On or about the first day of January,
1868, the bankrupt corporation, then be
ing solvent, borrowed the sum of $00,000, and to secure the payment thereof
executed to the petitioner, as trustee, its
trust deed, bearing date on said first of
January, whereby it conveyed to the
petitioners certain lots and parcels
of land on which were situate the
brewery and buildings occupied and
used by the bankrupt for the pur
poses of its business. This deed con
tained, among other covenants, one
providing that the Sands Ale Brewing
company, its heirs and assigns, would at
all times thereafter, until said principal
sum of money and arrearages of interest
thereon should be fully paid, keep all
the buildings, outhouses excepted, fully
insured against loss or damage by fire in
some good and responsible insurance
company, the selection of such insurance
company to be left to the option of the
party of the second part, or his success
ors in trust, in the fair insurable value of
such buildings, and cause such insurance
to be made payable to the party of the
second part, or his successors in trust,
and deliver to him or them the policies
thereof, as soon as such insurance should
be effected j and in default of so doing,
the party of the second part or his suc
cessors in trust, at their option, might
efTect insurance in his or their name or
names, or otherwise, and the premium
money paid therefor should be a charge
upon the premises and secured by this
instrument, and such premium money
should be paid by the heirs, executors
or administrators of the first part, on de
mand ; and the said party of the second
part or successors in trust should hold
such policies of insurance as collateral
and additional security foresaid princiBflJ
to collect all the money that might be col
lectable or receivable upon such policies,
and apply the same in the same manner
as far as possible, as was hereinbefore
provided for the application of the pro
ceeds of the sale of said premises.
Soon after the execution of this deed,
and in compliance with this covenant,
the bankrupt caused insurance policies
on the property to be taken out and as
signed to thetrustee, and when these pol
icies expired, which was some time in
December, 1868, new policies were taken
out, but probably not assigned or made
payable to the trustee, and although pol
icies to a large amount were taken out
each succeeding year they were not as
signed or made payable to the trustee,
although there is some proof that the
policies or renewals for the second year
were also so assigned, but this is not fully
admitted. On the 9th of October last
all the buildings and improvements on
said premises were destroyed by fire,
and at that time the bankrupt held pol
icies of insurance to the amount of about
120,000 on the buildings on said lots and
personal property situated therein ; the
total value of said buildings being about
$200,000. The interest on the debt of
$60,000, secured by said deed of trust,
has been regularly paid as it fell due,
but no part of the principal sum has
been paid. Since the loss occurred by
said fire, said brewing company has been
declared bankrupt foracts of bankruptcy
committed since that time. Indeed it is
conceded that said company was solv
ent at the time of said fire, and at the
time the policies in question were taken
out. The lota are admitted to be now
inadequate security for the debt. After
the adjudication in bankruptcy, an as
signee was duly elected, and" he has
since collected a portion of the money
due on said policies, and a dividend
meeting had been held and dividends
voted.
The petitioner claims that the cov

Chicago

Legal

enant quoted from the trust deed gives

him an equit able lien upon the proceeds
of the insurance to the exclusion of the
general creditors. While on the part of
the assignee and the general creditors it
is insisted that the policies in question,
not having been assigned to the trustee,
nor made specifically payable to him in
case of loss, he has"no higher right to
them than the other creditors, and that
the fund, therefore, belongs to the as
signee. The bankrupt being a corpo
ration, I do not conceive that any changes
which may have taken place in the
ownership of its stock since the trust
deed was given can affect the question
at issue. No matter who buys or sells
the stock, or who holds the" offices or
manages its affairs, the corporate entity
remains the same. Its covenant to insure
is binding on all stockholders and offi
cers, and all persons in privity with it,
and, being on record, is notice to all its
creditors. The assignee can hold noth
ing in this case which the grantor in the
trust deed could not have held if bank
ruptcy had not intervened. His relation
is purely representative. Creditors who
have trusted the bankrupt must be held
to have done so with full notice of the
covenant to insure, and of the legal and
equitable effect of that covenant. The
covenant to insure runs with the land as
much so as a covenant to repair or re
build or for another term, because it is
a charge upon the land. See 5 B. and
A., 1 ; Smith's Leading Cases, 1st vol.,
136; Washburn on Real Estate, 425 ; 4th
Kent, 558.
What then was the effect of that cov
enant so far as the right to this insurance
money is concerned?
The" bankrupt covenanted to insure to
the fair, insurable value of the build
ings, and to cause the insurance to be
made payable in case of loss to the pe
titioner or his succesaors in the trust.
The insurance was effected but not as
signed, or made payable to the trustee,
Can this make any difference? This
court must be governed in disposing of
this question by substantially the same
rules as a court of equity. In 2d Parsons
on Contracts, 440, it is said : " There is
authority, strengthened, as we think, by
reason, that when a mortgagor is bound
by the mortgage contract to keep the
premises insured for the benefit of the
mortgagee, and does, in fact, keep them
insured by a policy which contains no
statement that the mortgagee has any
interest therein, the mortgagee, nevarUu.e>3, ^Ai'=ul*ni"tfi'e,'*r6ceeds of' the
policy which a court of equity will en
force for his benefit." See als'o to same
point, 6th Gill and J., 372, Carter v.
Rockett, 8th Paige, 436 ; 2d Am. Leading
Cases, 834 ; Nichols vs. Baxter, 5th R. L
491 (quoted in Fire In. Dig., 348) ; Nor
wich Fire Ins. Co. vs. Boomer, 52d 111.,
446; 24 Pick. 210; 9 Penn. St. 198; 7th
Gushing, 1 ; Flanders on Fire Insurance,
367.
The principle announced in all these
cases is but a practical application of the
maxim that equity will consider as done
what the parties have covenanted to do.
But it isobjected that the mortgageeunder
this covenant must first select or indicate
the companies in which he wishes the
insurance effected before the covenant
becomes binding or effective to vest any
right in him to the proceeds of the in
surance. It would seem a sufficient an
swer to this objection, that the covenant
being to insure to the full insurable
value for the benefit of the mortgagee
in this case, and the insurance having
been effected, it does not lie in the
mouth of the mortgagor to say the mort
gagee shall not have the benefit of it be
cause he has acted without the selection
or contrary to the selection of the mort
gagee. Suppose the mortgagee had se
lected the companies and notified the
mortgagor, and the latter, in disregard
of the selection, had effected insurance
in other companies, could such violation
of his contract divest the mortgagee of
his rights? I think not. But the mort
gagor having effected insurance to near
ly, if not quite, the insurable value of
the property, has put it out of the mort
gagee's power to further insure because
the property can only carry a limited
amount. And, therefore, the mortgagee
must hold what has been effected or
none. But there seems another answer
to this point arising from the facts in
this case. Insurance was effected and
assigned in compliance with the cove
nant, the first year, and, perhaps the sec

News.

& M. R. R. Co., but not shown by any

lines upon the plat, and fifty feet in ad
dition on either side of the right of way
ground, making, in all, an irregularly
shaped piece of ground, for the most
part about two hundred feet wide, and
about one thousand feet long, the main
track of the C. & M. R. R. Co. marked
as running directly through the centre.
This tract was marked upon the plat
as a single parcel and recorded, with the
word "Depot" upon it. The strip of
land in question is the east fifty feet ly
ing between the right of way ground and
East street at that time, the whole of the
land upon which -the village stands was
vacant and uninclosed, having recently
been purchased from the government.
This piece of ground, so marked upon
the plat, has remained uninclosed since,
and has been used by the public for
years for purposes connected with the
business of the railway, without objec
tion on the part of Morgan, and no taxes
have ever been paid on it. There being;
no express grant, the evidence of a dedi
cation, if any, must be found in the act
and declaration of the defendant.
There are none such tending to show
a dedication to be found since the mak
ing of the map, except acquiescence in
the use by the public of the vacant and
uninclosed portion of the ground which
Morgan had not occasion to make use of
himself, which is far from being any sat
isfactory evidence of an intention to
dedicate. Warren v. The President, etc.,
of the town of Jacksonville, 15 111., 236 ;
Kelly v. City of Chicago, 48 111., 389.
Indeed, the manner in which the land,
has been used since the making of the
map disproves the idea of a dedication.
In 1857, the defendant himself erected
a corn-crib across the entire north of
the strip in question, and has since been
in the occupation of a portion of both
strips, both personally and by his ten
ants, to the exclusion of the public, and
claiming to be the owner of the portions
so occupied, as also of t he residue of the
ground ; since that time a large portion
of the east strip has been continuously
occupied by individuals to the exclusion
of the public, without complaint from
any one, so far as appears, except the
defendant himself. The strip of land on
the west side has, the greater part of it,,
been exclusively occupied by the rail
road company.
It is the map or plat alone which
must be relied upon as any proof of dediThe law firm of H. & J. D. Spencer, of
tii .^^^.f-^n ' v, - i
r?t?ni/ uo ine "TTie coSrTel for the appellee does not
following opinion :
deny the proposition, that when the
owner of land causes it to be mapped out
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. into
lots, streets, etc., and conveys lots
Opinion filed Jan. 22, 1872.
pursuant to such map, he is estopped
David McWilliams et al. vs. Richard P. Morgan. from denying that he has dedicated to
the public the lands marked out on the
Appeal from Livingston.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A DEDICATION OF map as intended for public use. And
the only question is, whether this piece
LAND TO THE PUBLIC USE.
1. Effect of Making Plat.Held, that when of land, marked out as it w-as upon the
the owner of land causes it to be mapped out into map, not subdivided into lots, having
lots, streets, etc., and conveys lots pursuant to
such map lie is estoppod from denying that he "Depot" marked upon it, is designated
has dedic:. * d to the public the lands marked out on the map as devoted to the public use.
on the mtiji us intended for the public use.
The defendant testifies that he made
2. Marking the word Depot on the Map.
That the marking the word "Depot" upon a cer the plat of the town of Dwight, and re
tain piece of land in a town plat is not a dedica served the two strips of land in question,
tion to the public use, for that is a private and not with a view to selling them to the rail
a public use, as depot grounds are the subject of road company for a nominal sum, for
private ownership.
3. Representation made by the Map.That the enlargement of their depot grounds,
the representation made by the map to the public when they should have performed the
was nothing more than that the ground was to be covenants in the deed, of the 100 feet for
the site of the depot; that that did not imply it
was all to remain open to the common ; that it the right of way, and intended them to
would have been entirely compatible with the remain open for general depot uses in
use of the ground for depot purposes, if the rail anticipation of that event.
road company had covered it over with structures
for the uses of its road, and shut off all passage
It might fairly be claimed then that
over it by the publicEd. Legal News.
the plat designatedlthisas depot grounds
Opinion of the court by Sheldon, J.
and nothing more, but that is a private
The only question presented by this and not a public use. Depot groundsrecord is, was there a dedication of the are the subject of private ownership, the
strip of land in question, fifty feet in public could not reasonably expect to
width, to the public use by Mergan, the claim any right in them, however it
defendant? August 6th, 1853, Morgan might be with the railway company.
conveyed to the Chicago & Mississippi
These complainants insist, that be
R. R. Co. a right of way, one hundred cause this piece of ground was marked
feet wide, through the tract of land on out and designated as it was upon the
which the strip of land is situated, and plat, they purchased their lots in front
in the deed made provision for the erec of it, on the east side of East street, on
tion and maintenance of a depot there the faith that the grounds should always
on, in case a town should afterwards be remain for the free use and enjoyment
located on the tract. About January 30, of the public; open ground and unin
1854, Morgan did lay out at the point the cumbered with any buildings, and that
town of Dwight, and a plat thereof was the erection of this building by the de
recorded in the proper office. In the fendant will be a disappointment of theircentre of the town plat was designated a expectations raised by the defendant's
hexagonal piece of ground, bounded on own acts.
the east ana west by streets named East
But the representation made by the
and West streets, respectively.
map to the public was nothing more
This piece of ground included within than that the ground was to be the site
its limits the ground upon which was ofthe depot, which was kept good ; that
the right of way, one hundred feet wide, did not imply that it was to remain an.
heretofore granted by Morgan to the C. open common.. It would have been en

ond. Was not this a sufficient selection,

and was it not the duty of the mortga
gor to renew the policies thus effected
until notified otherwise by the mortga
gee, and if the underwriters have since
been changed by the mortgagor without
the mortgagee's consent, this act of the
mortgagor cannot be pleaded in equity to
defeat the effect of his covenant.
My conclusion then is that the cove
nant by the bankrupt to insure operated
to assign in equity to the petitioner the
benefit of any insurance effected by the
bankrupt on "the mortgaged property. It
is no answer to say that the mortgagee
might have insured in default of insur
ance by the mortgagor, because the
mortgagor had insured, and his insur
ance enured at once to the benefit of the
mortgagee. It is urged by way of argu
ment in behalf of one creditorthe
Union National Bankthat if all or part
of these policies had been assigned to
that creditor, it could have been held
then as against the petitioner, and that the
assignee holding for the benefit of all
creditors occupies the same position ;
but this argument is fallacious because
it overlooks or ignores the fact that all
creditors had notice of the petitioner's
equitable right to this insurance money,
and could acquire no valid interest there
in as against him. Equity made the as
signment the moment the insurance was
effected, if the mortgagor did not do it.
It is true courts in this country and in
England have said that all general liens
infringe upon the bankrupt laws, the ob
ject of which is to distribute the bank
rupt's estate equally, and that equality is
equity. But if any one point is carefully
guarded by the "bankrupt law now in
force, it is the protection of all fairly
obtained liens whether legal or equita
ble in their origin. The authorities
quoted, and many "others I have consult
ed in the examination of this case, leave
no doubt in regard to the effect to be
given this covenant. The lien is neither
doubtful or general, but is clear and spe
cific. It is but carrying out the intent of
the parties, and giving the mortgagee
the security he had bargained for, and
iven the whole world notice he was
ed to.
s. Paddock & Ide and S. W. Fui>
ler for"petitioner.
M. W. Fuller '\nd J. N. Jewett for
assignee.

\
Chicago
tirely compatible ^ 1 the use of the
ground for depot \>^rPoses had the rail
way company covered it over with
structures for the uses of its road and
shut off all passage over it by the public.
Had the intention been, as the com
plainants claim, that the ground should
remain open for public use, it would
naturally nave been so indicated on the
glat, by its not showing any street line
etween the west line of complainant's
lots and the railway track, or its right of
way grounds, but all along the east side
of this strip is marked the line of a
street, showing a 'street of a certain
width between complainant's lots and
this ground, indicating that the west
line of that street was the boundary on
the west of the grounds designed for
public use, and that the land beyond, on
the west side of it, and marked as sepa
rated from it by the line of the street,
was not designed for public use.
Moreover, accompanying the plat was
the instrument in writing of the defend
ant, declaring that he had laid off the
land into blocks, lots, etc., as exhibited
on the plat, which contains these words,
"and the streets and alleys as herein
described are hereby donated to the
public use."
Here is the explicit declaration in
writing of the defendant of just what he
did dedicate to the public; and under
the application of the familiar maxim,
expressio unius est exclusio alterius, such
declaration impliedly negatives the idea
of dedicating to the public anything
else.
"Wo fail to discover from the map, as
well as otherwise, the manifestation of
an intention on the part of the defend
ant to set apart this ground for the use
of the public.
And we perceive no sufficient reason
why the defendant should not be allowed
to make use of his own ground in pro
ceeding to erect a building upon it, or
otherwise, without being enjoined from
so doing by these complainants.
The decree is affirmed.
"We are under obligations to John H.
Rorerts, of the Chicago bar, for the fol
lowing opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed Jan. 29, 1872.
George E. Burnham v. Henry Mi ller.
Appeal from Superior Court of Cook County.
'l&iEcf'iir VEREKXSa 'JITHiiT,;i. .>. t:TGAGE WHEN AN EXECUTION 1* IN THE
HANDS OF THE SHERIFF AGAINST THE
MORTGAGOR.
1. Appellee
a chattel
mortgage
one
<fcre,
.which held
matured
ou the
21st of against
April, 187U,
and on that day, without taking possession of the
property, the time of payment was extended, a
new mortgage executed, a new note taken for the
old debt and interest, and a small additional ad
vancement. On the 20th of April, an execution
against the mortgagor was levied on the mortgaged
I property. Held, that the neglect of the mortgagee
to take possession by operation of law determined
his lien, and rendered the first mortgage inopera
tive as to the rights of the execution creditor. The
lien of the latter then attached, and relates back
to the 20th day of April, when the officer lirst had
the execution in his hands,
A Other Opinions.The court cites the opinions
of the courts of other States upon similar ques
tions.Ei>. Legal News.
Opinion of the Court by Thornton, J.
This is a contest between an execution
creditor and a mortgagee. Appellee held
a chattel mortgage on the property of
one Vore, which matured on the 21st of
April, 1870. On that day, without tak
ing possession of the property, the time
of payment was extended ; a new mort
gage was executed, and a new note taken
for the old debt and accrued interest,
and a small additional advancement of
money. On the 20th of April the execu
tion, which was levied on the mortgaged
property, was placed in the hands of the
officer.
The surrender of the old note, secured
by the first mortgage, and the execution
of the second mortgage, under which the
property in controversy is claimed, were
acts performed on the same day. Did
the neglect to take possession of the
property, under the first mortgage,
render it void as to creditors ? Can the
second mortgage hold the property
against the execution, when the latter
was in the hands of the officer before the
execution and recording of the former?
We have been referred to several
cases, which are claimed to be decisive
of these questions.
In Hill v. Beebee, 3 Kernan, 556, it
was decided that a first mortgage was not
extinguished by the mere act of surren
der of the note secured by it, after de
fault in payment, and the taking of a

Legal

new note and a second mortgage on the

property. The reason given is, that
there was no surrender at cancellation
of the first mortgage, and its extinguish
ment would not be inferred in the ab
sence of proof.
This decision is based upon the prin
ciple that the taking of a debtor's note
does not merge or extinguish the origi
nal demand. The mortgage was merely
the security for the debt, and until the
debt was discharged the mortgage must
remain as the security. For the same
efl'ect is Gregory v. Thomas, 20 Wend.,
17. So it was held in Packard v. King
man, 11 Iowa, 219, that the taking of a
new note and mortgage, to secure an in
debtedness, evidenced by the prior note
and secured by a prior mortgage, where
the latter are surrendered and cancelled
does not operate to discharge the lien of
the first mortgage.
It is true that the taking of a debtor's
note does not extinguish the original
demand; and as the mortgage is only
the security for the debt, ordinarily it
must stand until the debt is discharged.
Hence the general principle is that to
constitute a second mortgage a bar to a
first there must be an express or implied
release, or one arising out of a covenant
not to sue. The statutes of the States of
New York and Iowa upon the subject of,
*?tle.1_mr>'a_^S arC some"'hat a'flurent from our own.
In the former State a mortgage upon
personal property ceases to be valid, as
against creditors, in good faith, after the
expiration of one year from the filing of
the same, unless within thirty days pre
ceding the expiration of the year, a
copy of the mortgage shall be re-filed
with the clerk. In a construction of
this statute, in Lee v. Huntoon, 1 Hoff
man's Ch.R, 447, it was held that the
mortgage would be void at the expira
tion of the year if the statute was not
complied with.
In an examination of the statutes of
Iowa we can find no provision as to
when the mortgage shall cease to be
valid as against creditors.
Our statute provides that a mortgage
of personal property, if bona fide, sliall
be good and valid as against the rights
and interests of third persons, for a
space of time not exceeding two years
from the date of record, if it shall pro
vide that the possession of the property
shall remain with the mortgagor.
Constant v. Matteson, 22 111., 546, )
Was a Contest aiiibngst ^creditors
privity in the distribution of a fund
produced by a sale of chattels, and as to
the privity of the heirs of the several
mortgagees.
It was held that if possession continue
with the debtor, after the expiration of
the stipulated time, such possession
shall be considered fraudulent, as against
other creditors or mortgagees ; and that
in such case liens subsequently acquired
exclude or postpone prior incumbrances.
In Reed vs. Eames, 19 111. 594, it was
held that if the mortgagee permit the
property to remain in the possession of
the mortgagor, after default in payment,
this constitutes a fraud per se, which
cannot be explained. The failure then
of appellee to take possession of the
property, on the 21st day of April, was a
fraud. On the maturity of the note and
mortgage, the lien created by the latter
ceased as against creditors.
A chattel mortgage may be made so as
to be valid for two years ; but when the
parties fix the time for less than two
years, this must control as to when the
lien shall cease to operate. When the
mortgage is recorded, then creditors
have notice that the mortgagor has the
right to the possession of the property,
until the day specified. If the mortgagee
neglect to reduce the property to posses
sion upon default of the mortgagor, or
within a reasonable time thereafter, to
be determined by the situation of the
parties, he loses his lien, as against the
rights of third persons. As affecting
their interests and liens, the mortgage
becomes a void instrument.
In this case, the neglect to take possession, on the part of the mortgagee by
operation of law determined his lien
and rendered the first mortgage inoperative, as to"'the rights of"the 1 execution
;
creditor. The lien of the latter then
attached, and related back to the 20th
day of April, when the officer first had
the execution in his hands.
The lien of the first mortgage had
ceased, and the execution had priority
over the second mortgage. The two

News.

mortgages must be regarded as separate

and distinct instruments. The one had
ceased to be a lien, as against the execu
tion ; the other, by virtue of which the
property in controversy is claimed, was
a subsequent lien to the execution.
The judgment must be reversed and
the cause remanded.
John H. Roberts for appellant.
Merriam & Alexander for appellee.
A. T. Ewlng, of the Chicago bar, has
our thanks for the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed Jan. 26, 1872.
Rudolph E. Schultz, impl'd, etc., v. John Hay.
ok.
MECHANIC'S LIENCONSTRUCTION OF ACT
OF 180!).
L Lien ok Sib-ContractorsNotice,That the
sub-cniitractor, mechanic or workman has no lien
until the required notice is given, and in this case
the contractor had failed to complete his contract,
and there was nothing due him from the owner
Ed. Legal News.
"ihe facte in this case are as follows :
Schulte contracted with one
one Hayman to
build a house. After the house was
partly erected, Hayman failed, and
abandoned his contract, having been
paid in full for all he had done. Hay
(the defendant) brought suit against
Schultz
andforHayman
before
a justicefurof
the eace
kbor and
material
nished. It was contended before the
justice and in the Circuit Court by the
owner that Hay should have filed a peti
Eon in a court of record under Sec. 7,
and it was also urged that Hayman had
been paid in full before notice had been
served. The Supreme Court has, it
would seem from the following opinion,
sustained both of these points :
Per Curiam.
Appellee sought to recover for work
and labor performed and material fur
nished in the building of a house.
Appellant had contracted with one
Hayman to build his house for a certain
sum. Hayman progressed with the
work for some time and then aban
doned it, and was fully paid for all
that he had done. This payment was
made before any notice was given by
appellees, under the act amendatory of
the mechanic's lien law, approved April
5, 1S69 (Sess. Laws I860, 255) that he
would hold the building liable for his
labor and materials. The fair construc
tion of this statute is, that the sub-con
tractor, mechanic, or workman, sliall not
,_rv*ta ilpfl ZUfJ1' '-'"v required gotice is
given to the owner or lessee.
When the notice was given in this case
the contractor had failed to complete his
contract and there was no money due to
him from the owner.
The remedy of appellees, if any, is un
der section seven of the act referred
to.
The judgment is reversed and the
cause remanded.
A. T. Ewing, for appellant.
Through the courtesy of Frank Cros
by, of the Woodstock bar, we have re
ceived the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed Jan. 22, 1S72.
John Fahey v. The Pres. and Trustees of Town
ok Harvakd.
Appeal from McHcnry.
DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIESEXCA
VATION IN STREETLIABILITY OF OWNER
OVER TO TOWN AFTER IT HAD PAID THE
DAMAGES.
1. The appellant, who owned a lot in the town,
dug_ a pit in the street in front of his lot without
notice to the town authorities, and one Lackner
fell into it ill the night and was injured. The
town authorities, without notice to the appellant,
settled with Lackner for the damages occasioned
by the fall, and brought this suit against the appel
lant to recover the amount so paid, and it was
held, as the town had settled before judgment and
without notice to appellant, that the town author
ities must show by their declaration and prove
that the town was legally liable to Lackner.
2. Duty of Town and its Liability.That it
was the duty of the town to keep the street in a
safe condition, and that the street in question had
been put in such condition, but that the defendant
below, without the consent of the town, did
wrongfully dig the pit-hole and suffer it to remain
open without any warning to passers-by ; that un
der this state of facts the town would not be liable
unless it had actual notice of the nuisance, or it
remained a sufficient time for notice to be inferred.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion Per Curiam,
This was a special action on the case
brought
in error against
plaintiff byIn defendants
error, to recover over of1
the latter for a sum which the former
had paid to one Lackner for damages
sustained by him, by reason of having
fallen into an excavation in the street,
made by plaintiff in error.
The plaintiff in error, defendant

139
below, demurred to the declara
tion. The court below overruled the
demurrer, assessed damages and gave
judgment. The sufficiency of the de
claration is the only question presented.
It appears from the declaration that de
fendants in error settled with Lackner
before judgment and without any notice
to plaintifi in error. In such case plain
tiffs below would be required to show
by their declaration and prove that the
towjj was legally liable to Lackner. The
facts alleged show that it was the duty
of the fbwn to keep the streets in a safe
condition, and that the street in ques
tion had been put in that condition ;
but that the#defendant, without the con
sent of the town did, on the 1st day of
September, 1869, wrongfully dig in and
upon the front of land owned by him on
said street, on the line of the sidewalk
a large pit and suffered it to remain open
during the day and night time without
any warning to passers by, and so ex
posed one Louis Lackner, in the night
time, who, while exercising due care,
etc. fell into the pit and was injured.
Under this state of facts, the town
would not be liable unless it had actual
notice of the nuisance, or it remained a
sufficient time for notice to be implied.
There is no allegation in the declaration
that defendants in error had actual no
tice of the nuisance nor any facts from
which notice might, have been inferred
or implied, as defendants in error would
lie required to prove these facte they
should have been alleged. And it is the
opinion of a majority of the court that
the demurrer should have been sus
tained.
The judgment is reversedand the cause
remanded.
Frank Crosby for appellant.
Joslyn & Slavin for appellee.
('. & DISTRICT COURTDIST.OF MI).
United" States v. Hon. John Ritchie.
1 LLEGAL1TY OF TAX ON SALARIES OF STATE'S
ATTORNEYS.
This case was tried on Saturday JanuarjiJ.3, before his Honor Judge* Giles.
Tluf facts of the case, as agreed upon by
counsel, were as follows : In 1869 Mr.
Ritchie was State's Attorney for Fred
erick county, and in assessing the inter
nal revenue tax upon his income for
vt, the assessor included as taxreceived, as v^ouipeusai
. . Ills seTvi
r. Ritchie took the ground that Ins
compensation received as an officer of
the State was exempt from the income
tax, and declined to pay the portion of
the tax assessed upon that part of his
income. The $1,000 exemption, under
the law then in force, was deducted from
the aggregate amount returned. The
Government claimed that the salary in
question was not exempt from the in
come tax ; and secondly, that if it were,
then the United States could apply
$1,000 of it to the exemption clause.
Judge Giles decided that under the
case relied on by the defendant (The
Collector v. Day, 11 Wallace, 113) his
compensation as State's Attorney was
not liable to the income tax, that
the office of State's Attorney was
established by the Constitution of the
State, and was one of the means and in
strumentalities for carrying on the State
government, with respect to which the
powers of the State are independent of
the general government, and that the
United States has no more right to tax
these agencies than the State govern
ment has to tax the means and agencies
of carrying on the Federal government.
Judge Giles also held that the United
States could not apply the compensation
of a State officer to the satisfaction of
the exemption alone, because that would,
indirectly, make his income from such
source liable to the taxation from which
it is exempt ; that to exhaust the exemp
tion clause by taking the amount out of
his official income, would be to make it ,
in efl'ect, subject to the revenue law, and
to deny to a State's officer the advan
tage of the State's exemption, and that
therefore the official income of defend
ant was not to be taken into considera
tion in the assessment of the tax. For
these reasons Judge Giles held that de
fendant was entitled to judgment. The
case was ably conducted on the part of
the defense by Albert Ritchie, Esq., with
District Attorney Stirling for the Gov
ernment.Internal Rev. Record.

140

Chicago

Chicago Legal News.

IUi Umn't.

Legal

dence, and holding that the husband of

an heir is a competent witness for the
administrators when defending the es
tate of their deceased intestate against
a claim.

CHICAGO, FEBRUARY 17, 1872.

PUBLISHED EVEKY SATURDAY BY
The Chicago Legal News Co.,
AT 115 MADISON STREET.
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
Terms :
fwo Dollars per annum, in advance. Singlecopies Ten Cents.
Scale of Advertising Rates.
Space. 1 w. 2 W. 3 w. 4w. 3 m. 6 m.
82^50 (Bi25
~tl5.50 $30.00
isq fiiob
2.00 3.50 4.75 6.00 15.75 30.00 69.00
2.80 5.00 6.50 8.00 23.00 44.00 87.00
8 sq
Kcol.... 4.68 8.75 12 87 15.00 87.50 73.75 137.50
J4col.... 8.75 14.37 21.50 27.50 72.50 135.00 262.50
1 col 15.00 27.50 38.75 52.50 1X5.00 262.50 437.50
Ten lines of Agate make a Square.
Advertisements must be paid for in advance,
and when not fo paid. 50 per cent, will be added
Legal Notices not included in the above.
Printed at the Chicago Legal News Press, 13
North Jefferson street, Chicago.
THE LEGAL NEWS OFFICE U mt 110
West HadUra Street. The Printing
Establishment 1* at 13 IT. Jefferson St.
We call attention to the following
opinions, reported at length, in this
issue :
Notes to Circulate as Money.The
opinion of the Supreme Court of the
United States, delivered by Bradley, J.,
holding that notes issued by the City
Council of Richmond, in April, 1861, to
circulate as money, are void, and that as
the statute of Virginia made it alike il
legal to receive as to pass such notes, the
money paid therefor could not be re
covered back from the city.
. CovfjNANT.TO IxstTREjs/LrEN^ OF' MORT
GAGE.The opinion of the United States
District Court for this district, delivered
by Blodgett, J., construing a covenant
in a trust deed, to insure for the benefit
of the grantee, and defining when a
mortgagee has an equitable lien upon the
proceeds of insurance policies which
were effected on the mortgaged premis
es by the mortgagor. This is an import
ant opinion and is undoubtedly correct.
Dedication to Public Use.The opin
ion of the Supreme Court of Illinois, de
livered by Sheldon, J., defining what
constitutes a dedication of land to public
use.
Mechanic's Lien.An opinion of the
same Court construing the Mechanic's
Lien Law of 18G9.
Damages for Personal InjuriesEx
cavation in Street.An opinion of this
Court in a case where a person had
fallen into an excavation in a street and
been injured, and the town authorities
had settled with such person and
brought suit against the owner of the
adjoining lot, who made the excavation,
to recover back the amount they had
paid the party injured.
Chattel Mortgage and Execution
Liens.An opinion delivered by Thorn
ton, J., holding where a chattel mort
gage matured on the 21st of April, and a
new mortgage was given without taking
possession of the property, that an exe
cution placed in the hands of the sheriff
on the 20th of April would hold the
property.
Heir of an Estate as Witness.An
opinion delivered by Sheldon, J., con
struing the law of 1867 relating to evi

NOTES TO RECENT CASES.

Rule of Drainage.The Common
Pleas Court of Montgomery County, Pa.,
in art opinion delivered by Ross, P. J.,
in Kahn et al. v. Moore et al., held that
the rule of agricultural drainage, which
is that where lots adjoin and one is low
er than the other, the former must of
necessity submit to the natural flow of
water from the latter, does not apply to
building lots in an incorporated town or
city ; that the owner of such lots may
destroy the surface by excavation or fill
ing up for building purposes, and if by
those means he modifies the natural
conformation of the soil, so as to disturb
the surface drainage, he cannot be en
joined from so doing.4 Leg. Gaz., 46.
Administrator Employing an Attor
ney.The New York Court of Appeals
held in Mygatt v. Wilcox, that a party
who employs an attorney is personally
liable to him for his services although
acting as a trustee, executor, administra
tor or in other representative capacity,
in the business in which he employs
him, and in this case it was held that
the attorney was entitled to recover in
terest from the time he presented his
account.
Does not know the nature of an
oath.The Supreme Court of Kansas, at
its last term, held in the case of Smith v.
Brown, that an Indian was not an
incompetent witness because he did not
know the nature of an oath exactly, or
the penalties for perjury, but thought he
would be hung if he told a lie. We
think an Indian would be quite as likely
to tell the truth, if he believed he would
be hung if he told a lie, as he wouliUift
he Believed he would be sent ro S^ifrTs
prison.
Right of Owner of Land Dedicated
to Public UseThe Court of Queen's
Bench, in the case of the Vestry and
Parish of St. Mary Newington, v. Ja
cobs, reported 25 L. T. Rep. N. S., 800,
citing Lade v. Shepherd, 2 Stra., 1004 ;
Dovaston v. Payne, 2 H. Bl., 627; 2
Smith's Leading Cases ; Reg v. Pratt, 4
E. & B., 860, held that the owner who
dedicates to public use, as a highway, a
portion of his land, parts with no other
right than a right of passage to the
public over the land so dedicated, and
may exercise all other rights of owner
ship not inconsistent therewith, and the
application made to and adopted by the
public, ofa part of the street to one kind
of passage, and another part to another,
does not deprive him of any rights as
owner of the land, not inconsistent with
the right of passage by the public.
Herertt ^Publications.
A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, or
Private International Law, including
a Comparative View of Anglo-American? Roman, German, and French
Jurisprudence. By Francis Wharton,
LL. D., author of "A Treatise on Ame
rican Criminal Law," "Precedents of
Indictments," "State Trials of the
United States," etc. Philadelphia:
Kay & Brother, 17 and 19 South Sixth
street. 1872. Sold by E. B. Myers,
lawbookseller, Chicago.
This is a large, finely-executed volume
of 758 pages, and is a credit to the pub
lishers. Mr. Wharton's ability as a law
writer has been acknowledged for many
years by the American bar. We have
no hesitation in saying that this volume

News.

is superior to any former one from the

author's pen. The text briefly states the
law upon the subjects treated and refers
to the cases which are cited in the notes
to support the propositions there dis
cussed. Mr. Wharton has shown great
industry and good judgment in his cita
tions to authorities. To the lawyer in
general practice few books will be found
more useful than Wharton on the Con
flict of Laws. It is a library in itself. It
states the relations which exist between
the citizen and his government ; the rule
which must govern when the laws of one
state or nation conflict with those of an
other ; the effect to be given to foreign
judgments and decrees, the capacity to
hold and transmit real and personal
estate ; the effect to be given to the for
eign probate of wills, the rights of foreign
executors, administrators and guardians,
the law of marriage, divorce and domicil, as well as many other subjects equal
ly important which we have not Bpace
to mention.

defends as administrator, etc., but here

the adverse party, against whom the wit
ness is called, sues in no representative
capacity, but in his own right, and the
witness was called for, not against a par
ty defending in the capacity of adminis
trator. The objection to the witness on
the score of interest was removed by the
first section of this act. Had the witness
testified to any conversation or transac
tion with the claimant, the appellee
then, under the second excepted case
under section two, would have been
permitted also to testify to the same
conversat'on or transaction.
It is further urged, that the wife of the
witness having a direct interest in the
event of the suit, was incompetent her
self, and the husband was not admissible
as a witness under the familiar rule,
that where the husband or wife is not a
party to the record, but yet has an inter
est, directly involved in the suit, and is
therefore "incompetent to testify, the
other is also incompetent. But as above
shown, the wife herself of the witness
would have been competent to testify ;
and we have held the general rule to be,
that a wife can be a witness in all cases
in which her husband could be a wit
ness. 111. Cent. R. Co. vs. Taylor, 24 111.
323, and so rice versa.
We think there was error in the rejec
Power of Police Court Clerk to Ad tion of this testimony, for which the
minister an Oath.Judge Farwell, of judgment must be reversed and the
remanded.
the Circuit Court of this County, a few cause
Judgment reversed.
days since, decided that a clerk of the
police court of this city, has no power to
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
administer oaths in cases where the de
fendant is charged with on offense
We have receiv ed the following headagainst the State law.
notes to recent cases from H. M. Her
man of the Leavenworth bar :
We are indebted to John W. Ranwrongful inprisonment.
stead, of the Elgin bar, for the following
AVhere a party sues for a wrongful
imprisonment and sets forth in nis
opinion :
petition that the imprisonment was pro
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
cured by the defendant through the
means of a void warrant, and through
Opinion Filed Jan. 22, 1872.
malice, and without probable cause, he
nIcholas Freeman et al., Adm'rs, v. James Free may
recover, provided he shows that a
man.
portion only (with respect to timey) of
Appeal Jrom Kane.
imprisonment was wrongful, and
INTERESTED PARTIES MAY BE WITNESSES the
IN CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATESACT OF 1867 provided he shows either that it was pro
cured on a void warrant or through mal
CONSTRUED.
1. The Husband of an Heir may be a Witness. ice and without probable cause.(Opin
Held, on the trial of a claim against an estate, ion by Valentine, J.)Bauer v. Clay.
tljat the husband of an heir of the deceased called
FAILURE TO PAY ANY PART A.LL DUE,.
by the administrators, was, under the act of 1867,
1. A stipulat ion in a mortgage that
a competent witness.
2. When Wife can be a Witness.The court has upon failure to pay any part of the
held the general rule to be that a wife can be a money secured thereby when due, all
witness in all cases in which her husband could be shall become due and payable, is valid,
and may be taken advantage of by mort
a witness.Ed. Legal News.
gagor as well as mortgagee.Opinion by
Opinion of the court by Sheldon, J.
Brewer, J.)First N. Bank of Sturgte v.
This was a claim filed in the county Peck et al.
court of Kane county against the estate
NOTE GIVEN FOR A PATENT.
of Patrick Freeman, deceased, by the
2.
A
note
gi ven for a patent that is
appellee, his son, for services rendered
by the latter to the intestate as a laborer void for want of novelty and utility, is
on his 1 rm since appellee attained his without consideration.lb.
3. In such case there is no need of a
majority .
The claimant appealed from the decis reassignment, or an offer to reassign
ion of the county court to the circuit lb.
4. The facts to be found in a special
court, where a trial was had, which re
sulted in a verdict and judgment in his verdict are the issuable facts presented
by the pleadings, and there is no need of
favor.
On the trial below, the defendant in greater minuteness in the verdict than
troduced John Mann as a witness, and in the pleadings.lb.
offered to prove by him certain conver
ASSIGNMENT OF TAX CERTIFICATE.
sations and transactions between the
1.
On the first day of June, 1866, there
claimant and his father, the intestate,
which would have been material evi was no authority for the assignment of a
dence in the case, but the court rejected tax sale certificate issued on a tax sale
the evidence on the ground that the made prior to the year 1864, where the
wife of the witness was the daughter of property sold had been bid off for the
county, and still remained in the hands
the intestate.
It is claimed that the witness was in of the county, and a tax deed, showing
terested in the event of the suit, his wife that it was executed on such an assign
being an heir and distributee, and being ment of such a certificate to the assignee
offered to prove facts occurring before thereof is void upon its face.(Opinion
the death of Patrick Freeman, he was by Valentine, J.)Sapp et al. v. Murrell.
an incompetent witness under the sec
2. Section 9, of chapter 37 of the laws
ond section of the act of February 19, of 1864, and section 74, of chapter 118 of
1867, (Gross St^ 268) abolishing the dis the laws of 1866, are prospective only in
qualification of a witness by reason of their operation, ad relate solely to tax
interest, which section provides that sales made after their passage. Section
" No party to any civil action or proceed 113 of chapter 118 of the laws of 1866,
ing, or person directly interested in the operates only to save rights and powers,
event thereof, shall be allowed to testify and not to create new rights and powers.
therein of his own motion or in his own Section 44 of chapter 197 of the comp.
behalf, by virtue of the foregoing section, laws, was repealed March 5, 1864, with
when any adverse party sues or defends out any saving clause, by section 12 of
as the trustee or conservator of any idiot, chapter 37 of the laws of 1864. Section
lunatic or distracted person, or as the 88 of chapter 111 of the laws of 1866, au
executor, administrator, heir, legatee or thorized assignments of tax sale certifi
devisee of any deceased person," etc. But cates after June 1, 1866, only. Section
this is not a case which comes within 43 of chapter 197 of the comp. laws, and
that section. The case there provided sections 1, 2 and 3 of chapter 52 of the
for, is where the adverse party sues or comp. laws when considered together

Chicago
with section 44 of copter 197 of the
comp. laws, did not authorize county
commissioners to assign tax sale certifi
cates.lb.
WHEN ACT MAY BE DONE.
3. When an act is not authorized to
he done until after a certain day, it can
not be done on that day, nor until after
the whole of that day has elapsed.lb.
STATUTE OP LIMITATIONS.
4. The principle laid down in the case
of Shoat v. Walker (6 Kas. 65) "That
the statute of limitations will not run in
favor of a tax deed void upon its face,
while the land intended to be con
veyed remains vacaut and unoccupied,"
reaffirmed. Nor will the statute of lim
itations run in favor of such a tax and
where the owner of the land is in pos
session of and occupies the same.lb.
ACTION TO QUIET TITLE.
5. On the 4th day of June, 1870,
when this suit was commenced, the
owner of a piece of land was not re
quired to tender to the holder of a tax
deed thereon, void upon its face, the
tax, cost of sale, etc., before he could
commence an action to quiet the title to
his land as against said tax deed.
INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN COLLECTION OF
TAXES.
1. Courts of equity will not interfere
to restrain by injunction the collection
of taxes, when the property is subject to
taxation, the tax legal, and the valuation
not excessive, simply because of irregu
larities in the assessment.(Opinion Dy
Brewer, J.) The Kansas P. R. Co. v.
Russel.
RAISING VALUATIONNOTICE.
2. Before the county commissioners
have power to raise the valuation of
personalty, notice must be given the
taxpayer, and he have an opportunity
to show that the valuation returned is
correct.lb.
MINGLING REAL AND PERSONAL ESTATE.
3. Where the county clerk mingles real
estate and personalty in his assessment
of railroad property, before the county
commissioners can raise such valuation
they must take all the steps necessary to
give them jurisdiction in regard to both
real and personal estate.lo.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
PROCEEDINGS OP.
Monday, February 5.
No. 26. The U. S., Appellants, v. Dan'l Wormer.
Appeal from the Court of Claims. Mr. Justice
Bradley delivered the opinion of the court, re
versing the decree of the Court of Claims and re
manding the cause, with directions to dismiss.the
petition.
No. 37. The Milwaukee and Minnesota Railroad
Company, appellants, v. James T. Souttcr, sur
vivor, etc., ct al. Appeal from the Circuit Court
of the U. States for the district of Wisconsin. Mr.
Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the
court, affirming the decree of the Circuit Court
with costs. Dissenting, Mr. Chief Justice Chase,
Mr. Justice Miller, and Mr. Justice Field,
No. 50. William Carlton and the Bridgeport
Brass Company, appellants, v. Howard Bokee.
Appeal fromjthe Circuit Court of the U. S. for the
district of Maryland. Mr. Justice Bradley dedelivered the opinion of the court, affirming the
decree of the Circuit Court, with costs.
No. 6. William A. Beans, David S. Heatly, et al.,
plaintiffs in error, v. The UnitedStates. In error to
the Circuit court of the U. S. for the eastern district
ofArkansas. Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opin
ion of the Court, affirming the Judgment of the
Circuit court in these causes. Dissenting, Mr.
Justice Clifford and Mr. Chief Justice Chase.
No. 5. John G. Halliburton et al., plaintiffs in
error, v. The United States. In error to the Cir
cuit court of the United States for the eastern dis
trict of Arkansas. Mr. Justice Strong delivered
the opinion of the court, affirming the judgment
of the Circuit court In this cause. Dissenting, Mr.
Justice Clifford and Chief Justice Chase.
No. 4. Noel Byron Boyden et al., plaintiffs in
error v. The United States. In error to the Circuit
court of the United States for the district of Wis
consin. Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opinion
of the court, affirming the judgment of the Circuit
court.
No. 52. The County of Bath and the County
Court House et al., plaintiffs in error, v. Henry
Amy. In error to the Circuit court of the United
States for the district of Kentucky. Mr. Justice
Strong delivered the opinion of the court, re
versing the judgment of the Circuit ^eourt, and
remanding the cause, with directions to dismiss
the petition for a mandamus.
No. 73. Charles Gibson, plaintiff In error, v.

Legal

Charles P. Chouteau et al. In error to the Supreme

Court of the State of Missouri. Mr. Justice Field
delivered the opinion of the court, reversing the
judgment of the said Supreme court, and remand
ing the cause for further proceedings in conform
ity with the opinion of this court. Dissenting,
Mr. Justice Strong and Mr. Justice Davis.
No. 831. P. B. Foukc, administrator, etc., plain
tiff in error, v. W. H. Zimmerman ct al., and No.
332. P. B. Fouke, administrator, etc., plaintiff in
error, v. Louis Hubert et al. In error to the
Circuit court of the United States for the district
of Louisiana. Mr. Justice Miller delivered the
opinion of the court, affirming the judgment of
the said Circuit court In these causes, with costs.
No. 61. Jabez Doolcy, plaintiffin error, v. Enoch
Smith. In error to the Court of Appeals of tho
State of Kentucky. Mr. Justice Miller delivered
the opinion of the court, reversing the judgment
of the said Court of Appeals with costs, and re
manding the cause for further proceedings, in
conformity with the opinion of this court. Dis
senting, Mr. Chief Justice Chase, Mr. Justice Clif
ford and Mr. Justice Field.
No. 83. Archibald M. Pcntz ct al., appellants, v.
The Steamer "Ariadne." In error to the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Southern Dis
trict of New York. Mr. Justice Swayne delivered
the opinion of the court, reversing the decree of
the Circuit Court with costs, and remanding the
cause for further proceedings, in conformity with
the opinion of this court.
No. 568. Samuel G. Wheeler. Jr., appellant, r
George Harris et al. Appeal from the Circuit Court
of the United States for the Southern District of
New York. Mr. Chief Justice Chase delivered the
opinion of the court, denying the motion to dis
miss the cause.
No. 195. Samuel G. Wheeler, Jr., appellant, v.
George Harris et al. Appeal from the Circuit Court
of the United States for the Southern District of
New Y'ork. Mr. Chief Justice Chase delivered the
opinion of the court, dismissing the appeal in this
cause with costs.
No. 292. Wells, Fargo & Co., appellants, v. A.
McGregor. In error to the Supreme Court of the
Territory of Montana. Mr. Chief Justice Chase
delivered the opinion of the court, dismissing the
appeal with costs.
No. 478. Hosea Stout, plaintiff in error, vs. The
People of the United States in the Territory of
Utah. In error to the Supreme Court of the Ter
ritory of Utah. Mr. Chief Justice Chase announced
the decision of the court, affirming the judgment
of the said Supreme Court with costs. By a divi
ded court.
No. 510. William F. Davidson, plaintiff in error,
vs. Arthur Connelly. In error to the Supreme
Court of the State of Minnesota. Mr. Chief Jus
tice Chase delivered the opinion of the court, ctitv.
missing the writ of error in this cause for the want
of jurisdiction.
No. 82. Henry B. Plant, plaintiff in error, vs.
Josiah Stowell. In error to the Supreme Court of
the State of Georgia. Mr. Chief Justice Chase de
livered the opinion of the court, affirming the
Judgment of the said Supreme Court in this cause
with costs.
No. 39. Beverly Tompkins et al., appellants, vs.
Alfred A. Thornton. Appeal from the District
Court of the United States for the District of West
Virginia. Mr. Chief Justice Chase announced the
decision of the court, affirming the decree of the
said District Court in this cause with costs, by a
divided court.
No. 94. The Steamship Thames, etc., appellants,
vs. Bill of Seamen. This case was argued by Mr.
B. F. Lee, Jr., for the appellee, and submitted on
printed arguments by Messrs, Barney, Butler, and
Parsons, for the appellants.
No. 95. The President, etc., of The Delaware and
Hudson Canal Company, appellants, vs. Henry C.
Clark. The argumentof this cause wascommenced
by Mr. 8. P. Nash, of counsel for the appellants.
Tuesday, February G.
No. 95. The President, etc., of the Delaware and
Hudson Canal Company, appellants, v. Henry E.
Clark. The argument of this cause was continued
by Mr. Henry Knox, of counsel for the appellee,
and concluded by Mr. E. H. Owen.for appellant.
No. 96. The Great Western Insurance Company,
plaintiff in error, v. William Thwing. The argu
ment of this cause was commenced by Mr. R. H.
Dana, Jr., of counsel for the plaintiff in error.
Wednesday, February 7.
On motion of Mr. J. M. Carlisle, Will H. Battle,
Esq., of North Carolina, was admitted to practice
as an attorney and counselor of this court.
No. 96. The Great Western Insurance Company,
plaintiff in error, v. William Thwing. The argu
ment of this cause was concluded by Mr. R. H.
Dana, Jr., for the plaintiff in error, and submitted
on printed arguments by Mr. M. E. Ingalls and
Mr. Levi Woodbury, in behalf of the plaintiff in
error, and by Mr. S. Bartlett and Mr. D. Thaxter,
for the defendant in error.
No. 88. The ship Western Metropolis, etc., appel
lant, v. John Low, Jr. Appeal from the Circuit
Court of the UnitedStates for the Southern District
of New York. On motion of Mr. J. H. Ashton, or
dered by the court that this appeal be dismissed
with costs per stipulation of counsel.

News.

No. 97. Pinckney C. Bethell, plaintiff In error, v.

Edward Matthews. This case was argued by Mr.
Durant, of counsel for the defendant In error, and
submitted on. printed arguments by Mr. Miles
Taylor, for the plaintiff in error.
No. 98. William W. Pugh, plaintiff in error, v.
James L. McCormick. This cause was argued by
Mr. T. J. Durant, of counsel for the defendant in
error, and submitted on a printed argument by
Mr. Miles Taylor, for the plaintiff in error.
No. 99. The Wilmington and Weldon Railroad
Company, plaintiff in error, v. John A. Reid,
sheriff.
No. 100. The Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Com
pany, plaintiff in error, v. John A. Reid, sheriff,
etc.
These causes were argued by Mr. J. D. McPherson and Mr. James M. Carlisle, of counsel for the
plaintiff in error, and by Mr. W. H. Battle, for the
defendants in error.
No. 101. David Gibson et al., appellants, v. Americus Warder et al. The argument of this cause
was commenced by Mr. E. M. Johnson, of counsel
for the appellant Gibson.
Thursday, February 8.
On motion of Mr. J. B. Henderson, George E.
Leighton, Esq., of Missouri, was admitted to prac
tice as an attorney and counselor of this court.
On motion of Hon. L. Trumbull, S. D. Puterbaugh, William W. O'Brien and J. C. Robinson,
Esqs., of Illinois, were admitted to practice as at
torneys and counselors of this court.
No. 101. David Gibson et al., appellants, v. Americus Warden et al. The argument of this cause
was continued by Mr. E. M. Johnson, of counsel
for the appellant Gibson, and concluded by Mr.
Aaron F. Perry, of counsel for the appellants Gaylor et al. No counsel appearing for the appellees.
No. 103. Solomon G. Kitchen, plaintiff in error,
v. Henry H. Bedford et al. This cause was argued
by Mr. J. D. McPherson and Mr. J. M. Carlisle, of
counsel for the plaintiff in error, and submitted on
printed arguments by Mr. Thomas T. Gantt, for
the defendants in error.
No. 104. The United States, plaintiff in error, v.
One hundred barrels distilled spirits, etc., John
Henderson, claimant. The argument of this cause
was commenced by Mr. Assistant Attorney Gen
eral Hill, of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and
continued by Mr. J. A. Garfield, for the defendant
in error.
Friday, February 9.
On motion of Hon. Matt. H. Carpenter, Hon.
John Scott, of Pennsylvania, was admitted to
practice as an attorney and counselor of this
court.
No. 121. The United States, appellants, v. Fer
dinand Brown. Appeal from the Court of Claims.
On motion of Mr. Assistant Attorney General
Hfll, ordered by the court that this appeal be dis
missed.
No. 573. John T. Bailey et al., appellants, v. The
Stark Mills.
No. 574. The Stark Mills, appellants, v. John T.
Bailey et al. Appeal from the Circuit Court of
the United States for the Eastern District of Penn
sylvania. Ordered by court that the appeals in
these causes be affirmed per stipulation of coun
sel.
No. 259. William R. Stark, appellant, v. The
United States. The motion for a rule on the Court
of Claims was submitted on printed arguments by
Mr. W. P. Clark in support of the same.
No. 360. Peter F. Holden, appellant, v. James F.
Joy. The motion to advance this cause was ar
gued by Mr. B. R. Curtis and Mr. Sidney Bartlett
in support of the same, and by Mr. B. F. Butler in
opposition thereto.
No. 264. The United States, appellants, v. Samuel
8. Smoot ; No. 265. Samuel S. Smoot, appellant, v.
The United States. The motion for a writ of cer
tiorari was argued by Hon. B. F. Butler in support
of the same, and by Mr. Assistant Attorney Gen
eral Hill in opposition thereto.
No. 17. The United States, appellants, v. John A.
Klein, administrator.
The motion for leave to issue mandate In this
cause was argued by Mr. Joseph Casey and Mr. T.
W. Bartley in support of the same, and by Mr. So
licitor General Bristow In opposition thereto.
No. 526. Franklin, Phillip and A. S. Solomons,
plaintiffs in error, v. Joseph Nock. Mr. R. D. Mussey submitted printed arguments in opposition to
the motion to dismiss this cause.
No. 104. The United States, plaintiffs in error, v.
One hundred barrels of distilled spirits, etc., John
Henderson, claimant.
The argument of this cause was continued by
Hon. J. A. Garfield, of counsel for the defendant
In error, and concluded by Mr. Solicitor General
Bristow, of counsel for the plaintiff in error.
Adjourned until Monday morning at eleven
o'clock.
Monday, February 12.
On motion of Mr. Solicitor General Bristow, Wil
liam H. H. Russell, Esq., of Missouri, was admitted
to practice as an attorney and counselor of this
court.
No. 90. The Norwich and New York Transporta
tion Company, plaintiff in error, v. John Flint. In
error to the Circuit Court of the United States for

141
the District of Connecticut. Mr. Justice Bradley
delivered the opinion of the court, affirming the
judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause
with costs and interest.
No. 110. George Alexander, plaintiff in error, v.
M. Roulet et al. In error to the Circuit Court of
the United States for the District of California.
Mr. Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the
court, affirming the judgment of the said Circuit
Court in this cause with costs.
No. 69. Frank B. Myers, plaintiff in error, V,
John T. Croft. In error to the Circuit Court of the
United States for the District of Nebraska. Mr.
Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the court,
affirming the judgment of the said Circuit Court
in this cause, with costs.
No. 55. Trustees of Jefferson College, plaintiffs in
error, v. Washington and Jefferson College.
No. 56. F. J. Collier et al., plaintiffs in error, v.
Washington and Jefferson College.
No. 57. David C. Houston et al., plaintiffs in
error, v. Trustees of Jefferson College et al.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of
Pennsylvania. Mr. Justice Clifford delivered the
opinion of the court, affirming the decrees of the
said Supreme Court in these causes, with costs.
No. 97. Pinckney C. Bethell, plaintiff in error, v.
Edward Matthews. In error to the Circuit Court
of the United States for the District of Louisiana.
Mr. Chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion of
the court, affirming the judgment of the said Cir
cuit Court in this cause, with costs.
No. 91. Truman G. Wright, appellant, v. Alexan
der N. Fullerton. Appeal from the Circuit Court
of the United States for the Northern District of
Illinois. Mr. Chief Justice Chase announced the
decision of this court, affirming the decree of the
said Circuit Court in this cause, with costs. By a
divided court.
No. 360. Peter F. Holden, appellant, v. James F.
Joy. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United
States for the District of Kansas. Mr. Chief Jus
tice Chase announced the order of the court grant
ing tho motion to advance this cause, and assign
ing the cause for the 2d of April next.
No. 40. The United States, appellants, v. The
Heirs of Juan Bautista Vigil, deceased. The argu
ment of this cause was commenced by Mr. John
A. Wills, ot counsel for the appellant, and con
tinued by Mr. John 8. Watts, for the appellees.
Adjourned till to-morrow morning at eleven
o'clock.
Tuesday, February 13.
No. 589. The Union Mutual Life Insurance Com
pany, of Maine, plaintiff In error, v. Henry Wil
kinson. This cause was submitted on printed ar
guments by Hon. George G. Wright, of counsel for
the plaintiff in error, and by Hon. George W.
McCrary for the defendant in error.
No. 40. The United States, appellants, vs. The
Heirs of Juan Bautista Vigil, deceased. The argu
ment of this case was continued by Mr. John S.
Watts and Mr. Thomas Ewing, of counsel for the
appellees, and concluded by Mr. Solicitor General
Bristow for the appellants.
No. 119. (Substituted for 105.) Charles and Henry
Reiche, plaintiffs In error, v. Henry A. Smythe,
collector, etc. This cause was argued by Mr. Fred.
Chase, of counsel for the plaintiffs In error, and;
submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Solicitor
General Bristow and Mr. Assistant Attorney Gen
eral Hill for the defendants in error.
BUSINESS NOTICES.
For new law books, see the advertise
ment of Little, Brown & Co., on the la6t
page of this issue.
Binders for the Legal News.We
have Emerson's temporary binders
made expressly for the Legal News,
which we are selling at the office for $1
or sending to any address in the State,,
charges paid, for $1.25.
Fisher's Patent Cases.The fourth,
volume of these valuable Reports is now
in press and will soon be issued by Rob
ert Clark & Co. of Cincinnati. It will
contain patent cases decided by the Su
preme and Circuit Courts of the United
States from 1850 to the present time.
Back Volumes of the Legal News.
Persons having back volumes of the
Legal News which they will dispose of,
will please notify us by letter of the con-*
dition and price of their volumes.
Legal Printing.We would say to>
our friends that we are prepared, upon
the shortest notice, to do all kinds of
Book and Job Printing with neatness,
accuracy, and dispatch.
M. A. Rorke & Son, have removed
their law office to the Central Union.
Block.

142
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
Barber & Lackner, 64 West Lake street.
Barker & Waite, 46 East Harrison.
Bates A Hodges, 11.1 West Madison street.
BRADWELL, J. B-, 115 West Madison street.
Bonney, Fay & Griggs, 120 West Washington street.
Bentley, Bennett, U11man & Ives. 376 Wabash ave.
Brouse, 0. R., 400 Wabash avenue.
Burke & Allen, 18 West Randolph.
Carmichael, D. L 8ij Prairie avenue.
Chase, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue.
Clarkson & Van Scbaack, 434 Wabash avenue.
Condon, Wra. H., 34 Canal street.
Deane & Cahill, room 7, Lind'a Block.
Dent <fc Black, 740 Wabash avenue.
Ewing & Leonard, 487 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. W., 115 West Madison street.
Felker, Wm. 8.. 92 Desplaiues street,
Goodwin, D., jr., n. e. corner Monroe and La Salle.
Goudy & Chandler, Union Central Block.
Graham, Geo. N-, 60 South Canal.
Herbert & Quick, 61 Union Central Building, and 529
State street.
Hoyne, Pbil. A., Congress Hall, between Michigan
and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne, Horton & Hoyne, 267 Michigan avenue.
Hitchcock, Dupee & Evarts, corner Wells and Mon
roe streets,
Howe & Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
Knickerbocker, J. C. &J. J., 163 West Washington
Learning & Thompson, 419 Wabash avenue.
Leary, D. James, 95 West Madison.
Magruder, B. D., 181 West Madison.
McClelland, Thos. S., 45 South Canal, room 6.
Merriam/Alexander & BolsterJ149 W. Washington st.
Miller, Frost A Lewis, 363 Michigan avenue.
Moore & Caulfield, 54 Central Union Block.
Monroe, Bisbeo & Gibbs, 523 Wabash avenue.
Newcomb, G. W., 771 West Madison stroet.
Norton, Jessie 0., 386 Wabash avenue.
Nissen & Barnum, 126 W. Randolph, and 376 State.
Otis. E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Perkins, N. C 479 Wabash av., cor. Eldridge court.
Reynolds, W. C, 176 West Washington st.
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 South Canal.
Rorke, M. A. & Son, Room 57, Central Union Block.
Rosenthal, Pence <fc Moses, Masonic Building, s. w.
cor, Randolph and Halsted, and 350 Wabash avenue.
Scammon, McCagg & Fuller, 389 Wabash avenue.
Sheldon & Waterman, corner La Halle and Monro*
8mith, Upton <fc Waterman, 135 West Monroe street.
Story & King, 149 West Washington street.
Tenny, McClellan A Tenny, 454 Wabash avenue.
Thomas, Sidney, 361 South State street.
Van Buren,
194 Madison
West Madison
Yallette,
H. E.
F.,A59A..Wrest
street.street.
"Waughop, J. W., 401 Wabash avenue,
"White, Hugh A., 165 West Wasbiugton street.
Williams A Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
Walker, Dexter A Smith, 562 Wabash avenue.
Wilson, Perry A Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney, 18 East Harrison Street.
INStates,
THE for
DISTRICT
COURTDistrict
OF THE
UNITED
the Northern
of Illinois.
In
the matter of Albert H. Hovey, bankrupt.In Bank
ruptcy.
Notice is hereby given that a petition has been filed
in said court by said Albert H. Hovey, of Chicago, in
the
county under
of Cook,
district, duly
declared
bankrupt,
theinactsaid
of Congress
of March
2, 1867,a
for
a
discharge,
and
a
certificate
thereof,
from
all
his
debts and other claims provable under said act, and
that the 8th <biy of March. 1*72, at 11 o'clock a. m., is
assigned
for theStates
hearing
of the same
court,
in the United
court-room,
in thebefore
city ofsaid
Chicago,
when and where all creditors of said bankrupt, and all
other persons in interest may attend, and show cause,
if any they have, why the prayer of the said petitioner
should not be granted ; and further notice is hereby
given
second andrequired
third meetings
of said
itors ofthat
saidthebankrupt,
under the
27th cred
and
38th
sections
of
said
act,
will
be
holdeu
at
the
of
H. N. Hlbbard, Esq., register in bankruptcyoffice
of said
court, at bis office, in the city of Chicago, in said dis
trict, on the said 8th day of March next, at 10 o'clock
a. Dated
m. Chicago. Feb, 12.WM.
1872.H. BRADLEY, Clerk.
R. E. Jenkins, Attorney.
19-31
T>UBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL
X concerned, that the undersigned, guardian of Ed
ward P. Towne, minor, will make application to the
Circuit court of Cook county. State of Illinois, at the
March in
term
1872, toonbe the
holden
at the
court
Louse,
thethereof,
city ofA.D.
Chicago,
third
Monday
of
March,
A.
D.
1872.
for
order,
enabling
said
guardian
to sell aud convey alt the right, title and interest of
said minor, in the following described real estate, sit
uated
theofState
Illinois,(V>to ofwitW.: One
one-halfin Oi)
east ofone-half
!i ofundivided
lot No.
three (3), in block fifty-seven (57) of original town of
Chicago.
Also, an undivided one-sixth (1-6) of undivided fourflfths (4-5) of west ten (10) acres of N. E. U of N. W.
>4 of section twenty-three (23), T. 3-*, R. 14.
Also, an undivided one-sixth (1-6) of four-ftfthB (4-5)
of E. >3 of N. W. U of N. W. i* of section 23, T. 38,
R.Also,
14. all of the assessors' subdivision of northwest
(N. W.) one quarter (?4) undivided two-fifths (2-5) of
lot four (4), block 19, sectiou 22, town 39, and range
fourteen (1 1). for the support and education ofthe said
minor, or to invest in other real estate as the court
may direct.
KLIZA If. TOWNE, Guardian.
Chicago, Feb. 13, 1872.
19-21
ESTATE
OF
8ETH
SHELDON.
Jk..
DECEASED.Notlce is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands
againstthe
thesame
estateforofSeth
Sheldon,and
junior,
deceased,
to present
ailjudication
set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be bolden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D., 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
L. MARTHA SHELDON,
GEORGE W.Administrators.
SMITH.
Chicago, Feb. 14, A. D. 1S72.
19-24
ESTATE
OF
CATHERINE
WEISHAAR,
DEceased.Notice Is hereby given to all persona hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Catherine
Weishaar, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and
settlement
at toa beregular
the County
court
of Cook
county,
noldenterm
at theofcourt
house,
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April,
A. D. 1872, being theANN
first day
thereof.
CHIMIN, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24

Chicago

Legal

TENNEY, McCLELLAN & TENNEY,

Attornem.
MORTGAGE SALE.-WheVeas, Aaron H. Crosby
and
Adeline,
his
wife,
of Centralia,
county
of Marion, and State of Illinois,
did, on inthethethirtieth
day of June, A. D, 1871, execute and deliver to me
their certain mortgage, which said mortgage was re
corded in the recorders office of said Marion county,
in theinState
of Illinois,
on the 8thpagedayl'J4,ofofJuly.
A.D.
1871,
volume
H of Mortgages,
the prem
ises hereinafter described, to secure the payment of
one certain promissory note made by the said A. H.
Crosby, dated on the thirtieth day of June, 1871, for the
sum of one hundred and ninety-seven 55-100 dollars,
with interest at the rate often per cent, per annum,
payable to the order of 0. B. Farwell five mouths after
the date thereof; and whereas it is provided in said
mortgage that in case of default in the payment of the
said note or any part thereof, according to the tenor
and effect thereof, the said C. B. Farwell. his legal rep
resentatives
or attorney,
after having
advertised
such
sale twenty days
in a newspaper
published
in Chicago,
Cook county, Illinois, may sell the wrid premises, or
any part thereof, and ail right and equity of redemp
tion of the said Aarou II. Crosby and Adeline, bis
wife, their heirs or assigns therein, at public vendue,
to theCook
highest
casii, default!has
at the courtbeen
house,
in
said
countybidder,
; and for
whereas
made
in the payment of said note and interest, now. there
fore, by virtue of the power in me vested by said mort
gage, I, the undersigned mortgagee, will sell at 10
o'clock a. m., on Wednesday, the 61 h day of Marc .
A.D.
at public
the court-house
door,
in said1872,
Chicago,
Cookvendue,
county,at Illinois,
to the highest
bidder, for cash, the premises in said mortgage de
scribed, to wit: Lots three (3) and four U), in block
one (l), in the town of Centralia, count}' of Marion,
State of Illinois, together with all and singular, the
tenements and hereditaments, privileges and appurte
nances thereunto belonging, aud all the right, title,
benefit and
redemption
of the
saidsaid
Aaron
Crosby
and equity
Adeline,of his
wife, in and
to the
premH.
ises.
CHARLES B. FARWELL.
Tenney, McCleli.an
Att'ys for
& Tenney,
Mortgagee.
19-21
JAMES FRAKE,
Attorneif, 11") West Maditson St.
ESTATE
OF
ROBERT
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given SHEPPARD,
to all persons having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
Robert
deceased, to present the same lor adjudicationSheppard,
and set
tlement toat be
a regular
the County
Cookof
county,
holden term
at theofcourt
house, court
in theofcity
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
April,
A.
D.
1872,
be
ing the first day thereof.
SAMANTHA SHEPPARD and
ROBERT D. SHEPPARD,
Executors,
Chicago, Feb. 16, A. D. 1872.
iy-24
M. A. RORKE & SON,
Attorneys, Room ">7, Central Union Block.
ESTATE
OF
CL0WRY,
DECEASED.Notice is WILLIAM
hereby given
to all persons
having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
William
Clowry, decease*!, to present the same forof adjudica
tion and
settlement
the County
court
of Cook
county,attoa beregular
holdenterm
at theof court
house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April,
A.D. 1872, being the first day thereof.'
ANN CLOWRY,
Administratrix, and
MARTIN BRENNAN.
Administrator of said Estate.
Chicago, Feb. 6. 1872.
iy-24
ESTATE
OF
GUSTAV
DASSLER,
DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Gustav
Dassler, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April,
A.D. 1872, being
the first DASSLER,
day thereof.Administratrix.
AUGUSTA
Chicago, Feb. 12, A.D. 1872.
iy-24
ESTATE
OF
HENRY
A.
BOHLE,
DECEASED.Notice is hereby given toall persons bavingclaima
and demands against the estate of Henry' A. Bohle, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication ami set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, toonbe the
bolden
the courtofhouse,
Chicago,
firstat Monday
April,in A.theD.city1872,of
being the first day thereof.
HENRY BOHLE, Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE
KEMMLER,
DECEASED.
NoticeOFis RUDOLPH
hereby given
to all persons
hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Rudolph
Kemmler, deceased, to present the same for ad
judication and settlement at a regular term of the
County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
day of April, A. D. 1872, being the first day thereof.
FREDERICK KEMMLER, Executor.
Chicago^Feix 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE
OF
WILLIAM
LAISTER,
DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against tho estate of William Laister,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county,
holden
at the. court
house, A.in 1).
the 1872,
city beof
Chicago,toonbethe
first Monday
of April,
ing the nrst day thereof.
ROBERT C. WRIGHT and
JAMES W. COCHRAN,
Executors.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE
OF
JOIIANN
KRUKGER.
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Johann Krupper,
deceased, to present the same tor adjudication and set
tlement
a regular
the County
of Cook
county, toat be
holden term
at theofcourt
house, incourt
the city of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
April,
A.
D.
1872,
be
ing the first day thereof.
SOPHIA
KRUEGER,
Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
INSTATE
OF
JOHN
W.
HUFMEYER.
DECEASED.
J Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of John W. Hufmcyer,
deceased,
forCounty
adjudication
andCook
set
tlement attoa present
regular the
termsame
of the
court of
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago,
on the
Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first
day first
thereof.
LOUISA HUFMEYER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
ltt-24
D. J. CROCKER,
Attorney, 48 South Canal Street.
ESTATE
OF CAROLINE
HEINES,
DECEASED.
Public notice
is hereby given
to all persons
having
claims
demands
against the
of adjudica
Caroline
Heines, and
deceased,
to present
the estate
same for
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court
Cook
holdeu
the court
house
in theofcity
of county,
Chicago, toonbethe
first atMonday
of April,
A.D. 1872, being the first day thereof.
JACOB HEINES, Executor.
D. J. CROCKKB, Att'y for Estate.
18-23
J. MILTON OLIVER,
Attorney. 30 South Clinton St.
OFis GEORGE
GANIERE,
DECEASED.
E1 STATE
Notice
hereby
given
to estate
all persons
having
claims
and demands
against
the
of George
Ganiere, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and
settlement
at
a
regular
term
ot
the
County
Court
of Cook county, to be holden at tho Court House, in
the
of Chicago,
the first Monday of April, A. D.
1872,city
being
the 1st dayon thereof.
MARGARETTA GANIERE, Administratrix.
J. Milton Oliver, Attorney.
Chicago, January .22nd, A. D. 1872.
16-2Ia

News.

SMALL & INGALLS,

Attorneys, 481 Wuitaah Avenue.
PUBLICATION
IN ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois.NOTICE
Cook county,
ss. Circuit court
of Cook county. April Term, A.D. 1872. James Allan
vs. Thomas S. Burton and Jainos H. Adams.
Public notice is hereby given to the said Thomas S.
Burton aad James H. Adams that a writ ofattachment
issued out of the office of the clerk of the Circuit court
of Cook county, dated the second day of February,
A, D. 1872. at the suit of the said James II, Allan, and
against
estateforof the
the sum
said ofThomas
S. Burton
nud
James H.theAdams,
six hundred
ninetysix dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook county,
which said writ has been returned executed.
you, shall
the said
Thomas S.be Bur
tonNow,
andtherefore,
Jametf H.unless
Adams,
personalty
and
appear
before
the
said
Circuit
court
of
county,
on or before the first day of the noxt termCook
thereof,
to
be holden at the court house, in the city of Chicago,
on
the
third
Monday
of
April,
A.D.
1872,
give
special
bail and plead to the said plaintiff's action, judgment
will be entered against you, and in favor of the said
James II. Allan, and so much of the property attached
as may be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and
costs will be sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN
Small & INOALU,
Att'ys. T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
18-21
HUGH A. WHITE,
Attorney.
PUBLICATION
IN ATTACIIMENT.State of Illinois.NOTICE
Cook county,
ss. Superior court
of
A. D. aud
1872.John
John
W.Cook
Doane,county.
PatrickFebruary
J. Towle, Term,
John Roper
B.
Raymond, vs. S. B. Paige and J. A. Paige.Attach
ment.
hereby
given
to tho said S.issued
B. Paige
andPublic
J. A.notice
Paige isthat
a writ
of attachment
out
of the office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook
county, dated the 12th day of January, A.D. 1872, at the
suit
the said
John B.W.Raymond,
Doane. Patrick
J. Towle,
JohnofRoper
and John
and against
the
estate
of
S.
B.
Paige
and
J.
A.
Paige,
for
the
sum of
five hundred and eighty-eight 68-inn dollars, directed
to the sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said S. B. Paige and J.
A.
Paige, shall
be and appear
before the
the first
said
Superior
courtpersonally
of Cook county,
on or before
day
of
the
next
term
thereof,
to
be
holden
at
the
court
house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
February.
A.D.action..judgment
1872, give specialwill
bailbeand
pleadagainst
to the
said
plaintiffs
entered
you, and in favor of the said John W. Doane, Patrick
J. Towle, John Roper and John B. Raymond, and so
much of the property attached as may be sufficient to
satisfy the said judgment and costs will be sold to sat
isfy the same.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Hugh A. White, Attorney.
18-21
P""UBLTcATION NOTICE IN^ ATT^HMENT.Statecounty,
of Illinois,
Cook Term,
County,A.D.
ss. 1872.
Superior
of Cook
February
Johncourt
W.
Doane, John Roper, Patrick J. Towle and John B.
Raymond, vs. C. M. Taylor.Attachment.
Public notice is hereby given to the said C. M. Taylor
that a writ of attachment issued out of the office
of the clerk ofthe Superior court of Cook county, dated
the 18th day of January, A.D. 1872, at the suit of the
said John W. Doane, John Roper, Patrick J. Towle
and
Raymond,
and sum
against
estate of the
said John
C. M.B.Taylor,
for the
of sixthe thousand
six
hundred and eighteen and 4A-1H0 dollars, directed to
the sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said C. M. Taylor,
shall personally he and appear before the said Superior
court of Cook county, on or before the first day of the
next term thereof, to be holden at the court house, in
theD.city1872,
of give
Chicago,
the and
firstplead
Monday
February,
A.
specialonbail
to theof said
plain
tiff's action, judgment will bo entered against you, and
in
favor
of
the
said
John
W.
Doane.
John
Roper,
Patrick J. Towle and John B. Raymond, and so much
of the
attached
as may
to satisfy
the
saidproperty
judgment
and costs
willbebesufficient
sold to satisfy
the
same.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Hugh A. White, Attorney.
18-21
ROUNTREE & McHTJOH,
Attorneys Kixon'n Building, cor. LaSalte and Monroe,
INSTATE
OF
MARGARET
F. COMERFORD.
DEli ceased. Notice
is hereby given
to all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Margaret
F. Comerford, deceased, to present the same for adju
dication and settlement at a regular term ofthe County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the court
house, A.D.
in he1872,
city being
of Chicago,
first Monday of
Apri
the firstondaythethereof.
JOHN
TW0HEY,
Executor.
Chicago, Feb. 9, A.D. 1872.
Rountbee & McHoqh, Attys.
18-23
eTlVknott'
Attorney. 49 8. Hoisted St.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county, April
term, A.D, 1*72. Jonathan C. Bowles vs. Belle Bowles.
In
Chancery.
Affidavit
of the non-residence of Belle Bowles,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Belle Bowles
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of
complaint
in said court,
on theissued
chancery
thereof,
and
that a summons
thereupon
out side
of said
court
against
said
defendant,
returnable
on
the
third
day of April next. (1872,) as is by law required. Mon
Now, unless you, the said Belle Bowles, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit court of Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
at Chicago, in said county, on the third Monday of
April, 1872, aud plead, answer or demur to the said
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken
as confessed,
and a decree entered against you
according
to the praver
of said bill,
NORMAN T, GASSETTE. Clerk.
E. L. Knott, Compl't's Sol'r.
18-21
ELBERT H. GARY,
Attorney, jVJ Wert Madison Si.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Cook
county, ss. Circuit Court of Cook county, April
term, A. D., 1872. Emmet B. Chambers v. Helen J.
Chambers.
Affidavit ofIntheChancer
non-resi'"'. nr of Helen J. Chambers,
defendant above named * \ ing been filed in the office
of the Clerk of said Circuit Court ot Cook county, no
tice
is hereby givenheretofore
to the saidfiled
Helen
that
the complainant
hisJ.billChambers
of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
a summons thereupon issued out of said Court against
said defendant, returnable on the third Monday of
December next. 1871, as is by law required, which sum
mons was returned into said cou.-t " not found," and
th t afterwards an alias summonB issued out of said
court, against said defendant, returnable on the third
Monday of April next, (1872).
Now, unless
said before
ID-len said
J. Chambers
shall
personally
be you.
and the
appear
Circuit Court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to
be holden at Chicago, it said county, on the third Mon
day of April, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same,nnd
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to tho prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Elbert H, Gary, Compl't's SoPr.
16-19pd
ESTATEOF
JOHN
S. CLASSEN,
Notice is hereby given
to all personsDECEASEDThaving claims
and demands against the estate of John S. Classen,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication ana
settlement
of tho
County court
ol
Cook county,at toa boregular
holdenterm
at the
courthouse,
in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January 10, A.D. 1872.
CATHARINA CLASSEN, Administratrix.
A. Enzenbach'-.e, Att'y.
M-19

MORTGAGE SALE.-Whereas, Patrick Holton,

and Bridget, his wife, on the twenty-ninth day
of June, a. d., 186^, executed and delivered to me their
certain mortgage, which said mortgage was recorded
In
the recorder's
of Cook
Illinois,
on the office
thirtieth
day county,
of June,ina.the
d., State
1870, inof
book number 133, of mortgages, at page 291. of the
premises hereinafter described, to secure the payment
of one certain promissory' note made by the said Pat
rick Holton, dated on the twenty-ninth day of June,
a. d., 1869,
theofsum of six hundred dollars with in
terest
at theforrate
ten per cent, per annum, payable
semi-annually,
to the order
James H.it Roes,
one year
after the date thereof
; and ofwhereas,
is provided
in
Baid mortgage that in case of default of the payment
of said promissory note, either of principal or interest,
on the days when the same should become due and
payable,
the insaida newspaper,
James H. Rees
mig^ht.
after
ing
printed
in the
citypublish
of Chi
cago,a notice
Cook county,
Illinois, thirty
days
before
the
day
of such sale, sell the said premises and all right and
equity of redemption of the said Patrick Holtou and
Bridget, bis wife, their heirs and assigns therein, at
public auction, at the north Court House door, in said
city
of Chicago,
highest
for cash.ofsaiu
And
whereas,
defaulttohasthebeen
made bidder,
in the payment
note and interest, now. therefore, by virtue ofthe power
in me vestedwillbysellsaidat mortgage,
mortgagee,
ten o'clock,I, a.them.,undersigned
on Tuesday
the
27th
day
of
February,
a. d.,
at public
at
the north Court House door,
in the
city ofauction,
Chicago,
Cook county, Illinois, to the highest bidder, for cash,
the
premises( in and
said fifty-four
mortgage (54)
described
to wit
fifty-three
in block
one : (1,)Lota
in
James
II.
Rees'
subdivision
ofblocks
one
(1)
(2) in
the south half of the south-west quarter of and
the south
east quarter of section twenty (20), in township thirtynine (39), north of range fourteen (14) east, in the
county of Cook, and Stato of Illinois, together with
all
and and
singular
the tenements,
hereditaments,
ileges,
appurtenances
thereunto
belonging, priv
and
all the right, title, benefit and equity of redemption
of the said Patrick Holton and Bridget, his wife, their
heirs and assigns, in and to the said premises.
16-20
JAMES H. REES, Mortgagee.
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
Attorney, 11.5 W. Madison Street,
ADMINISTRATRIX'
REAL
ESTATE.By virtue of an orderSALE
and OF
decree
of the
County
Court of Cook county, Illinois, made on the petition of
the
undersigned,
Dorothea
Ringleb,
formerly
Dorothea
Medelman. administratrix of the estate of Friedrich
Medelman, deceased, for leave to sell the real estate ot
said deceased, at the December term, A. D. 1871, of said
court, to wit, on the sixth day of December, A. D. 1871,
I shall, on Monday, the llth day of March, A. D. 1872,
at 2 o'clock p. m., sell at public sale, at the east door
of the Court House, on Clark street, in the city of Chi
cago, in said Cook county, aud State of Illinois, the
rea
1 estateofdescribed
as follows,
to wit
: the northeast
quarter
the northeast
quarter
of Bection
twentythree (23), in township thirty-six (36), range thirteen
(13), east of the 3d P. M., In the town of Bremen, in
Cook county, State of Illinois, containing forty acres,
on the following terms, to wit : cash on delivery of the
deed.
DOROTHEA RINGLEB,
(Formerly Dorothea Medelman.)
Administratrix of the estate of Friedrich Medelman,
deceased.
James
B. BsADWELL^Att'y for Estate.
16-2L
rpo WHOlffTT^A^'CONCERNT-We. the underX signed, have formed a limited copartnership to be
carried on under the name of Fletcher, Lazear <
Cheney, in Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, from
January 1, 1872. till January 1, 1874, to carry on the
business
of buying,
selling, andThe
manufacturing
and
selling, harness
and carriages.
said undersigned,
F. I. Lazear, M. E. Fletcher and George A. Cheney,
are the general partners, and John Amerman, of ltronson,
Josias
Parks,
of Norwalk,
in the
State of
Ohio,and
are the
special
partners,
and have
respectively
paid into tho common stock two thousand dollars in
cash.
M. E. FLETCHER,
F. I. LAZEAR,
GEORGE
A. CHENEY,
JOHN AMERMAN,
17-22
JOSIAS PARKS.
ROSENTHAL, PENCE & MOSES,
Attorneys, 350 Wabash Avenue.
QTATE
OF ofILLINOIS,
CountyFebruary
of Cook, ss.
kJ or Court
Cook county.
term,Superia. d.
1872. Louisa Heller, administratrix of the estate of
Israel Heller, deceased, v. Rosa Hess, Abraham Hess,
Fanny McCreary, Robert McCreary, Caroline Schram,
Benedict- Schram, Therese Forges, Henry Porges, Es
ther Schram, Jacob Schram and Elizabeth Heller.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Caroline Schram
and
Benedict
defendants
aboveof
named,
havingSchram,
been filedtwoin ofthetheoffice
of the Clerk
said
Superior
Court
of
Cook
county,
notice
is
hereby
given to the said Caroline Schram and Benedict
Schram, that the complainant heretofore filed her pe
titionestate,
in saidto Court,
real
wit: lottosixsell(i>)thein following
block threedescribed
(3), in
Quick's subdivision of Harlem, being part of the north
east
quarter
of
Section
twelve
(12),
in
township
thirtynine (39) north of range twelve (12), east of 3d P. M.,
together
the buildings
and improvements
thereon,
and that with
a summons
thereupon
issued out of said
Court
against said defendants, returnable on the first Monday
of February next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Caroline Schram and Ben
edict Schram, shall personally be and appear before
said Superior Court of Cook county, on the first day of
a term thereof, to bo holden at Chicago, in said county,
on the first Monday of February, l872t and plead, an
swer or demur to the said complainant's petition,
the same,
thebematters
things therein
and
stated,andwill
taken and
as confessed,
and acharged
decree
entered against you according to the praver of said
bill.
A.
JATJOBSON.
Clerk.
Rosenthal & Pence, Compl't's Sol'rs.
16-19
C~1H^NCERY^NDTICE.^8tate
of
Illinois,
county
of
J Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
February Term, A D. 1872. Sophia Brenhagen v. John
Brenhagen. In Chancery.
Affidavit
of thenamed,
tnou-residence
of John
defend
ant above
having been
filed Brenhagen,
in the office
of
tho
clerk
of
said
Superior
court
of
county,
notice is herely given to. the said JohnCook
Brenhagen,
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, aud
that
a summons
thereupon
issued out
of said
against
said defendant,
returnable
on the
first Court
Mon
day of February next, (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said John Brenhagen, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of
Cook county^ on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of February, next. 1872, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill 01 complaint, the same, and
the
mattersasand
things therein
and stated,
will
be 'taken
confessed,
and a charged
decree entered
againt
you according to the prayer of said bill.
JACOBSON.
Rosenthal, PenceAUGUSTUS
& Moses. Compl't's.
Sol'r.Clerk.
16-19
agau the same for adjudication
man, deceased, to present
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook
county, to011bethe
holden
the courtof house,
the
city
of Chicago,
first atMonday
March,inA.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January 6, A.D. 1872.
Rosenthal,SARAH
Pence &FRIEDMAN,
Moses, Att'ys.Administratrix.
U-19a
ESTATE OF THOMAS KELLEY, DECEASED.
is hereby
given
all persons
havingKelley,
claims
aud Notice
demunds
against
thetoestate
ot Thomas
deceased, to present the same tor adjudication and
settlement
at
ft
regular
term
of
the
County
court
of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January y. A.D. 1872.
14-19a
JOHN TILF0RD, Administrator.

Chicago
TRUSTEE'S
SALE.-Whereft*;l .M-^^Stone
Mary S. Stune.hiBwne.ot
;xV,li .f Chicago,and
in
Cook county, Illinois, did out\i H' V da>" June, in
the
year
eighteen
hundred
imAs^.Vv1^
<
by
their
cer
tain deed of trust of that date, \\U*CU was duly execu^
ted, acknowledged
a Prescribed
by law.
grunt,
bargain, selland
anddelivered
convey unto
the undersigned
trustee, his successor in trust, and his and their heirs
and assigns, all the following described hinds and
premises,
situateof Illinois,
in the city
of Chicago,
countyoneof
Cook and State
to wit:
Lot numbered
(1), in Armstrong's subdivision of the north three (3)
acres
of block
numbered
thirty-nine
(.:w >, in (33)
the town
canal
trustees'
subdivision,
in section
thirty-three
ship forty (to) north range fourteen (II), east of the
third principal meri-iinu, excepting that portion of said
lot one (1) described by metes and bounds as follows,
to wit: commencing at a point on the southwesterly line
of Lincoln avenue, (which said last mentioned line is
also the northeasterly line of said lot one (I), seventysix (7t>) feet southeast of the westerly line of said lot
one (1). and running thence northwesterly on the
northeasterly
lineofofsaid
saidlotlotone
one (li;
(1), thence
Beventy-Bix
to the west line
south feet
on
the west line of said lot one (l.i eighty-two <>!'> feet;
thence east on a line parallel with the south line of
said lot one (1) twenty-nine 1.2".') feet; thence northeast
on aone
line(1;parallel
withandtin*onesoutheasterly
line more
of said
lot
forty-two
half (42,la) feet
or
less to the place of beginning; subject, however, to a
certain other tru*t deed, dated thellth day of April,
A.D.
uponrecorded
the whole,
of said5 IT lot
one (1)page
to one
Lyman1-*.',
Baird,
in book
of deeds,
27,
in
the
Recorder's
office
of
Cook
county,
to
secure
pay
ment of the sum of four thousand dollars and interest,
and due April 11th, A.D. 1871 ; together with the tene
ments, hereditaments and appurtenances : to have and
to hold the same unto the undersigned,his said successor
in trust, and his and their heirs and assigns forever, in
trust, made
to secure
thesaid
payment
of aStone,
certainbearing
promissory
note
by the
Theodore
even
date with said deed of trust, payable to his own order,
due in one year after date without grace, for the sum
of two thousaud dollars, with interest at the rate of
ten per cent, per annum after date and until paid, and
payable at room 3'. Reynolds' block, Chicago; and up
on default in payment of said note, or any part
thereof,
of anyof interest
on application
the legal orholder
said note,thereon,
the undersigned
as suchof
trustee as aforesaid, or his said successor in trust, was
authorized to sell and dispose of the said premises, and
all
title, Stone
benefitand
andMary
equityIS. Stone,
of redemption
the the
saidriffht,
Theodore
their heirsof
and assigns, at public auction, at the uorth door of the
court
house
county
of Cook,
in said
city of
Chicago,
(or of
on said
the said
premises,
as may
be specified
in
the
notice
of
such
sale,)
for
the
highest
and
best
price the same will bring in cash, upon previously
giving at least two weeks public notice of the time and
place of said sale by advertisement thereof in a daily
or weekly newspaper at that time published in the said
city of Chicago, and to make, execute and deliver to the
purchaser or purchasers at said sale, good and suffi
cient deed
conveyance
for the ofpremises
so
sold;
and or
outdeeds
of theofproceeds
or avails
said sale,
after first paying the costs thereof, including fees and
commissions of the said trustee, other expenses of said
trust and taxes and other liens and assessments on
said premises with interest, then to pay the principal
of said note and interest thereon, rendering the over
plus, if any, unto the said Theodore Stone and Mary
b. Stone, their heirs, representatives and assigns: said
purchaser
not being
reu. lired
to see tosaletheshould
application
of the purchase
money,
and which
be a
perpetual bar at law and in equity, against the said
grantors, their heirs and assigns, and all persons
claiming said premises under tnem as aforesaid ; and
the
said Theodore
and Mary
S. Stone
did there
by waive
all right Stone
and benefit
of the
exemption
and
homestead laws of the State of Illinois in said prem
ises, toandadjourn
the undersigned
as such
ized
such sale from
timetrustee
to timewasin authorhis dis j
cretion
; and
which saidanddeed
the inusual
covenants
of warranty,
was contained
duly recorded
the
Recorder's office of Cook county, in the State of
Illinois,
on
the
seventh
day
of
June,
A.D.
187'),
in
book
6(12 of deeds, page ijii.
And default having been made in the payment of
the said note secured by the said deed of trust, and
application having been made to me by the legal owner
thereof to sell the said lands and premises above de
scribed, according to the provisions of said deed of
trust
: therefore, notice is hereby given, that by virtue
ofNow,
the said
power of sale in the said deed of trust con
tained, I will sell the said lands and premises therein
and herein described, at public auction, to the highest
bidder for cash, at the north door of the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the twenty-sixth day of
February, A.D. 1*72, at the hour of ten o'clock in the
forenoon,
to interest,
pay and taxes,
satisfyfees
the and
money
note, and the
costs.due on said
Chicago, February 10, 1S72.
E. A. Otis, Atfy. HAIMAN LOWY, Trustee.
18-20
JNO. J. McKTNNON,
Attorney, titxmt 6 Sherman House.
TRUSTEE'S
theHarriet
seventhNewell
day of
June, 1871,SALE.-Whereas,
Benjamin Newellonand
his wife, of Princeton, Bureau county. State of Illinois,
executed their trust deed of that date of the real estate
hereinafter described, which was recorded on the
eighth day of June, 1871, in the Recorder's office of
Bureauatcounty.
Illinois,
mort
gages,
page 378,Stato
whichof trust
deedinwasbook
givenV. toofsecure
a certain promissory note of said Newell, of even date
with saidfortrust
deed,ofpayable
the orderdollars,
of Alicewith
M.
Ireson,
the sum
sixteentohundred
interest thereon at ten percent, per annum, payable
semi-annually in advance, said note being payable in
three years after date, and being given for money
loaned the said Newell by the said Alice M. Ireson;
and whereas, the interest on said note to be paid in
advance from the seventh day of December 1871, has
not been paid, nor any part thereof, as provided in
said trust deed; and whereas, the legal holder of said
note has requested the undersigned to make sale of
said said
real note
estate,andas interest:
authorizedNow,
by therefore,
said trust notice
deed, tois
pay
hereby given, that under and by virtue of the power
and authority given by said .trust deed, and for the
purpose of paying the note and interest aforesaid, on
the thirtieth day of March. 1872, at ten o'clock in the
forenoon of that day, at the north door of the court
house of said
Cook
county,
of Chicago,
provided
in said
trust
deed,)InIsaid
shallcity
proceed
to sell (as
at
public
auction,
to
the
highest
cash
bidder
therefor,
said real estate, to wit: the northeast quarter (n.e. the
30
of section
twoof (2),
township
fifteenmeridian,
(15) north,contain
range
ten
(10), east
fourth
(4) principal
ing one hundred and sixty 0*50) acres, more or less, in
the county of Bureau and State of Illinois, and all the
right, title and interest in the same conveyed to me by
said trust deed.
EDWIN9, W.
Dated February
1872.CHAMBERLAIN, Trustee.
Jho. J. McKinvon, Att'y.
18-22
HIGH & TRUMAN,
Attorneys, 47 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE OF ELI N. SKINNER, DECEASED.Notice
isdemands
hereby against
given to allestate
persons
claims and
of having
Eli N.
Skinner,
deceased,
to present thethe
same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of
to inbesaid
holden
at the
court
in
theCook
city ofcounty,
Chicago,
county,
on the
firsthouse,
Monday
of April, A.D 1872, being the first dav thereof.
BETSEY
SKINNER and
JEREMIAH
Chicago, February 5, A.D.
1872. S. CLOUOH,
Executors.
Hifc" & Truman, Attys.
18-23a
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
And U. S. Commissioner.
Western Union Telegraph O0ee, 654 Wabash Av&

Legal

News.

GEORGE W. SMITH,
Attorney, No. 475 H'u/wWi Are.
THIS Is to certify that Chauncey T. Bowen.GeorgeW.
Shaw, William H. Fitch, Jonathan Richards, The
odore A. Shaw, and Almerin H. Winslow, have formed
a limited partnership in accordance with the laws of
the State of Illinois, and that. First, the name or firm
under
which
partnershipSecond^
is to The
be conducted
Richards,
Shawthe& Winslow;
general nais
ture of the business to be transacted is the purchase
and sale of dry goods at wholesale ; Third, Chauncey
T. Bowen and George W. Shaw are the special part
ners
William
Fitch, H.
Jonathan
ards, therein,
Theodoreand
A. Shaw,
andII.Almerin
Winslow,Rich
are
the general partners therein; that the place of resi
dence of said George W. Shaw is the city of Dayton,
in
State ofT.Ohio;
thatWilliam
the place
of residence
of
saidtheChauncey
Bowen,
H. Fitch,
Jonathan
Richards, Theodore A.Shaw, and Almerin H. Wins
low.
Chicago,T.inBowen
the state
of Illinois:
Fourth,is the
Thecity
said ofChauncey
has contributed
to the capital stock of said partnership the sum of one
hundred thousand dollars, and the said George W.
Shaw hasFifth,
contributed
thereto
the sumsaidof partnership
fifty thousandis
dollars:
The period
at which
to commence is the first day of February, A.D. 1872,
and the period at which it is to terminate is the thirtyfirst day
of January.
1875; Sixth,is the
Thecityprincipal
place
of business
of saidA.I).
partnership
of Chi
cago, in the State of Illinois.
In witness whereof, the said parties have hereto
signed their names this first day of February, A.D.
1872. (Signed)
WILLIAM H.RICHARDS.
FITCH,
JONATHAN
Til KnluiRE A. M1AW,
ALMERINW.H.SHAW.
WINSLOW,
GEORGE
CHAUNCEY T. BoWEN.
State
Bountyof ofIllinois,")
Cook, >ss.
City of Chicago,J
I, city,
Edward
W. Russell,
Notary
Public
and for
said
do hereby
certifya that
on this
day in
personally
came httlore me, Chauncey T. Bowen, George W. Shaw,
William 11. Fitch, Jonathan Richards, Theodore A.
Shaw, and Almerin H. Winslow, tome known to be
the
persons
whose names
are subscribed
to the fore
going'
instrument,
and severally
acknowledged
the
said instrument, by them signed, to be their act and
deed, and that they executed the same for the uses and
purposes therein set forth.
Given under my hand and official seal, this third day
of February, A.D. 1872.
-^
(Signed)
fTa\
EDWARD W. RUSSELL.
I1"8-;
Notary Public.
State of Illinois,")
County of Cook, >ss.
City
of Chicago^
Almerin
H. \Y inslow, being duly sworn, says that he
is one of the general partners of the limited partner
ship of Richards, Shaw <fc Winslow; that Chauncey T.
Bowen has contributed to the common stock of said
partnership the sum of one hundred thousaud dollars
in cash, and that such amount has been actually and
in good faith applied to the same; that George W.
Shaw has contributed to the common stock of said
partnership the sum of fifty thousand dollars in cash,
and that such amount has been actually and in good
faith applied to the same.
ALMERIN H. WINSLOW.
GEO. W. KNOX,
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this third day of
GO South Canal Street.
February, A.D. Is72.
EDWARD W. RUSSELL.
pHANCERY
Illinois,
of
Notary Public.
^ Cook, ss. NOTICE.-State
Circuit court ofofCook
county.county
To the
April term. A.D. W2. Solomon Crane and CyruB S. {,*.}
1S-23
Bixby v. Herman Gierke and Albert Crane. Me
chanics'
PARTNERSHIP.To whom it may con
Affidavitlien.
ofthe non-residence ofsaid Herman Gierke, LIMITED
cern : Whereas, the undersigned have formed a
one of the defendants above named, having been filed limited
and have filed articles of copart
said Circuit
of Cook nership partnership,
in the office
of the
in the office of the clerk of the county of Cook,
county,
notice
is clerk
herebyof given
to thecourt
said Herman
of Illinois, agreeably to the statute in such case
Gierke that the complainants heretofore filed their bill State
made andLegal
provided,
clerk hasindesignated
the
of
complaint
court, onthereupon
the common
News and
as thesaidnewspaper
which notice
thereof,
and in
thatsaid
a summons
issuedlawoutsideof Chicago
such
partnership
shall
be
published,
now
therefore
said court against said defendants, returnable on the of
notice is hereby given that the terms of Baid copartner
third Monday of April next (1872), as is by law required. ship
are as follows:
Now, unless you, the Baid Herman Gierke shall per
The style of Baid firm is, " M. T. Sworthont & C.
sonally be and appear before said Circuit court of I H.1st.Nichols.'*
Cook
county,
at
a
term
thereof,
to
be
holden
at
Chi
business to be conducted by said firm is that
cago, In said county, commencing on the third Monday of2d.theThe
andIllinois.
Shoe business, in the city of
of April, 1872. and plead, answer or demur to the said Chicago,Retail
CookBoot
county.
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
before
or
on
the
day
3d. Charles
The general
partners
Manleypartner
T. Sworthout
the said cause shall be set for trial on the docket of and
H. Nichols, thearcspecial
George
said court, the same, and the matters and things Nichols, all residents
of said city of Chicago.
therein charged and stated, will be taken as con
4th. The amount of capital stock which the said spe
fessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you
according
to
cial partnert George Nichols, has contributed to said
the prayer of said bill.
is the sum of one thousand dollars.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk. copartnership
5th.dayThoof said
copartnership
to commence
on the
the
Geo. W. Knox, CompPt's SoPr.
16-19 first
A.D. 1872,isand
terminate on
February,
first day of February, A.D. 1S73.
ESTATE
OF
LEVI
M.
MASON,
DECEASED.MANLY T. SWORTHOUT,
Public notice is hereby given to all persons havin
CHARLES
H. NICHOLS,
claims and
demands
againstthethe
of Levi
18-23
(JEORGE NICHOLS.
Mason,
deceased,
to present
sameestate
for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court (1HANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
of Cook county, Illinois, to be holden at the court J Cook,s8. Superior Court of Cook County, March
house in the city of Chicago, in said county, on the first Term, A.D. 1872. John Raber vs. William M. Zearing,
Monday of April, A. D. 1872, being the first day Charles
W. Pierce, Sarah Edwards and Enoch
thereof.
Edwards.In Chancery.
CORNELIA
Affidavit
the non-residence
Sarah Edwards
Chicago. January
26, A. B.I>. HALE,
1S72. Administratrix. and
EnochofEdwards,
two of theofdefendants
above
Beckwith, Aykk & Kales, Attys.
16-21a named,
having been filed in the office of the clerk of
said
Superior
court
of
Cook
county,
notice
is
hereby
TESTATE
FRANCIS
to the atiid Sarah Edwards and Enoch Edwards
I_j Notice IsOFhereby
given toR0ONEY,
allpersonsDECEASED.having claims given
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
Francis
Rooney.de
plaint
said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle that a Insummons
thereupon
issued out
of said
ment at toa regular
termat the
of the
County
Cookof against said defendants,
returnable
on the
first court
Moncounty,
be holden
Court
House,Court
in theofcity
oi
March
uext,
(1872.)
as
1b
by
law
required.
Chicago, on the first Monday ofApril, A. D. W2, being Now, unless you, the Baid Sarah Edwards and Enoch
the 1st day thereof.
shall personally be and appear before said
JAMES FITZGERALD, Administrator, Edwards,
Superior
courttoofbeCook
on thein first
of a
Chicago, January 26, A. D. 1872.
term
thereof,
holdencounty,
at Chicago,
saidday
county,
M. J. Dunne, Att'y.
16-21 a on the first Monday of March, 1872, and plead, answer
or demur to the said complainant's bill of complaint,
the
same,
andconfessed,
things therein
SN0WH00K & GRAY,
and
Btated,and
willthebematters
taken as
and acharged
decree
Attorneys, No. 85 West Monroe Street
entered against you according to the prayer of said
INSTATE
OF
DANIEL
O'BRIEN,
DECEASED.
bill.
A.
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
J Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Daniel O'Brien, Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, CompPt's Sol'rs. 18-21
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
MORTON CULVER,
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
Attorney, 109 W. Washington St.
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872, be- ESTATE OF HANS CHRISTIAN BROCK HAN
in*fChicago,
the fourth
day thereof.
SON, Deceased. Pubic notice is hereby given to
January
13, A,D. 1*72.
all persons having claims and demands againBt the
RENCE
O'BRIEN, Administrator.
of Hans Christian Brock Hanson, deceased, to
SnowhookLAW
A Gray,
Att'ys.
14-19a estate
present the same for adjudication and settlement at a
regular term of tho County court of Cook county, to
be holden at the courthouse in the city of Chicago,
TH0S. SHIRLEY,
the first Monday of April, A.D. 1872, being the first
Atfy, Masonic Bldg, cor. Randolph and Hoisted sis. on
day thereof.
ESTATE
J0HANN
WILHELM
SIGISMOND D. JACOBSON, Amlnistrator.
knownOF
as John
William)
Meyer, (OTHERWISE
deceased.No
Chicago. Culver,
FebruaryAtt/y.
7. A.D. 1872.
tice in hereby given to all persons having claims and Morton
18-23
demands against the estate of Johann Wilhelm
(otherwise known as John William) Meyer, de ESTATE OF EDWARD CASTLE, DECEASED.
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
Notice
Is herebyagainst
given the
to allestate
persons
having
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
and demands
of Edward
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of claims
Castle,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudica
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872, be tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
ing the 4th day thereof.
Court
County,
to be on
holden
at Monday
the Court
MARIA CHATARINA MEYER.
House,ofin Cook
the city
of Chicago,
the first
of
Administratrix. April,
A.D.
1872,
beingthe
first
day
thereof.
Thos. Shirley, Att'y.
15-20a
LESTER
D.
CASTLE,
Executor.
Chicago, February. A.D. 1872.
IS-23a
ESTATE
WILLIAM
- N <>t i<-" OF
is hereby
givenSCHAEFER,
to all personsDECEASED.having claims ESTATE OF ZEBINA BLISS, DECEASED.-Notice
and demands againBt the estate of William Schaefer,
is hereby given to all persons having claims and
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set demands
against the estate of Zebina Bliss, deceased,
tlement at a regular term ol the County Court ofCook to
present
the same for adjudication and settlement at
county, to he holden at the Court House, in the city of a regular term
the County court of Cook county, to
Chicago,
Monday of April, A.D. 1872, be holden at theofcourt
house. In the city of Chicago, on
being
the on
firstthe
day first
thereof.
the
first
Monday
of
March, A.D. 1872, being the fourth
ADOLPH
CANDLER,
Administrator.
day
thereof.
James
B. Bradwell,
Chicago, January lL A.D. 1872.
Chicago,
January 26,Att'y.
A.D. 1872.
16-21 H-19a
ELLEN S BLISS Administratrix.
SIDNEY SMITH,
Attorney.
CHANCERY
NOTICE.
-State
of Illinois,
of Cook, ss. Circuit court
of Cook
county.County
Feb
ruary
term,
A.
D.,
1872.
Franz
Schardln
Simon
Flirth, Daniel Furth, Joseph P. Scbardin, v.Nicholas
Scbardin, Huberius Schardin, Peter Schardin, Agnes
Krop, Lorenz Rohl, Margaretta Rohl, Charles Raggio,
Charlotte
Hiram
Gillett,
Jane Gil
left,
Doiniuick Billigmann,
Barbero, Julius
Meyer,
Frederick
Busse
Sophia
Spohrleder,
John
M.
Bowers,
Xavier
Krus
and
William II. Stickney. In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence ofSimon Forth, Daniel
Furth, Joseph P. Schardin. Nicholas Schardin, Hu
bertus ofSchardin,
Agnes above
Krop and
Peterhaving
Schardin,
seven
the defendants
named,
been
tiled in the office of the clerk of said Circuit court of
Cook
county,
notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
Simon
Furth, Daniel Furth, Joseph P. Schardin, Nicholas
Schardin, Hubertus Schardin, Agnes Krop and Peter
Schardin that the complainant heretofore filed his
bill of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof,
that a summons
thereupon
issuvd out
of
said
courtandagainst
said defendants,
returnable
on the
third Monday of February next (1.-72), as is by law re
quired.
Now, unless you, the said Simon Furth, Daniel
Furth,
Joseph P.Agnes
Schardin.
Nicholas
Schardin,shall
Hu
bertus Schardin,
Krop and
Peter Schardin,
personally
be
and
appear
before
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
third
Mon
day of February, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same,
and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Sidney Smith. CompTt'i SoPr.
16-19
ADAMS & LINCOLN,
Attorneys.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. April
term,
A. D. (ait).
1872.North
Trustees
Schools of(13),Township
Thirty-nine
RangeofThirteen
east of
the
third
principal
meridian,
in
Cook
v. Joseph Gothelf.In Chancery. county, Illinois,
Affidavit that the above named defendant. Joseph
Gothelf, upon due inquiry, cannot be found, having
been
in the
officenotice
of theis clerk
said Circuit
court filed
of Cook
county,
herebyof given
to the
said
Joseph
Gothelf
that
the
complainants
filed their bill of complaint in said court, onheretofore
the chan
cery sidejthereof, and that a summons thereupon issued
outtheof third
said court
against
saidnext,
defendant,
on
Monday
of April
(1872,) asreturnable
is by law
required.
Now, unless you, the said Joseph Gothelf, shall
personally bo and appear before said Circuit court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day of April. 172, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainants' bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Francis Adams A H. Lincoln, Compl'ts1 SoPrs.17-20

H3
ELDRLDGE & T0URTELL0TTE,
Attorneys.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.State
of
Illinois,
Cook
CircuitR.Court
of Cook county, April term, county,
a. d. 1872.ss. Joshua
Hull
and William H. Lidell v. D. A. Van Namee, Jr.
Notice is hereby given to the said D. A. Van Namee,
Jr., that a writ of attachment issued out of the office
of Clerk oftho Circuit court of Cook county, dated
thethe
eleventh day of December, a. d. 1871, at the suit of
the said Joshua R. Hull and William II. Lidell, and
against tho estate of D. A. Van Namee, Jr., for the sum
of four hutidred and seventy-four fifteen-one-hun
dredth dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook county,
which said writ has been returned executed.
Now,Jr.,therefore,
unless you,betho
D. A.before
Van Na
mee,
shall personally
andsaid
appear
the
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
on
or
before
first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at thetheCourt
House, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of
April, a. n.action,
1872, give
special bail
said
plaintiffs
judgment
will and
be plead
enteredto the
against
you, and in favor of the said Joshua R. Hull, and Wil
liam H, Lidell, and so much of the property attached
as may be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and
costs will be sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN Attorneys.
T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Eldridgf. & Tovrtkllottk,
16-19
PUBLICATION
IN ss.
ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois,NOTICE
Cook county,
Circuit court of
Cook
county,
April
term,
a.
p.
1872.
Donough v. D. A. Van Namee, Jr. Michael B. McPublic notice is hereby given to the said D. A. Van
Namee, Jr., that a writ of attachment issued out of
the office of the Clerk of the Circuit court of Cook
county, dated the fifteenth day of December, a. n. 1871,
at the suit
of the ofsaid
McDonougn,
against
the estate
saidMichael
D. A. VanB. Namee.
Jr., forand
the
sum
of
six
hundred
dollars,
directed
to
the
sheriff
Cook connty, which said writ has been returned
execuof
ted.
Now. therefore, unless you. the said D. A. Van Na
mee, Jr., shall personally be and appear before the
said
court
of Cook
county,
or before
first
dayfofCircuit
the next
term
thereof,
to be onholden
at thetheCourt
House,
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
third
Monday
of
April, a. d. 1872. give special bail and plead to the said
plaintiffs action, judgment will be entered againBt
you, and in favor of the said Michael B. McDonough,
and so much of the property attached as may be suffi
cient to satisfy Baid judgment and costs will be sold U>
satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE,
Clerk.
Eldridgf. & Tourtellotte. Attorneys.
16.1 9
CARTER, BECKER & DALE,
Attornrtfs, 523 Wabash Avenue.
PUBLICATION
IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois.NOTICE
Cook County,
ss. Superior court
of Cook county, February term, a. d., 1872. Sterling
P. Rounds and Alonzo L. Kane v. S. S. Wallauan ana
T. O. Bigney.
Public
is hereby given to the said S.S. Wallahan
and T.notice
0. Bigney
of attachment
issued
out of the office
of the that
clerka writ
of the
Superior Court
of
Cook county, dated the 10th day of January, a.d. 1872,
at the suit of the said Sterling P. Rounds and Alonzo
L.
and a&ainst
the estate
S. S. Wallahan
and
T. Kane,
0. Bigney,
for the sum
of twoofthousand
seven hun
dred and fifty dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook
county, which said writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore unless you, the said S. S. Wallahan
and T. O. Bigney shall personally be and appear be
fore the said Superior Court of Cook county, on or be
fore the first day ofthe next term thereof, to be holden
at th Court House, in the City of Chicago, on the lBt
Monday of February', a. p., 1872. give special bail and
plead
the saidyou,
plaintiffs
action,ofjudgment
will be
enteredto against
and in favor
the said Sterling
P.
Rounds
and
Alonzo
L.
Kane,
and
so
much
of the
the
property attached as maybe sufficient to satisfy
saidjudgnient and costs will be sold to satisfy the
same.
A.
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
Cartkb, Brcrer * Dale, Attorneys.
16-19
F. V. LOWELL,
Attorney. Room 4, 9 S. Canal St,
ESTATE
LARS
Notice isOF
hereby
givenP. toLARSON.
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Lars P. Larson,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872
being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January
1872. Administratrix.
14-19
LINE10,M.A.D.
LARSON,
MATTOCKS & MASON,
Attorneys, No. 523 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE
OF
BENJAMIN
Deceased.
Notice is hereby
given to F.allHADDUCK,
persons having
claims
and demands against the estate of Benjamin F. Had
dock, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January H. A.D. 1872.
JOHN DEKOVEN, Administrator.
Mattocks & Mason, Att'ys.
14-19a8ARBER & LACKNER,
Attorneys, 64 Wctt Uike Street.
ESTATE OF CHRISTIAN ZIMMER. DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Christian Zimmer,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D. 1872,
being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January 13, A.D. 1872.
SELEMA ZIMMER, Administratrix,
Barber & Lackner, Att'ys.
14-19a.
HITCHCOCK, DUPEE & EVARTS,
Attorneys, cor. Fyth Aw. and Monroe St.
ESTATE
BARTON
Notice isOFhereby
given toEDSALL,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Barton Easall dereased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of tho County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April. A. D. 1S72, be
ing tho 1st day thereof.
BELLE W. EDSALL.
Chicago, January 23, A. D. 1872. Administratrix.
Hitchcock, Dupbe & Evarts, Attorneys.
16-21a
NISSEN & BARNITM,
Attorneys, 126 West Randolph street
ESTATE OF JACOB KLEIN. DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Jacob Klein,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in th*
city
Chicago,
thethereof.
first Monday of April, A.D1872, of
being
the firstonday
CRESCENTIA KLEIN, Administratrix.
Nissen <fe Barnum, Attys.
Chicago, Jan. 25, 1 872.
M-Slft
ESTATE
OF
HUBBELL
B.
CONE,
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Hubbell B. Cone,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication ana
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in fho
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A.D.
1872, being the fourth day thereof.
Chicago, January 11, A.D. 1872.
WILLIAM W. KIMBALL,")
MARY M. CONE and
>
14-19a
RAPHAEL M. SKILT0N. J

144
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
A D YER TISEMENT.
J! J. BEY I si il. 1>. (:: Wnlwh uwim. : roi.k-mv
140 South Green street.
STEVENS &HAYNES
ARTIN A. O'BKENNAN, LL.D,,
Law Publishers,
24*
659 State street.
M
BOOKSELLERS
AND EXPORTERS,
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
ERNDON & ORENDORF,
Office west side square. 27* AMERICAN k COLONIAL AGENTS,
H
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
LONDON.
"PKPPKR. WILSON & MARTIN,
'J*
X Room 2 Bank Building.
Worts in all Classes of Literature
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
SAKFORD. K. Special attention xiven to Collectiuna and Real Estate.
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
ST. LOUIS (MO.) ATTORNEYS.
Orders Promptly Filled.
J P. COLBY,Counselor-at-Law. St. Louis. Mo. 20 The Trustee* and Officers of Public Li
braries may rely upon the
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
TN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
A States, for thytheNorthern
Illinois.In
Bankruptcy.In
mat (it District
of Josephof Childs,
Myer
W. Child* and Harry* ChildB, bankrupt**. The under*
signed,
ltohert
E.
Jenkins,
assignee
of
the
estate
of
said bankrupts, hereby gives notice that on Saturday,
the 9th day of March, A. D. 1-72. at in o'clock in the
forenoon (is}
of said
at thestreet,
front indoor
of number
eighteen
East day,
Harrison
the city
of Chi
cago,
he
will
sell
at
public
auction
for
cash
in hand
the highest and best bidders, all the right, title
and into
terest of the said bankrupts or of cither of them, in
and to the following described property and estate, to
wit: That part of block number three <.'!), in Betts'
Division, on the west side of Western Bow, between
Clark and Hopkins streets, in the city of Cincinnati,
county ofto Hamilton,
and State
of Ohio, which
de
scended
said bankrupts
as heirs*at-law
of Jacob
Childs,
deceased,
each
of
said
bankrupts
being
the
owner in severalty of an undivided one-ninth nf said
property
subject to twenty-five
the dower interest
Yetta
Childs;
also, lot numbered
(25), in of
block
numbered:
&Te (5), in Piatt a Graiidin's division, and known as
numbers one hundred and twenty-six (126) nnd one
hundred ami twenty-eight (128) Ninth street, in the
city of Cincinnati, county of Hamilton, and State of
Ohio, each
said bankrupts
beinginterest
the owner
sev
eralty
of anofundivided
one-ninth
in saidinprop
erty
subject
to
the
dower
interest
of
Yetta
Childs
said premises. No. 126 Ninth street, are also subject to;/!
an estate during widowhood in said Yetta Childs ; also,
lot numbered twenty-eight (2*), in block numbered
one hundred and fifty-eight (158), and lot numbered
twenty-two (22), in block uumbered one hundred and
fifty-seven,
(157), in
City,Joseph
countyChilds
of Perry',
*nd
State
of Indiana,
eachTell
of said
and said
Myer W. Childs being the owner in severalty of an un
divided one-ninth in said property subject to the dower
interest of Yetta Childs : also, block uumbered seventytwo, and lots numbered three (3), four (4), five (5), six
(6)
In block numbered
in and
the seven
town (7),
of Clermont,
county ofthirty-three
St. Croix, (33),
nnd
State of Wisconsin ; said last described property being
the separate property ofMid Myer W. Childs only, and
all of said property will l>e sold subject to all incuni. prances thereon.
BOBERT E. JENKINS,
19-21
Assignee as aforesaid.

By importing DIRECT from England a consider

able saving is effected, espeoiaUy in the Customs duty,
from which Public Institutions in the United States are
exempt.
SUNDRY mistakes have been made by our Foreign
and Colonial Correspondents in addressing their let
ters, we beg to notify that the members of our firm are
Hknry G. Stevens and Robert W. Haynes, the son
and
ot theSince
late our
Yalentinti
thehave
eminent
Lawstepson
Publisher.
lather'sS'evens,
death we
con
tinued
to
carry
on
the
business
of
Law
Publishers,
Booksellers and Exporters, at the above ad
dress.
During his recent visits to the United States and
Canada, Robert W. Haynes secured many Friends
and Correspondents ; we are thus enabled to give ref
erences of the highest character in most of the princi
palWeAmericau
have nocities.
connection whatever with any other
house of business, and to prevent delay and miscar
riage, our Correspondents abroad are respectfully re
quested to plainly address their letters to us as fol
lows :
STEVENS & HAYNES,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
LONDON,
ENGLAND.
Extract from " Report of J iruus Rosenthal, Esq.,
Librarian to the President and Members of
the Chicago Law Institute." November, 1870.
" To our collection of English Reports a valuable
addition has been made by the importation of a
full and well preserved set of the House of Lords
Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58
volumes.
" English books were imported directly free of
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the
firm of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose
diligence, promptness, and cure in tilling our or
ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."

CALLAGHAN & Co.

NEW
SUCCESSORS TO
CALLAGHAN & C0CKCR0FT,
Respectfully call the attention of the profession to
Jtheir large stock of
DILLON
ON
Embracing the REPORTS of all the leading
Courts in this Country and England.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
We have a very full assortment of
Hew Teit Books anil

Digests,

and an unusually full line of

RARE AND VALUABLE WORKS,
out of print, which we are offeringlat lowest current
prices.
We would also call attention to our superior facili
ties for importing, being in monthly receipt of
CONSIGNMENTS FROM LONDON
direct, which we are selling at unusually low figures.
A large collection of Second-band TextBoob*, Dltreat* and Report* kept constantly on
band.
Catalogues sent promptly upon application.

We have in press, and will shortly issue, a

TREATISE ON THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS, with full reference to En
glish and American cases, by the Honorable
JOHN F. DILLON, United States Circuit
Judge.
This work is designed to meet a want long
felt by the members of the profession.
Judge Dillon has devoted several years to
the most careful preparation of the text and
notes ; and this fact, together with his high
reputation as a Jurist, guarantee the excel
lence of the work.
Complete in one large octavo volume.

JAMES COCKCKOFT & CO.,

LAW BOOKSELLERS,
CALLAGHAN &

CO.,
499 Wabash Avenue,

525 Wabash Ave.,

CHICAGO.
CHICAGO, ILL.
1S-27

ATTOBNEYS.
LITTLE, BROWN & CO.,
Law Publishers and Importers,
110 Washington Street, Boston,
Have just published
PERRY ON TRUSTS.
A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF TRUSTS AND
TRUSTEES. By Jaibvs Ware Perry. 1 vol. Svo.
$7.50.
In this treatise the author states the Americau Law
of Trusts in its general principles, as now prevailing
in all the States. The work covers all the ground em
braced by the treatises of Mr. Lewin and Mr. Hill, so
far as the same is important to the American lawyer:
it also includes such other subjects relating to tht- Law
of Trusts, not treated fully iu those works, as are use
ful and necessary in Americau practice. More than
ten thousand cases are cited in the volume.

GEORGE C. FRY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
34 Clinton Street, Room 5, Chicago.
44*
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 113 West Madison Street, Chicago.
Special Attention Given to Probate Matters.
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
ESTATES SETTLED.
"Set thine house In order; for thou shalt die,
and not live."2 Kings xx. 1.
S. A. GOODWIN.
E. C. LARNED.
H. 8. TOWLK.
GOODWIN, LARNED & TOWLE,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
No. 376 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
12*
JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWARD G. MASON.
MATTOCKS & MASON.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
No. 523 Wabash Avenue, S. W. cor. Harmon Court,
Chicago, IU.
5
BATES A HODGES,
Attorneys at Law, 13 W. Madison St.
GEORGE 0. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth,

BISHOP'S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

Second Edition,
PLEADING, EVIDENCE, AND PRACTICE IN
CRIMINAL CASES. By Joel Prentiss Bishop.
Revised and enlarged. 2 vols. Svo. $15.00.
While this edition preserves most of what is valuable
in the former one, it is improved by adding new topics,
by the citation of the later cases,by new illustra
tions of former topics.by a rearrangement of itscontents after a better method,by a very considerable
FRANK PARTL,
enlargement of the index of subjects,and by the new
Attorney, 33 West Randolph Street.
/CHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois, county ot
device of headings, in a peculiar type, to the several \J
Cm'
Cook.
ss. A.Superior
of Cook
county.
To
sections.
rch
Terra.
D. 1S72. court
Dorathea
Binger
v. Henry
March
Binger.InOhancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Henry Binger,
above named, having been filed in the office)
By common consent, Mr. Bishop's defendant
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Henry Binger that
Commentaries are accepted as the the
complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
In said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
most useful Text-Books on the Orfonir summons
thereupon issued out of said court against
returnable
on required.
the first Monday of
nal Law for the student or practicing aid
Marchdefendant,
next, (1872.)
as is by law
Now, unless you, the said Henry Binger, shall
lawyer in the United States.
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on tho first day of a term thereof, to be
at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
He must henceforth be regarded as one of the first of holden
of March, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
legal authors in this or any other country.
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters
things therein
charged
andagainst
stated,
Hon. C. D. DRAKE. will
be taken and
as confessed,
and a decree
entered
prayer of said bill.
Your work on the Criminal Law, and your Criminal you according to theAUGUSTUS
Procedure, are rapidly displacing all others on those Frank Partl, Comp'ts Sol'r. JACOBSON, Clerk.
19-22p
subjects in the Courts of Georgia, both National and
GOOKINS & ROBERTS,
State.
JUDGE KRSKINE.
Attorneys, 46 East Harrison Street.
piIANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
By far the best work on that subjectCriminal Law ^
Cook,
courtP. of
Cookv. county,
April
in the English language.
Term. A.D.ss.1872.Circuit
Stephen
Hicks
Anna Hicks.
Chancery.
JUDGE WILLIAM LAWRENCE. InAffidavit
nf the non-residence of Anna Hicks, defend
ant above named, having been filed in the office of the
The best living Text Writer on the jurisprudence of clerk
of
said
Circuit court of Cook county, notice is
our country.
CHARLES SUMNEJt,
hereby given to the said Anna Hicks that thecomplainfiled his bill ofcomplainant in said court,
In the United States Senate, Jan. 31, 1868. antheretofore
on
theissued
chancery
thereof,
thatasummons
there
upon
out side
of said
courtandagainBt
said defendant,
The most philosophical Criminal Law writer of the returnable
the third Monday of April next, (1ST,?.)
age.The Attorney General, People v. Uytlas, 27 OaL, as iB by lawonrequired.
Now, unless you, the said Anna Hicks, Bhall per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit court ot
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Monday
BISHOP'S PRECEDENTS AND PLEAS. of
1S72, and plead, answer or demur to the
With Writs and other Forma in the Criminal Law. saidApril,
complainant's bill of complamt.the same, and the
Together with Notes and Discussions. Adapted to matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed,
and ofa decree
the use of all the States. 2 vols. Svo. In Pre**.
according
to the prayer
said bill.entered against you
NORMAN T. GAS3ETTE, Clerk.
BISHOP'S STATI TORY CRIMES. With Gookins & Rohkrts,
CQmpl'ts' Sol'rs.
19-22
Procedure and Practical Suggestions. 1 vol. Svo.
THEO. SCH3NTZ,
In Press.
Attorney, Central Union Block.
ESTATE OF MICHAEL UKWANGER, Deceased.
Notice
is
hereby given to all persons having claims
Story's Conflict of Laws.
and demands against the estate of Michael Urwanger,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement, at a regular term ofthe County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, being
COMMENTARIES ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, the
third day thereof.
Foreign and Domestic, in regard to Contracts,
ANNA URWANGER, Executrix.
ltf-24a
Rights and Remedies, and especially in regard to Chicago, Feh. IS. A. D. 1872.
Marriages, Divorces, Wills, Successions and Judg
KNOWLTON
&
HUMPHREVILLE,
ments. By Joseph Story, LL.D. Edited and revised
198 South
Green Street.
INSTATE Attorneys,
OF JOSEPH
BROWN,
DECEASED.
by E. H. Bennett. 1 vol. Svo. $7.50.
i
Notice
is
hereby
given
to
all
havingclaims
To this edition there have been added several new or demands against the estatepersons
of Joseph
Brown,
sections and parts of sections, and four hundred and deceased, and they are hereby requested to attend a
term of the County court of the county of Cook, and
fifty cases not before cited.
State of IllinoiH, to be held at the court house, in said
county,
on thehereof,
first.Monday
in and
the month
of May next
after
present
Btich
claimstheordate
demands forand
thethen
purpose
ofthere
having
the same
READY IN MARCH:
adjusted.
WILLIAM
BROWN,
Administrator.
Bated Chicago, Feb. 13, 1H72.
19-34
Massachusetts Digest. Vol. Ill, roy. 8vo.
SAWIN & WELLS,
Attorneys.
United States Digest. Vol. XXX, roy. 8vo. "V0TICE-APPLICATION
or GUARDIAN to SELL
J.1 real estate of wardsTo all whom it may concern :
Notice is hereby given that the undersigned, as guar
of Jacob Lauer and Catherine Laucr, minors,
LAW LIBRARY dian
will apply to the Superior court of Cook county, State
of
Illinois,
upon the
the first
fourth
D. lS72v
the ttame being
dayday
of of
theMarch.
March A.terra,
A. D.
FOR SALE.
1872, of said court,at ten o'clock a. ra., for leave to
sell all the right, title and interest of the said minors,
Jacob
and Catherine
in andtwenty-four
to the following
jno. it. in ssi. v.
Apply to
real estate
: Lot elevenLauer,
(11), Mock
(24), iu
Bushnall's addition to the city of Chicago, county of
Attorney-at-Law, Newton, N. C. Cook,
19-30
and State of Illinois.
19-21
JACOB SERAMOR, Guardian.
Iffi TREES! &IN PLANTS!
LAW BOOKS.
Sffi SEEDS !
J. R. McDIVITT,
Apple and Crab, UK) 2 (to 4 ft., Si ; 4 to 6 ft., $5.
Pear, stand., extra, l.year, Bartlett, etc., 3 to 4 ift.,
81 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK.
doz., $2.50.
Second-hand Law Books Bought, Sold and Ex perSeeds,
Peach, bush.,' $2; Apple Osage, new, bush..
changed.
6-19
Si 2.
Potatoes, Early; Rose, White] Peach Blow, per
bush, S2.
J. U. BATTEN,
Seedlings, 1000 Soft Maple, Si; Ash, S3; Elm, $2.
STATIONER,
Illustrated Catalogue 10(1 pages, and Price List, 10c.
189 LA SALLE STREET,
F. K. PHXENIX, Blooraington, 111.
19-30 15-27
Law Stationery and Legal Blanks.

QviiCAGO

Jegal

^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, In the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 20.

Efje Courts.
UNI TED STA TES S UPREME CO UR T.
December Tekm, 1871.
William B. Webb, Trustee, Plaintiff in Error, v.
Alexander Sharp.
In error to the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia.
LANDLORD AND TRUSTEE S LIEN.
1. Landlord's Lien.That the lien of the land
lord for rent, is superior to that of the trustee or
mortgagee.
2. Bona Fide Purchasers.That the law pro
tects bona fide purchasers without notice ofthe
landlord's lien ; that goods purchased in the ordin
ary course of trade become discharged from the
lien ; otherwise business could not safely be car
ried on.Ed. Legal News.
By the courtBradley, J.
This was an action of replevin for a
printing press which was attached for
rent by the landlord of the premises
whereon it was found. After the tenants
had taken a lease of the said premises
{which were a building in this city) they
purchased and placed therein the print
ing press in question ; and subsequently,
on tne 11th of December, 1807, they bor
rowed money, and executed to the plain
tiff in error a deed of trust of the press
to secure the repayment of the loan.
This debt, though it became due, was
never paid. The rent for which the
landlord attached the press accrued in
1869, within three months prior to the
issuing of the attachment. Judgment
being perfected on the attachment, a
writ of fieri facias was issued to the mar
shal of the district, the now defendant
in error, who levied on the press, which
still remained on the premises.
The question is, whether the lien of
the landlord is, or is not, superior to that
of the trustee. The Supreme Court of
the district decided that it is, and in that
opinion we concur. By the act of Con
gress, passed Feb. 22, 1867, Sec. }2 (14
Stat., 404), the old right of distress for
rent was abolished, and instead of it, it
was enacted " that the landlord shall
have a tacit lien upon such of the ten
ant's personal chattels upon the premises
as are subject to execution for debt, to
commence with the tenancy and con
tinue for three months after the rent is
due, and until the termination of any
action for such rent brought within the
said three months. And this lien may
be enforced: (1) By attachment, to be
issued upon affidavit that the rent is due
and unpaid ; or, if not due, that the de
fendant is about to remove or sell all, or
some, of said chattels; or (2) by judg
ment against the tenant and execution,
to be levied on said chattels, or any of
them, in whosoever hands they may be
found ; or (3) by action against any pur
chaser of any of said chattels, with no
tice of the lien."
It will thus be seen that the act is clear
and explicit that the landlord shall have
a lien upon the tenant's chattels on the
premises (liable to execution), " to com
mence with the tenancy and continue
for three months after the rent is due."
It also points out how, within the three
months, the lien is to be enforced, name
ly, by attachment, etc. In this case the
chattel was on the premises, it was at
tached within three months after the
rent accrued, the suit on the attachment
was regularly prosecuted to judgment,
and the marshal took the chattel in exe
cution. The case is strictly within the
language of the act, unless the press was
not "such a chattel of the tenant as is
subject to execution."
The plaintiff in error contends that the
deed of trust, being a valid instrument,
the property became vested in the trus
tee, and the press was not liable to be
taken in execution for the debts of the
tenant, and, therefore, that the act does
not give the landlord a lien, because the
lien given by the act is only upon such
chattels of the tenant as are subject to
execution.
The deed of trust was, in effect and
purpose, nothing but a mortgage. It was
given to secure the payment of a loan.

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1872.

It was an express lien created by deed to
secure the performance of a contract.
The landlord's lien is an implied or tacit
lien, created by law to secure the per
formance of another contract, and, of the
two, the landlord's is the prior lien, and
cannot be displaced by the other. The
landlord's lien attached to the printing
press the moment it was placed upon the
demised premises, before the mortgage
was givenj and as long as it remained on
the premises the lien continued until
each installment of rent became due and
for three months afterwards, and then
ceased as to that installment. Had the
tenant made an absolute and bona fide
sale of the press, the case would have
been a different one. The law protects
bona fide purchasers without notice of the
landlord's lien. Goods sold in the ordi
nary course of trade undoubtedly be
come discharged from the lien ; other
wise business could not safely be carried
on. This was so decided by the Supreme
Court of Iowa in giving construction to
a similar law of that State (Grant v.
Whitewell, 9 Iowa, 156). But neither
the words nor the reason of the law call
for a postponement of the landlord's
lien to that of a subsequent mortgage or
execution creditor, so long as the goods
remain on the demised premises and
continue to be the property of the ten
ant.
As to the suggestion that this press
was not subject to execution, we appre
hend that a deed of trust does not pro
tect goods from sale by execution. The
owner has still an interest, or equity of
redemption in them, which is subject to
sale ; and a purchaser at an execution
sale would be entitled to redeem the
goods from the deed of trust by paying
the debt secured thereby. When the
law imposes the lien only upon such
goods of the tenant upon the premises
as are subject to execution, it means to ex
clude goods which are exempt from exe
cution by some general or special law,
such as those which a man is entitled to
retain, against all executions, for the use
of his family or the practice of his trade.
The judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
December Term, 1871.
Henry C. Yeager and John Crangle, Plaintiffs
In Error, v. Asa Farwell, et al.
In error to the Circuit Court ofthe United States,for the
District of Missouri.
LIABILITY OF INDORSERS BY SUBSEQUENT
PROMISE AFTER FAILURE OF NOTIFICA
TION OF DEFAULT.
1. Undertaking of indorser.That the under
taking of the indorser of a negotiable note is only
to pay it in case the maker does not and he iB im
mediately notified of this default.
2. Subsequent Promise.That If the indorser
with full knowledge of the fact that no demand
has been made or notice given, makes a subse
quent promise, he is liable and cannot, when sued,
set up as a defense the want of such demand and
notice.Ed. Legal News.
By the CourtDavis, J. This case re
solves itself into two points :
First. Were Yeager & Co. indorsers
of the note in controversy.
Secondly. If so, were Farwell & Co.
relieved from the necessity of proving
on the trial that they demanded payment
of the maker, and gave notice to the in
dorsers of the dishonor of the note.
It is very clear that Yeager & Co. were
liable as indorsers, if they placed their
names on the back of the note in ques
tion, before Farwell & Co. dosed the
negotiations for the loan to Kerckhoff,
or made any advances on it to him. And
the condition of the parties is not altered
by the fact that Yeager & Co., without
consideration, indorsed the note at the
request of Farwell & Co. after negotia
tions concerning the loan had been some
time in progress, and when they had a
right to suppose Farwell & Co. were sat
isfied with the landed security which
Kerckhoff offered. It may be true that
Farwell & Co. originally intended to let
the money go on the security of the trust
deed, but they were not legally bound to
do so, and could alter their minds on the
subject, and forbear to loan the money,

unless Yeager & Co. (who were the mid

dle men in the negotiation) should also
indorse the note. If they chose to do
this, before the transaction was com
pleted, or any portion of the money
loaned was actually advanced to Kerck
hoff, then their liability as indorsers is
fixed, and so the learned court told the
jury. Whether the indorsement was be
fore or after the conclusion of the negoti
ations for t he loan, or before or after the
advancements to Kerckhoff, were ques
tions of fact for the determination of the
jury. As there was evidence tending
strongly to support the finding of the
jury on this point, and as they were cor
rectly instructed in relation to it, the
plaintiff in error cannot justly complain
of the action of the jury.
The undertaking, however, of the in
dorser of a negotiable note is only to pay
it in case the maker does not, and he is
immediately notified of this default.
The remaining defense set up in this ac
tion is, that this was not done, and, there
fore, the indorsers were not chargeable.
But the indorser can, by his own conduct,
place himself in such a position that he
is estopped from alleging want ofdemand
and notice of non-payment. Although,
accurately speaking, there can only be a
waiver of demand and notice by the in
dorser before the note is due, yet, after
it is duo, he can waive proof of them ; or,
what is more to the purpose, he can so
act towards the holder of the note as to
render the fact, that demand was not
made or notice given, wholly iir .^aterial
(1 Parsons on Bills and Note, !iapter
13, p. 594). The inquiry is, whether
Yeager & Co. have, by their course of
action, put themselves in this category.
The court below held that they had, and,
as the evidence on the subject was un
disputed, took it from the jury and de
cided it as a question of law.
This evidence consists of a letter, writ
ten by Yeager & Co. on the day the note
matured, from St. Louis, where they and
Kerckhoff resided, to Farwell & Co., who
lived in Boston.
This letter substantially informed the
Farwells that Kerckhoff was unable to
pay his note, but would be able to
do so in a week or ten days at farthest.
After expressing the annoyance felt by
the writers, on account of the dishonor
of the paper, it concludes in these words :
"but we hold ourselves responsible for
the payment of the note, and shall see it
is done at an early day."
Necessarily, this letter could not have
reached its destination in due course of
mail until after the note was due ; but,
for the purpose of holding the indorser,
this is immaterial, for, as we have seen,
he can dispense with the conditions for
his benefit as well after as before the
paper matures. It has been held by this
court, in Sigerson v. Matthews (20 How
ard, 496), that if the indorser, with full
knowledge of the fact that no demand
has been made or notice given, makes a
subsequent promise, he is liable, and
cannot, when sued, set up as a defense
the want of such demand and notice,
and to the same effect are the decisions
of the courts in this country generally
(see 1 Parsons on Bills and Notes, p. 595,
note m.) Applying the principle of
these decisions to the admitted facts of
this case, there is no difficulty in charg
ing the indorsers. Their promise to pay
was expressly made after they knew of
the laches of the maker of the note, and
they cannot now be allowed to repudi
ate it.
The most formal demand and notice
could have been of no service to them,
for they knew the demand would be
useless, and the notice could only tell
them what they were advised of without
it. Acting under the weight of the
knowledge of Kerckhoffs default, they
did not choose to wait in order to see
whether Farwell & Co. had taken the
requisite steps to charge them, but pre
ferred at once to acknowledge their lia
bility, and, accordingly, made the direct

Whole No. 178.

promise to pay the note. Under these
circumstances this promise is binding,
and does not require for its enforcement
the proof of demand and notice.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is
affirmed.
By the courtesy of J. M. Smith, of the
Mineral Point bar, we have received the
following opinion :
U. S. DISTRICT COURT, W.D. OF
WISCONSIN.
In re Strachan, a bankrupt, In Bankruptcy.
PURCHASE OF CLAIMS AFTER COMMENCE
MENT OF PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY'.
1. Wm, T. Henry, after the commencement of
bankruptcy proceedings against Strachan, pur
chased all the undisputed claims against him at
SO cents on the dollar, with a view of ending the pro
ceedings, but failing to obtain some which were dis
puted and which the parties could not adjust sat
isfactorily, concluded to lot the proceedings go on;
upon objection being made by some of the credit
ors whose claims were disputed, it was held Henry
having purchased these claims in good faith, al
though after the commencement of the bank
ruptcy proceedings, that he had not forfeited his
right to prove them against the bankrupt's estate.
2. Bankrupt's Effort to Extricate Himself.
That the bankrupt law should not be construed so
strictlv as to prevent the bankrupt from making
any effort to extricate himself from the bank
ruptcy proceedings, and if he can find a friend to
buy up nis debts for the purpose of giving him
time to convert his property into money to buy
them, he should be allowed to do so.
3. Bankrupt Act Encourages Honest Effort.
That the bankrupt act encourages all honest ef
forts and sustains all honest transactions, of a
debtor, and that ifl five it any other construction
would be to condemn the whole act as false and
oppressive in theory and practice.
4. Clause Construed.The clause in the 22nd
section, which provides that " the creditor must
prove the claim was not procured for the purpose
of inlluencing the proceedings under this act" con
strued.
5. WhEN 'Accounts not Provable.That when
accounts are purchased against a bankrupt, after
the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy,
and a receipt taken but no assignment of the
claims, held, that they are not provable under the
act; that the party inigl:' have a claim for money
paid, but that would 0\>l accrue until thepayment,
which was after the commencement of the pro
ceedings.
6. Debts When Proven.That the debts should
be proven as of the date of the adjudication.
Ed. Legal News.
Hopkins, J.
William T. Henry filed proof of debt
against the bankrupt's estate in this case
before the register, which was objected
to by the attorney of certain other cred
itors, whereupon the register certified
the case to this court. Mr. Henry has
appeared herein and given proof of his
claim, and the contesting creditors ap
pear also and object to the allowance.
The fact that the bankrupt owed the
debts sought to be proven, is not dis
puted, and if it were, the proof is suf
ficient to satisfy me that he did owe them
at the time of the commencement of the
bankruptcy proceedings against him.
The main objection urged to the al
lowance of the claims, is, that they were
bought by him after the filing of the
petition in bankruptcy, and such is the
fact, except as to an accommodation ac
ceptance of $3,000 which was given be
fore that time.
At the time of filing the petition a
very large proportion of the bankrupt's
indebtedness was evidenced by promis
sory notes and bills of exchange, all of
which, so far as known, were purchased
by Mr. Henry before the adjudication.
After the proceedings were com
menced, he says he thought if they
could be discontinued that the bankrupt
could pay all his debts and have some
thing left, but, if forced through bank
ruptcy, his estate would not pay all.
That, acting upon that hypothesis, he
undertook to buy up all the debts at 80
cents on the dollar, and end the pro
ceedings. That after buying up over
50,000 worth (being all the undisputed
claims), he found some which were not
acknowledged as just by the bankrupt,
and which the parties being unable to
adjust satisfactorily, prevented him from
carrying out his purpose, thereupon he
decided to let the proceedings go on, and
Mr. Strachan was accordingly by default,
on the 20th day of May, 1871, adjudged
a bankrupt.
The parties representing such disputed

146
claims (which are still in progress of
trial and not yet allowed) object to Mr.
Henry's being allowed to prove his
claims, bec ause he bought them after the
filing of petition in bankruptcy. He
owns all the claims against the bankrupt
except the claims of the parties opposing
his right to prove as he alleges.
The testimony satisfies me that he in
good faith undertook to buy up all the
claims against the bankrupt with the in
tention of stopping these proceedings
and giving him time to pay them, and
was only prevented from doing so by the
presentation of some claims that were
disputed by the bankrupt, and not being
able to settle and purchase those, the
continuance of the proceedings already
pending, or the commencement of new
ones, he thought, was unavoidable. I
do not see that in so doing he violated
any of the provisions of the bankrupt
act, nor did he interfere with the rights
of the creditors whose claims he did not
buy, nor did his acts in any manner af
fect injuriously their rights in the bank
ruptcy proceedings.
I don't think the act should be con
strued so strictly as to prevent the bank
rupt from making any effort to extricate
himself from the bankruptcy proceed
ings, and if he can find a friend to buy
up his debts, for the purpose of giving
him time to convert his property into
money to pay these, I think he should
be allowed to do so. I don't think such
person who honestly undertakes to pur
chase up the debts for such purpose after
he has purchased the principal part, as
in this case, and then fails because some
party presents a claim which is denied
by the bankrupt, should be deprived of
the right of participation in the estate
of the bankrupt. The act does not re
quire any such construction, and cer
tainly the general intent of both debtor
and creditor is opposed to any such in
terpretation.
The bankrupt act encourages all honest
efforts and sustains all honest transac
tions of a debtor, and to give it any other
construction would be to condemn the
whole act as false and oppressive in
theory and fact.
The clause in the 22d section, which
provides that " the creditor must prove
that the claim was not procured for the
purpose of influencing the proceedings
under this act," I was at first inclined
to think prohibited the transfer of claims
altogether after the commencement of
proceedings, but upon further reflection
I concluded that that clause did not re
late to transfers after the filing of peti
tion any more than before, and that it
was not by it intended to interfere in
the ordinary transfers, but only of notes
and demands, such transfers as were
procured for the purpose of influencing
the proceedings in bankruptcy.
And as the testimony fails to show
that Henry procured these for any such
purpose, I think his purchase is good.
The argument drawn from the form of
proof, No. 22, 1 do not regard as of much
force. Those " forms " are not prescribed
in the act, and General Kule 33 declares
that the " forms" annexed " shall be ob
served and used with such alterations as
may be necessary to suit the circumstances
of any particular case."
It does not, therefore, follow, by any
means, that if a creditor cannot make
that particular deposition, that his claim
is to be rejected. The " forms" may be
altered to suit circumstances.
As the bankrupt owed these debts at
the time of filing the petition, they were
provable under the act (Sec. 19), and will
therefore be barred by his discharge.
Now, if no party can prove them by
reason of such change of ownership,
then they will be wiped out without any
part being paid. 1 cannot yield my
assent to such a construction of the
bankrupt act in cases where the claims,
as in this case, were bought in good
faith.
I therefore hold that Mr. Henry as the
owner and holder of these notes and
bills of exchange, may prove them as
against the bankrupts estate, notwith
standing he purchased them alter the
commencement of the bankrupty pro
ceedings.
1 find that a like view has been taken
of the act in re Murdock, 3 B. R. 30, in
re Fortune, 3 B. R., 83, and in re Frank,
5 B. R.. 194.
But this question is not raised for the

Chicago

L egal

first time under the present bankrupt

act. It was presented under the act of
1800, and Justice Washington in Hum
phries v. Blights assignees, 4 Ball, 370,
in deciding it says : We have no doubt
note upon the right of the assignee of the
in this case to prove the debt under the
commission, and to receive a dividend.
The certificate of the bankrupt would be
a bar to a recovery in an action by the
present holder upon the note against
him. And wherein a certificate will be
a bar, the right to prove the debt under
the commission must be unquestion
able."
The transfer of the tnote in that case
was after the commission of bankruptcy
had issuedafter the proceedings were
commenced, as in this case.
That case came before the court again,
1 Wash., C. 0. R., 44, and the same
learned judge said : " It would be un
reasonable that such an assignee should
not be allowed to prove, under the com
mission, since the debt would most cer
tainly be barred by the certificate, being
a debt due at the time of the bankruptcy,
and such an one as might have been
proven under the commission. It can
produce injury to no person, as it can
make no difference to the assignees,
whether the debt is due to A, or to his
assignees, and as they ought not to be
injured, so they ought not to derive a
benefit from this change, not of the debt,
but of the creditor."
The act of 1867 provides, it is true,
that a party shall forfeit his right to
prove a debt; when he acts in violation
of its provisions, but I have found in
this case that Mr. Henry did not so pur
chase theBe claims, which brings this
case within the rule laid down by the
eminent judge who decided that case.
And that reasoning applies with equal
force to a case arising under the act of
1867 as under the act of 1800. So that,
following that decision as authority, it
settles the questions involved here in
favor of Mr. Henry's right to prove, and
be allowed the amounts of the notes and
drafts, lilt hough purchased after the fil
ing of the petition in bankruptcy.
But I do not think the accounts that he
claims to own and prove are assigned to
him in a way to entitle him to prove
them. He has no assignment of them,
simply a receipt of payment, and if that
was the transaction he might have a
claim for money paid as against Strachan,
but that cause of action would not accrue
until the payment, which was after the
commencement of bankruptcy proceed
ings, which would not be a debt provable
under the act, nor be affected by the dis
charge.
This view excludes the account of M.
E. Fuller & Co., $652.33; of Nichols,
Shepherd & Co., $360.96 ; and that of E.
P. Dickey, $91.53.
The drafts of bankrupt drawn upon
Henry in favor of Boal, Andrews & Cook
for $34.05, dated April 25, 1871, and that
one in favor of Johnson, Murphy & Co.
for $1,500, dated May 19, 1871, and ac
cepted and paid bv him, are not prova
ble, as they were drawn and paid after
the commencement of bankruptcy pro
ceedings.
The bankrupt's liability to Henry arose
upon his acceptance and payment of the
drafts, and Mr. Henry is not entitled to
be subrogated to the rights of the credi
tors to whom the drafts were given. If
he intended to have been, he should
have taken an assignment of their
claims.
The counsel for the opposing creditors
contends that the debts should be
proven, as of the date of the adjudica
tion, I am inclined to adopt that as the
proper construction of the 19th section
of the bankrupt act.
But the claims will draw interest, of
course, since then and up to the pay
ment at the agreed rates, when that is
agreed upon and when not at the legal
rate.
I do therefore find and adjudge that
there was due from the bankrupt to
William T. Henry, on the 20th day of
May, 1871, the day of the adjudication,
the sum of $72,507.95, and order and di
rect the register to enter him in his min
utes and list of creditors, as a creditor to
that amount, and to so certify to the
assignee in this case.
J. M. Smith, attorney for Mr. Henry.
E. P. Weber, attorney for opposing
creditors.

News.

Through the kindness of the law firm

of Hughes & McCort, of Bloomington,
we have received the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
III. Central R. R. Co. v. E.G. Frankenberg etal.
Appeal from Mf.Iy.mi.
LIABILITY OK RAILROADS AS COMMON CAR
RIERSWHEN IT COMMENCES AND WHEN
IT ENDS FREIGHT OVER DIFFERENT
ROADS.
1. As Common Carriers.That railroads are re
garded an common carriers resting under a duty
io transport sucli articles as may be delivered to
them in the course of their business, and their
liability commences when the goods are delivered
to their agents authorized to receive them.
2. May Demand Freight in Advance.That
they may demand the freight money in advance,
and if not paid may refuse to carry the goods, but
when they are received they are at the carrier's
risk and lrom that time he is regarded as an in
surer and held to the most stringent responsibili
ties, from which he can only be relieved by the
operation of one of two causes, the act of God or
the public enemy.
3. When the* Liability as Common Carrier
Ceases.That the liability of the common carrier
commencing with the receipt of the goods, it nec
essarily continues until they are delivered by him
at their place of destination, where the owner or
consignee is bound to be present and receive them
and pay the freight if it has not been previously
paid, and if he is not present to receive the goods,
they can be placed in a safe and sufficient ware
house, when the liability of the carrier ceases and
that of the warehouseman commences.
4. Is a Company boind to carry and deliver to
a point beyond its rolte." That this question is
settled by the courts of this country, though the re
ceived doctrine may be said to be that the carrier
is not responsible beyond his own route, except
upon his special undertaking so to be." [It would
seem from the conclusion ol this opinion that the
court did not decide this case in accordance with
what it concedes to be the " received doctrine" by
the courts of this country.)
fi. Extent ok Liability.The receipt of goods
by common carriers is all that is necessary to fix
their liability, so that if a parcel be delivered to a
railroad at Chicago, marked for Louisville, Ken
tucky, or any other place off their route and they
receive it to carry, they are bound by this rule of
the common law. if the parcel be lost, to account
to the owner for its value, the contract of the ship
per is with the owner in whose custody he placed
the parcel.
6. Removal of Liability.That a common car
rier cannot remove or lessen his liability by a gen
eral notice.
7. Freight over Different Railroads.That
under the rule adopted by this court, consignees
of goods by railroads are "not required in case of
loss or damage, to look for remuneration to any
other party than the one to which they delivered
the goods ; that it would he a great hardship to
compell the consignor of a few barrels of Hour de
livered to a railroad in this State, marked to New
York city, and which are lost in the transit to go
to New York or to intermediate lines of road, to
look them up or bring suit for their ^oss or dam
age.
8. Removal of Common Law Liability.That the
receiving company can at the outset relieve itself
from its common law liability by a special and
definite agreement.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the Court by Breese, C. J.
The question presented by this record
is one of great importance to the public
and to the railroacf interests of the coun
try, and has received our most careful
consideration.
It is a question on which the courts of
this country are not in harmony with
themselves, nor with those in England,
to whose decisions we are accustomed to
refer as evidence of what the common
law is on any subject which has en
gaged their deliberations.
The question is as to the extent of the
liability of a railroad company as com
mon carriers of goods and property.
Whilst there is no difficulty in de
fining ::i general terms when the liabil
ity of a common carrier begins, the
courts of this country are not agreed as
to the point when it terminates.
A common carrier is defined to be one
who undertakes, for hire, to transport
the goods of such as choose to employ
him, from place to place. Railway com
panies are under obligation to receive
and transport all goods which may be
offered to them for such purpose, and
without delay. They can not lie by, as
the wagoners in early times were au
thorized to do, for a rise in the price of
freights. They are regarded by all
courts as common carriers, resting under
a duty to transport such articles as may
be delivered to them in the course of
their business, and their liability com
mences when the goods are delivered to
their agent authorized to receive them.
They may demand the freight money in
advance, and if not paid, may refuse to
convey the goods, but when they are
received they are at the carrier's risk,
and from which time he is regarded as
an insurer, and held to the most strin
gent responsibilities, from which he can
only be relieved by the operation of one
of two causes, the act of God or the pub
lic enemy. Public policy has always de
manded this rule inasmuch as the goods
are entirely in the power of the carrier,
and it being so easy for him to conceal
his fraud or misconduct, and so difficult
for the owner to prove it, that the law
does not permit the inquiry, but sup

plies the want of proof by a conclusive

presumption.
Porter v. Chicago & It. I. R. R. Co., 20
111., 407. Baldwin v. Am. Ex. Co., 23,
lb., 197.
The liability of the common carrier
commencing with the receipt of the
goods, it necessarily continues until they
are delivered by him at their place of
destination, where the owner or con
signee is bound to be present and re
ceive them, and pay the freight for them
if not previously paid. If he be not
Eresent to receive the goods, they can
e placed in a safe and sufficient ware
house, when the liability of the carrier
ceases, and that of the warehouseman
begins.
The important question now arises,
is he bound to carry and deliver to a
certain point or place" not on his route?
This is a question not settled by the
courts of this country, though the re
ceived doctrine may be said to be that
the carrier is not responsible beyond his
own route, except upon his special un
dertaking so to be liable. By the law of
common carriers their liability was
fixed on the receipt of the goods to be
carried. They are insurers of the goods,
and if not delivered at their place of
destination they are accountable for
them, and when called upon to account
for them, the onus of proof is upon,
them, and they are chargeable with their
value, unless the loss was caused by a
force superior to human agency, which
no foresight could have guarded" against,
or by the public enemy.
This is the extent bf the liability of
common carriers. The receipt of goods
by them is all that is necessary to fix
this liability, so that if a parcel or pack
age be delivered to a railroad at Chicago,
marked for Louisville, Kentucky, or any
other place off their route, and they re
ceive it to carry, they are bound by this
rule of the common law, if the parcel or
package be lost, to account to the owner
for its value. The contract of the ship
per is with the carrier in whose custody
he placed the goods.
A responsibility so vast being cast upon
carriers by the common law, it soon be
came a question how they could removeit or lessen it. A resort was had to a
general notice, which was held by this
court and other courts to be insufficient..
Western Transportation Co. v. Newhall,
24 111., 466. But it was held by this court
in the case of the 111. Cent. R. R. Co. v.
Morrison et al., 19 ib., 136, that such car
riers may relieve themselves from this
general liability by special contracts. In
that case, Morrison, by his writing under
seal, in consideration of a reduction of
the freight charges upon a lot of cattle,
assumed the risk of transportation, and
released the company from all claimswhich might arise from damage or injury
to the stock while in the cars, or for de
lay in its carriage, or from escape from
the cars, and generally from all claims
except such as might arise from the
gross negligence or default of the agents
or officers of the company.
We have examined all the cases cited
on both sides of this question, and pon
dered them, anxiously desiring to recog
nize a rule which, whilst it shall not per
plex and injure the commercial interests
of the country, shall at the same time
protect the carrier interest, or at least be
of so much service to it that the proprie
tors of that interest may know and un
derstand the full extent of their obliga
tions to the public.
So long ago as 1S60, this court, in the
case of this same company against Copeland, 24 111., 332, expressed a decided
partiality for the rule in Muschamp's
case, 8 Meeson and Welsby , 421 , so much
relied on by the appellee, and in which
case all the authorities, English and
American, were fully examined, and we
said, though this point was not in the
case, we were inclined to yield to the
force of the reasoning of the English
courts, on principles of public conven
ience, if no other, and to hold where a
carrier receives goods to convey, marked
to a particular place, he is prima facie
bound to carry to and deliver at that
place. By accepting the goods so marked,
he impliedly agrees so to do, and he
ought to be answerable for the loss.
Again, in the case of the same com
pany against Johnson, 34 ib., 389, there
was an express undertaking to transport
the goods to Wheeling, but the court re
ferring to Copeland's case supra, consid
ered that case as holding that a carrier
who receives goods to carry, markedjto a.

Chicago
particular place, was bound to carry to
and deliver at that placethat it was an
agreement implied from the mark or di
rection on the goods, and accepting them
so marked, that the liability arose.
Now on the point of public conven
ience, which consideration had great
weight with us in determining which
rule should be adopted, it seems to us
that consignors of the productions of our
country or other property by railroad
sheuld not be required, in case of loss or
damage, to look for remuneration to any
other party than the one to which they
delivered the goods. It would be a great
hardship indeed to compel the consignor
of a few barrels of Hour, delivered to a
railroad in this State, marked to New
York city, and which are lost in the
transit, to go to New York, or to the in
termediate lines of road, and spend days
and weeks perhaps in endeavors to And
out on what particular road the loss hap
pened, and having ascertained it, in the
event of a refusal to adjust the loss, to
bring a suit in the court of New York
for his damages. Far more just would
it be to hold the company who received
the goods in the first instance as the re
sponsible party, and the intermediate
roads its agents to carry and deliver, and
it is the most reasonable and just, for all
railroads have facilities not possessed by
a consignor of tracing losses of property
conveyed by them, and all have, or can
have, running connections with each
other. Above all, when it is considered
the receiving company can, at the outset,
relieve itself from its common law lia
bility by a special and definite agree
ment, such a rule cannot prejudice them.
The rule being known, all parties can
readily accommodate tbeir business to
it, and no inconvenience can result to
any one from its operation.
In the case of the Illinois Central Rail
road Company v. Morrison, 19 111., I'M,
there was a formal stipulation under
hand and seal, by which the consignor,
for a valuable consideration, agreed to
release the company from the common
law liability as carriers.
In Adams Express Company v. Ilaynes,
42 Ib.,S'J, it was said, if a shipper takes
a receipt for his goods from the company
with a full knowledge of its terms and
conditions, intending to assent to the re
strictions contained in it, then it becomes
his contract as fully as if he had signed it.
By such a contract the rights and du
ties of the parties to it must be gov
erned, and if the stipulations in it go to
limit the common law liability, and they
plainly appear in the instrument and
are not covertly inserted in it, and are
understood by the consignor, then it
must be enforced as any other contract
of parties made in good faith.
Testing this case by these considera
tions, the receipt or bill of lading exe
cuted by appellants and accepted by the
consignor, reciting as it does that the
goods in question were consigned to
Pana, and charges paid to that place,
and that appellants should not be liable
for loss or damage, save on their own
road, amounts to a special contract, re
lieving the company from the common
law duty.
It is a question for the jury to deter
mine, whether the terms of the receipt
were understood by the consignees and
assented to by them.
The fact that the charges were guaran
teed from Pana was not for the benefit
of appellants but for the benefit of
the connecting road whose usage was to
decline the receipt of perishable articles,
as these were, unless the charges were
guaranteed.
We think justice would be promoted
by sending this cause back for trial in
the light of the view here presented,
and of the rule we think necessary to
be established for the government of
all such transactions, and for that pur
pose reverse the judgment and remand
the cause.
Keverscd and remanded.
We are indebted to the law firm of
Willoughby & Grant, of Galesburg, for
the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed Jan. 22, 1872.
James Thompson v. Briggs W. Sombebger.
Appeal from Warren.
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER.
1 Actual Possession Necessary.That it has
always been held by this court that the plaintiff to
recover must show that he had the actual posses
sion of the premises upon which the forcible en

Legal

try is alleged to have been made ; that a mere con

structive possession, such as the fee simple title to
the land entered upon draws to it. is not sufficient.
2. Title not in Question.That in this form of
action the title is not in question.
3. Cannot Recover Part or Premises.That the
plaintiff cannot recover a portion of the premises
described in his complaint ; he must recover all or
none.
4. No Statute ok Limitation.That in England
this action was a criminal proceeding, and a pros
ecution was required to be instituted within three
years, but in this State the nature of the action has
been changed, by express statute, from a crimiual
to a civil proceeding and no express limitation has
been furnished ; that it is doubtless a cwiut omittus
on the part of the legislature, which it is not the
province of this court to supply.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the court by Brekse, J.
This was a complaint for forcible entry
and detainer made before a justice of the
peace of Knox county, on the fourteenth
day of February, 1870.
A change of venue was awarded to
Justice Levalley, before whom a trial
was had on the plea of not guilty, and
the Statute of Limitations, and a verdict
of guilty returned.
An appeal was taken to the Circuit
Court, and at the October term thereof,
1870, on the first day of the term, the
defendant moved to quash the complaint
and dismiss the suit, which motion was
denied and exception taken.
A change of venue was then had to
Warren county, and the cause came on
to be heard thereon at the January term,
1871. There was a trial by jury, and
verdict and judgment for the plaintiff,
the court having overruled defendant's
motion in arrest of judgment. To re
verse this judgment the defendant ap
peals.
The complaint, in substance, is, that
on the first day of May, 1866, the de
fendant Thompson unlawfully entered
into the lands and possessions of com
plainant, then situate, known and de
scribed as " a strip, tract, piece, or parcel
of land, about two rods wide at the est
end of said strip, tract, etc., and about
one rod wide at the east end of said
strip, tract, piece, or parcel of land, be
ing and lying on the north end of the
west half of the northwest quarter of
section seven, in township twelve, north
of range four, east of the fourth princi
pal meridian, in the county of Knox,
and State of Illinois ; and that the said
James Thompson then and there did un
lawfully put out and expel the complain
ant from his said lands and possessions,
wherein this complainant had, at the
time aforesaid, an estate of freehold then
and still subsisting, and had been in
quiet and peaceable possession for more
than twenty-five years preceding, and
that his interest therein still subsists;
and the said James Thompson still doth
hold and detain the said lands and pos
sessions from the said complainant, un
lawfully and without right, contrary to
the form of the statute, etc.
Waiving all consideration of any de
fects which may appear in the com
plaint, we came at once to the considera
tion of the case as it appears by the testi
mony in the record, premising, however,
the principles which govern this pro
ceeding.
The Statute of Forcible Entry and De
tainer, R. S., Ch. 43, provides for cases
where a person shall make entry into
any land or other possessions, or shall
make any such entry by force, such per
son shall be adjudged guilty of a forcible
entry and detainer, or a forcible detainer,
as the case may be, within the intent and
meaning of this chapter.
The judgment, if the party is found
guilty, is that the plaintiff have restitu
tion of the premises and his costs, and a
writ of restitution shall be awarded.
In the many and various discussions
which this subject has undergone in this
court, it has always been held, that the
plaintiff, to recover, must show that he
had the actual possession of the prem
ises upon which the forcible entry is al-'
leged to have been made ; that a mere
constructive possession, such as the fee
simple title to the land entered upon
draws to it, is not sufficient. The title is
not in any sense involved, but simply
whether the plaintiff had the possession
at the time defendant unlawfully in
vaded it and detains it. McCourtney v.
McMullen, 38 111., 237.
To have authorized a verdict in this
case, the plaintiff should have proved he
was possessed in fact of the strip of land
upon which the forcible entry was al
leged to have been made.
How stands the proof in this regard?
When the south-west quarter of six was
the property of the Smith heirs and in
charge of Beebe, who had one Lamb for

News.

a tenant, a worm fence was erected on

the supposed south line, which being
carried away by a freshet, was rebuilt by
Lamb with posts and rails, a few feet
south of the line of the worm fence.
Lamb's fence so stood when Thompson
purchased and entered into possession.
That fence was the only visible dividing
line between the south-west of six and
the north-east of seven, to the north half
of which complainant has title and has
been in possession for many years.
There is no proof in the record that
plaintiffwas in the actual possession ofthe
gore or strip between the old worm fence
and the Lamb fence at the time Thomp
son entered, and that is included in his
complaint. He may have title to that
strip, but as this action does not proceed
on title, that cannot avail him. He may
in an action of ejectment, recover the
possession, but in this action of forcible
entry and detainer he cannot as Thomp
son did not invade his actual possession
of that gore or strip, he having none at
the time of Thompson's purchase and
entry.
The plaintiff in the action, as his com
plaint shows, claimed a certain strip or
piece of land of a particular description,
and the proof is clear that as to the piece
of land between Lamb's fence and the
old worm fence, defendant did not, on
his purchase of the premises, with the
Lamb fence as the southern boundary,
enter upon the possession of the plain
tiff. That strip was not in the possession
of plaintiff when defendant entered. As
to the strip of land south of the Lamb
fence, and included between that fence
and the fence defendant erected further
south, on the line as run by the county
surveyor, the defendant may be said to
have entered upon the possession of the
plaintiff, and had plaintiff limited his
complaint to that strip he might have
sustained it.
The complaint is for a larger strip or
tract which includes the last named
strip, but the rule is well settled, that in
this action a part cannot be recovered.
As this court said in House v. Wilder, 47
111., 510, a plaint claiming an entire
house is not sustained by proof of a
right to a possession of a part of the
house only.
The act regulating this action, requires
a particular description of the premises
to be made in the complaint and the
proof must follow and conform to the
description therein to warrant the re
covery.
The point that this action is barred in
three years is not tenable. In England,
from which we derive this action, it was
a crimiual proceeding and a prosecution
was required to be instituted in three
years after the cause of action had ac
crued.
In this State the nature of the action
has been changed by express law, from
a criminal to a civil proceeding and no
express limitation has been furnished.
It is doubtless a casus omissus on the part
of the legislature, which it is not the
province of this court to supply.
For the reasons given, the judgment
must be reversed and the cause re
manded.
Willoughby & Grant, of Galesburg,
for appellant.
Cooley & Gaines of Knoxville, and
Frost & Tlnnclikfe of Galesburg, for
appellee.
Our thanks are due Consider H. Willett, of the Chicago bar, for the follow
ing opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed Jan. 22, 1872.
William A. Brown v. Sarah C. Brown.
Error to Recorder's Court of the City of Chicago.
CONTRADICTING AN OFFICER'S RETURN.
Held that there are cases where a defendant
mav contradict an officer's return and have a de
fault set aside, without being left to bring an action
against the officer for a false return, but this is not
the general rule.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the court by Lawrence,
C.J.
This was a bill for divorce. The de
fendant was defaulted, and on the next
day appeared and moved to set aside the
default. In support of his motion, he
showed by several affidavits of a very
satisfactory character, that the person
with whom a copy of the summons had
been left was not, as stated in the
sheriff's return, a member of defendant's
family.
The court refused to set aside the de
fault, and a decree of divorce was ren
dered.

i47
It is perlectly well settled as a general
rule, that the return of an officer cannot
be disputed.
When it is sought to contradict the re
turn collaterally, and after rights have
been acquired upon its faith, or innocent
persons are to be injuriously affected,
courts should firmly apply the rule.
Such has been the action of this court in
cases of that character.
While, however, this is the well-estab
lished general principle, cases have oc
casionally occurred, and will continue to
do so, which, in order to prevent the per
petuation of a great wrong, must be
treated as exceptional. The present case
is an excellent illustration.
Here the question arose upon an appli
cation to set aside a default. The suit
was still pending. No rights had been
acquired by any person on the faith of
the return. No injury would accrue to
any one in consequence of the default
being set aside. The defendant, having
appeared for this purpose, could have
been required to answer at an early day.
The rule forbidding a return to be con
tradicted is based on public policythe
reason being that it is better to require
an injured party to seek compensation
by an action against the officer for a false
return, than to shake the verity and se
curity of records.
But in proceedings of this kind it is
idle to talk of such a remedy. There
can be no measure for the damages.
Through the false return in this case the
defendant lost his wife, and the care and
custody of his children. What verdict
against a sheriff and his sureties can fur
nish adequate atonement for this ?
The defendant has suffered an irrepa
rable injury, and to prevent this we
think the court below should have held
this case not to fall within the operation
of the general rule.
We do not desire to be understood as
intimating that in every case where it is
sought to contradict a return, pending
the suit, permission should be accorded.
We onlv say that cases sometimes arise,
and this is one of them, where the
reason of the general rule ceases, and
where it is necessary to disregard it in
order to prevent the commission of great
injustice. Mineral Point Railuoad Co. v.
Keep, 22 Ills.. 9, and Owens v. Ranstead,
ib., 161, are cases in which for similar
reasons parties have been allowed to
contradict a return.
The decree must be reversed.
XXXIV. INDIANA REPORTS.
Our thanks are due James B. Black,
Reporter of the Supreme Court of Indi
ana, for advance sheets of the 34th vol
ume of his Reports, from which we take
the following head-notes :
VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
Incumbrances Promissory Note As
signment Consideration Estoppel.
Where upon the sale and conveyance
by warranty deed of real estate it is
agreed by the grantor, the grantee, and
the surety upon a note not payable in
bank, given by said grantee and surety
to said grantor in consideration of said
conveyance, that said note shall be as
signed by the payee to the holder of an
outstanding mortgage on said real estate,
who shall thereupon and in considera
tion thereof enter satisfaction of said
mortgage, and said assignment is made
and satisfaction is entered according to
said agreement, it will not constitute a
good defense to a suit on said note by
said assignee against said maker and
surety, that the maker in order to pre
vent the Side of said real estate on exe
cution has been compelled to pay off a
judgment for a greater sum than the
amount of said note, existing without
his knowledge, at the date of said con
veyance, and constituting a lien on said
real estate junior to said mortgage, and
that the grantor is insolvent and a non
resident of the State. (Opinion by
Pettit, C. J.)Brewer v Parker, et al.
VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
Injunction. AVhere the purchaser of
real estate having taken from the vendor
his agreement to convey the same to said
purchaser upon final payment of the
purchase-money, and having received
possession of the land under the con
tract, and having given his promissory
notes governed by the law merchant to
the vendor for the unpaid purchase-monContinued on page 150].

Chicago

148
Chicago Legal News.
Htx Uincit.
CHICAGO, FEBRUARY 24, 1872.
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
The Chicago Legal News Co.,
AT 115 MADISON STREET.
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
Terms:
rwo Dollars per annum, In advance. Single cop
ies Ten Cents.
THE LE6AL HIV8 OFFICE U at 115
Weat JlmdUoa Street. Tbe Printing
Establishment la at 18 H. JeBeraou SI.
The Legal News has been selected
under the laws of Congress for the pub
lication of all the acts of the present
session. Any person by sending us
$2, and becoming a subscriber will
obtain all the Federal laws passed
this year, the most important opinions
of the Supreme, Circuit and District
Courts of the United States, as well as
leading cases in the State courts, long
before they appear in the regular series.
Every lawyer, banker, and business man
should take it.
We call attention to the following
opinions, reported at length in this
issue:
Landlord's Lien.The opinion of the
Supreme Court of the United States, de
livered by Bradley, J., holding that the
landlord's lien in the case before the
court was superior to that of the trustee
or mortgagee, and that goods purchased
in the ordinary course of trade become
discharged from the landlord's lien.
Liability of IndorserSubsequent
Promise.The opinion of the Federal
Supreme Court, by Davies, J., upon the
question of liability of indorsers by sub
sequent promise after failure of notifica
tion of default.
Purchase of Claims Against Bank
rupt.The opinion of the U. S. District
Court for the W. D. of Wisconsin, deliv
ered by Hopkins, J., holding that a
friend of a bankrupt who in good faith
after the commencement of proceedings
buys up claims against the bankrupt
with a view of putting an end to the
proceedings, and fails to do so, is not
thereby deprived of the right to prove
the claims so purchased against the
bankrupt's estate. The learned judge
construes several sections of the bank
rupt law, and claims that this law "sus
tains all honest transactions of a debtor."
As to the right of a party owing a bank
rupt to offset a claim against such bank
rupt, purchased at any time before the
filing of the petition, see the opinion of
Judge Hoffman, in re City Bank of Sav
ings, Loan and Discount, San Francisco,
4 Chicago Legal News, 81. The call for
extra copies of this opinion has been
very great.
Liability of Railroads as Common
Carriers.An important opinion of the
Supreme Court of this State, delivered
by Breese, J., defining the liability of
railroads as common carriers, and hold
ing that when a railroad receives a pack
age marked to a point beyond its own
road, without any special agreement, and
it is lost after it leaves the road that first
received it, such road is liable, but that
a railroad company may, upon receipt of
freight by special contract, so limit its
common law liability as not to be liable
for its loss or damage beyond its own
road. Can a party, by refusing to enter

Legal

News.

Executors, where, in the sixth edition, money indicted as well as those who re
(1867) it occurs on page 1385. But it ceived it ? No man can be bribed unless
appears to stand there on the authority there is some one to bribe him. Let the
of Toller only, since the only cases cited briber and the bribed be consigned to
are those cited by Toller, and irrelevant. the same cell.
The counsel for the petitioner contended
that upon the construction of the Statute
A Heavy Verdict.Dawson, in 1868,
of Distributions (22 and 23 Car., 2, c. 100, attended an exhibition in Lincoln Park,
ss. 5 and 6) the grand children and Springfield, 111., and while Bitting in the
great-grand-children of an intestate amphitheatre, the seat gave way, and he
were not treated as his next of kin, but was seriously injured. He brought suit
only as the representatives of his chil against the Lincoln Park Association in
dren, and that therefore they took per the Circuit Court, and last week obtained
stirpes, and not per capita. They cited a verdict of $6,500. The case will be
in support of this position Danvers v. taken to the Supreme Court. We know
Dewes, 3 P., Wm, 49 (Note D.) ; Lloyd nothing of the evidence in this particular
v. Tench, 2 Ves. Sen., 213: 2 Williams case, but are satisfied if juries, in alt
on Executors, last edition, pp. 1385-1386, cases they are called upon to try against
Burton's Compendium: Real Property officers or other persons who have charge(8th edition) 433 ; Watkins on Descents, of public buildings or parks, when the
259. This case is reported, 25 L. T. Rep., evidence shows injuries to persons to
N. S. 818.
have been caused by their carelessness,
Debt for Liquor.Judge Longyear, in would award damages with a liberal
re Paddock, reported 6 N. B. R. 132, held hand, there would soon be less danger in
that a debt contracted in whole or in attending places of public resort.
part for spiritous liquors, being in vio
lation of the laws of Michigan, must be
decent Publications.
rejected, and the name of the claimant
stricken from the list of creditors of the Draft Outlines of an International
Code. By David Dudley Field. New
estate of the bankrupt.
York: Baker, Voorhis & Company.
1872.
Jurisdiction of Bankrupt Court over
Foreign Corporations,In the case of This is a neat volume of 463 pages,,
the Alabama and Chattanooga R. R. Co., and bears evidence of sound judgment,
reported in the Daily Transcript of Feb. great research, and careful industry in
15, Woodruff, J., holds that a railroad its preparation. The subject of an Inter
company, incorporated by the laws of a national Code, now that nations, in regu
State for constructing, maintaining and lating their intercourse with each otheit
operating a railroad, cannot be proceed and the settlement of their difficulties'
ed against in bankruptcy in a district are governed more by principles of
court without the State or States where equity and the enlightened judgment of
its railroad is, or is to be built, main mankind than they are by physical
tained and operated, on the petition of a force, or the number or size of their can
creditor charging an act of bankruptcy, non, is of much more importance than it
and an allegation and proof that such was in the days when might, not right,
company kept an office in such district was the prevailing element in the settle
for six months next preceding the filing ment of national controversies.
Mr. Field gives in sections the out
of the petition, where its officers acted,
its board of directors met, and where it lines of the proposed Code. Each sec
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
tion is followed by notes in which areAction for Enticing Away Husband. contracted debts, made loans, purchases references to the decisions of the courts
and
payments
does
not
give
such
court
The Superior Court of Cincinnati, in
of the various nations, their text-books,
an opinion delivered by Storer, J., in jurisdiction.
treaties and State papers, in which the
Clark v. Harlan, held, citing Winsmore
Redemption of U. S. Notes.F. E. doctrine embodied in the Outlines is
v. Greenbank, Willes Rep., 377 ; Camp
Spinner,
Treasurer of the United States, either supported or controverted. The
bell's Adm'r v. Rogers et al., 2 Handy,
author informs us in his preface that the
117 ; and Lynch v. White et rex., 9 House says in a letter to H. N. Nash, of this volume is not put forth as a completed
city,
that
"
the
Department
can
redeem
of Lords Cases, 577, that an action will
Code, nor as the completed outlines of a
lie in favor of a married woman against notes only when some recognizable por Code, but as a draft of the outlines ; that
tion
thereof
is
presented,
with
proof
that
a third person for enticing away and
is intended for suggestion, and is to
harboring her husband. Reported 2 the remainder has been totally de it
undergo careful and thorough revision ;
stroyed."
Legal Opinion, 119.
that the present volume is but a part of
Authority of Foreign Administra
The Indicted Aldermen.That a cor the whole work ; that another will ap
tors.The Supreme Court of Pennsyl rupt ring has for years controlled the pear in a few months treating of the
vania, held in Alfonso et al., ex'r, v. The action of our city council cannot be modifications in the relations of nationsPhila. and Reading R. R. Co., that the doubted by any person at all conversant and of their members to each other,
authority of letters testamentary or of with our city affairs. Is it any wonder produced by a state of war. The history
administration granted outside of Penn then that our citizens, when so many of of this undertaking is as follows : At the
sylvania, to transfer bank, railroad and the aldermen have been indicted for meeting of the British Association for
other stocks, and loans, and to receive corruption in office, should become ex the Promotion of Social Science, held at
interest and dividends, within that State, cited, and with one accord demand that Manchester in 1866, Mr. Field proposed
is confined to such as are granted within the guilty be punished ? In times like the appointment of a committee to pre
the United States. 4 Legal Gaz., 52.
these, when the people feel that they pare and report to the Association the
Statute of Distributions Grand have been outraged for years by their Outlines of an International Code, with
Children and Great-Grand Children. own servants, the innocent often suffer a view of having a complete Code formed
Wickens, V. C. , in re Ross's Trusts, with the guilty. While we wish to see after careful revision and amendment,,
held where an intestate left grand-chil every one of these indicted aldermen and then presented to the attention of
dren and great-grand-children, but no who is guilty punished to the extent of governments, in the hope of its receiv
children, that the children and great- the law, we hope no one will be con ing at some time their sanction. Such
grand-children take per stirpes The victed who is innocent. We have heard committee was appointed, consisting of
learned Vice Chancelor says in the but one opinion expressed by members Mr. Field and eminent jurists of differ
opinion the principal difficulty in of the bar in relation to the first trial of ent nations. The present volume is the
the case is this that : In Toller on Ex alderman Montgomery, and that was result of Mr. Field's labors as a member
ecutors, which may almost be called the that the evidence was insufficient to of that committee. The scheme em
received text-book on the subject, a warrant a conviction. It was certainly braces not only a codification of existing
different opinion is expressed. In the very proper for Judge Farwell, under rules of international law, but the sug
7th edition by Whitmarsh (1838), the the circumstances, to grant these men gestion of such modifications and im
passage is at page 374, various authori who made the application in time a provements as the more matured civili
ties are cited for this, but none of them change of venue. We admire his inde zation of the present age should seem to
apply to the case of descendants. The pendent conscientious course. Why are require.
Whether the completed Code is ever
dictum is transferred into Williams on not some of the men who paid the

into a special contract, and delivering his

goods to a railroad company, and tender
ing the freight, compel it to transport
them under its common law liability ?
This will undoubtedly become a leading
case upon the questions involved in the
decision.
Forcible Entry and Detainer.An
opinion of the same court, by Breese, J.,
holding, in an action of forcible entry
and detainer, that the plaintiff must
show that he had the actual possession
of the premises, that he cannot recover
a portion of the premises described in
his complaint, that in England this ac
tion was in the nature of a criminal pro
ceeding, and must be brought within
three years, but in this State it is made
by statute a civil proceeding, and there
is no statute limiting the time within
which this action should be brought.
Contradicting an Officer's Return.
The opinion of the Supreme Court of
this State, delivered by Lawrence, C. J.,
holding that under certain circumstances
a defendant will not be left to his action
against a sheriff for a false return, but
may, on motion, contradict the return,
and have the default set aside. The
court states that the rule forbidding an
officer's return to be contradicted is
based on public policythe reaaon being
that it is better to require an injured
party to seek compensation by an action
against the officer for a false return, than
to shake the verity and security of
records. " But in a proceeding of this
kind" (which was a divorce case), the
learned judge says, " it is idle to talk of
such a remedy ; there can be no measure
for the damages. Through the false re
turn im this case the defendant lost his
wife and the care and custody of his
children. What verdict against a sheriff
and his sureties can furnish adequate
atonement for this?"

Chicago
adopted by the nations or not, we are
satisfied that tlr.s effort of learned jurists
will result in great good.
LIV. ILLINOIS REPORTS.
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman
L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following
head-notes to cases to appear in the 54th
volume of Illinois Reports :
PRACTICE.
Who may open and conclude a caseerror
will not always reverse.In an action of
assumpsit, the defendant admitted the
plaintiff's account, but claimed he had
paid it before suit was brought ; this was
the only issue between the parties : Held,
the defendant, having presented the is
sue, held the affirmative, and that it was
error for the court to refuse him the
right to open and conclude the case to
the jury, but not sufficient, of itself, to
reverse a judgment when a fair trial had
been had upon the merits and on proper
instructions.(Opinion by Breese, J.)
Huddle v. Martin et al., p. 258.
witness.
2. Of his credibility.An instruction
which informed a jury, that if they be
lieved, from the evidence, that the tes
timony ofa witness had been successfully
impeached in its material parts, they
should disregard it altogether, was held
to be erroneous ; for although a witness
may be impeached, yet if he is corrobor
ated by other witnesses, or by the circum
stances in evidence, the jury can not
reject his testimony.lb.
ALTERATION OF CONTRACT.
Whether an innocent party to be preju
diced thereby. Upon bill filed by the
assignee of a lease, to correct a mistake
in the description of the premises, it was
insisted by the lessor, that there had
been a material alteration improperly
made in the terms of the lease ; but it
was held, even if that was true, it not ap
pearing that the complainant was charge
able with any complicity with such
alteration, he was still entitled to the re
lief sought by the bill. (Opinion by
Lawernce, J.)Lead Co. v. Madden et al.,
p. 260.
EVIDENCE.
1. Docket of police magistrate.In an
action to recover the price of property
sold to the defendant under an execu
tion issued upon a judgment rendered
by a police magistrate, the docket of such
magistrate, duly proved by him, show
ing the entry of such judgment, is com
petent evidence on behalf of the plain
tiff, even though it would not thereby
appear that the magistrate had jurisdic
tion either of the subject matter or the
person, as competency of evidence does
not depend upon the extent to which
facts are proved thereby.(Opinion by
Breese, J.) Willoughby v. Dewey, p. 26b.
2. Of copies or originals.The statute
which declares that copies of proceed
ings and judgments before justices of
the peace, certified by them, shall be re
ceived as evidence of such proceedings
or judgments, embraces as well, pro
ceedings and judgments before police
magistrates; and while the statute de
clares copies to be evidence, the original
docket, duly proved to be such, is also
competent evidence.lb.
3. Jurisdiction of the person Whether
proved by the magistrate's docket.In a case
where it is sought to prove the recovery
of a judgment before a police magis
trate, the court would be inclined to hold,
if a formal entry of a judgment appears
on a magistrate's docket, on which it
also appears he has issued an execution,
and in a case over which the law gives
him jurisdiction, it would be presumed,
if not rebutted, that he had jurisdiction
of the person, the docket reciting the
fact that a summons issued and was re
turned duly served.26.
fraudulent conveyances.
"Where a debtor conveyed his home
stead to his son, it being all the property
he had, with the avowed intention of
hindering and delaying his creditors,
the consideration therefor not exceed
ing one-fourth the value oft he property,
and the grantor being still permitted to
occupy the premises as his own, it was
held, the conveyance was fraudulent as
to creditors.(Opinion by Lawrence, C.
J.)Monell r. Scherrick, p. 269.
FORCIBLE DETAINER.
1. By whom it may be maintained.
Where the decree in a proceeding to en

Legal

force a mechanic's lien directed a sale

of the premises if the money was not
paid within ninety days, the defendant
was thereby afforded the opportunity to
redeem from the lien declared In the
decree at any time before the sale, and
upon a sale being had, and a deed made
by the master to the purchaser, the lat
ter may maintain an action of forcible
detainer against the defendant in pos
session, under the act of 1861, relating to
such actions, notwithstanding there was
no right of redemption after the sale.*
(Opinion by Walker, J.)Pensoneau v.
Heinrieh, p. 271.
evidence.
2. Effect of a decree as evidence that the
court had jurisdiction of the person of the
defendant. In an action of forcible entry
by the purchaser under a decree in a
proceeding to enforce a mechanic's lien,
such decree is prima facie evidence that
the court in which it was rendered
had jurisdiction of the person of the de
fendant in that proceeding, although the
decree fails to find that he was served
with process, or entered his appearance,
the presumption always being in favor
of a court of general jurisdiction, in that
regard.lb.
CRIMINAL LAW.
1. Discharging a juror not named in the
officer's return. On the trial of a party
indicted for murder, it appeared the
sheriff had returned as a talesman one
Burnham, whose name had been given
to the prisoner in the list furnished to
him, as H. C. Burnham. When Burnham was called he was found to be a
competent juror, and was accepted by
the prisoner, but the State's attornev,
discovering that his true name was R.
C. Burnham, on his motion the court dis
charged him : Held, this action of the
court was proper.(Opinion by Breese,
J.)Minglav. People of State of Illinois,
p. 274.
2. Who may be properly sworn as jurors.
It would be ground of error for a juror
of a name different from the one fur
nished the prisoner to be sworn upon
the panel. The persons named on the
sheriff's return, and those only, unless
challenged, can be sworn as jurors.lb.
3. Challenge ofjurors. When the court
sustains a motion by the State's attorney,
to discharge a juror after he has been
accepted by the prisoner, such action
may be referred to the right of peremp
tory challenge, the record showing such
right not to have been exhausted.lb.
EXCEPTIONS.
4. When necessary. Upon the objection
that the court below refused a motion to
dismiss the prosecution and discharge
the prisoner, who was indicted for mur
der, it was deemed a sufficient answer,
that it did not appear the prisoner's
counsel excepted to the action of the
court, nor were the groundsofthe motion
stated.Po.
EVIDENCE.
5. When it should be preserved. The
objection that the verdict of guilty in a
criminal case is against the evidence,
cannot avail where the evidence is not
preserved in the record.lb.
NEW TRIAL.
6. Newly discovered evidence. The alle
gation of newly discovered evidence
should be supported by affidavit, to be
available as ground for a new trial.lb.
CRIMINAL LAW.
7. Effect of legislation subsequent to com
mission ofan offenseconstruction of acts of
1867 and I860 concerning capital punish
ment. The act of 1869 concerning cap
ital punishment, is notin conflict with the
act of 1867 on the same subject, so that
where a homicide was committed in the
year 1867, and while the latter act was in
force, the person committing the crime
could properly be tried and convicted
after the act of 1869 was in force.lb,
8. In what mode the question may be
raised. Under the act of 1867, no per
son could be sentenced to death by any
court, unless the jury should so find in
their verdict, upon trial, and the act of
180i9 provides that the court may, upon
a plea of guilty, sentence the prisoner to
be executed, but in a case where a party
was convicted of murder and the jury
prescribed the penalty to be confinement
in the penitentiary for a term of years, it
was held, the prisoner was not in a po
sition to object that he was tried under
the act of 1869 for an offense committed
* After the decree 'and Bale in the case here
referred to, the act of 1869 was passed, giving
a right of redemption after the sale in a proceed
ing to enforce a mechanic's lien. Gross' Comp. p.

News.

149

while the act of 1867 was in force. Had livered the opinion of the court, dismissing the
he pleaded guilty and then demanded his writ of error in this cause for the want of juris
discharge, he would have been in a posi diction.
No. 610. Augustin J. Ambler, appellant, v. Rod
tion to raise the question.lb.
ney M. Whipple et al. Appeal from the Supreme
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. court of the District of Columbia. On motion of
Mr. James Hughes, ordered by the court, that the
PROCEEDINGS OF.
appeal in this cause be docketed and dismissed
Thursday, February 15.
costs.
On motion of Hon. M. H. Carpenter, E. G. Rog with
No. 109. John J. Walker et al., appellants, v.
ers, Esq., of Minnesota, was admitted to' practice William
M. Derby et al. The argument of this
as an attorney and counselor of this court.
was commenced by Mr. A. R. Manning, of
On motion of Mr. P. Phillips, Charles Case, Esq., cause
counsel for the appellants, and continued by Mr.
of Louisiana, was admitted to practice as an at L.
Trumbull for the appellees.
torney and counselor of this court
The Chief Justice announced to the bar that the
No. 106. Max Klingler. plaintiff in error, v. the court
will not sit on Thursday next, the 22d inst.
State of Missouri. This case was argued by Mr. W.
Tuesday, February 20.
H. H. Russell, of counsel for the plaintiff in error.
On motion of C. B. Goodyear, O. S. Seymour,
No counsel appeared for the defendant in error.
No. 107. The City of Lexington, plaintiffin error, Esq., of Connecticut, was admitted to practice as
v. Joseph C. Butler. This cause was argued by an attorney and counselor of this court.
Mr. John F. Fisk, of counsel for the plaintiffin No. 109. John J. Walker et al., appellants, v .
error, and by Mr. J. W. Stevenson for the defend William M. Derby et al. The argument of this
cause was continued by Mr. L. Trumbull, of coun
ant in error.
No. 120. (substituted for No. 108.) A. W. Nor- sel for the appellees, and concluded by Mr. P.
cross ct al., appellants, v. The Steamer Laura, etc. Phillips for the appellants.
This cause was argued by Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, No. 111. William C. Hall et al., plaintiffs in error,
of counsel for the appellants, and by Mr. T. J. v. The Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad Com
pany. This cause was submitted on printed argu
Durant for the appellees.
ments by Mr. William Atwood, of counsel for the
Friday, February 16.
in error, and by Mr. Henry Cooper for
On motion of Mr. C. B. Goodrich, Lyman D. plaintiffs
in error
Brewster, Esq., of Connecticut, was admitted as an theNo.defendants
112. John D. Worthy, executor, etc., plaintiff
attorney and counselor of this court.
Henry Marston. This cause was sub
No. 354. Michael Hurley, plaintiff in error, v. in error,on v.printed
arguments by Mr. R. T. Merrick,
Frank Street. The motion to dismiss this cause mitted
of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr.
was argued by Mr. George G. Wright in support of W.
Holman on the printed brief and motion of
the same, and by Mr. J. N. Moore In opposition theS.defendant
in error.
thereto.
No. 526. Franklin Philp and A. S. Solomons,
Attorney-General of Iowa.Hon. M.
plaintiffs in error, v. Joseph Nock. Mr. Paschal
filed printed argument, by leave of the court, in E. Cutts, of Mahaska county, has been
support of the motion to dismiss this cause.
appointed Attorney-General by the Gov
No. 608. Michael O'Dowd, plaintiff in error, v. ernor of Iowa, in place of Hon. Henry
Henry F. Russell, mayor, etc. The motion to dis
miss this cause was argued by Mr. Billiard In sup O'Connor, resigned. We take great
port of the same, and by Mr. Carr in opposition pleasure in saying that Mr. O'Connor has
thereto.
been one of the most faithful and capa
Adjourned till Monday morning at eleven ble of officers. The women of Iowa owe
o'clock.
him a debt of gratitude they can never
Monday, February 19.
On motion of Mr. C. B. Goodrich, William F. pay for his successful aid in obtaining
Taylor, Esq.. of Connecticut, was admitted to prac the repeal of the laws which worked op
tice as an attorney and counselor of this court.
pressively upon women, and opening the
No. 85. The Steamboat Bridgeport, etc., appel way for their admission to all the learned
lants, v. George and [David Shaw. Appeal from professions upon an equality with men.
the Circuit Court of the United States for the East
ern District of New York. Mr. Justice Bradley In Iowa the liberty of pursuit is no
delivered the opinion of the court, affirming the longer a problem, but a reality.
decree of the said Circuit court in this cause, with
costs and interest.
Samuel Hand. Reporter of the N. Y.
No. 66. The County of Pendleton, plaintiff In
error, v. Henry Amy. In error to the Circuit Court Court of Appeals, resigned that office
of the United States for the District of Kentucky. last week, and Hiram G. Sickles, law
Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opinion of the partner of the Attorney-General, has
court, reversing the judgment of the said Circuit
court, and remanding the cause for a new trial in been appointed to fill the vacancy.
conformity with the opinion of this court. Mr.
Justice Field, Mr. Justice Miller and Mr. Chief
Hon. David Davis.Judge Davis, of
Justice Chase concur In the judgment of reversal, this State, Associate Justice of the Su
but not in all the views expressed In the opinion preme Court of the United States, wasof the majority.
No. 70. The Chicago and Northwestern Railroad on Thursday nominated for President by
Company, plaintiff in error, v. Henry K. Whlton, the " Labor Reform Party" at Columbus,.
administrator, etc. In error to the Circuit Court ol Ohio.
the United States for the Eastern District of Wis
consin. Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion of
Fined for Refusing to Qualify as
the court, affirming the judgment of the said Cir
Mayor.Mr. George Richardson was, in
cuit court in this cause, with costs and interest.
No. 45. George J. Pumpelly, plaintiff in error, v. November last, elected Mayor of Salis
The Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Company. bury. He was fined one hundred pounds,
In error to the Circuit Court of the United States by the mayor and magistrates for re
for the District of Wisconsin. Mr. Justice Miller
delivered the opinion of the court, reversing the fusing to qualify. We never heard of a
judgment of the said Circuit court, and remanding person who had been elected mayor of
the cause for further proceeding in conformity any of the cities in America refusing to
with the opinion of this court.
No. 98. William W. Pugh, plaintiff in error, v. qualify.
James L. McCormick. In error to the Circuit Court
BUSINESS NOTICES.
of the United States for the District of Louisiana.
Mr. Justice Clifford delivered the opinion of the
Job Printing.Persons who wish tocourt, affirming the judgment of the said Circuit get printing done with dispatch and in
court in this cause, with costs and interest.
No. 289. Lucy H. Carroll, administratrix, appel the finest style of the art, should, we
lant v. The United States. Appeal from the think, send it to the Legal News Job
Court of Claims. Mr. Chief Justice Chase de Printing establishment, 13 North Jeffer
livered the opinion of the court, reversing the son St., or 115 W. Madison St.
decree of the said Court of Claims, and remand
Hon. Anson S. Miller and Cyrus F.
ing the cause for further proceedings, in conform
ity with the opinion of this court.
Miller, Esq., of Rockford, and Hon. R.
No. 264. The United States, appellants, v. Sam S. Williamson, of Palatine, have formed
uel S. Smoot; and No. 265. Samuel S. Smoot, a partnership for the practice of the law
appellant, v. The United States. Appeals from
the Court of Claims. Mr. Chief Justice Chase de- in this city, under the firm of Miller,
delivered the opinion of the court, denying the Williamson & Miller, as will be seen by
motion for certiorari in these cases.
their card in this issue. Office, No. 130
No. 526. Philp & Solomons, plaintiffs in errror, v.
Joseph Nock. In error to the Supreme court of West Randolph street.
the District of Columbia. Mr. Chief Justice Chase
Volumes of the Legal News. Will
delivered the opinion of the court, denying the persons having back volumes of the
motion to dismiss this cause.
No. 35-1. Michael Hurley, plaintiff in error, v. Legal News, bound or unbound, which
Frank Street. In error to the Supreme court of they will sell, notify us of the condition
the State of Iowa. Mr. Chief Justice Chase de and price of their volumes.

ISO
Continued from page 147.
ey, the vendor sells and assigns said notes
before maturity, said real estate cannot
be subjected to the payment of a judg
ment rendered against the vendor, re
taining the legal title, after such assign
ment ; and the Side of the land under an
execution issued on such judgment will
be enjoined at the suit of said purchaser.
(Opinion by Downey, J.)Jackson v.
Snell el al.
UNSOUNDNESS OP MINI).
1. ContractStatute Construed.The
statutory provision, that " every contract,
sale, or conveyance of any person, while
a person of unsound mind shall be void,"
2 G. & II, 57o, sec 11, is applicable only
to a person who has been found to be
non compos mentis in the manner prescrib
ed by statute.(Opinion by Worden, J.)
Wilder etalv. Weakley Estate.
SALE.
2. Where goods are sold to a person
apparently of sound mind, who is not
known by the seller to be otherwise, and
who has not been found to be otherwise
by a proper proceeding for that purpose,
and the contract is fair and bona fide, and
the purchaser receives and uses the goods,
whereby the contract becomes so far ex
ecuted that the parties cannot be placed
in statu quo, such contract cannot after
wards be set aside because of the un
soundness of mind of said purchaser at
the time of the sale, nor can payment for
the goods be refused, either by the al
leged lunatic or his representatives.lb.
PLEADING.
3. In an action to recover the price of
goods sold, if, at the time of the sale, the
purchaser had been duly found to be of
unsound mind by a proper proceeding
for that purpose, this fact is matter of de
fense ; and it does not devolve on the
plaintiff to allege the contrary in antici
pation.lb.
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
Barker k Waite, 40 East Harrison,
Hates & I lodges, 113 West Madison street,
BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street.
Bouney, Kay A Griggs, 120 West Washington street.
Bentley, Bennett, Ullman A Ives, 376 Wabash ave.
Brouse, 0. 400 Wabash avenue.
Burke A Allen, 18 West Randolph.
Carmichacl, D. L., 815 Prairie avenue.
Chase, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue.
Clarkson 4 Van Schaack, 454 Wabash avenue,
Condon, Wm. H\, 34 Canal street.
Deanc A Cahill, room 7, Lind's Block.
Dent A Black, 740 Wabash avenue.
Ewing A Leonard, 487 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. W 115 West Madison street.
Felker, Wm. S., 92 Dcsplaines street.
Goodwin, D., jr., n. e, corner Monroe and La Salle.
Goudy A Chandler, Union Central Block.
Graham, Geo. T., 60 South Canal.
Herbert A Quick, 61 Union Central Building, and 329
State street.
t Hoyne. Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michigan
and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne, Hortou A Hoyne, 267 Michigan avenue.
Hitchcock, Dupee A Evarts, corner Wells and Mon
roe streets.
Howe A Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
Knickerbocker, J. C. A J. J., 163 West Washington
Learning A Thompson, 419 Wabash avenue.
Leary, D. James, 95 West Madison.
Magruder, B. D., 181 West Madison.
McClelland, Thos. S., 45 South Canal, room 6.
Merriam/Alexander A Bolster.'14'.i W. Washington st.
Miller. Frost A Lewis, 363 Michigan avenue.
Moore A Caulfield, M Central Union Block.
Monroe, Bisbee A Gibbs, 523 Wabash avenue.
Newcomb, G. W., 771 West Madison Btreet.
Norton, Jessio O., 386 Wabash avenue.
Nissen A Barmim, 126 W. Randolph, and 376 State.
Otis. E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Perkins, N. C, 479 Wabash av., cor. Eldridge court.
Reynolds, W. C, 176 West Washington st.
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 South Canal.
Rorke, M. A. A Son, Room 57, Central Union Block.
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, Masonic Building, s. w.
cor. Randolph and Halsted, and 350 Wabash avenue.
Scammon, McCagg A Fuller, 3*9 Wabash avenue.
Sheldon A Waterman, corner La Halle and Monroe
Smith, Upton A Waterman, 139 West Monroe street.
Story A King, 149 West Washington street.
Tcnny, McClellan A Tenny, 454 Wabash avenue,
Thomas, Sidney, 364 South State street.
Van Buren, E. A A.. 194 West Madison street.
Vallctte, H. F., 59 West Madison Btreet.
Waughop, J. W., 401 Wabash avenue.
White, Hugh A., 109 West Washington street.
Williams A Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
Walker, Dexter A Smith, 562 Wabash avenue.
Wilson, Perry A Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
ILLINOIS REPORTS.
I have for sale all the Reports up to and including
53rd Illinois, with the exception of Breese. Books all
in good condition. Address
BOX 405,
20p
Ualenm, III.

Chicago

Legal

G. A. FOLLANSBEE,
Attorney, 181 La Saltc .Street,
ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE.
of an order
and made
decreeonofthe
County
CourtByof virtue
Cook county,
Illinois,
the petition
of the undersigned administrator of the estate of Fred
erick Biermaun, deceased, for leave to sell the real es
tate of said deceased, at the February term, a. d. 1872,
of said court, to wit, on the 20th day of February, a. d.
17L% between
I shall ontheThursday,
1Mb day
April,
a. .
3872,
hours of intheo'clock
a.m.ofana
5 o'clock
p. m. of said day, sell at public salt' on the premises,
the following described real estate, situated in the
town of Leyden, county of Cook, aud Slate of Illinois,
to wit :
Being a part of tho northwest quarter of section
three
(3), congressional
forty (40).
north
range twelve
(12), east of thetownship
third principal
meridian,
and
bounded
as
follows:
commencing
at
a
post
dist i
ant west of the south-east corner of the aforesaid quarter section seventeen (17) chains and fifty-six (56> links |
to centre!
roadcentre
and ofnorth
on e-half
(9Ja*)
degrees
eastofwith
said nine
road and
twelve
(12 1 chains
and seventy-one (71) links, and running from thence
north
(9'a)anddegrees
east (02)
withlinks
centre
of saidnine
roadand
nineone-half
(9) chains
sixty-two
to
the centre of Dea Plains River, thence south thirty- I
four
(34)
degrees
east
six
(6)
chains,
thence
south
fiftyfive (.15) degrees east with centre of said river four (4)
chainsand
andone-half
forty-one(37Jt)
(41)degrees
links, weal
thencethroe
south
seven
(3) thirtychains
and ninety (yo) links, thence north eighty and
one-half (so'j ) degrees west six ("') chains and fifty-five
(55) links to the place of beginning, containing 1 70-100
acres
moretoorwit
less: (variation 5, 3o' E,) on the follow
ing terms,
One thousand dollars in six months from the day ofthe
sale, with interest at the rate of 6 percent, per annum,
to bo secured by the promissory note of the purchaser,
with mortgage upon the premises sold, and the bal
ance cash in hand on the dav of sale.
HEINRICH BIKRMANN,
Administrator of the estate of
Frederick Biermann, deceased.
G. A. Foi-LAxsnEK, Attorney.
20-25
C. BROWNELL,
G6 West Randolph greet.
flHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
Illinois,
County
of
J Cook, ss. Superior
court ofofCook
county,
March
Term. A.D. 1872. Ellen S. Des Rosiers v. I. Arthur
Des Rosiers In Chancery.
Affidavit that I. Arthur Des Rosiers, defendant above
named,upon
concealb
himBeifbeen
so that
process
cannot
be
served
him, having
filed in
the office
of the
clerk
of
said
Superior
court
of
Cook
county,
notice
is hereby given to the said I. Arthur Des Rosiers
that
filedside
herthereof,
bill of com
plaintthein complainant
said court, onheretofore
the chancery
and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of March next, (1872,) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said 1. Arthur lies Rosiers, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook countyx on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on tho first Monday
of March, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
Bald complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
willyou
be
taken asaud
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
A. JAC0BS0N, Clerk.
C. Brownell. Compl't's Sol'r.
20-23
THEO.'SCHINTZ,
Attorney, Central Union Block.
ESTATE
FRANK
DECEASED.
Notice isOF
hereby
given RE1CHARDS.
to all persona having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
Frank
deceased, to present the same for adjudicationlteiehards
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, toonbo the
holden
the courtofhouse,
Chicago,
first atMonday
May,in the
A.D.city1872,of
being the sixth day thereof.
Chicago, February 21. A.D. 1872.
20-25a
JOHANN REICHARDS, Executor.
ESTATE
OF
GUNDA
Notice ia hereby
given toOLESON.
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Gunda Oleson,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement
of the
County court
ot
Cook county,at toa beregular
holdenterm
at the
courthouse,
in tho
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
May,
A.D.
1872, being the 6th day thereof.
Chicago, February 19, A.D. 1S72.
CHARLES GLADDING, Administrator.
James Miciiie, Att'y.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL
concerned, that the undersigned, guardian of Ed
ward P. Towne, minor, will make application to the
Circuit court of Cook county, State of Illinois, at tho
March term thereof, A.D. 1872, to be holden at the court
house, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday
of March, A. D. 1872. for order, enabling said guardian
to
and convey
all the right,
title and
aaidsellminor,
in the following
described
real interest
estate, sitof
uated
in
the
State
of
Illinois,
to
wit:
One
one-half (l5) of east one-half (';) of W. ofundivided
lot No.
three (3), in block fifty-seven (57) of original town of
Chicago.
Also, an undivided one-sixth (1-6) of undivided fourfifths (4-5) of west ten (10) acres of N. E. U of N. W.
>i of section twenty-three (23), T, 38, R. 14.
Also, an undivided one-stxth (1-6) of four-fifths (4-5)
of E. H of N. W. of N. W. >i of section 23, T. 38,
R.Also,
14. all of tho assessors subdivision of northwest
(N. W.) one quarter (*%*) undivided two-fifths (2-5) of
lot
four (14),
(4), for
block
section
town 39, of
andtherange
said
fourteen
the 19,
support
and22,education
minor, or to invest in other real estate as tho court
may direct.
ELIZA H. TOWNE, Guardian.
Chicago, Feb. 13, 1872.
19-21
SAWIN & WELLS,
A ttorneyg.
-VT0TICE-APPLICATION or GUARDIAN to SELL
li real estato of wardsTo all whom it may concern :
NoticeofisJarub
herebyLauer
given and
that Catherine
the undersigned,
guar
dian
Latter, asminors,
will apply to the Superior court of Cook county, State
of Illinois, upon the fourth dav of March. A. D. 1872.
the same being the first day of the March term. A. D
1872, of said court,at ten o'clock a. m., for leave to
sell all the right, title and interest of tho said minors,
Jacob and Catherine Lauer. in and to the following
real estate: Lot eleven (11), block twenty-four (24), in
Bushuall's
addition
to the city of Chicago, county of
Cook,
and State
of Illinois.
19-21
JACOB SERAMOR, Guardian.
E. L. KNOTT,
Attorney, -19 S. Homed St.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
court
of Cookvs.county,
April
term,Cook,
A.D. ss.
1*72.Circuit
Jonathan
C. Bowles
Belle Bowles.
In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Belle Bowles,
defendant above named, having heen filed in the office
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to tho said Belle Bowles
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out ofsaid court
against said defeudant, returnable on the third Mon
day of April next, (1*72.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Belle Bowles, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit court of Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
at Chicago, in said county, on the third Monday of
April,
1872, andbillplead,
answer or the
demur
to the
complainant's
of complaint,
same,
and said
the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to tho prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T, CASSETTE. Clerk.
E.L -Knott, Compl't's Sol'r.
18-21

News.

TENNEY, McCLELLAN & TENNEY,

Attorneys.
MORTGAGE
Aaronin the
H. Crosby
aud Adeline,BALE.Whereas,
his wife, of Central!a,
county
of Marion, and State of Illinois, did, on the thirtieth
day of June, A. D, 1871, execute and deliver to me
their certain mortgage, which said mortgage was re
corded in the recorder's office of said Marion county,
in the State of Illinois, on the 8th day of July. A. D.
1871, in volume II of Mortgages, page 194, of tho prem
ises hereinafter described, to secure the payment of
one certain promissory note made by the said A II.
Crosby,
datedhundred
on the thirtieth
day ofJuno,55-1871,
for the
sum
of one
and ninety-seven
100 dollars,
with interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum,
payable
the order
C. B. Farwell
five monthsin after
the date tothereof;
andofwhereas
it is provided
said
mortgage that in case of default in the payment of the
said note or any part thereof, according to the tenor
and effect thereof, the said C. B. Farwell, his legal rep
resentatives
or attorney,
after having
advertised
such
sale
twenty days
in a newspaper
published
in Chicago,
Cook county, Illinois, may sell the said premises, or
any part thereof, and all right and equity of redemp
tion
theheirs
said orAaron
Crosby atandpublic
Adeline,
his
wife, of
their
assignsH.therein,
vendue,
to the highest bidder, for cash, at the court house, in
Baid Cook county ; and whereas default has been made
in thebypayment
noteinand
fore,
virtue ofofthesaidpower
me interest,
vested bynow,
said there
mort
gage,
I,
the
undersigned
mortgagee,
wilt
at 10
o'clock a. 111., on Wednesday, the 6th day ofsellMarch,
A.
D.
1*72,
at
public
vendue,
at
the
court-house
door,
in said Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, to tho highest
bidder, for cash, the premises in said mortgage de
scribed, to wit: Lots three (3) and four (4), in block
one (.1.1, in tho town of Centralia, county of Marion,
State of Illinois, together with all aud singular, the
tenements and hereditaments, privileges and appurte
nances thereunto belonging, and all the right, title,
benefit and equity of redeuiptiou of the said Aaron H.
Crosby and Adeline, his wife, in and to the said prem
ise*.
CHARLES B. FARWELL.
Tensey, McClellan
Att'ya forMortgagee^
A Tknney,
19-21
JAMES FRAKE,
Attorney. 1 15 WeM Madison St.
"INSTATE OF ROBERT SI1EPPARD, DECEASED.
JCj Notice is hereby given to all person* having claims
and demands against the estate of Robert Shcppard,
deceased, to present the same lor adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, ou the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
SAMANTIIA SHEPPARD and
ROBERT D. SHEPPARD,
Executors.
Chicago, Feb. 16, A. D. 1872^
19-21
M. liomnhl.
A. RORKE
& SON,
Attorneys,
Central
I'nion Block.
TESTATE OF WILLIAM CLOWRY, DKCEASED.Xj Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of William
Clowry, deceased, to present the same for adjudicatiou aud settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the firBt Monday of April,
A.D. 1872, being the first day thereof."
ANN CLOWRY,
Administratrix, and
MARTIN BRENNAN,
Administrator
of said Estate.
Chicago. Feb. fi. 1872.
19-24
J. MILTON OLIVER,
Attorney. 30 SouUi Clinton St.
ESTATE OF GEORGE GANIERE, DECEASED.Notice is hereby jjjiveu to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of George Ganiere,settlement
deceased,attoa regular
present term
the same
adjudication
and
ot theforCounty
Court
of Cook county, to be holden at the Court House, in
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D.
1S72, being the 1st day thereof.
MARGARETTA
GANIERE, Administratrix.
J. Milton
olives, Attorney.
Chicago. January 22nd. A. D. 1872.
16-21a
FRANK PARTL,
Attorney, M3 West Randolph Street.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county ot
V> Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
March Term, A. D. 1872. Dorothea Binger v. Henry
Binger.InChancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Henry Binger,
defendant above named, having been filed in tho office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice
is hereby given
to thefiledaaidherHenry
that
the complainant
heretofore
bill ofBinger
complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons
thereupon
issued on
out the
of said
against
said defendant,
returnable
firBtcourt
Mouday
of
March next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the paid Henry Binger, shall
personally be aud appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of March, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged aud stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Frank Pabtl, Comp'ts Sol'r
19-22p
GOOKINS & ROBERTS,
Attorneys. 46 East Harrison Street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. April
Term, A.D. 1872. Stephen P. Hicks v. Anna Hicks.
In Chancery.
of the non-residence
of Anna
Hicks,
antAffidavit
above named,
having been filed
in the
officedefend
of the
clerk
of
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
notice is
hereby given to the said Anna Hicks that thecomplainant heretofore tiled his bill ofcomplainant In said court,
on
theissued
chancery
thereof,
that a summons
there
upon
out side
of said
courtandagainst
said defendant,
returnable on the third Monday of April next, (1872,)
as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Anna Hicks, shall per
sonally
bo andonappear
Circuit
court
of
Cook county,
tho firstbefore
day ofsaid
a term
thereof,
to bo
holden at Chicago, in said county, on tho third Monday
of April, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint,the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and mated, will bo
taken as confessed,
and ofa decree
entered against you
according
to the prayer
saidT.bill.
NORMAN
CASSETTE, Clerk.
Gookins A Rookrts, Compl'ts' Sol'rs.
19-22
THEO. SCHINTZ,
Attorney, Centra/ Union Block.
INSTATE OF MICHAEL URWANGER, Deceased.
J
Notice
is
to all of
persons
having
claims
and demands hereby
againstgiven
the estate
Michael
Urwanger,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement, at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, being
the first day thereof.
ANNA URWANGER, Executrix.
Chicago, Feb. 15, A. D. 1872.
19-24a
ESTATE
OF
JOSEPH
BROWN,
DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
or
demands
estaterequested
of Joseph
Brown,a
deceased,
and against
they arethehereby
to attend
term of the County court of the county of Cook, and
State ofonIllinois,
to be held inat the
said
county,
the first.Monday
the court
monthhouse,
of Mayin next
after
tho
date
hereof,
and
then
and
there
present
such
claims or demands for the purpose of having the same
adjusted. WILLIAM S. BROWN, Administrator.
Dated Chicago, Feb. 13, 1872.
J. II. Knowlton, Att'y19-24

SMALL & INGALLS,

Attorneys, 481 Wabash Avenue.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois. Cook county, ss. Circuit court
of Cook county. April Term, A.D. 1872. James Allan
vs. Thomas S. Burton aud James H. Adams.
Publicaad
notice
is hereby
given
Thomas S.
Burton
James
H. Adams
thattoathe
writsaid
ofattachment
issued out of the office of the clerk of the Circuit court
of Cook county, dated tho second day of February.
A, D. 1872, at the suit of tho said James H, Allan, and
against the estate of the said Thomas S. Burton and
James H. Adams, for the sum of six hundred ninetysix
dollars,
directed
to thereturned
sheriff executed.
of Cook county,
which
aaid writ
has been
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Thomas S. Bur
ton and Jameti H. Adams, shall personally be and
appear before tho Baid Circuit court of Cook county,
on or before the first day of the next term thereof, to
be holden at tho court house, in the city of Chicago,
on the third Monday of April, A.D. 1872, give special
bail
plead toagainst
the saidyou.plaintiff's
will and
he entered
and in action,
favor ofjudgment
the said
James H. Allan, and so much of the property attached
as may be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and
costs will be sold toNORMAN
satisfy theT.same.
GASSETTE, Clerk.
Small & Ikqallb, Att'ys.
18-21
HUGH A. WHITE,
Attorney 16V West Washington St.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois. Cook county, ss. Superior court
of Cook county. February Term, A. D. 1872. John
W. Doane, Patrick J. Towle, John Roper aud John B.
Raymond, vs. S. B. Paige and J. A. Paige.Attach
ment.
Public notice is hereby given to tho said S. B. Paige
and J. A. Paige that a writ of attachment issued out
of the office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook
county,
the John
12th day
January,
A.D. 1*72,
at the
suit of dated
the said
W.ofDoaue,
Patrick
J. Towle,
John Roper and John B. Raymond, and against the
estate
of S. B.and
Paige
and J. A. Paige,
for the directed
sum of
five hundred
eighty-eight
As- 100 dollars,
to the sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
returned executed.
Now, then-fore, unless you, the said S. B. Paige and J.
A.
Paige, shall
be and appear
before the
the first
said
Superior
courtpersonally
of Cook county.
011 or before
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the court
house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
February. A.D. 1*72. give special ball and plead to the
said
action,
judgment will be entered against
you. plaintiff's
and in favor
of the
said John W. Doane, Patrick
J.much
Towle,
John
Roper
aud JohnawB.may
Raymond,
and so
of the property attached
be sufficient
to
satisfy the said judgment and costs will be sold to sat
isfy the same.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Hvuh A. White, Attorney.
18-21
PUBLICATION NOTICE" IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois. Cook County, ss. Superior court
of Cook county. February Term. A.D. 1872. John W.
Doane,
John
Patrick J. Towle and John B.
Raymond,
vs. Roper,
C. M. Taylor.Attachment.
Public notice is hereby given to tho said C. M. Taylor
that a . writ of attachment issued out of the office
ofthe clerk ofthe Superior court of Cook county, dated
the 18th day of January, A.D. 1872. at the suit of the
said John W. Doane, Johu Roper, Patrick J. Towle
and John B. Raymond, and against the estate of the
said
C. M.and
Taylor,
for the
six thousand
directedsix
to
hundred
eighteen
aud sum
45-looofdollars,
the sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
returned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said C. M. Taylor,
shall personally be and appear before the said Superior
court of Cook county, on or before the first day of the
next term thereof, to be holden at the court house, in
the city of Chicago, on the first Mouday of February,
A.
1872, give
special bail
plead toagainst
the said
tiffsD.action,
judgment
will and
be entered
you,plain
aud
in
favor
of
the
said
John
W.
Doane,
John
Patrick J. Towle anil John B. Raymond, and boKoper,
much
of
attached
as may
to satisfy
thethe
saidproperty
judgment
aud costs
willbebesufficient
sold to satisfy
the
imo.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Hugh A. White, Attorney.
18-21
ROUNTREE & McHUGH,
Attorneys. Nixon's Building, cor. LaSalle and Monroe.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois^ Cook county, ss. Circuit Court
of Cookv. county,
April Term, A.D. 1872. Edward Donoghuo
Jeffrey Hodkinson.
1 Public notice is hereby given to the said Jeffrey Hod
kinson that n writ of attachment issued out of the of
fice
the 8th
clerk
Circuit court
of Cook
datedofthe
dayofoftheFebruary,
A.D. 1872,
at thecounty,
suit of
the said Edward Douoghue and against the estate of
Jeffrey Hodkinson for the sum of two hundred
and two 25-100 dollars, directed to the Sheriff
of Cook county, which said writ has been returned
executed.
unlessbe you,
said Jeffrey
Hodkin
sonNow,
shalltherefore,
personally
and the
appear
before the
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
on
or
before
first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at thetheCourt
House, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday
of April, A. D. 1*72, give special bail and plead to the
said plaiutiflV action, judgment will be entered against
you, and in favor of the said Edward Donoghue, and
so much of the property attached as may be suffi
cient to satisfy the said judgment and costs will be
sold to satisfy tho same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Rountree A Mclluoii, Attorneys.
20-23
INSTATE
OF
MARGARET
F.
COMERFORD,
DEj ceased. Notice is hereby given to all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Margaret
F. Coinerford, deceased, to present the same for adju
dication and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the court
house A.D.
in he1872,
city being
of Chicago,
first Mouday of
Apri.,
the firstondaythethereof.
JOHN TWOHEY, Executor.
Chicago. Feb. <, A.D. 1872.
Roi'NTitEF A McHuoif, Attys.
18-23
HITCHCOCK, DUFEE & EVARTS,
Attorneys, cor. Fifth Ave. and Monroe St.
ESTATE
BARTON
Notice isOFhereby
given toEDSALL,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
aud demands against the estate of Barton EdKill de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication aud settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at tho Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing the 1st day thereof.
BELLE W. EDSALL.
Administratrix.
Chicago, January 23, A. D. 1872.
Hitchcock, Ditef. A Evartr. Attorneys
16-21 a
NISSEN & BARNUM,
Attorneys, V26 Went Raiwolph street.
ESTATE
JACOBgivenKLEIN.
Notice OF
is hereby
to all DECEASED.
persons having
claims
and
demands
against
the
of Jacob Klein,
deceased, to present the same estate
for adjudication
and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be boldeu at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A.D.
1872, being the first day thereof.
CRESCENTIA KLEIN, Administratrix.
Nipsen A Barnlm, Attya.
Chicago, Jan. 25. 1*72.
l-21a
D. J. CROCKER.
Attorney. 48 South Canal Street.
ESTATE
OF CAROLINE
HEINES,
DECEASED.
Public notice
is hereby given
to all persons
having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of adjudica
Caroline
Heines, deceased, to present the same for
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court
Cook
holden
the court
house
in theofcitv
of county,
Chicago, toonbethe
first atMonday
of April,
A.D. 1872, being the firBtJACOB
day thereof.
HEINES, Executor.
D. J. Crocker, Att'y for Estate.
18-23

Chicago
TRUSTEE'S SALE.'Wherein*, Theodore Stone and
Mary S. Stone, his wife, of the city of Chicago, in
Cook county, Illinois, did on the sixth dav of June, in
the year eighteen hundred and seventy, l>y their cer
tain deed ol trust of that date, which was duly execu
ted, acknowledged and delivered as prescribed by law,
grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the undersigned
trustee,
his successor
in trust, and
his and lands
their heirs
and assigns,
all the following
described
and
premises situate in the city of Chicago, county of
Cook and State of Illinois, to wit: Lot numbered one
(1), inofArmstrong's
subdivision
of theC.i\>),
north
threecanal
(3)
acreB
block numbered
thirty-nine
in the
trustees' subdivision, in section thirty-three CXi) town
ship forty (.to) north, range fourteen (14). east of the
third principal merhiian, excepting that portion ol said
lot one (1) described by metes and bounds as follows,
to
commencing
a pointsaid
on the
of wit:
Lincoln
avenue, at(which
Inst southwesterly
mentioned linelineis
also (76)
the northeasterly
of said
lot onelino(t),ofseventysix
feet southeast line
of the
westerly
said lot
one (1), and line
running
thence
northwesterly
on tho
northeasterly
of
said
lot
one
(1),
seventy-six
to the west line of paid lot one (1): thence southfeet
on
the west line of said lot one (I) eighty-two
feet;
thence east on a line parallel with the south line of
said
(1) twenty-nine
feet; thencelinenortheast
on a lot
lineoneparallel
with the (2V
southeasterly
of said
lot
one
(1)
forty-two
and
one
half
(i-'j)however,
feet moretoora
less to the place ot beginning: subject,
certain other trust deed, dated the- 11th day of April,
A.I). 1869, upon the whole of said lot one (1) to one
Lyman Baird, recorded in hook M7 of deeds, page 27,
in the Recorder's office of Cook county, to secure pay
ment of the sum of four thousand dollars and interest,
and due April 11th, A.1). 1*74 ; together with the tene
ments, hereditaments and appurtenances : to have and
to hold the same unto the undersigned,his said successor
in trust, and his and their heirs and assigns forever, in
trust, to secure the payment of a certain promissory
note
madesaidby deed
the said
Theodore
Stone,
even
date with
of trust,
payable
to hisbearing
own order,
due
in
one
year
after
date
without
grace,
for
the
of two thousand dollars, with interest at the ratesumof
ten per cent per annum after date and until paid, and
payable at room 39 Reynolds' block. Chicago; and up
on
defaultor ofin any
payment
said note,
or any partof
thereof,
interestofthereon,
on application
the legal holder of said note, the undersigned as such
trustee as aforesaid, or his said successor in trust, was
authorized
sell and
dispose
the said
premises, andof
all
tho ritrht,totitle,
benefit
andofequity
of redemption
tho Bald Theodore Stone and Mary S. Stone, their heirs
and assigns, at public auction, at the north door of the
court house of said county of Cook, in said city of
Chicago, (or on the said premises, as may be specified
in the notice of such sale,) for the highest and best
price the
sametwo
willweeks
bringpublic
in cash,
giving
at least
noticeupon
of thepreviouslytime and
place
of
6aid
sale
by
advertisement
thereof
a daily
or weekly newspaper at that time published iniu the
said
city
of
Chicago,
and
to
make,
execute
and
deliver
the
purchaser or purchasers at said sale, good and tosuffi
cient deed or deeds of conveyance for the premises so
sold; and out of the proceeds or avails of Bald sale,
after first paying the costs thereof, including fees and
commissions
of thoandsaidother
trustee, other
expenses of said
trust premises
and taxes
on
said
with interest, liens
then toandpayassessments
the principal
of
said
note
and
interest
thereon,
rendering
the
over
plus, if any, unto the said Theodore Stone and Mary
8. Stone, their heirs, representatives and assigns: said
purchaser not being req ilred to see to the application
of the purchase money, and which sale should be a
perpetual bar at law and in equity, against the said
grantors, their heirs and assigns, and all persons
claiming said premises under them as aforesaid ; and
the
said Theodore
and Mary
S. Stone
did there
by waive
all right Stone
and benefit
of the
exemption
and
homestead laws of the State of Illinois in said prem
ises, and the undersigned as such trustee was author
ized to adjourn Buch sale from time to timo in his dis
cretion; and
which saidanddeed
the inusual
covenants
of warranty,
was contained
duly recorded
the
Recorder's office of Cook county, in the State of
Illinois, on the seventh day of June, A.D. 1870. in book
602 of deeds, page lfiO.
Anil default having been made in the payment of
the
said notehaving
secured
the tosaid
trust,owner
and
application
beenbymade
me deed
by theoflegal
thereof
to
sell
the
said
lands
and
premises
above
scribed, according to the provisions of said deeddeof
trust :
Now, therefore, notice is hereby given, that by virtue
of
the said
the said
of trust
con
tained,
I wQlpower
soli ofthesale
saidinlands
anddeed
premises
therein
aud herein described, at public auction, to the highest
bidder
at the north
doortwenty-sixth
of tho courtday
houseof
in the for
citycash,
of Chicago,
on the
February, A.D. 1872, at the hour of ten o'clock in the
forenoon, to pay and satisfy the money due on said
notev and the interest, taxes, fees and costs.
Chicago, Fobruary 10, 1872.
E. A. Otis. Att'y. HAIMAN LOWY, Trustee.
18-20
JNO. J. McKINNON,
Attorney, Room G Sherman House.
TRUSTEE'S
SALE.Whereas,
onand
theHarriet
seventhNewell
day of
June,of 1871,
Benjamin
Newell
his wife,
Princeton,
Bureau
county.
State of Illinois,
executed their trust deed of that date of the real estate
hereinafter described, which was recorded on the
eighth day of June, 187], in the Recorder's office of
Bureau county. State of Illinois, in book V. of mort
gages,
at page 37*, which
trust
deedNewell,
was given to secure
awith
certain
of said
said promissory
trust deed, note
payable
to the orderofofeven
Alicedate
M.
Ireson, for the sum of sixteen hundred dollars, with
interest
thereon
at
ten
percent,
per
annum,
payablo
semi-annually in advance, said note being payable in
three years after date, and being given for money
loaned the said Newell by the said Alice M. IreBon ;
and whereas, the interest on said note to be paid in
advance from the seventh day of December 1871, has
not been paid, nor any part thereof, as provided in
Baid trust deed ; and whereas, the legal holder of said
note has requested the undersigned to make sale of
aid real estate, as authorized tiy said trust deed, to
Eay said note and interest: Now, therefore, notice is
erebyauthority
given, that
andtrust
by virtue
and
givenunder
by said
deed, ofandtheforpower
the
purpose of paying the note and interest aforesaid, on
the thirtieth day of March, 1872, at ten o'clock in tho
forenoon of that day, at the north door of the court
house of said Cook county, in said city of Chicago, (as
provided in said trust deed,) I shall proceod to sell at
public
cash bidder
therefor,
said realauction,
estate, toto the
wit:highest
the northeast
quarter
(n.e. tho
3tO
of section two (2), township fifteen (l.V) north, range
ten (10). east of fourth (4) principal meridian, contain
ing one hundred and sixty (160) acres, more or less, in
the county of Bureau and State of Illinois, and all the
right, title and interest in the same conveyed to me by
said trust deed.
EDWIN9, W.
CHAMBERLAIN, Trustee.
DatedJ.February
1872.
Jno.
McKinnon.
Att'y.
18-22
HIGH & TRUMAN,
Wabash Avenue,
TESTATE Attorneys,
OF ELI 487
N. SKINNER,
DECEASED.XJ
hereby against
given totheallestate
persons
claimsNotice
and isdemands
of having
Eli N,
Skinner, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and
settlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house,
in
the city of Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
Of April, A.D 1872, being' the first day thereof.
BETSEY SKINNER ond
JEREMIAH
Chicago, February A.D.
1872. S. CLOUGII.
Executors
Hian A Truman, Attys.
18-r.a
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
SHORT - HAND WRITER,
And U. S. Commissioner.
Western Union Telegraph Ofice, 5M Wabash Ave-

Legal

ROSENTHAL, PENCE & MOSES,

Attorrwu*, 3n0 Wabash Avenue.
Estate
of Catherine
de:
ceased.Notice
is hereby givenweishaar,
to all persons hav
ing claimt and demands against the estate of Catherine
Weishaar, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and
settlement
at toa be
regular
the County
court
ol Cook
county,
holdenterm
at theofcourt
house,
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April,
A. 1). 1,>72, being the first day thereof.
ANN CHIMIN, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. 1). 1872.
iy-2j
INSTATE
OF
GUSTAV
DASSLER,
DECEASED.
-j Notice
hereby against
given totheallestate
persons
claims
and isdemands
of having
Gustav
Dassler, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion
and
settlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
court of Cook county, to he holden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April,
A.D. 1872, being the first dav thereof.
AUGUSTA DASSLER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A.D. 1872.
l'J-24
ESTATE
OF
HENRY
A.
BoHLE,
DECEASED.Noiice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands again.*! tho estate of Henry A. Bohle, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to ho holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on tho first Monday of April, A. D. 1872,
being tho first dayHENRY
theroof. BOHLE, Administrator.
Chicago. Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE
KEMMLER.
DECEASED.
NoticeOFisRUDOLPH
hereby given
to all persons
hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Rudolph
Kemmler, deceased, to present the same for ad
judication aud settlement at a regular term of the
County court of Cook county, to be holden nt the
court
Chicago,
on day
tho thereof.
first Mon
day ofhouse,
April,inA.the
D. city
1872, of
being
the first
FREDERICK KEMMLER, Executor.
Chicago. Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE OF WILLIAM LAISTER. DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of William Laister,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be hidden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
ROBERT C. WRIGHT and
JAMES W. COCnitAN,
Executors.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1672.
19-24
ESTATE OF JOHANN KRUEGER. DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Johann Kruegor,
deceased, to present the same tor adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first day
thereof.KRUEGER, Administratrix.
SOPHIA
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
W.
HUFMEYER.
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of John W. Hufmeyer,
deceased,
forCounty
adjudication
andCook
set
tlement attoa present
regular the
termsame
of the
court of
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first dav thereof.
LOUISA HUFMEYER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook County, March
Term, A.D. 1872. John Raber vs. William M. Zcaring,
Charles W . Pierce, Sarah Edwards and Enoch
Edwards.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Sarah Edwards
and Enoch Edwards, two of the defendants above
named, having been filed in the office of the clerk of
said
courtSarah
of Cook
county,
hereby
givenSuperior
to the said
Edwards
andnotice
EnochisEdwards
that the complainant heretofore filed his hill of com
plaint
said court,thereupon
on the chancery
sideofthereof,
and
that a insummons
issued out
said court
against said defendants, returnable on the first Man
orNow,
Marchunless
next,you,
(1872.)
law Edwards
required.and Enoch
the assaidis by
Sarah
Edwards, shall personally be and appear before said
Superior
court
of
Cook
county,
on
of a
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago,thoinfirst
saidday
county,
on tho first Monday of March, 1872, and plead, answer
or demur to the said complainant's bill of complaint,
the same,
matters as
andconfessed,
things therein
and
stated,and
willthebetaken
and acharged
decree
entered against you according to the prayer of said
bill.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses. Compl't's Sol'rs. 18-21
ADAMS & LINCOLN,
Attorneys.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook,
ss.
Circuit
court ofofSchools
Cook county'.
April
term, A. D. 1872. Trustees
of Township
Thirty-nine (39), North Range Thirteen (13), east of
tho
third principal
meridian,
in Cook county, Illinois,
v. Joseph
Gothelf.In
Chancery.
Affidavit that the above named defendant. Joseph
Gothelf, upon due inquiry, cannot be found, having
been
in the
officenotice
of theis clerk
said Circuit
court filed
of Cook
county,
herebyof given
to the
Baid Joseph Gothelf that the complainants heretofore
filed their bill of complaint in said court, on the chan
cery' slde^thcreof, and that a summons thereupon issued
out
said court
against
saidnext,
defendant,
on theof third
Monday
of April
(1872.) asreturnable
is by lawrequired.
Now, unless you, the said Joseph Gothelf, shall
personally be and appear before said Circuit court of
Cook county( on tho first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day ,of April. 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
Baid complainants1 bill of complaint, the same, and the
mattersasand
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
willyou
be
taken
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Francis Adams 4 H. Lincoln, Compl'ts' Sol'rs.
17-20
THOS. SHIRLEY,
AtCy, Masonic Bld'g, cor. Randolph and Hoisted sts.
ESTATE
JOHANN
WILHELM
knownOF
as John
William)
Meyer, (OTHERWISE
deceased.No
tice is hereby given to all persons havingclaims and
demands
against
the
estate
of
Johann
Wilhelm
(otherwise known as John William) Meyer,
de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1872, be
ing the 4th day thereof.
MARIA CHATARINA MEYER,
Administratrix.
_Thos. Shirley, Att'y.
lV20a
TO WHOMTT MAY CONCERN.-We. the~unde7
signed,
limitedof copartnership
to be&
carried
on have
underformed
the aname
Fletcher, Lazear
Cheney,
Cook I,county,
January 1,in1872,Chicago,
till January
1874, to Illinois,
carry onfrom
the
business of buying. Rolling, and manufacturing and
selling, harness and carriages. The said undersigned.
F. I. Lazear. M. E. Fletcher and George A. Cheney,
are the general partners, and John Amerman, of IlronBon,
and the
Josias
Parks,
of Norwalk,
in the
State of
Ohio^are
special
partners,
and have
respectively
paid into the common stock two thousand dollars in
cash.
M. E. FLETCHER,
F.
I. LAZEAR,
GEORGE
A. CHENEY,
JOHN AMERMAN,
17-22
JOSIAS PARKS.

News.

GEORGE W. SMITH,
A'/.ChaUDCey
17') Wnttash
Ave.
rpiIIS is toAttorney.
certify that
T. Bowen,GeorgeW.
A. Shaw, William H. Fitch, Jonathan Richards, The
A. Shaw,
and Almerin
H. Winslow,
formed
aodore
limited
partnership
in accordance
withhave
the laws
of
the State of Illinois, and that. First, tho name or firm
under which the partnership is to be conducted ffl
Richards, Shaw ft Window; Second, The general na
ture
of theof business
transacted Third,
is the Chauncoy
purchase
and sale
dry goodsto atbewholesale;
T. Bowen aud George W. Shaw are the special part
ners therein, and William H. Fitch, Jonathan Rich
ards, Theodore A. Shaw, and Almerin H. Winslow, are
the general partners therein; that the place of resi
dence ol said George W. Shaw is the city of Dayton,
iu the State of Ohio: that the place of residence of
said Chauncoy T. Bowen, William H. Fitch, Jonathan
Richards,
A. Shaw, inandtheAlmerin
Winslow,
is theTheodore
city of Chicago,
State of H.Illinois:
Fourth, The said Ohauncey T. Bowen has contributed
to the capital stock of said partnership the sum of one
hundred thousand dollars, and the said George W
Shaw has contributed thereto the sum of fifty thousand
dollars: Fifth, The period at which said partnership is
to commence is the first day of February. A.D. 1872,
and the period nt which it is to terminate is the thirtyfirst day of January, A.D. 187.'); Sixth, The principal
place of basinens of said partnership is the city ofChi
cago,
in the Stale
of Illinois.
in witness
whereof,
the said parties have hereto
signed their names this first day of February, A.D.
1872. (Signed)
WILLIAM II. FITCH.
JONATHAN RICHARDS.
THEODORE
SHAW,
ALMERIN H.A. WINSLOW,
GEORGE W. SHAW,
CHAUNCEY T. Bo WEN.
State of Illinois,)
County ot Cook, >-ss.
City of Chicago,,)
I, Edward W. Russell, a Notary' Public In and for
said
do me,
hereby
certify T.thatBowen,
on thisGeorge
day personally
camecity,
b*lbre
Chauncey
W. Shaw,
William H. Fitch, Jonathan Richards, Theodore A.
Shaw, and Almerin H. Window, tome known to be
the persons whose name.-* are subscribed to the fore
going
instrument,by and
the
said instrument,
themseverally
signed, toacknowledged
be their act and
deed, and that they executed the same for the uses and
purposes therein set forth.
Given under my hand and official seal, this third day
of February. A.D. 1872.
(Signed)
fT . \
EDWARD W. Notary
RUSSELL.
\L-8-|
Public.
State of Illinois,)
County of Cook, >s
City of Chicago, J
Almerin H. AV fnalow, being duly sworn. Bays that he
is one of the general partners of the limited partner
ship
of Richards,
Shaw &toWinslow;
that stock
Chauncey
T.
Bowon
has contributed
the common
of said
partnership the sum of one hundred thousand dollars
in cash, and that such amount has been actually and
in good faith applied to the same; that Georgo W.
Shaw has contributed to the common stock of said
partnership the sum of fifty thousand dollars in cash,
and that such amount has been actually aud in good
faith applied to the same.
WINSLOW.
Subscribed aud sworn ALMERIN
to before me,H.this
third day of
February, A.D. 1872.
EDWARD W. RUSSELL.
Notary* Public.
{l.6.}
18-23
T IMITED PARTNERSHIP.To whom it may conXJ cern : Whereas, the undersigned have formed a
limited partnership, and have filed articles of copartnershipln
the office
of the clerk
the county
of Cook,
State
of Illinois,
agreeably
to theofstatute
in such
case
made
and
provided,
and
said
clerk
has
designated
the
Chicago
Legal News shall
as thebenewspaper
which
notice
of
-iiih partnership
published,Innow
therefore
notice
hereby
given that the terms of said copartner
ship areis as
follows:
1st. The Btyle of said firm is, " M. T. Sworthout & C.
H. Nichols.1*
business
conducted
by said
is that
of2d.theThe
Retail
Boot toandbeShoe
business,
in firm
the city
of
Chicago. Cook county. Illinois.
3d.
The
general
partners
are
Manley
T.
Sworthout
and Charles H. Nichols, the special partner George
Nichols, all residents of said city of Chicago.
4th. The amount of capital stock which the said spe
cial partner, George Nichols, has contributed to said
copartnership is the sum of one thousand dollars.
Mh. The said copartnership is to commence on the
first day of February, A.D. 1872, and terminate on tho
first day of February, A.D. 1873.
MANLY T. SWORTHOUT,
CHARLES
H. NICHOLS,
18-23
GEORGE NICHOLS.
MORTON CULVER,
Attorney, 109 IK. Washington St.
ESTATE OF HANS CHRISTIAN BROCK HAN
SON, Deceased.Pubic
notice
is hereby
giventhe
to
all persons
having claims and
demands
against
estate of Hans Christian Brock Hanson, deceased, to
present the same for adjudication and settlement at a
regular term of the County court of Cook county, to
bo holden at the courthouse in the city of Chicago,
on the first Monday of April, A.D. 1872, being the first
day thereof.
SIGISMOND D. JACOBSON. Aministrator.
Chicago. February 7. A.D. 1872.
Morton Culver, Art y.
18-23
ESTATE
OF
EDWARD
CASTLE,
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the CBtate of Edward
Castle, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion
settlement
at a toregular
term at
of the
Courtand
of Cook
County,
be holden
the County
Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
April, A.D. 1872, being the first day thereof.
LESTER
D. CASTLE, Executor.
Chicago, February,
A.D. 1872.
16-23a
ESTATE OF WILLIAM SCHAEFER, DECEASED.-is hereby
all persons
having
claims
andtNotice
demands
againstgiven
the to
estate
of William
Schaefer,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term ot the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at tho Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872,
being the first day thereof.
ADOLPHAtt'y.
CANDLER, Administrator.
James B. Bradwell,
Chicago, January 26, A.D.. 1872.
16-21
ESTATE OF LEYI M. MASON. DECEASED.Public notico is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Levi M.
Mason, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, Illinois, to bo holden at tho court
house in the city of Chicago, in Baid county, on the first
Monday of April, A. D. 1872, being the first day
thereof.
CORNELIA R. HALE, Administratrix.
Chicago, January 2fi, A. D. 1872.
Beckwith, Aveu.A Kales, Attys.
16-21a
ESTATE OF FRANCIS ROONEY, DECEASED.to allpersons
having
claims
and Notice
demandsis hereby
againstgiven
tho estate
of Francis
Rooney.deceased, to present tho same for adjudication and settle
ment at toa regular
termat the
of the
County
Cookof
county,
be holden
Court
House,Court
in theofcity
Chicago, on the first Monday ofApril, A. D. 1872, being
the 1st day thereof.
JAMES FITZGERALD, Administrator,
Chicago. January 26, A. D. 1872.
M. J, Dunne, Att'y.
lfi-21a

BANKR UPTCY XOTTCES.

ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney, 18 East Harrison Street.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITEDStates, for the Northern District of Illinois. In
the matter of Albert H. Hovey, bankrupt.In Bank
ruptcy.
Notice is hereby given that a petition has been filed,
in said court by said Albert 11. Hovey, of Chicago, in
the county of Cook, in said district, duly declared a
bankrupt,
under thea act
of Congress
of March
2, 1867,
for a discharge,
certificate
fromact,
ail
his
debts
and otherand
claims
provablethereof,
under said
and
that the 8th day of March, W2. at 11 o'clock a. in., is
assigned for the hearing of the same before said court,,
in the United States court-room, in the city of Chicagowhen and where all creditors of said bankrupt, and alL
other
in interest
attend,
cause,,
if any persons
they have,
why themay
prayer
of theaudsaidshow
petitioner
should not be granted ; and further notice is hereby
given that the second and third meetings of said cred
itors ot said bankrupt, required under the 27th and
2*th sections of said act, will be holden at the office of
11. N. Hibbard, Esq., register in bankruptcy of said
court, at his office, in the city of Chicago, in said dis
trict, on the said 8th day of March next, at 10 o'clock,
a. Dated
m. Chicago. Feb. 12,WM.
172.H. BRADLEY, ClerkR. E. Jenkins. Attorney.
19-20*
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITEDStates, for the Northern District of I ilinois.In
Bankruptcy.In the matter of Joseph Childs, Myer
W. Childs and Harry' Childs, bankrupts. The uudersigned, Robert E. Jenkins, assignee of the estate of
said bankrupts, hereby gives notice that on Saturday,
the 9th day of March, A. D. 1872, at 10 o'clock in the
forenoon of said day, at the front door ot number
eighteen
(18} sell
Eastat Harrison
street,forincash
the city
of Chitocago, he will
public auction
in hand
the highest and best bidders, all the right, title and In
terest of the said bankrupts or of either of them, in
and to tho following described property and estate, towit: That part of block number three (3), in Betts''
Division, on the west side of Western Row, between*
Clark and Hopkins streets, in tho city of Cincinnati,
county of Hamilton, aud State of Ohio, which de
scended to said bankrupts as heirs-at-law of JacobChilds. deceased, each of said bankrupts being the
owner in severalty of an undivided one-ninth ot1 said
property subject to the dower interest of Yetta Childs ;
also,
lot innumbered
twenty-five
(2-'). in block
numbered
five (.r>),
Phut it Grand
ill's division,
and known
asnamber*
one
hundred
and
twenty-six
(J
26)
andin on
hundred and twenty-eight (128) Ninth street,
the
city of Cincinnati, county of Hamilton, and State of
Ohio, each of said bankrupts being the owner in sev
eralty of an undivided one-ninth interest in said prop
erty
subject toNo.the126dower
of also
Ycttasubject
Childs;
said premises.
Ninthinterest
street, are
lo
an estate during widowhood in said Yetta Childs : also,
lot numbered twenty-eight (2s), in block numbered
one
hundred(22),
andinfifty-eight
(158), and
numbered
twenty-two
block numbered
one lot
hundred
and
fifty-seven (1.V7), in Tell City, county of Perry, and
State
of
Indiana,
each
of
said
Joseph
Child*
and
saidMyer W. Childs being the owner in severalty of an un
divided
in said: also,
property
to theseventydower
interest one-ninth
of Yetta Childs
blocksubject
numbered
two, and lots numbered three (3), four (4), five (5), six
(6) and seven (7), in block numbered thirty-three (33),
in the town of Clermont, county of St. Croix, and
State of Wisconsin ; said last described property being
the
propertywill
of said
Myer
W. Childs
ana
all ofBeparato
said property
be sold
subject
to allonly,
incum
brances
thereon.
ROBERT
E.
JENKINS,
19-21
Assignee as aforesaid.
MORTGAGE SALEWhereas, Patrick Holton,
and Bridget, his wife, on the twenty-ninth day
of June, a. d.. 1n')9, executed and delivered to me their
certain mortgage, which said mortgage was recorded
In the recorder's office of Cook county, in the State of
Illinois, on the thirtieth day of June, a. p., 1870, in
book
number
133, ofdescribed,
mortgages,to secure
at pagethe291,payment
of the
premises
hereinafter
of one certain promissory note made by the said Pat
rick
dated
on ofthesixtwenty-ninth
day ofJune,
a. d.,Holton,
I8*y.
theofsum
hundred
dollars
with
in
ten per cent,
per annum,
payable
terest
at theforrate
semi-annually,
to
the
order
of
James
H.
Rees,
one
year
after the date thereof ; and whereas, it is provided in
said mortgago that in case of default of the payment
of said promissory note, either of principal or interest, .
on tho days when the same should become due and
payablo, the said James H. Rees might, after publish
ing a notice
in a newspaper,
printeddays
in the
citythe
of Chi
cago,
Cook county,
Illinois, thirty
before
day
of such sale, sell the said premises and all right and
equity of redemption of the said Patrick Holton and
Bridget, his wife, their heirs and assigns therein, at
public auction, at the north Court House door, in said
city
of Chicago,
highest
for cash.of And
whereas,
defaulttohasthebeen
made bidder,
in the payment
saiu
note
andintercst,
now.
therefore,
by
virtue
ofthe power
in mo vested by said mortgage, I, tho undersigned
mortgagee, will sell at ten o'clock, a. m.. on Tuesday
the 27th
of Fobruary.
a. d..in the
at public
at
the
northdayCourt
House door,
city ofauction,
Chicago,
Cook county, Illinois, to the highest bidder, for cash,
tho premises in said mortgage described to wit: Lots
fifty-three
(Si) and
fifty-fourofblocks
(M) inone
block
in
James
H. Rees'
subdivision
(!) one
and (1.)
(2) in
the south half of the south-west quarter of tho south
east quarter of section twenty (20), in township thirty
nine (39), north of range fourteeu (14) east, in the
county of Cook, and State of Illinois, together with
all
and and
singular
the tenements,
hereditaments,
ileges,
appurtenances
thereunto
belonging, priv
nnd
all
theBaid
right,Patrick
title, Holton
benefit and
andBridget,
equity of
of the
hisredemption
wife, their
heirs and assigns, in and to the said premises.
liV-2u
JAMES H. REES, Mortgagee.
"
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
Attorney, 115 W. Madison Street.
ADMINISTRATRIX' SALE OF REAL ESTATE.
By virtue of an order and decree of the County
Court of Cook county, Illinois, made on the petition of
the undersigned, Dorothea Ringleb, formerly Dorothea
Medelman, administratrix of the estate of Friedrich
Medelman, deceased^for leave to sell the real estate ot
said deceased, at the December term, A. D. 1871, of Baid
court, to wit, on the sixth day of December, A. D. 1871,
I shall, on Monday, the 11th day of March, A. D. 1872,
at 2 o'clock p. m sell at public sale, at the east door
of the Court House, on Clark street, in the city of Chi
cago,
in saiddescribed
Cook county,
and toState
Illinois,
the
reat estate
as follows,
wit:ofthe
northeast
quarter
of
the
northeast
quarter
of
section
twentythree (23), in township thirty-six (36), range thirteen
(13), east of the 3d P. M., in the town of Bremen, in
Cook
State
of Illinois,
forty of
acres,
on thecounty,
following
terms,
to wit : containing
cash on delivery
th
deed.
DOROTHEA RINGLEB.
(Formerly Dorothea Medelman.)
Administratrix of the estate of Friedrich Medelman,
deceased.
James B. Bradwell. Att'y for Estate.
16-21
TESTATE
SETHgiven
SHELDON
Jr.. DECEASED.
I j Notice isOFhereby
to all persons
havingclaims
and demands against the estate ofSeth Sheldon, junior,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication ami set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D., 1872, be
ing tho first day thereof.
L. MARTHA SHELDON,
GEORGE W. SMITH,
Administrators.
Chicago, Feb. U, A. D. 1872.
19-24
J. H. BATTEN,
STATION E,R ,
185 LA SALLE STREET,
Law Stationery and Legal Blanks.

146

Chicago

Legal

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
AD VERTISEMENT.
ARTIN A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D ,
24*
659 State street.
M
STEVENS &HAYNES
MILLER, WILLIAMSON130* W.
MILLER,
Randolph street.
Law Publishers,
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
HERNDON & ORENDORF,
Office west side square. 27* AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS,
Sell Yard, Temple Bar,
JACKSONVILLE (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
LONDON.
JETCIIAM, I. J.
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
Works in all Classes of Literature
PEPPER, WILSON 4 MARTIN,
TO OBDKK,
Room 2 Bank Building.
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
Orders Promptly Filled,
SANFORD, E. Special attention given to Collec
52* The Trustees and Officer* or Public li
tions and Real Estate.
braries may rely upon the mott
ST. LOUIS (MO.) ATTORNEYS.
J P. COLBY,Counsolor-at-Law, St. Louis, Mo. 20
By importing DIRECT from England a consider
able saving is effected, especially in the Customs duty,
from which Public Institutions in the United Stales are
LEGAL NEWS PRINTING DEPARTMENT
SUNDRY
have beenin made
by oartheir
Foreign
and
Colonialmistakes
Correspondents
addressing
let
ters, we beg to notify that the members of our firm are
Henry 6. bTKVENS and Robert W. Haynes, the son
Briefs & Abstracts. and
stepson ol the late Valentin* S'evens, the eminent
Law Publisher. Since our lather's death we have con
tinued to carry on the business of Law Publishers,
Booksellers and Exporters, at the above ad
The attention of Attorneys is called to our superior dress.
During his recent visits to the United States and
acilities for printing BRIEFS and ABSTRACTS.
Canada, Robert W. Haynes secured many Friends
and Correspondents ; we are thus enabled to give ref
Our prices are:
erences of the highest character in must of the princi
BRIEFS,
per page,
1.23 palWeAmerican
have nocities.
connection whatever with any other
ABSTRACTS,
1.79 house of business, and to prevent delay and miscar
riage, our Correspondents abroad are respectfully re
Orders left either at the office of the Leoal News, quested to plainly address their letters to us as fol
115 W. Madison St., or at the Printing Office, 13 North lows:
Jefferson St., will he promptly executed.
STEVENS & HAYNES,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
THE CHICAGO LEGAL NEWS
LONDON,
AS A MEDIUM FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE
ENGLAND.
LAWS, DECISIONS, AND LEGAL NOTICES.
Extract from " Report of J cues Rosenthal, Esq.,
Librarian to the President and Members of
Since the fire but few of the Attorneys
the Chicago Law Institute." November, 1870.
"
To our collection of English Reports a valuable
in the city have access to the session addition
has been made by the Importation of a
laws ; we therefore reprint the following full and well preserved set of the House of Lords
Cases,
including
Clark's Digest, consisting of 58
relating to the Legal News. The char volumes.
" English books were imported directly free of
ter of the Chicago Legal News Com duty,
and their purchase was attended to by the
pany passed the Legislature and was ap firm of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose
diligence,
and care in filling our or
proved by Governor Palmer on the 29th ders, I havepromptness,
thankfully to acknowledge."
day of February, 18G9, from which we
take the following :
"Section 5. Any notice or advertise
ment required by law, or the order of
NEW
any court, to be published in any news
paper, shall be as good and valid if pub'lished in the Chicago Legal News, as in
any Newspaper, and the certificate of the
President or Secretary, under the seal of
said company, of the publication of any
.notice or advertisement, shall be suffi
cient evidence of the publication therein
eet forth."
The following sections are from a law
DILLON
of this State, approved on the 11th of
March, 1869 :
ON
" Section 2. All laws of this State, and
all decisions of the Supreme Court of Ill
inois, printed in the Chicago Legal
News, shall be and the same are hereby MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
declared to be primafacie evidence of the
existence and contents of such laws and
decisions, in all places and before all
courts of law and equity in this State.
" Section 3. Any change in the form We have In press, and will shortly Issue, a
of said Chicago Legal News shall not TREATISE ON THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL
affect the legality of any legal notice, ad CORPORATIONS, with full reference to En
vertisement, or other thing published in glish and American cases, by the Honorable
said paper; and said Chicago Legal JOHN F. DILLON, United States Circuit
News is hereby declared to be a news
paper, within the meaning and intent Judge.
of chapter three of the Revised Statutes
This work Is designed to meet a want long
of this State."
felt by the members of the profession.
Judge Dillon has devoted several years to
ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL
the
most careful preparation of the text and
COURTS,
IN REGARD TO TOE PUBLICATION OF NOTICES notes ; and this fact, together with his high
reputation as a Jurist, guarantee the excel
IN THE LEGAL NF,WS.
The following order was entered in lence of the work.
the United States District Court for the Complete in one large octavo volume.
Northern Dntrict of Illinois, on the 28th
of July last:
" Ordered, that hereafter notices of
sales or other proceedings in bankruptcy JAMES COCKCROFT & CO.,
and admiralty cases pending in this
court may be published in the Chicago
Legal News with the same effect as if
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
published in either of the other papers
designated by the rules and orders of
499 Wabash Avenue,
this court for the publication of notices."
A similar order was also entered in
CHICAGO.
the Circuit Court in regard to notices in
13-21
that court.

News.

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
ASSIGNEE'S
SALE-IN
THE
DISTRICTDistrict
COURT
of theIuUnited
StatesofforPhillip
the Northern
of
Illinois.
the mutter
Wadsworth, Gilbert
R. Smith and JJenj. B. W. Locke, bankruptsIn Bank
ruptcy
Public notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, the
19th
of March,
a. d.will
1K72, otter
the undersigned
assignee
of theday above
estate
for sale, and
sell
to
the
highest
and
best
bidder
for
cash,
at
the
ten o'clock, a. m.,at my office. No. 17 Harmonhour
Court,of
in the city ol'Chicago.in the county ofCook, In the State
of Illinois, all the right, title, interest and estate of the
said bankrupts, or either ot them, in and to the fol
lowing
described
premises,
S. E. >i on
ing at the
S. E. corner
of thethatS, E.is l4toofsaythe: Commenc
the south line of the section, thence north twenty
chains, thence west nineteen (HO chains and eightyone (81) (21i)
linkslinks
thence
north
twenty
to the
rightthirty-two
of way ot(:V2)thechains
Ohio and
and
Mississippi Railway Company, thence along the line of
said
road
west
about
twenty-fuur
(2-1)
chains
and
ninety
(Unlinks;
titty (.Mi) (44)
chains
and ninety-Jive
{y.r>) links thence
thence south
cast forty-four
chains,
and seven
ty-one
(71
>
links,
to
the
place
of
beginning,
one hundred and sixty-eight <1ti8) acres, allcontaining
in section
sixteen
<>>>. town
two (2),andN. State
R.. one,
(1) east,; also
situate
in the county
of Marion
of Illinois
the
southeast % of the Southwest and the southwest >
of the southeast ^4 ofsection twenty-five (25), town one
hundred, range six t<V), and the southeast '4 of the
southwest and the south s of the southeast Vi of
section twelve (12), town one hundred (loo), range four
(4), lying and being in the county of Aiainakee and
State ofIowa ; also the southeast yuarter of section
fifn-een (l">), town ninety-six (yfi), range twenty-six
(26), and lying and being in the county ofHancock and
State of Iowa ; also, the north half and the southwest
quarter of the southwest quarter of the northeast quar
ter, and the southeast quratcr of the northwest quar
ter of section thirteen (1-1) town eighty-one (.SI)* range
twenty-three (23), lying and being iu the county of
Polk and State
of Iowa;
also, the
north half
the
southwest
quarter
of section
fourteen
(It), oftown
eighty-three (.^t), range twenty-three (2.1), lyiug and
being iu the county ot Story and State of Iowa ; also,
the northwest quarter and the north halfof the north
east
quarter
of section
of the
northeast
quarter,
and one
the (l),
northandhalftheofeast
thehalf
southeast
quarter, and tho sutitheust quarter of the southeast
quarter of section seven (7), and tho northwest quar
ter of the southwest quarter of section eight (M), and
the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter, and
the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of sec
tion fourteen il4), all in tows ninety-six (96), rauge
thirty-seven
lying and
in the county
of
Clay
and State(87),
nf Iowa;
also, being
the undivided
one-naif
(fi)
interest
of
Phillip
Wadsworth
in
two
hundred
and
forty-five (2 village lots in the village of Superior,
Wis. For more definite description see deed at my
office. I will also offer for sale ami sell to the highest
and best bidder for cash at the same time and place
the remaining unconverted assets belonging to the
above or individual estate of said bankrupts, or either
of them, viz : tifty-slx (.W) shares of the *' Atlantic and
Pacific Telegraph Company ;" thirty (.'Ml) shares of the
"American (t:tj
Merchants1
nion" Express
forty-three
shares ofI the
MarquetteCompany;"
A Pacific
Rollins Mill Co." ; fifty shares of the " Republic In
surance
Co."
(Fire);
twenty-five
(2.%)
shares
of the
"Great Western Insurance Co.," (Fire); both of
the
last named of the city of Chicago. Also, one bond for
one
thousand
($1,000)
dollars
ofthe
"Peck
Gold
Min
ing Co:" also the undivided one-half (fj) interest of
Philip Wadsworth. in a law suit betweeu James Wadsworth, plaintiff, and Henry M. Shenard, defendant;
also the undivided interest of Philip W'adsworth in the
"West Side or Madison Street Stage Line."
GEORGE S. IIOWEN. Assignee.
Chicago, Feb. 21, 1872.
20-22

ATTORNEYS.
GEORGE G. FRT,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
34 Clinton Street, Room 5, Chicago.

44*

JAMES B. BRADWELL,
ATTORNEY AT L AW ,
No. 113 West Madison Street, Chicago.
Special Attention Given to Probate Matten.
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
ESTATES SETTLED.
" Set thine house in order ; for thou shs.lt die,
and not live."2 Kings xx. 1.
S. A. GOODWIN.
E. C. LARNED.
H. 8. TOWLX.
GOODWIN, LARNED & TOWLB,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
No. 376 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
12
JOHN MATTOCKS.
EDWABD G. MASON.
MATTOCKS & MASON,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
No. 523 Wabash Avenue, S. W. cor. Harmon Court,
Chicago, IU.
5
RATES A IIODUES,
Attorneys at Law, 13 W. Madison St.
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.
26*
WILLIAMS & THOMPSON,
Attorneys.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois, county of Cook, ss. Superior
Court
county.
To March Term, A.D. 1872.
EdwardofElyCook
v. John
Ilalliday.
Public notice is hereby given to the said John Halliday
writ ofof attachment
tho
office that
of thea clerk
the Superiorissued
CourtoutofofCook
county, dated the twenty-third day of February A.D.
1872, at the suit ofthe said Edward Ely, and against
the
of JohnM-lon
Hallidny,
the sumtoofthesixSheriff
hun
dredestate
and eighty
dollars,fordirected
of Cook county, which said writ has been returned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you the said John Halliday shall personally be and appear before the said
Superior
of Cook
county,
or before
first
day oftheCourt
next term
thereof,
to beon holden
at thetheCourt
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
March, A.D. 1*72, give special bail and plead to the said
plaintiffs action, judgment will be entered against
you, and in favor of the said Edward Ely, and so
much of the property attached as may be sufficient
to satisfy the saidjudgment and costs will be sold to
satisfy the same.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Williams & Thompson,
Attorneys.
30-23

WM. LAW, JR.,

14o MAY
W. Madison
St.
rpo ALL Attorney,
WHnM IT
CONCERN.-Public
A notice Is hereby given that the undersigned guar
of the person and estate of George P. Scriven, a
CALLAGHAN & Co. dian
minor,county,
will make
application
to theterm,
Circuit
of
Cook
Illinois,
at the march
a. n.court
li*72, to
be holden at the Court House, in the city ofChicago,
county and State aforesaid, which said term com
SUCCESSORS TO
mences on the third Monday of March, a. n. 1872, for
leave to sell the following described real estate, to
wit:
Lot fifteen (1$) in Ellis' east or second addition to
CALLAGHAN & COCKCROFT,
Chicago,
Cook ancounty.
State ofonIllinois,
the pur
pose of paying
incumbrance
said realforestate,
and
investing
the
proceeds
of
such
property
in
such
ner as the court 'appointing the undersigned as man
such
Respectfully call the attention of the profession to guardian
shall direct, or for such other legal purpose
as February
the said Circuit
shall direct.
.their large stock of
24th, a.court
d. 1812.
GEORGE McELWAIN,
Guardian,20-22
etc,
Wm. Law, Jr., Att'y.
LAW BOOKS.

LAW LIBRARY

FOR SALE.
Embracing the BE POUTS of all the leading
Courts in this Country and England.
JNO. B. IIU5MEY.
Apply to
We have a very full assortment of
19-.W
Attorney-at-Law, Newton, N. C.
Digests, 325* TREES! SfN PLANTS !
flower cccno I
and an unusually full line of
GARDEN OCCUO
Apple and Crab, 100 2;to < ft., $4; i to 6 ft., $5.
RARE AND VALUABLE WORKS,
Pear, stand., extra, Uyear, Bartlett, etc., 3 to 4 'ft.,
per doz., 92.50.
out of print, which we are offering; at lowest current Seeds, Peach, bush., $2 ; Apple Osage, new, bush..
012.
prices.
Potatoes, Early; Bose, White-, Peach Blow, per
$2.
We would also call attention to our superior facili bush,
Seedling*, i n Soft Maple, Si; Ash, S3; Elm, $2.
ties for importing, being in monthly receipt of
Illustrated Catalogue 100 pages, and Price List, 10c
15-27
F. K. PHCENIX, Bloomington, 111.
CONSIGNMENTS FROM LONDON

New Text Booh and

direct, which we are selling at unusually low figures.

Scale of Advertising Itatest.
A large collection of Second-hand Text- Space, i 1 w. 2 w. 8 w. 4w. 3 m. 6 m. iyRooks, Dlffeafa and Reports kept constantly on
81.00 8L75 SZ50 S3T25 ~S8T00 ~S1575b
hand.
2.00 3.50 4.75 6.00 15.75 30.00 69.00
2 sq
Catalogues sent promptly upon application.
2.80 5.00 6.50 8.00 23.00 44.00 87.00
sq
4 col.... 4.68 8.75 12 87 15.00 37.50 73.75 137.50
Address
y2 coi.... 8.75 14.37 21.50 27.50 72.50 135.00 262.50
CALLAGHAN & CO., lcol 15.00 27.50 38.75 52.50 135.00 262.50 437.50
Ten lines of Agate make a Sqnare.
Advertisements must be paid for In advance,
525 Wabash Ave.,
and when not so paid. 50 per cent, will be added.
Legal Notices not included in the above.
Printed at the"Chicago Legal News r&em, 13
CHICAGO, ILL.
North Jefferson street, Chicago.

Qhicago

Jegal

"Mews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the ofllce of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 21.

Cfje Courts.
V. S. DIST. COURT, N. D. OF OHIO.
The Lake Shore & Mich. 8. R. R. Co. v. Neil
Cochran./?! Admiralty.
INJURY TO BRIDGE NOT A MARINE TORT.
A vessel run into an iron swing-bridge which
had been erected across the Cuyahoga river near
Its mouth, and injured it to the extent of $10,000,
and it was held that it was not a marine tort, and
that the admiralty court had no jurisdiction of
the case.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the coi rt by Sherman, J.
This is a libel in admiralty by the
Lake Shore and Michigan Southern
Railroad Company against the schooner
Neil Cochran, setting up substantially
the following facte :
The libellant is a corporation duly in
corporated under the laws of the State of
Ohio, having its office and principal
place of business at Cleveland, Ohio. It
is the owner of an iron swing bridge
across the Cuyahoga river, near its mouth,
being so constructed as to swing entirely
out of the way of vessels navigating said
river, enabling them to pass and repass
without obstruction. Said bridge is duly
authorized by law, and is kept constant
ly manned, night and day, with a suffi
cient force to swing it when vessels ap
proach, and at night is lighted and in
full view of all vessels entering said har
bor.
On the night of November 10, 1871,
said bridge was so lighted, manned and
ready to be swung, upon notice of the
approach of vessels, by lights, signals or
otherwise. On said night the schooner
Neil Cochran came into the port of Cleve
land, on a voyage from Port Hope, in
Canada. When said vessel approached
and enteiv 1 the Cuyahoga riveif On s.:Cd
night, she was without lights and gave
no signal whatever. By reason of the
darkness of the night she was not and
could not be seen by those in charge of
said bridge until she was so near that
said bridge could not be swung out of
her way ; and said vessel negligently and
carelessly ran into and against said
bridge with great force and violence,
and broke and injured said bridge to the
extent often thousand dollars.
Said loss and damage were occasioned
solely by the neglect of the said vessel to
exhibit lights and to give any signal of
her approach.
The libel then prays process against
the vessel, and that a decree be pro
nounced against her for said damage and
To this libel, William R. Stafford, own
er and claimant of said vessel, files an
exception alleging that said libel is in
sufficient in this, to wit : " That the
wrongful acts alleged in said libel against
the said schooner Neil Cochran, her mas
ter and crew, do not constitute a marine or
maritime tort ; and that this court has
no jurisdiction of this case in manner
and form as here brought."
The question, then, for the court in
this case is, Do the wrongful acts set forth
in the libel constitute a marine or mari
time tort ? In the decision of this ques
tion it is unnecessary for the court to go
into a review of the authorities as to the
jurisdiction of admiralty in cases of tort.
It is sufficient to say that it is well set
tled and conceded law that the test of ad
miralty jurisdiction in cases of tort is the
locality of the act. Therefore in this
and all other like cases, when we
have determined whether the tort was
committed upon navigable waters within
the admiralty cognizance, we have also
determined the question as to whether
or not it is a marine or maritime tort.
In determining this question I shall
be guided by the decision of the supreme
court of the United States, the opinion
delivered by Mr. Justice Nelson, in the
case of " The Plymouth," 3 Wallace, 20.
From that case, supported by the clear
est and most convincing reasoning, the
following propositions are deducible :
FirstThe jurisdiction of the admiral
ty over marine torts depends upon lo

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, MARCH 2, 1872.

calitythe high seas, or other navigable
waters within admiralty cognizance.
SecondThe origin of the wrrong must
not only be on navigable water, but the
substance and consummation of the injury
must also be on navigable water.
ThirdThe fact that an injury is done
by a vessel is of no weight in determin
ing the question of jurisdiction, locality
being the test.
FourthIf the negligence which oc
casions the injury is upon navigable wa
ters, but the whole damage resulting
therefrom is upon the land, admiralty
has no jurisdiction.
FifthThe negligence, of iteelf, fur
nishes no cause of action ; it is damnum
absque injuria ; the whole or substantial
cause of action, both negligence and
resulting damage, must be upon naviga
ble water to constitute a maritime tort.
In the light of these proposit ions what
shall be said of the case at bar ? Clearly
this : That the origin of the wrong was
upon navigable water, but that the whole
damage resulting therefrom was done
upon the land, the bridge being attached
to and a part of the land. Indeed the
case at bar and the case of the Plymouth
are identical in principle. In that case
" The Falcon," a steam propeller, was
moored at the wharf in the Chicago
river ; she took fire through the negli
gence of those in charge of her ; the fire
communicated to and burned down some
large packing houses on the wharf, and
the owners of the packing houses filed a
libel against the owners of " The Falcon,"
for the resulting damage. The libel was
dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and
the U. S. Supremo Court affirmed the
decree.
There, as here, the negligence, or or
igin of the wrong, was on board a vessel,
an instrument of commerce ; there, as
here, the vessel was at the time of the
negligent acts on navigable waters ; and
here, as there, the whole damage or con
summation of the injury, was upon the
land. There is no distinction to be taken
between the cases.
I conclude, then, in the case at bar,
the substantial damage or injury, for
which the libellant asks relief, was done
upon the land, and not upon navigable
waters ; and that therefore this court has
no jurisdiction in the case.
The exception of the libel will, there
fore, be sustained, and the libel will be
dismissed with costs.
James Mason and Estep & Bhrke, pros
ecutors for libellant.
Willey, Cary & Terrell, for claimant.
V. S. DISTRICT COURT, E. D. OF
MICHIGAN.
The Ottawa./)! Admiralty.
A SUIT IX REM. WILLNOT LIE IN ADMIRALTY
AGAINST A VESSEL FOR DAMAGE DONE TO
A WHARF PROJECTING INTO NAVIGABLE
WATERS.
This is a libel in rem. by Wm. P. Stafford
and Clark Haywood, lessees of a wood
dock or wharf, extending from the shore
some .distance over the water, at Port
Hope, on Lake Huron, for a collision
with, and damage to, their wharf by the
propeller Ottawa, on the 6th day of No
vember, 1809.
The propeller stopped at the libellants'
wharf for a supply of wood. After she
had obtained a supply the agent of libel
lants in charge of the wharf, fearing dam
age from a storm which was then threat
ening, requested the master of the pro
peller to leave the wharf with his vessel.
To this the master consented, but his
engineer, fearing the storm, refused to
work the engines, and the vessel remain
ed moored to the wharf, the master say
ing to the agent he would pay for any
damage she might do. The storm came
on, and the propeller, by pounding
against the wharf, and otherwise, dam
aged the same to the amount of $154.45.
Mr. Brown (Newberry, Pond & Brown)
for libellants.
Mr. Moore (Moore & Griffin) for
claimants.

Opinion of the court by Longyear, J.

The only question in this case is
whether a lien exists and a libel in rem.
can be maintained against the propeller
for the injury and damage complained
of.
The criterion of admiralty jurisdiction
in cases of tort is locality. That is, the
injury must be done on maritime waters,
or, as applied to the lakes and to rivers,
navigable waters. Lake Huron comes
within this category. Therefore, if the
injury done to the wharf may be con
sidered as done upon the waters, the
libel will lie. If, on the contrary, a
wharf is to be considered as land, as real
estate, or on the land, or in fact the
shore, then the libel will not lie. It is
of no consequence that the damage was
done by a maritime thing, the vessel, if
it was not also done upon the water.
The Plymouth, 3 Wall., 35 ; Ransom v.
Mayo, 3 Blatch., C. C. 70, 23 How., 215 ;
1 W. Rob., 388.
The English cases cited by libellants,
advocate (The Uhle reported in a note
to the Sylph, Law Rep., 2 Adm. and Ec,
28 ; The Excelsior, lb. 268 ; The Sylph,
lb., 24 ;) may all be dismissed with a
single remark, and that is, that they are
all referable to an act of Parliament
known as the Admiralty Coast actof 1861,
by which jurisdiction in the admiralty is
expressly conferred upon "any claim for
damage done by any ship," etc, and in re
gard to which Dr. Lushington, in the
case of the Uhle, remarked, I take it to
mean any case of damage done by a ship ;
there is no limitation, no restriction ex
pressed." These cases, therefore, throw
no light upon what is maritime law upon
the subject.
Mr. Parsons, in his work on Shipping
ana Admiralty, at page 599, says, " It not
infrequently happens that vessels are in
jured, or cause injury, by striking upon
wharves, or coming into contact with in
cumbrances in the docks beside or be
tween the warehouse. Such cases give
rise to questions concerning the rights,
duties, and liabilities of the vessels, or
their owners, on the other." He then
cites several cases in which actions have
been entertained in the courts of com
mon law in the United States, but none
in the admiralty, for injuries of this
character. No case of this character in
the admiralty courts of the United States
was cited upon the argument, and it is
believed that, aside from the English
cases referred to, none can be found in
the books. It is clearly a case of first
impression, so far as any reported adjudi
cated cases in this country are concerned.
May we not apply the language of Justice
Nelson in the case of the Plymouth ( 3
Wall., 3o-7j, in regard to a similar dearth
of reported casesin that case, and assume
with him that the reason of it is, that
the case " is outside the acknowledged
limit of admiralty cognizance over mar
ine torts, amongwhich it has been sought
to be classed," and that " the remedy for
the injury belongs to the courts of com
mon law ?"
There are, however, several reported
adjudications of the courts in this coun
try from which we may derive aid in
determining this question.
In the case of the Plymouth (3 Wall.,
20); the packing-houses, for the loss of
which by fire negligently communicated
by a vessel lying at the wharf, a libel in
rem. had been filed, stood wholly upon
the, wharf and the Supreme Court held
that the damage done by their destruc
tion was a damage done wholly on land
(pages 33, 36), that the remedy belonged
to the courts of common law, and dis
missed the libel. In that opinion the
wharf is spoken of in the same connec
tion with the buildings, and evidently
as of the same character.
In the Rock Island Bridge case (5Wall.,
213, 216) Justice Field, in delivering the
opinion of the court, makes use of the
following language : "A maritime lien
can only exist upon things which are the
subjects of commerce on the high seas
or navigable waters. It may arise with

Whole No. 179.

reference to vessels, steamers and rafts,
and upon goods and merchandise carried
by them. But it cannot arise upon any
thing which is fixed and immovable,
like a wharf, a bridge, or real estate of
any kind. Though bridges and wharves
may aid commerce by facilitating inter
course on land, or the discharge of car
goes, they are not in any sense the sub
jects of maritime lien." And why not ?
Clearly, because they are fixed and im
movablein fact, real estateand are
not the subjects of commerce on the high
seas or navigable waters. They are, in
fact, here spoken ofas contra-distinguish
ed from such subjects. Not that they
may not, in some sense, be subjects of
commerce, but that they are not such on
the waters, in the same sense in which
admirality jurisdiction attaches. Being
fixed and immovablein fact, real estate
and not being subjects of commerce
on the water, how can an injury to a
wharf be said to be an injury done on the
water? The place or locality of the in
jury is the place or locality of the thing
injured, and not of the agent by which
the injury is done. (The Plymouth,
tupra.)
In the case of the brig Empire State (1
Newb., 551-2), my predecessor, in an able
opinion, held, and no doubt correctly,
that a wharf built at the terminus of
a street is but an extension of the
street, and subject to the same easement,
rights and liabilities of a street or public
highway, and nothing more. So, by a
parity of reasoning, a wharf, constructed
by an individual proprietor, is but an ex
tension of the shore, and as such subject
to the same rights and liabilities as any
real estate so far as trespasses o rother
torts upon it are concerned. It is for the
convenience of commerce, it is true, but
in the same sense any other improve
ment of the shore for the same purpose
would be. In the case of the Asa K. Swift
(1 Newb., 553-4), the same learned Judge
says : " He " (the owner of a wharf) " is
only a lessor for the time being of a part of
his real estate, to be used as a moorage."
No language can be plainer, and I think
no conclusion sounder.
The case of the Philadelphia, Wilming
ton and Baltimore Railroad Company vs.
The Philadelphia and Havre de Grace
Tow-Boat Company (23 How., 209), was
a libel in personam by the tow-boat Com
pany for an obstruction to navigation on
navigable waters, an injury having re
sulted therefrom to one of the boats of
the company. It was no part of a bridge,
wharf, or any structure whatever. The
spile had been driven there for engineer
ing purposes in the building or bridge.
When work on the bridge ceased, its uses
and purposes were at an end, and it was
cut off below the surface of the water,
and the stub was left standing there and
became a simple obstruction to naviga
tion, and nothing more nor less, the same
to all intents and purposes as any ob
struction to navigation without authority,
right or legal purpose whatever. (See
p. 216.) Then the injury to the vessel in
navigable waters. Here it was done to a
fixed and permanent structure, real-es
tate, and to all intents and purposes on
the land, as held by the Supreme Court
in the case of the Plymouth, cited supra.
If the action in this case was against the
wharf owners for an obstruction to nav
igation caused by their structure, and an
injury resulting' therefrom to a vessel,
upon the water, it would be more nearly
analagous to the case last cited from
23 How. But even then the two cases
would not be alike, because in one case the
obstruction was no part of any structure
whatever, for the purposes of commerce
or otherwise, while in the other it is an
improvement of the shore by extending
it out over the water to aid and facilitate
commerce.
Upon a careful consideration of the
question, and of the authorities bearing
upon it, I must hold that a wharf is but
an improvement or extension of the
shore ; that it is real estate, and that an
injury done to it, whether through negli

i54
gence or design, no matter by what agen
cy, is an injury done wholly on land and
not on the water, and, therefore, does not
constitute a marine tort. It necessarily
follows that the remedy for such injury
cannot be sought in the admiralty, but
must be sought in the courts of common
law.
The libel must be dismissed. Question
as to costs reserved for further consider
ation.
Our thanks are due W. A. Woods,
counsel for the appellee, of the Goshen,
Ind., bar, for the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.
Opinion filed Feb. 21, 1872.
The Michigan 8. <t N. Ind. R. R. Co. v. Daniel
Heaton.
Appeal jTom the St, Joseph Common Ptexif.
COMMON CARRIERLOSS OF GOODS BY NEG
LIGENCEWHEN NOT EXEMPTED FROM
LIABILITY BY SPECIAL CONTRACT.
1. Special Contract Limiting Liability.-Held,
that a common carrier may by special contract
relieve himself to some extent from the strict lia
bility which the law imposes upon him as such
common carrier.
2. Cannot by Contract Relieve Himself
Against Liability for even a Slight Degree of
Negligence.That a common carrier cannot by
contract relieve himself from liability for the loss
of goods delivered to him for transportation
which has been occasioned by his own negligence
or that of his agents or servants, or where such
negligence has m any degree contributed to the
loss; that it matters not what degree of negli
gence has thus occasioned or contributed to the
loss. A carrier eun no more stipulate for a slight
degree of negligence than he can for gross negli
gence.
3. Duty to the Public.That a common car
rier, and especially one exercising and enjoying
corporate franchises, for a public purpose and for
a public benefit, cannot be permitted to so far dis
regard the duty which it owes to the public as to
stipulate for any degree of negligence in the dis
charge of its duty as a common carrier, and that
it is a question of public interest on the one hand,
and public duty on the other.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the court by Wouden, J.
This was an action by Heaton, the ap
pellee, against the Railroad Company, to
recover the value of certain wheat de
livered by him to the company, to be
transported by the latter as a common
carrier over herrailroad from Bristol, the
point of shipment, to Toledo in the State
of Ohio. The wheat, while thus in the
possession of the company, and stored in
one of her warehouses, and before being
transported, was destroyed by fire.
Judgment for plaintiff on "the verdict of
a jury.
The case comes before us on a bill of
exceptions showing the following facts :
" It was proven or admitted that the de
fendant is a common carrier as stated in
the complaint, and that the plaintiff de
livered to the defendant, at its station in
Bristol, Indiana, 927 53-60 bushels of
wheat, of the value of $2.03 per bushel,
to be transported to Toledo in the State
of Ohio, and that on the 12th day of Sep
tember, 1867, the same was, together with
the warehouse, consumed by fire. At
the proper time, the defendant gave ev
idence proper to be submitted to the jury,
tending to prove the following facts, to
wit, that said wheat was received by the
defendant at said warehouse for such
shipment, under a special contract con
tained in the bill of lading, a copy of
which is set forth in the complaint and
in the 3rd paragraph of the answer, and
which contains, among other things, the
following clause to wit : ' This company
shall not be held liable for any delay in
the transportation or delivery of said
grain, or for any injury from heat or
dampness, or for any deterioration in
quality or loss by fire or accident or
shrinkage, while in possession of the
company' ; and that the defendant used
c.ire and diligence in guarding.said wheat
from damage or loss by fire, and ev
idence was also 'given by the plaintiff
tending to prove want of care and dili
gence on the part of the defendant in
guarding said wheat from loss by fire,
but the case was so left by the evidence
that the extent or degree of such care or
the want of it, was a question for the
consideration of the jury." And, there
upon the defendant asked the following
instructions which were refused :
1st. If the jury find, from the evidence/that the
wheat in controversy was received by the defend
ant for shipment only under the terms and condi
tions mentioned in the receipts or blllsof ladlng|sct
forth in the complaint and in the answer, and
which has been given in evidence, then the de
fendant is to be held liable in regard to the wheat
only to the same extent us a private carrier for
hire would be, and not as a common carrier ; that
la to say, in such case the defendant was bound
only to use such dilligenee in guarding the wheat
against danger of loss by fire as any prudent man
commonly uses to save his own goods from loss
by fire. It (the defendant) was required to use in
regard to the same only ordinary diligence, and
the defendant can bo held liable only for the

CHICAGO

Legal

want of that degree of care, and not for the extra

ordinary care required of common carriers.
2d. If the Jury find, from the evidence, that the
wheat in controversy was received by the defend
ant for shipment only under the conditions men
tioned in said receipt, and that such conditions
were, at the time, understood and assented to by
the plaintiff, then the defendant as to guarding
the wheat against loss by (ire, was not bound to
use extreme care or diligence such as is ordina
rily required of common carrier*, bill was bound
to use only that degree of care and diligence, in
that respect, which ordinarily prudent men com
monly exercise in regard to their own affairs of
similar character, and is liable only for the want
of that degree of cure."
The court gave the following charge :
This is an action brought against the Michigan
Southern and Northern Indiana Railroad Com
pany as a common carrier, for the value of a quan
tity of wheat delivered to them to be carried from
Bristol to Toledo. The wheat was stored in the
warehouse of the company for trunsportntion, but
before it was moved forward, the building with
its contents was destroyed by fire. The railroad
company as a common carrier are regarded by tho
law as insurers of the property intrusted to them,
and are legally responsible for acLs against which
they could not provide from whatever cause aris
ing, the acts of God and the public enemy only ex
cepted. The loss or damuge to property in their
possession to be carried, is of itself sufficient proof
of negligencethe rule of law being, that every
thing is negligence which the law does not excuseso that in all cases but those just mentioned as ex
cepted, their faultlcssness is no discharge. This
responsibility of a common carrier may, however,
be limited by contract. In this case it is stipulat
ed between the parties that the defendant is not to
be responsible, among other things, foranyloss by
fire ; but this general provision in the contract
does not relieve the defendant from their respon
sibility as a common carrier, if the loss by fire was
caused by negligence or want of care on their
part.
So that if the jury find, from the evidence be
fore them, that the property mentioned in the
complaint was lost or destroyed by the want
of care, or negligence of the defendant, they will
find for the plaintiff the value of the property lost
or destroyed. But if the property, while in the
warehouse, was not destroyed in consequence of
their want of care or negligence, you will find for
the defendant.'
The following second charge on this
point, was given at the request of the
plaintiff :
2d. Notwithstanding the limitation of the com
pany's liability for loss by fire contained in the
receipt given, still the company is liable for a
loss by fire if there was carelessness or negligence
of the company or its employees in connection
witli^the (ire and contributing to the loss.
The appellant duly excepted to tho
rulings of the court in charging and re
fusing to charge as asked.
The question is presented by the rec
ord, arising out of the charges given and
those refused, whether a common carrier
is exempted by such special contract
from liability for the loss of goods by
fire, where the loss has been occasioned
by any degree of negligence on the part
of the carrier which has contributed to
the loss.
The counsel for the appellant do not
claim that the carrier would be exempt
from liability for a loss by fire occurring
from the gross carelessness or want of
ordinarily care on the part ofthe carrier
or his agents or servants, but they claim
that the carrier under such a contract, is
only bound to use such degree of care in
guarding the property against loss by
fire as ordinarily prudent men would use
under similar circumstances ; in other
words, such care as the law requires of
an ordinary bailee or private carrier for
hire. The appellee, on the other haud,
claims that the carrier, under such con
tract, is liable for the loss of the goods
by fire, where the loss has occurred
through any degree of negligence on the
part of the carrier, his agents or servants
which has contributed to the loss. We
think it must be regarded as settled by
the numerous authorities on the subject,
that a common carrier may, by special
contract, relieve himself to some extent
from the strict liability which the law
imposes upon him as such common car
rier. York Company v. Central Rail
road, 3 Wall., 107.
But while this is the case we are of
opinion that a common carrier cannot,
by contract, relieve himself from liabil
ity for the loss of goods delivered to them
for transportation, which losshasbeen oc
casioned by his own negligence or that of
his agents or servants, or where such
negligence has in any degree contribu
ted to the loss. And it matters not what
degree of negligence has thus occasioned
or contributed to the loss. A carrier
can no more stipulate for a slight de
gree of negligence than he can for
gross negligence. A common carrier,
and especially one exercising and enjoy
ing corporate franchises, granted, as is
supposed, for a public purpose and for
the public benefit, cannot in our opinion
be permitted to so fur disregard the duty
which he or it owes to the public, as to
stipulate for any degree of negligence in
the discharge of duty as such common

News.

carrier. It is not simply a question be

tween the carrier and the single individu
al with whom the contract is made. It is
a question of public interest on the one
hand and public duty on the other. If
such contract can be made and as to be
held valid in one instance, it follows
that if made in all cases, it must be held
valid in all cases. The carrier may
thus force these terms upon the shipper,
who must either accept them or forego
the transportation of his goods by means
of the common carrier, or resort to his
action against the carrier for refusing to
transport his goods without such stipula
tion, which practically would be an in
adequate remedy, rather than resort to
which the shipper would generally sub
mit to the carrier's terms. The common
carrier may thus divest himself of that
character, and force the public, through
its necessities, to intrust the transpor
tation of goods to carriers irresponsible
for negligence.
The case of N. J. Steam Nav. Co. v.
Merchants' Bank, (i How., 344, is relied
upon by the appellant as establishing
that under such contract the appellant
would only be liable for gross neglect or
want of ordinary care. We do not think
it clear that the case established the po
sition assumed. William F. Harnden had
shipped on the steamboat Lexington,
to be transported from New York to
Stonington in Conn, a quantity of coin.
On the way a fire broke out which de
stroyed the boat, and the money was
lost. The court state the agreement un
der which the coin was to be transport
ed as follows :
" The special agreement in this case
under which the goods were shipped,
provided that they should be conveyed
at the risk of Haruden, and that the re
spondents were not to be accountable to
him or to his employers, in any event,
for loss or damage."
The court say : " If it was competent at
all for the carrier to stipulate for the gross
negligence of himself or his servants or
agents in the transportation of the goods,
it should be required to be done, at least,
in terms that would leave no doubt
as to the meaning of the parties."
Why was the court speaking of
gross negligence ? Simply because it
was a case of gross negligence with
which it had to deal. There was no
question whether a less degree would
have been sufficient to render the re
spondents liable. The court was speak
ing of the case as it existed, and as one
of gross negligence. This was clearly
shown by what is said on page 385, on
the subject.
It is there said : " We think there
was great want of care, and which
amounted to gross negligence on the
part of the respondents, in the storage
of the cotton," e*e.
The following paragraph on the same
page would seein to indicate that if there
was any fault on the part of the respon
dents they would be liable : " It is in
deed difficult, on studying the facts, to
resist the conclusion, that if there had
been no fault on board in the particulars
mentioned, and the emergency had been
met by the officers and crew with ordin
ary firmness and deliberation, the terri
ble calamity that befell the vessel and
nearly all on board, would have been
arrested. We are of opinion, therefore,
that the respondents are liable for the
loss of the specie, notwithstanding the
agreement under which it was shipped."
The same court in the case of The
Steamboat New World v. King, 1G How.,
409, 474, seemed inclined, for some pur
poses, at least, to repudiate all distinc
tions in the degree of negligence as or
dinarily classified. Mr. Justice Curtis,
in delivering the opinion of the court,
remarks : The theory that there are
three degrees of negligence, described
by the terms slight, ordinary, and gross,
has been introduced into the common
law from some of the commentators on
the Roman law. It may be doubted if
these, terms can be usefully applied in
practice. Their meaning is not fixed, or
capable of being so. One degree thus
described, not only may be confounded
with another, but it is quite impractica
ble exactly to distinguish them. Their
signification necessarily varies according
to circumstances, to whose influence the
courts have been forced to yield until
there are so many real exceptions that
the rules themselves can scarcely be said
to have a general operation. * * If
the law furnishes no definition of the

terms gross negligence or ordinary neg

ligence which can be applied in practice,
but leaves it to the jury to determine in
each case what the duty was, and what
omissions amount to a breach of it, it
would seem that imperfect and confes
sedly unsuccessful attempts to define
that duty, had better be abandoned. We
however, do not wish to be understood
as deciding that in no case does the dis
tinction in the degrees of negligence ex
ist.
The case of Graham v. Davis, 40 Ohio, S.,
p. 362, very fully sustain the view which
we take of the question before us. We
quote the following paragraph from the
opinion of the court in that case, deliv
ered by Judge Rainey :
" The whole may be summed up in
this: the carriers, by agreement with the
owner, may exonerate himself from re
sponsibility for losses arising from causes
over which he has no control, and to
which his own fault or negligence has in
no way contributed. But in doing so he
does not cease to be a common carrier, nor
in any manner change his relation to the
public as such ; and he can only excuse
himself for a failure to deliver the goods
by showing that, without his fault, he
has been prevented by some one of the
causes recognized by law or specifically
provided for in the contract. The case
requires very little to be added, as to the
degree of care exacted of the common
carrier. We have already said that he
is not at liberty to stipulate for any de
gree of negligence, and that a loss from
negligence cannot be within the stipu
lated exceptions to his liability."
The case of Steinway v. The Erie Rail
way, 43 New York, 123, is also directly in
point. There the bill of lading released
the carrier from liabilities for damage or
loss by fire or explosion of any kind. It
was held that the carrier was not releas
ed from liability for damage by those
means, resulting from his own negli
gence, and it was held that the carrier,
a corporation, " was liable if there was
negligence on its part, without regard to
any supposed distinctions or degrees of
negligence."
This is the doctrine of the Supreme
court of the United States, also, as is to
be inferred from what is said in the case
in 3rd Wallace, above cited. There Mr.
Justice Field, in delivering the opinion
of the court, after having made a veryclear statement of the duties and respon
sibilities resting upon common carriers,
proceeds as follows : " The owner of goods
may rely upon this responsibility im
posed by the common law, which can
only be restricted and qualified when he
expressly stipulates for the restriction
and qualification. But when such stip
ulation is made, and it does not cover
losses from negligence or misconduct,
we can perceive no just reason for refus
ing its recognition and enforcement."
Had it been the intention of the court
to discriminate between different degrees
of negligence, and to hold that some
could and some could not be contracted
for by the carrier, they would not have
used the general term negligence, which
includes all classes whether slight or
gross, as expressive of what could not be
contracted for.
There mav be and probably are, some
cases as well as some dictu in the books,
at variance with the doctrine on which
we stand in this case, but wTe are satis
fied that it is in accordance with princi
ple and is supported by very respectable
if not the great weight of authority.
Effect can be given to the clause in the
bill of lading, stipulating that the com
pany shall not be liable for any loss by
fire or accident. By the law, independ
ently of any contract providing other
wise, the carrier is chargeable for all
losses, except such as may be occasioned
by the act of God or the public enemy.
He insures against all accidents which
result from the human agency, although
occurring without an}' fault or neglect on
his part. Had the wheat been Tost by
fire without any negligence on the part
of the company, the clause in the bill of
lading would, doubtless, have exempted
the company from the liability therefor,
which the law would otherwise have im
posed.
We are of opinion that the court com
mitted no error either in giving or with
holding charges, and that the case went
to the jury on the correct theory of the
law.
The judgment below is affirmed with
costs and five per cent damages.

Chicago
Through the kindness of Charles A.
Johnson, of the Morrison bar, we have
received the following opinion ;
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
September Tehm, 1S71.
Sabbina Bressler et al. v. Frederick Kent.
Error to Whiteside.
THE EIGHT OF A MARRIED WOMAN TO CON
VEY HER REAL ESTATE, AND WHAT CON
STITUTES HER SEPARATE ESTATE.
1. Under the Common Law and Our Statute.
The court states in whutmannerand in what coses
a married woman could transfer her real estate,
and hold that in this State it is only in the precise
mode prescribed by the statute that a married
-woman can make a valid conveyance of her
lands.
2. Separate Estate Charged in Equity.That
the separate estate of a married woman will in
equity be held liable for all the debts, charges, in
cumbrances and other engagements which she
does expressly or by implication charge thereon.
8. Distinction between Separate and other
Property.That there is a distinction in this reapect in equity between the separate property of a
married woman and her other property ; as to the
former, she is treated as a Jcme mk, having the
general power to dispose of it, but as to the latter,
all the disabilities of a feme covert attach.
4. What Constitutes Separate Estate.Sepa
rate estates in married women, which courts of
equity recognize their right to dispose itsJcmcx sole,
are strictly equitable, and are always created by
deed, devise, or marriage settlement, and the
character of separate estate is imposed upon them
by the terms of the instrument creating them ;
that estate created by the act of 1861 is as fully for
the separate use of the wife as it could have been
made by virtue of the provisions of any instru
ment in writing.
5. To what Property the Rule Relates.The
rule in equity, that a married woman acting with
respect to her separate property is competent to act
In all respects as if she were ,*ofe, must be under
stood only of personal property, and of the rents
and profits of real estate during her life : that the
wife s own reversion in the lands when she owned
them at the time of the marriage was a legal estate
descendible to her heirs, to which courts of equity
did not apply the doctrine stated.
6. Disposing Capacity.That in reference to
euch an estate, she had only the disposing capacity
which the common law or some enabling statute
allowed to her ; so if an estate is, during coverture,
given to a married woman and her heirs, for her
separate use, without more, she cannot in equity
dispose of the fee from her heirs, but she must, if
at all, dispose of it in the manner prescribed by
law.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion by Sheldon, J.
Sarbina Bressler, a married woman, ex
ecuted without the concurrence of her
husband as a party, her separate deed of
trust of certain real estate, owned by her,
to secure the payment of a promissory
note, given by herself and husband for a
debt of the latter, and the question pre
sented by this record is, did she thereby
charge such real estate with the pay
ment of the debt, and can a court of
equity, by a proceeding against the prop
erty, subject it to the payment of such
charge, By the common law, the only
mode by which a married woman had
power to transfer her title or interest in
real estate was by levying a fine or suf
fering a common recovery. Our statute
of conveyances has provided that when
any husband and wife residing in this
State, shall wish to convey the real es
tate of the wife, it shall and may be law
ful for the husband and wife to execute
any deed, etc., for the conveying of such
land, and that such deed (after the so
lemnities of examination and acknowl
edgment) shall be as effectual in law as
if executed by such woman while sole
and unmarried. It is only in the pre
cise mode prescribed by the statute that
a married woman can make a valid con
veyance of her lands.
That mode was not pursued in the
present case as the husband did not join
in the execution of the deed, and the
deed of trust was not a valid lien upon
the land. Cole v. Van Riper, -14 111, 58 ;
Moulton et ux. v. Hurd, 20 111., 137.
X Such is the rule at law, and the one
that must govern in this case, unless the
rule in equity shall be held to apply.
That the separate estate of a married
woman will in equity be held liable for
all the debts, charges, incumbrances and
other engagements which she does ex
pressly or by implication charge there
on. 2 Storys, Eq. Ju., Sec. 139!).
There is a distinction in this respect
in equity, between the separate property
of a married woman and her other prop
erty ; as to the former she is treated as a
feme sole, having the general power of
disposing of it ; but as to the latter, all
the legal disabilities of a feme covert at
tached upon her. Ibid, sec, 1807.
It is to be considered then, whether
the estate in question was the separate
estate of the wife in the sense of that
term as recognized and acted upon by a
court of chancery and subject to be dis
posed of by her alone.
Separate estates in married women
which courts of equity recognize their
right to dispose as feme sole, are strict
ly equitable estates. They are always
created by deed, devise or marriage set

Legal

tlement, and the character of separate

estate is impressed upon them by the
term of the instrument creating them.
It was formerly deemed absolutely
necessary, that the property should be
vested in trustees, and in strict propriety
that should always be done, though it
has been established that the interven
tion of trustees is not indispensable. 2.
Story's Eq., sec. 1380.
It is not because the entire interest in
any estate is vested in a feme covert, that
renders it of the description of a separate
estate in her. A separate estate in a feme
covert, only exists in such property,
whether it be real or personal, as is
settled upon her for her separate use
without any control over it on the part
of her husband. It is not all the estate
either in lands or chattels belonging to a
fane, covert, nor is it her right of dower
in the real estate of her husband. Alba
ny Fire Ins. vs. Bay, 4 Comst. 9.
The facts in this case disclose no such
separate estate in Mrs. Bressler.
It is claimed that since the passage of
the act of Feb. 21. 1861, entitled " An Act
to protect married women in their sepa
rate property," any real estate which a
married woman owns in her own right
will in equity be regarded as her separate
property, and subject to all the incidents
of such property, as before recognized in
a court of chancery.
That act provides " That all the prop
erty, both real and personal, belonging
to any married woman as her sole and
separate property, or which any woman,
hereafter married, ownsat the time of her
marriage, or which any married woman
during coverture acquires in good faith
from any person other than her husband
by descent, devise, or otherwise, together
with all the rente, issues, increase and
profits thereof, shall, notwithstanding
her marriage, be and remain during cov
erture her sole and separate property,
under her sole control, and be held,
owned, possessed and enjoyed by her
the same as though she was sole and un
married ; and shall not be subject to the
disposal, control, or interference of her
husband, and shall be exempt from exe
cution or attachment for the debts of her
husband."
The estate created by the Actis as fully
for the separate use of the wife, as it could
have been made by virtue of the provis
ions of any instrument in waiting.
The rule in equity, that a feme eovert
acting with respect to her separate prop
erty, is competent to act in all respects
as if she were sole, must be understood
only of personal property, and of the
rents and profits of real estate during
her life. The wife's own reversion in
lands when she owned them at the time
of the marriage, wasa legal estate descend
ible to her heirs, to which courts of equity
did not apply the doctrine stated.
In reference to such an estate, she had
only the disposing capacity which the
common law, or some enabling statute
allowed to her. So if an estate is dur
ing coverture, given to a married woman
and her heirs for her separate use with
out more, she cannot in equity dispose
of her fee from her heirs; but she must
dispose of it, if at all, in the manner pre
scribed by law ; as in England by fine
or recovery, and here by the solemn
conveyance requtred by the statute.
But if in such a case a claim is express
ly superadded that she shall have power
to dispose of the estate so given to her
during her coverture, then courts of
equity will treat such a power as en
abling her effectually to dispose of the
estate.
Thus the limitation of real estate to
the wife in fee to her sole and separate
use, did not give her in equity the pow
er to dispose of the estate from her
heirs.
To do so, express power of disposition
must have been given to her by the in
strument.
These principles appear to be support
ed by the following authorities : 2 Sto
ry's Eq., sees. 1391-2; 2 Roper on Hus
band and Wife, 182; Clancy on Married
Women, 287, and cases cited in notes to
these authorities; Gale v. Dederer, 18 N.
Y., 205 ; same v. same, 22 Id., 450 ; Newlin v. Freeman, 4 Iredell Eq. Rep. 312.
The act referred to gives no power to
dispose of the estate. Cole v. Van Ri
per, 44 111., 58. It only reserves it to the
sole and separate use of the wife. Hence
even under the full application of this
doctrine of equity, the wife would have
no sole disposing power over the fee of
her real estate. But a married woman's

News.

separate estate under this act is a strict

ly legal separate estate, and we see no
reason which she should not hold it sub
ject to the ordinary disabilities resulting
from her coverture ; why the statute
should not have full operation upon it
and the mode therein prescribed be the
only one whereby a married woman can
dispose of her real estate. What has
been said is entirely aside from the ques
tion how far a married woman, as a nec
essary incident to the enjoyment of her
separate property, may contract as to
matters pertaining to the enjoyment ofits
use, and is to be taken without any bear
ing upon the question. The case of
Young and wife v. Graff, 28 111, 20, seems
to afford a warrant for the decree of the
court below. Upon fuller consideration
we think the doctrine of equity as to a
married womitn's disposing power over
her separate property was carried fur
ther in that case than the authorities
seem to warrant.
We regard the deed of trust in this
case, as invalid and that the decree of the
court below for the sale of the premises
purporting to be conveyed by it was erro
neous.
The decree must be reversed and the
cause remanded for further proceedings
in conformity with this opinion.
CHANCERY NOTICK.-State of Illinois, county of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. March
term, A. I). 187^. James H. Fisk v. Carter Smith,
Emanuel Point!-, Minnesota Ewint;, Mary L. Schuth'r
and
Schutler,
her husband,
Lavinia Eli
AnnKearns,
Bond,
Charles D.
Bund, Cathiirine.
K. Keiirns.
William
A.
Ewintf,
in
his
own
richt
and
as
executor
Ceortfe W. Ewing. deceased, Cebrge W. Ewim;, Maryof
Stur"es, Susan Muggins, Howard IlueKins, David 11.
Hood, William
E. Hood,
Louisa SturKS's,
F.
Thruston,
Dickinson
]\ Thruston.
LaviniaCharlotte
A. Holladay,
Jesse
Holladay,
James
M.
Marshal],
Caroline
E.
^weetzi r, Madison Sweotzer. Clara K. Root. Lewis B.
Root,
Clara E.
Green. Emma Kurnler and Charles
Kumler.In
Chancery.
Affidavit of the nou-resi't< nr* of all the above-named
defendants,
execmingand
Carter
JSinith.A.Emanuel
James
M. Marshall
William
Ewing, Points,
luring
been tiled iu the office of the Clerk of said Circuit court
of
Cook
county,
notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
nou
resident detendants that the complainant heretofore
tiled his bill of complaint in said court, 011 the chancery
side thereof, and that a Bummons thereupon issued out
ot said court against said defendants, returnable on
the third Monday of March next (1872,) as is by law
required.
Now, unless you, the said Minnesota Kwing, Mary
L. Schutler and
Schutler, her husband, Lavinia
Ann Bond, Charles D. Bond, Catharine E. Kearns, Eli
Kearns, George W. Ewing, Mary Sturges, Susan Huggins, Howard HugKius. David B. Hood, William E.
Hood,
Sturges,
Charlotte
F. Thruston,
Dickin
son
P. Louisa
Thruston,
Lavinia
A. Holladay,
Jesse Holladay,
Caroline E. Sweetzer, Madison Sweetzer, Clara E.
Root. Lewis B. Root, Clara E. Green, Emma Kumler
and Charles
shallofpersonally
be and
before
said Kumler,
Circuit court
Cook county,
on theappear
first
day of a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said
county, on the third Monday of March, 1872, and plead,
answer or demur to the said complainants bill of
complaint, the same, and the matters and things
therein charged and stated^ will be taken as confessed,
and a decree entored against you according to the
prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Gookixs & RoHKiiTS.Comprt's Sol'rs.
21-25
A. H. DALTON,
Attorney. Thornton.
DECEASED.
E STATE
NoticeOFis ELIZABETH
hereby given BERGER,
to all persona
having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of Elizabeth
Berger, deceased, to present the same for
adjudica
tion
settlement
the County
courtand
of Cook
county, atto aboregular
holden term
at theofcourt
house,
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of May,
A. D. 1872, being the 6th day thereof.
JOHN BERGER, Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 2*. A. D. 1*7:!.
21-26
EWING & LEONARD,
Attorney*. AiSl Walxinh Avenue.
ESTATE
JOHN
Notice isOF
hereby
givenGEMMELL,
to nil personsDECEASED.
having claims
aud demands against the estate of John Gemmell, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
MARGARET N. GEMMELL,
21-26
Administratrix.
J. V. LeMOYNE,
Attorney.
ESTATE OF MICHAEL HANLON, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Michael Hanlon,
deceased,
lorCounty
adjudication
andCook
set
tlement attoa present
regular the
termsame
of the
court of
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago,
thethereof.
first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
ing
the 6thondnv
HANNAH
Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 27. A. D. nANLON.
1472.
21-2fia
DENT & BLACK,
Attorney*. 740 Wabash Avenve.
ESTATE
OF
ELMA
Notice is hereby
given HOWELL,
to all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Elma Howell, doceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county,
holden
the courtofhouse,
city beof
Chicago,toonbe the
firstat Monday
May, inA. the
D. 1872,
ing the sixth day ANNIE
thereof. E. HOWELL, Executrix.
Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D. 1872.
21-26a
SNOWHOOK & GRAY,
Attorney*, :lo West Monroi Street.
ESTATE
PATRICK
NoticeUsOFhereby
given toMcALPIN,
all personsDECEASEDhaving claims
and demands against the estate of Patrick McAlpin,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1-S72, being
the sixth day thereof.
MICHAEL SCANLON, Executor.
Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D.1W2.
2l-2fia
INSTATE OF MICHAEL URWANGER, Deceased,
J Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against tho estate of Michael Urwanger,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement,toatbea regular
the County
Cook
county,
holden atterm
the ofCourt
House, Court
in theofcity
of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, being
the first day thereof.
ANNA URWANGER, Executrix.
Chicago, Feb. 15, A. D. 1S72.
19-2ia

155
D. S. PRIDE,
Attorney. 5S"J State Street.
\\niEREAS,
R.
M.
city ofdid,Chicago,
tt county of Cook, Whipple,
and Stateofof the
Illinois,
on the
third
day
of
June,
A.
D.
186V.
make,
execute
and de
liver to the undersigned, Benjamin Lombard,
his
promissory note, bearing date the day and year afore
said,
lor
the
Hum
of
two
thousand
dollars,
payable
on
or
beforethereon
the first
dayrate
of ofDecember,
A. D.perl6y,
with
interest
at the
ten per cent,
annum
;
and, whereas, the said Whipple, by his agreement in
writing under seal, with said Lombard, gave and
transferred to said Lombard, as collateral security for
the payment of said note and interest thereon, fifteen
" Lake Ontario and Hudson River Railroad Company
mortgage bonds" for the sum of one thousand dollars
each ; said bonds bearing date April 6, 1*57, and pay
able Atig.
1, 1879, withoninterest
seven
payaide
semi-annuallv.
Feb. 1atand
Aug.per1,cent.,
and num
bered 1751, 175.1, I7M, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1787, 1788,
1789, agreement
1790, 1791, that
179S, 1799, Lombard
1*00, and itorwas
in
said
theorprovided
holder
or
holders
of said note, said
or his or their agent
attorney,
if said note or the interest thereon or any part thereof
is not paid in full at maturity, may f-ell the said collat
erals at public or private sab*, without notice, and
apply
proceeds towards
said note,
de
ductingthereasonable
charges,paying
attorney
fees, after
and ex
penses of soiling.
And, whereas, tho said R. M. Whipple has made de
fault in payment of the principal and interest due on
said note; now, therefore, notice is hereby given to
said Whipple and all others whom it may concern, that
on
27th dayof that
of March,
D. 1872,
fen Wednesday,
o'clock in tlietheforenoon
day, atA.the
northat
west corner of the new city hall, situate on Adams and
La Salle streets, in said city of Chicago, I, the under
signed Benjamin Lombard, shall sell at public auction,
to the highest and best bidder therefor for cash, all of
said bonds or so many thereof as shall be necessary to
pay said note aud interest due thereon and the costs of
making such sale, including attorney lees.
BENJAMIN LOMBARD.
Dated Chicago. Feb. 24, 1872.
D. S. Pkiuk. Attorney.
21-23
WHEREAS,
M. Whipple,
city ofdid,Chicago,
county of R.
Cook,
and State ofof tho
Illinois,
on the
third
of June,
A. D. 1869,Benjamin
make, execute
and de
liver day
to tho
undersigned,
Lombard,
his
promissory note, bearing date the day and year afore
said,
for
the
sum
of
two
thousand
dollars,
payable
on
or before the first day of January, A. D. 1870, with in
terest thereon at the rate of ten per cent, per annum ;
and, whereas, the said Whipple, by his agreement in
writing under seal, with paid Lombard, gave and
transferred to said Lombard, as collateral security for
the payment of said note, two "convertible mortgage
bonds! of the Lyous (Iowa) Central Railroad Com
pany," numbered 468 and 759, and being for one thou
sandprovided
dollars each,
withagreement
seven per that
cent,said
interest
; andorit
was
in said
Lombard
the holder or holders ofsaid note,or his or their agent or
attorney,isifnot
saidpaid
note or
thereonmay
oranypart
thereof
in the
fullinterest
at maturity,
sell the
said
at proceeds
public ortowards
private paying
sale, without
no
tice, collaterals
and apply the
said note,
ufter deducting reasonable charges, attorney fees, and
expenses of selling.
And, whereas, the said R. M. Whipple has made de
fault
in payment
of the principal
interest
on
said note
; now, therefore,
notice isand
hereby
givendue
to said
Whipple and all other persons whom it may concern,
that on Wednesday, the 27th day of March, A. D, 1872,
at
o'clockofinthethenew
forenoon
of that
day,onatAdams
the north
westtencorner
city hall,
situate
and
La
Salle
streets,
iu
said
city
of
Chicago,
I.
the
under
signed Benjamin Lombard, shall sell at public auction
to
the highestmortgage
and best bonds
bidder" therefor
for thereof
cash, said
"convertible
or so many
as
shall be necessary to pay said note and interest due
thereon aud
such sale,
including
attorney
foes.the costs of making
BENJAMIN"
LOMBARD.
Dated Chicago, Feb. 21, 172.
D. S. Pridk, Attorney.
2I-2X
W^HEREAS,
R.
M.
Whipple,
of
the
city
of
Chicago,
TT county of Cook, and Stale of Illinois, did, on the
third
of June,
A. D. 1809,Benjamin
make, execute
and de
liver day
to the
undersigned,
Lombard,
his
promissory note, bearing date, the day and year afore
said, for the sum of two thousand dollars, payable on
or before the first day of February, A. D. 1870, with in
terest thereon at the rate of ten per cent, per annum ;
and,
whereas,
said with
Whipple,
his agreement
in
writiug
undertheseal,
said hy
Lombard,
gave and
transferred to said Lombard as collateral secu
rity
for theandpayment
of saidRailroad
note, a Company,"
"certificatefor
of
La
Crosse
dividends
due on Milwaukee
" First Mortgage
Land Grant .Bond,'*
No.
1858:Shore
Certificate
of Stock,Com
No.
166, in3100,thedated
RiverJan.
and38,Lake
City Railway
pany," for 200 shares, par value $25, dated March 22,
1865; "Mortgage and Convertible Bond, No. 12, New
London, Willimantic and Palmer Railroad Corpora
tion,"
for one
thousand
datedthat
Julysaid20,1850.
And it was
provided
iu saiddollars,
agreement
Lom
bard or the liolder or holders of said note, or his or
their agent or attorney, if said note or the interest
thereon or any part thereof is not paid in full at matu
rity, may sell the said collaterals at public or private
sale, without notice, and apply the proceeds towards;
paying said note, after deducting reasonable charges m
uttorney fees, and expenses of selling.
And, whereas, tin- said R. 31. Whipple has made de
faultnote
in payment
of the principal
interest
on
said
; now, therefore,
notice 16and
hereby
given due
to said
Whipple and all other persons whom it may concern,
that on Wednesday, the 27th day of March. A. D. 1S72,
at
tencorner
o'clockofinthethenew
forenoon
of Hint
day.ona tAdams
the northweBt
city hull,
situate
and
La Salle streets, in said city of Chicago, I. the under
signed, Benjamin Loinhard. shall sell at public auction
to tho highest and best bidder therefor for cash, said
Certificate of La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad Com
pany, for dividends dueon First Mortgage Land Grant
Bond,
No. Lake
3160; Shore
Certificate
of Stock,Company,
No. 166, for
In the
River and
City Railway
20O
shares; and Mortgage and Convertible Bona, No. 12,
New London. Willimantic and Palmer Railroad Cor
poration, or so many thereof as shall be necessary to
pay said note and interest due thereon, and the costs of
making such sale, includine attorney fees.
BENJAMIN LOMBARD.
Dated Chicago, Feb. 24, 1S72.
D. S. Pride. Attorney.
21-33
HARDING & MCCOY,
Attorneys, 3iVS Wabash Avenue.
TO ALL WHOM' IT MAY CONCEHN -Public no
tice is hereby given that the undersigned guardian
of the estate
of Kenneth
Brownto and
Frank court
Brown,
minors,
will make
application
the Circuit
of
Cook county, Illinois, at tho first day of the April
term,
a.
d.
1872,
to
be
holden
at
the
Court
House,
in
the,
city of Chicago, county and State aforosaid. which said
term commences on the third Monday of April, a. d.
1872, for leave to sell the following described real es
tate, to wit :
The west halfoflot one in block ninety-three (93) in the
school section addition ofChicago, in Cook county.State
ofIllinois, for the purpose of investing the proceeds of
such property in such manner as the court, appoint
ing the undersigned as such guardian, shall d irect, or
for such other legal purpose as said Circuit court
shall direct.
CAROLINE M. BROWN.
February 20, 1*72.
Guardian, etc.
nAHDisa ft McCoy, Attorneys.
21-2
J. C. & J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
Attorneys, 1611 W. Washington St,
ESTATE OF MARY ANN CAVANAGH, DEceased.Notice is hereby given to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate of
Mary Ann Cavanagh, deceased, to present the same
for adjudication aud settlement at a regular term of
the County court of Cook county, to bo holden at the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday
of May, A.I). 1*72, being the<'.th day thereof.
Chicago, February 19, A.D. 1872.
21-25
JOHN COBBETT, Administrator.

i56

Chicago

Legal

question involved in the decision of this

case is an important one. Several ofthe
ablest members of the Chicago bar, had
ILei Umcft.
given opinions before the decision was
rendered, contrary to the conclusion ar
CHICAGO, MARCH 2, 1872.
rived at by a majority of the judges. Mr.
Sleeper,
from the first, claimed with
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
great confidence, that in the absence of
The Chicago Legal News Co., any adjudicated case against him upon
AT 115 MADISON STREET.
the question, the court must, on general
principles, decide the case in favor of
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
his clients. The question cannot be said
to be entirely one-sided, when such
Terms :
rwo Dollars per annum. In advance. Slnglecop- Judges as McAllister and Walker dis
lesTen Cents.
sent from their brother judges.

Chicago Legal News.

THE I.F.GAI. NEWS OFFICE Is at US

Weat If<! Street. The frlutlug;
EatnblUhmrnt ia at 13 N. Jeflferaom St.
Removal.We shall move into our
new offices, Nos. 161 and 163 La Salle
street, in about three weeks.
We call attention to the following
opinions reported at length in this issue :
Admiralty JurisdictionInjury to
Bridge.The opinion of the U. S. Dis
trict Court of the Northern D. of Ohio,
by Sherman, J., holding that where a
vessel ran into a bridge and injured it
that it was not a marine tort and the court
had no jurisdiction in the case.
The opinion in this case is very simi
lar in principle to the one delivered by
Longyear, J., in the Ottawa, also report
ed in this issue.
Injury to Wharf not a Marine Tort.
The opinion of the U. S. District Court
for the E. D. of Michigan, by Longyear, J,
holding that a wharf is but an improve
ment or extension of the shore, that it is
real estate and that an injury done to it
whether through negligence or design,
no matter by what agency, is an injury
done .wholly on land and not on the
water, and, therefore, does not consti
tute a marine tort, and that the remedy
for such a tort cannot be sought in ad
miralty.
Limiting Liability of Common Car
rier by Special Contract.The opinion
of the Supreme Court of Indiana, deliv
ered by Worden, J., holding that a
common carrier cannot, by contract, re
lieve himself against liability for even a
slight degree of negligence. This is an
important decision, and with the opinion
of the|Supreme Court ofthis State, which
we published in our last issue, upon a
similar question, will well repay a care
ful examination.
Married Women's Separate Estate.
The opinion of the Supreme Court of
this State, delivered by Sheldon, J., as
to the right of a married woman to con
vey her real estate, and what constitutes
her separate estate. Some of our ablest
lawyers claim that a married woman, in
this State, cannot, by will, dispose of
real estate held in her own name, and
that the words in our statute, " and mar
ried women shall have power to dispose
of their separate estate, both real and
personal, by will or testament in the
same manner as other persons," only
gives married women the power to so dis
pose of real estate when held by some oth
er person for their use. It is remarkable
that this statute, which has been in force
for more than fifty years, has never re
ceived a construction of our Supreme
Court.
Release of Dower when Inoperative.
The opinion of the Supreme Court of
Illinois, delivered by Scott, J., as to the
effect to be given to a release of dower
contained in a deed from husband and
wife when such deed becomes inopera
tive as to ^the husband's estate. The

NOTES TO RECENT CASES.

Line of Building.Paxon, J., of the
Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia, in
City of Philadelphia v. The Presbyterian
Board of Publication , held that where
the ashlar or true line of a building, con
formed strictly to the line of the street,
but the ornamental parts encroached on
it, an injunction will not be granted to
restrain the erection of such building,
especially as this has been the custom
for years in Philadelphia, and councils
have not legislated on the subject. 29
Leg. Int., 53.
Alimony Pending Appeal.In Jones
v. Jones, 'which was a suit for judicial
separation by the wife, the court having
dismissed the petition and while an ap
peal to the full court against that
decision was pending, Lord Penzance
refused to make an order for ali
mony pending the appeal, intimating
that the Court of Appeal was the proper
court to apply to on that question. 20
Weekly Reporter, 320.
The Supreme Court.The new rooms
for the Supreme Court of this State, at
Springfield, having been completed, the
adjourned term of this tribunal will com
mence on Tuesday, March 5.
Cook County Judges' Salaries.The
Constitution of 1870 provides that the
Judges of the Circuit and Superior
Courts of this county shall receive from
the State Treasury the same salary as is
paid from such Treasury to the Circuit
Judges of the State, and such further
compensation to be paid by the county
of Cook as is or may be provided by law,
and that such compensation shall not be
changed during their continuance in
office. The object of the last clause in
this section undoubtedly was to prevent
the Legislature from the constant tinker
ing with the salaries of judicial officers.
The Legislature, acting under this sec
tion of the Constitution, last winter
passed a law fixing the compensation of
these Judges, which Governor Palmer,
after very careful examination, held
to be constitutional, and approved.
An attempt is now being made to go
through the idle ceremony of pass
ing another act assuming to reduce
these salaries. The power of the Legis
lature over this subject was exhausted
when the Governor signed the bill which
they had passed. Even if the Legisla
ture had the power, we should not re
gard this attempt as fair treatment of the
Judges. They have performed their ju
dicial labors for the past year, with the
full understanding that their salaries
were to remain unchanged during their
present terms. We regard this attempt
of the Legislature to go back on its for
mer action, in fixing these salaries, just as
unfair as we would for a farmer to hire a
man to work for him a month for thirty
dollars, and at the end of the month
tell him he had concluded to refix his

News.

wages and would only pay him twenty

dollars for his month's hire. These
salaries are not one dollar too much.
Our judges earn all they get. Because
the Legislature failed to do justice by
the Judges of the Supreme Court, it is
no reason why they should do injustice
to the Judges of this county.
V. S. CIRCUIT COURT, W. D. OHIO.
Notes to opinions delivered by Hon.
H. H. Emmons, Circuit Judge, in Janu
ary 1872, as taken by Benjamin Weaver,
stenographer :
AdmiraltyJurisdictionCollision.
That in a case of collision in the Cuy
ahoga River, where the steam tug, defen
dant, was engaged in the business of tow
ing within and outof the river, the admir
alty had jurisdiction. That it was no ob
jection that the contract of towing was to
be performed within the body ofa State, or
within a harbor, inasmuch as the founda
tion for this objection, as derived from
1 Black, and 21 Howard, had been re
moved by the later cases ; instancing the
Belfast, F. Wallace, and subsequent
cases, which put the admiralty jurisdic
tion upon broad and rational grounds,
viz : that the grant of admiralty jurisdic
tion to the Federal Courts includes all
cases of maritime contract or tort upon
waters navigable between State and
State.Leonard v. Tug Volunteer.
Willey, Gary & Terrell for libellants.
Canfield & Caskey for respondents.
BankruptcyEntering Judgment on
Cognovit.That where judgment had
been taken by confession on a cognovit,
and execution levied upon the property
of a bankrupt by the suffrance or per
mission of the bankrupt before proceed
ings in bankruptcy were instituted, it was
a fraud upon the Act, notwithstanding
the cognovit may have been dated more
than six months prior to the filing of the
petition in bankruptcy.
That in such cases the date of the cog
novit was entirely immaterial. Holding
the law on that subject to be in accord
ance with the late cases, referring to 5
B. R., 358, Cox v. Carpenter. 2 B. R.,
12!) ; 1 B. R., 163, and some ten or twelve
other concurring decisions.
Remanded for amendment and fur
ther proceedings.
Ford, assignee in bankruptcy, v. Keys'
appeal in bankruptcy.
Hutchins and Ingersoll, for as
signee.
Grannis & Henderson, for defendant.
Proceedings to Set Aside a Sale.
That in proceeding to set aside a sale of
real estate there must exist a judgment
lien by statute, in which case the title
must be in the judgment debtor, or alien
by levy, neither of which is here set up.
That if this had been a plenary bill in
equity it would be dismissed on that
ground. But two cases in 24 Howard
hold that unless this objection is taken
in the answer, it will be held to be
waived. The answer does not raise the
question. If proceedings were remand
ed foramendment to petition, the answer
could then also be amended so as to
raise this question, which would be fatal
to the petition, the fact being that no
lien existed before this petition was
filed.
Proceeding to review the case on its
merits, Judge Emmons held, that an ap
pellate court, before reversing a decree
on a question of fact, should be able to
see some plain mistake, some misappre
hension of the fact, so plain a misappre
hension, so evident an error, as to war
rant the appellate court, with much con
fidence, in saying, that were the case re
argued in the court below, that court
would reconsider its own judgment.
Wells v. Dalrymple, appeal in bank
ruptcy.
Hutchins & Ingersoll, for petitioner.
Stewart of Ravenna, for defendant.
LTV ILLINOIS REPORTS.
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman
L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following
head-notes to cases to appear in the 54th
volume of Illinois Reports :
PROMISE.
1. Of a judgment debtor to pay the judg
ment. A recovery can not be had against
a party upon a verbal promise to pay a
binding judgment which has been ren

dered against him. Such a promise is

without consideration, and can not in
crease or change the liability of the deb
tor.(Opinion by Walker, J.)Runnamaker, etc., v. Cordray, p. 303.
Jmerger.
2. Judgment. Nor can the original
consideration upon which the judgment
was rendered be recovered under the
common counts; for that consideration
is merged in and extinguished by the
judgment.lb.
EVIDENCE UNDER COMMON COUNT8.
3. Judgment. The record of a judg
ment is not; evidence to support the
money counts in an action of debt. It
is not evidence of money had and re
ceived, loaned, paid out and expended,
or of an account stated.lb.
allegations and proofs.
1. In Chancery. On a bill filed to en
join the collection of a judgment, on the
allegation that the judgment was satis
fied by the conveyance to the plaintiff
of a certain town lot, and the deed given
in evidence described a different lot, it
was held, as the allegation and proof in
respect to the description of the lot con
veyed, did not correspond, the relief
sought could not be granted.(Opinion
by Lawrence, C. J.) Wise v. Twist, p.
301.
AMENDMENT OF BILL.
2. Wliere the proof does not conform to
the allegation. In such case, if the deed
offered in evidence was really designed
by the parties as a satisfaction of the
judgment sought to be enjoined, but, by
mistake, described the wrong lot, the
complainant should have leave to amend
his bill, so that the mistake could be
properly corrected, if no other rights had
intervened, and then enjoin the collec
tion of the judgment.lb.
JUDGMENT IN DEBT.
1. Its requisites. It is error to render a
judgment for damages only, in an action
of debt. In that action the judgment
must be for the debt, and if damages are
awarded for the detention of the debt, it
should be so expressed in the judgment.
(Opinion by Breese, J.,)Maguire v.
Town of Xenia, p. 299.
GIVING BOND ON CONTINUANCE.
2. Power of a police magistrate. Where
a party is arrested for an alleged viola
tion of atown ordinance, the police magis
trate before whom the proceeding is pend
ing has no power to exact a bond from
the defendant for his appearance, on
granting him a continuance, and the
court were inclined to hold a bond given
in such a case void.lb.
SURETY.
3. Surrender of the principal. But cornceding such a bond to be operative, the
sureties thereon could discharge them
selves by surrendering the principal ac
cording to the exigencies of their under
taking. And when the principal is thus
surrendered, and the attention of the
magistrate called thereto, it is immate
rial whether the magistrate accept the
surrender or not.lb.
ACTION OF DEBT FOR A PENALTY.
4. Presence af defendant not essential.
Where a party was arrested in an action
of debt for a penalty for an alleged viola
tion of a town ordinance, and gave a
bond for his appearance on being allow
ed a continuance, it was held to be error
to dismiss the suit because he did not
appear, inasmuch as the court could
have proceeded to final judgment as well
in the absence of the defendant as when
he was present.lb
TROVER.
Wlien it will lie. An action oftrover will
lie against a carrier, who, by mistake,
delivers goods to a wrong person.
(Opinion by Lawrence, C. J/)111. C. R.
R. Co. v. Parks, p, 294.
DECREE UPON CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE.
1. Oidy provisional. When a defendant
has been brought into court, only by
constructive service, and has received
no written notice of the existence of a
decree against him, as authorized by
statute, such decree is, for the period
of three years, simply provisional, and
subject to be opened on petition.
(Opinion by Breese, J.)Sale v. Fire, p.
293.
2. When becomesfinal in fact. Although
such a decree is final in form, it does not
become so in fact, and conclude the par
ties, until the lapse of three years.lb.
3. Writ of errorfive years within which

Chicago
to prosecute after a decree becomes final.
And in such case, a defendant who has
received no actual notice of the penden
cy of the suit, or of the existence of such
decree against him, has, from the time
it thus becomes final, five years within
which to prosecute his writ of error.lb.
4. Writ of errorwhen barred. So, in
such case a writ of error is not barred
until after the expiration of eight years
from the time of the rendition of the de
cree.lb.
EX TURPI CAUSA NON ORITUR ACTIO.
During the year 1864, and before the
close of the late war of the rebellion, a
provost marshal in this State, to whom
persons who might be drafted into the
military service of the United States
under the then pending draft, were re
quired to report, entered into a secret
arrangement with one of his deputies,
by which the latter was to engage in the
business of procuring substitutes and sell
ing them to such of the drafted men as
did not wish to serve in the army, the
provost marshal agreeing so to exercise
his power, as an officer, as to render this
substitute business a monopoly in the
hands of himself and his deputy, the
profits to be divided between them- The
business resulted in large profits, ofwhich
the principal in the scheme seems to
have received more than his share, and
in a suit by the deputy to compel a
more equitable distribution of the spoils,
it was held, the court could not permit
the agencies of the law to be employed
in aid of either party to such an il
legal and corrupt bargain.(Opinion by
Lawrence, C. J.)Skeels v. Phillips, p.
309.
EVIDENCE.
1. Of the indmlity of property. In an
action of trover to recover a barge and
two coal boats claimed to have been the
property of the plaintiff, and converted
by the defendant, the defendant offered
in evidence the docket of a justice of the
peace to prove a judgment in attachment
against a pine barge, in a suit wherein
this plaintiff was defendant, ordering
its sale: HeId, there being no evidence
in the record that the boat against which
the judgment was rendered was either of
those in controversy, and no proof that
the boat was ever sold under the judg
ment, and the defendant not offering to
make any, the judgment was properly
rejected by the court as improper to go
to the jury.(Opinion by Walker, J.)
Bowles v. Delaney.
2. And the transcript of a suit in the
United States court for the condemna
tion and forfeiture of two coal barges, to
gether with the judgment of condemna
tion, execution, and return of the United
States marshal that he had sold the
same, were also properly rejected, the
record failing to show, and the defendant
not offering to prove, that the boats thus
condemned and sold were those in con
troversy.lb.
We are under obligations to the law
firm of Sleeper & Whiton, of this city,
for the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed Jan. 29, 1872.
Cham.es H. Morton et al. v. Chablottk Noble.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Chicago.
EFFECT OF RELEASE OF DOWER WHEN DEED
FROM HUSBAND AND WIFE BECOMES IN
OPERATIVE AS TO HUSBAND'S ESTATE.
1. When Doweb not Barbed by.That when
the deed from the husband and wife becomes in
operative as to the husband's estate, because made
in fraud of the rights of creditors, or from any
previous lien or incumbrance, or where the pur
chase money is recovered back for a defect of title
in the husband, or by reason of any wrongful act
on the part of the husband, the dower is not
barred by the deed.
2. When Dowf.r Cannot be Restored.That
the court has been referred to no case that holds,
where the .husband and wife conveyed a perfect
and indefeasible title, and when the title was sub
sequently lost, solely by the fault and neglect of
the grantee, that the dower would be restored.
3. When the Right of Dower is Barred.Held,
where the title to land was in the husband, and
the wife joined him in a deed thereof and re
leased her dower, and the grantee omitted to place
his deed upon record, and a creditor of the hus
band obtained a Judgment against him and sold
the land upon an execution issued upon such
Judgment, and the purchaser in due time received
a sheriffs deed, that the right of dower of the
wife was forever barred.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion by Scott, J.
The appellee, by proofof her marriage
with NoDle, his death and seizin of her
husband during coverture, having made
out a prima facie case entitling her to
dower, the question arises whether the
defense set up by the appellants is suffi
cient in law to bar her dower.
From the stipulation as to the facts, it

Legal

appears that Mark Noble, the husband

of the appellee was seized in fee simple
of the land in which dower is claimed,
and that on the 7th day of October, 183(5,
he and his wife, the appellee, duly made,
executed and both acknowledged in clue
form of law, a deed conveying the title
in fee simple to Benjamin Harris, which
deed was duly delivered to Harris on
the same day, but was not recorded un
til the 31st day of August, 1837. After
the making and delivery of the deed to
Harris, but before thesame was recorded,
one Jefferson Gardner recovered a judg
ment in the municipal court of Chicago,
against Mark Noble, for the sum of two
hundred and fifty-one 50-100 dollars,
which judgment became a lien on real
estate on the 7th day of July, 1837. At
the date of the conveyance to Harris the
land was vacant and unoccupied, and
such proceedings were subsequently had
that the premises were sold on an execu
tion issued on the Gardnerjudgment, and
Harris failing to redeem, the title ma
tured in the purchaser at that sale, and
the appellants now claim title through
certain mesne conveyances as the
grantees of the purchaser.
Mark Noble died in 1863, intestate,
and the appellee filed her petition claim
ing dower in the premises. It is not
questioned that the deed of July 7, 1836,
was sufficient to release the right of
dower if the title had remained in Har
ris, but it is insisted that inasmuch as
the title was defeated in Harris,by reason
of the sale on the Gardner execution,
that the dower is not barred, and the ap
pellants not connecting themselves with
or claiming under the Harris title, can
not set up the release of dower to him to
defeat the demandant in the proceeding.
It will be observed that Harris obtained
a perfect title to the land free from all
incumbrances. The title thus acquired
remained in him for the period of about
one year, and was only defeated by the
laches of Harris in not complying with
the registry laws of this State, and by no
fault or neglect of the grantor, Noble.
We fully recognize the doctrine that
when the deed from the husband and
wife becomes inoperative as to the hus
band's estate, because made in fraud of
the rights of creditors or from any pre
vious lien or incumbrance, or where the
purchase money is recovered back for a
defect of title in the husband, or by rea
son of any wrongful act on the part of the
husband, the dower is not barred by the
deed. Blaine v. Harrison, 11 111., 384 ;
Summers v. Babb, 13 111., 483 ; Grove v.
Cother, 23 111., 634 ; Stribling v. Ross, 16
111., 122. This case does not fall within
the rule announced in any of the former
decisions of this court. We have been
referred to no case that holds that where
the husband and wife conveyed a perfect
and indefeasable title, and where the ti
tle was subsequently lost, solely by the
fault and neglect of the grantee, that the
dower would be restored.
It is difficult to comprehend upon
what principle such a doctrine could be
maintained. The doctrine of the cases
cited above rests upon sound reason. In
case the title does not pass by the deed
of the husband and wife, the dower will
not, and hence the grantee takes noth
ing.
It is a familiar principle that a widow
cannot release her right of dower to a
stranger to the title, but in this instance
the release was to the owner of the fee,
and for that reason it was effectual.
Harris was in no sense a stranger. By
the deed from the demandant and her
husband he became vested with an ab
solute and indefeasable estate in the
land. The title never failed. It was lost
simply by the laches of the grantee.
There are many ways in which Harris,
by mere neglect, could have allowed the
title to pass from him. The land being
vacant and unoccupied, he might have
suffered a party to make an entry and
hold possession for twenty years, until
the right of possession had matured into
an absolute title against him. Had the
title been lost in this way, it would hard
ly be insisted that the demandant in this
case would be entitled to dower in the
premises simply by reason of the failure of
Harris to assert his rights within the pe
riod fixed by the statute of limitations.
It is insisted that Harris was not seized
of the land as against the creditors of
Noble for the reason that the deed was
not recorded in apt time. That was no
concern of the grantor. It was not in
his power to compel the grantee to place
his deed on record. It does not appear

News.

that there were any creditors of Noble at

the date of the conveyance. If the gran
tee chose to withhold his deed from
record the grantor could not prevent it.
But it is not true that Harris was not
seized of the land as against the credit
ors of Noble. He was in fact seized of
an absolute title as against all the world,
and held it for the period of one year,
and might have continued to hold it for
ever, except for his own laches in not
complying with the registry laws of the
State.
We are of opinion therefore that the
deed to Harris was effectual to pass the
right of dower, and the title never hav
ing failed or been defeated by reason of
any prior lien or incumbrance, or any
act on the part of the grantor, the right
of dower is forever barred.
For the reasons indicated, the decree
of the superior court is reversed and the
cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Walker, J., and McAllister, J., dis
sent.
Sleeper & WniTON for appellants.
Higoins, Swett & Quigg for appellee.

157
THE
American
Com
by t:
In Every

Reports.

of General
Court of Iitirrt
In the Union.

SIZE OF THE VOLUMES.

Each volume of the American Reports will contain
750 will
largeenable
octavouupages,
and one-third
will be printed
700 tothat
infrom
a type
to give
more
matter
to
the
page
than
in
contained
on
ordinary State Reports, and yet ut&cientlva page
largeoftothe
be
read with perfect eae. The volumes will be bound in
the best style of Law Books.

VOLUME I.
The first volume of the American Reports was issued
in
had anand
extensive
circulation
in February,
every part1871,
of and
the has
country;
lias received
the
marked approbation of the profession, both as to plan
and
execution.
This volume
contained
the valuable
decisions
in the seven
States ^iven
below.all The
Report*
of three of these States furnish more important opin
ions tlian will the Reports of double that number of
the other States ; this readily accounts lor the fact that
less than a third of the States were included.
Volume I. contained all cases of general value re
ported in the following State Reports :
31 MARYLAND,
MASSACHUSETTS. 42f.2 VERMONT,
PENNSYLVANIA,
There are three women studying law Km
24. WISCONSIN,
i-2 NEW YORK,
And a part of 41 N. YORE.
at the University of Wilmington, Dela 27 IOWA,
ware.
VOLUME II.
To Rent.A suite of very desirable
The second volume of the American Reports tu
rooms for lawyers' offices, on La Salle published
September lstl aud contains ull decisions of
interest reported in the following lateut Stat
street, near where the United States general
Reports :
Courts will be located. They will be 57 MAINE.
32 INDIANA,
HAMPSHIRE, 40 GEORGIA.
ready for occupancy in about three 4S19 NEW
MICHIGAN,
22 LOUISIANA ANNUAL,
39 CALIFORNIA,
weeks. Inquire at the Legal News 15 MINNESOTA,
19
OHIO,
office.
4fi1 HEISKKLL
MISSOURI, (Tens.).
51 ILLINOIS,
101 MASSACHUSETTS.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
PROCEEDINGS OF.
VOLUME III.
Wednesday, February 21.
The third volume has just been issued, and contains
case of general interest reported In the following;
On motion of Mr. F. P. Stanton, John E. Sunds- every
State Reports :
trom, Esq., of New York, was admitted to practice 25 WISCONSIN,
101 MASSACHUSETTS,
as an attorney and counselor of this court.
102
MASSACHUSETTS,
32 MARYLAND,
63
MARYLAND,
No. 116. (Substituted for No. 113.) The First Na 33
64 PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA.
20
GRATTAN
(Va.),
tional Bank of Bethel, plaintiff in error, v. The r. NEVADA.
65 PENNSYLV^
ANIA.
NEW JERSEY,
43 NEW YORK,
National Paliquioque. This cause was argued by 340 BUSH
iKv.),
25 ARKANSAS.
Mr. C B. Goodrich, of counsel for the plaintiff in
36 CONNECTICUT.
error, and by Mr. William F. Taylor for the de
fendant in error.
No. 114. Joel C Slaughter, administrator, appel
PRICE.
lant, v." Julius Gerson. The argument of this The price of the American Report* is $6.00 per
cause was commenced by Mr. William Schley, of Tolume. Those wishing to take the series should send
orders to the Publisher, and the volumes will be
counsel for the appellant, and continued by Mr. B. their
forwarded to them as soou as issued, by mail fret of
W. Huntington, for the appellee,
postage.
Friday, February 23.
On motion of Mr. P. Phillips, Archibald W. JOHN D. PARSONS, JR.,
Hall, Esq., of New York, was admitted to practice
Law Book Publisher,
as an attorney and counselor of this court.
21
AUUNT, H. Y.
On motion of Mr. James Hughes, Hugh Butler,
Esq., of Colorado Territory, was admitted to prac
tice as an attorney and counselor of this court.
NEW
On motion of Mr. William Schley, Alexander
Wolff, Esq., of Maryland, was admitted to practice
as an attorney and counselor of this court.
No. 548. Andrew J. Davis, plaintiff in error, v.
John Bilsland. In error to the Supreme Court of
the Territory of Montana. On motion of Mr.
Robert Leech, ordered by the court that the order
docketing and dismissing this cause be rescinded
DILLON
and annulled, and leave granted to file the record
and docket the cases.
ON
No. 114. Joel C. Slaughter, administrator, appel
lant, v. Julius Gerson. The argument of this cause
was continued by Mr. B. N. Huntingdon, of coun MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
sel for the appellee, and concluded by Mr. William
Schley, for the appellant
No. 115. The United States, appellants, v. The We have In press, and will shortly Issue, a
TREATISE ON THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL
bark John Griffin, etc., continued.
No. 113. (Substituted for 116.) Edward J. Gay and CORPORATIONS, with full reference to En
William Agar, appellants, v. The United States. glish and American cases, by the Honorable
This cause was submitted on printed arguments
by Mr. E. T. Merrick, of counsel for the appellants, JOHN F. DILLON, United States Circuit
and by Assistant Attorney-General Hill, for the Judge.
appellees.
No. 117. Louisa Chew, plaintiff in error, v. This work is designed to meet a want long
Richard J. Bramagen. This cause was submitted felt by the members of the profession.
on printed arguments by Mr. John H. Reynolds, of Judge Dillon has devoted several years to
counsel for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. E.T. the most careful preparation of the text and
Green, for the defendant in error.
notes ; and this fact, together with his high
Tuesday, February 27.
On motion of Mr. R. T. Merrick, Andrew J. Todd, reputation as a jurist, guarantee the excel
Esq., of New York, was admitted to practice as an lence of the work.
attorney and counselor of this court.
No. 118. Joseph H. Bradley, plaintiff In error, v. Complete In one large octavo volume..
George P. Fisher. The argument of this cause
was continued by Mr. W. A. Cook and Mr. A. G.
Riddle, of counsel for the defendant in error, and JAMES COCKCROFT & CO.,
concluded by Mr. R T. Merrick, of counsel for the
plaintiff in error.
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
No. 93 (for which 119 was substituted). Paul Sears
et al appellants, v. The British Steamer Scotia,
499 Wabash Avenue,
etc., et al. The argument of this cause was com
menced by Mr. Jos. C. Carter, of counsel for the
CHICAGO.
appellants.
13-24

i58
CLOWRY & BARMM,
Attorneys, S ^orth Canal Street.
ESTATK
OK
JOHN
Notico is hereby
givenKARKELL,
loall person;*DECEASED.having claims
and demands against the estate of John Farrell, de
ceased, to present tlie same for adjudication and set
tlement toat be
a regular
the County
Cookof
county,
holdenterm
at theofcourt
house, court
in theofcity
Chicago, on the first Monday of Way, A. D. 1872,
being the sixth day thereof.
MICHAEL
Chicago, February
23, BRENNAN,
A. D. 1872. Administrator.
21-26
ESTATE
C. LOUIS
NotieoisOF
hereby
given to KURTZ,
all personsDEOEASED.having claims
and demands against the estate of C. Louis Kurtz,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication ana
settlement
regular term
of court
the County
Cook county,at toa beholden
at the
house,court
in theof
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D.
1872, being the sixth day thereof.
MAIUiAHETHA KURTZ, Executrix.
Chicago. February 23. A.D. 1872.
21-26
Clowry <fe Bakmm. Attorneys.
ESTATE
CHRISTOPHER
FLYNN,having
Deceasod.Notiee isOFhereby
given to all persona
claims
and demands against the estate of Christopher
Flynn, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
andCook
settlement
the County
of
eonmy, atto aberegular
holden term
at theofcourt
house, incourt
the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. 1).
IS72, being the sixth day thereof.
BRIDGET
Chicago,
FebruaryANN
23, A. FLYNN,
D. 1872. Administratrix.
21-26
Ci.owry A Bakmm, Uioineys.
ESTATE
TERESA
DECKASED.Notico OF
is hereby
givenBATTO,
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Teresa
Batto, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook
county, toonbothe
holden
the courtofhouse,
city
of Chicago,
firstatMonday
May, inA. the
D.
1872, being the .sixth day thereof.
JOSEPH SEGALLE, Executor.
Chicago,
A.D. 1872.
21-26
Ci.owry AFebruary
Barmm, Attorneys.
ESTATE OF HANNAH HALDSWORTH.Dkceased.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate ot Hannah Huluaworth.
deceased, to present the same tor adjudication auu
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cookofcounty,
tho courtofhouse,
city
Chicago,to beon holden
the firstat Monday
May, inA. the
D.
2872, being the sixth day thereof.
JAMES WILLIAM HALDSWORTIT,
Administrator.
Chicago,
23. A. D. 1872.
Clowry .tFebruary
Barmm, Attorneys.
21-26
M. Room
A. RORKE
& SON,
Attorneys,
57, Centra/Union Block.
TESTATE 01- ELIZA TURNER, DECEASED..
Notice is hereby given to all persona having claims
and
demands
against
the estate
of Eli/a Turner,
de
ceased,
to present
the same
for adjudication
and set
tlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
Court
of
Cook
county, to be hidden at the court house, in the city of
Chiciigo, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1ST!', being
the sixth dayTHOMAS
thereof. A. TURNER. Administrator.
Chicago,
Feb.
A. D.Attorneys.
1872.
21-26
M. A. Rokke ifc29,Son,
ESTATE OF WILLIAM CLOWRY, DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to ail persons having
claims
demands
against the
the same
estateforof adjudica
William
Clowry,and
deceased,
to present
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the1872,
city being
of Chicago,
first Monday of April,
A.D.
the firstondavthethereof.
ANN CLOWRY.
Administratrix, and
MARTIN BRENNAN,
Administrator of said Estate.
"Chicago, Feb. 6. 1872.
19-24
JAMES SPRINGER,
Attorney, f>09 Wabash Avenue.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, COOK COUNTY, sb.Supe
rior court of Cook county. May term, A. D. 1872.
Leroy J. Needhaui v. Mary j. Needham.In Chan
cery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Mary J. Needham,
defendant above named, having been tiled in the office
of
the Clerk
of saidgiven
Superior
of Cook
county,
notice
is hereby
to the Court
said Mary
J. Needham
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plaint
court, on
the chancery
and thatin asaid
summons
thereupon
issued side
out thereof,
of said
court
against
said
defendant,
returnable
on the first
Monday of May next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Mary ,T. Needham, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court ot
Cook county, on the iirst day of the term thereof, to be
holdeu at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of
1*72, and bill
plead,of complaint,
answer or the
demur
the
saidMay,
complainant's
same,to and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to saidAUGUSTUS
bill.
JACOBSON, Clerk.
James Springer, Compl't's Sol'r.
21-2-4
WM. LAW, JR.,
Attorney, 145 IU. Madinon St.
TOnotice
ALLis WHOM
IT MAY
hereby given
that theCONCERN.Public
undersigned guar
dian of the person and estate ofGeorge P. Striven, a
minor, will make application to the Circuit court of
Cook county, Illinois, at the march term, a, d. 1*72, to
be holden at tho Court House, in the city ofChicago,
county and State aforesaid, which said term com
mences on the third Monday of March, a. d. 1872, for
-leave
wit : to sell tho following described real estate, to
Lot fifteen (15) in Ellis' east or second addition to
Chicago, Cook county, State of Illinois, for the pur
pose of paying an incumbrance on said real estate, and
investing
proceeds
of suchtheproperty
in suchas man
ner
as the tho
court
"appointing
undersigned
such
guardian shall direct, or for such other legal purposo
ah the said Circuit court shall direct.
JTebruarr 24th, a. d. 1812.GEORGE McELWAIN,
Guardian, etc,
"War. Law, Jn., Att'y.
20-22
ESTATE
OF
GUNDER
OLESON,
DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Gunda (Meson
deceased to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court ot
Cook county, to be holden at the courthouse, in tho
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A.D.
1872, being the 6th day thereof.
Chicago
A.D. 1**72. Administrator.
Chicago, February
^Yjak^ksIf,'glaDDING,
James Michie. Att'y.
21-26
fpO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.-We. the underX Bigned, have formed a limited copartnership to be
carried on under tho name of Fletcher, Lazear &
Cheney, in Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, from
January 1, 1*72, till January J, 1?74, to carry on the
business of buying, selling, and manufact uring and
selling,
harness
carriages.andTheGeorge
said undersigned,
F. I. Lazear,
M. and
E. Fletcher
A. Cheney,
are the general partners, and John A merman, of Broueon,
and
Joelas
Parks,
of
Norwalk,
in
the
State of
Ohio, are the special partners, and have respectively
paid into the common stock two thousand dollars in
cash.
M. E. FLETCHER,
F. I. LAZEAR,
GEORGE
A. CHENEY.
JOHN AMERMAN,
17-22
JOSIAS PARKS.

Chicago

Legal

G. A. FOLLANSBEE,
Attorney, 181 La Salic Street.
ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE.
of an order
and made
decreeonofthe
County
CourtByof virtue
Cook county,
Illinois,
the petition
ofthe undersigned administrator of tho estate of Fred
erick Biermann, deceased, for leave to sell the real es
tate of said deceased, at the February term, A. D. 1872,
of said court, to wit, on the 20th day of February, a. d.
1872, between
I shall ontheThursday,
18th day
April,
a. i,
1872,
hours of 10theo'clock
a. m.ofana
5 o'clock
p.
m.
of
said
day,
sell
at
public
sale
on
the
premises,
the following described real estate, situated in the
town
to witof: Lcyden, county of Cook, and State of Illinois,
Being a part of the northwest quarter of section
three (3), congressional township forty (40). north
range
twelve as
(12),follows
east of: the
third principal
and bounded
commencing
at a meridian,
post dist
ant west ofthe south-eiust corner of the aforesaid Quar
ter section seventeen (17) chains and fifty-six (Ml) finks
to
centre!
roadcentre
and ofnorth
one-half
(9>a)
degrees
eastofwith
said nine
road and
twelve
(12) chains
and seventy-one (71) links, and running from thence
north nine and one-half (9\) degrees east with centre
of said road nine (y> chains and sixty-two (62) links to
the centre of Des Plains River, thence south thirtyfour (34) degrees east six (6) chains, thence south fiftyfive (5A) degrees east with centre 01 said river four (4)
chains
andone-half
forty-one(37H)
(41)degrees
links, west
thence
south
seven and
three
(3) thirtychains
and ninety (yo) links, thence north eighty and
one-half
(ri0>fi)
degrees
west
six
(6)
chains
and
fifty-live
(5ft) links to the place of beginning, containing 4 70-10U
acres more or less (variation 5, M)' E,) on tho follow
ing terms, to wit :
One thousand dollars in six months from tho day ofthe
sale,
interest
the rate ofnote
6 perofcent,
annum,
to se with
secured
by theatpromissory
the per
purchaser,
with mortgage upon the premises sold, and the bal
ance cash in hand on the day ofsale.
HEINRICH BIERMANN,
Administrator
ofthe estatedeceased.
of
Frederick Biermann,
G. A. Follanshee, Attorney.
20-25
C. BROWNELL,
66 West Randolph Street.
(CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
J Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county, March
Term. A. D. 1872. Ellen S. Des Rosiers v. 1. Arthur
Des Rosiers In Chancery.
Affidavitconceals
that I. Arthur
defendant
above
named,
himselfDes
so Rosiers,
that process
cannot
be
served upon him. having been filed in the office of the
clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, notice
is hereby given to the said I. Arthur Des Rosiers
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
or March next, (1*72,) as is by law required.
Now, unless
the saidbefore
I. Arthur
Rosiers,
shallof
personally
be you,
and appear
said Des
Superior
court
Cook
county,
on
the
iirst
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to
be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of
March,
J872,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
willyou
be
taken asand
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
C. BrtowNELL. Compl't's Sol'r.
20-23
PUBLIC
NOTICE
IS
HEREBY
GIVEN
TO
concerned, that the undersigned, guardian ofALL
Ed
ward P. Towne. n inor, will make application to the
Circuit court ol Cook county. State of Illinois, at the
March term thereof, A.D. 1872, to be holden at the court
house, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday
of
March,
D, 1672.allfortheorder,
enabling
saidinterest
guardian
to sell
and A.
convey
right,
title and
of
said
minor,
in
the
following
described
real
estate,
sit
uated
in
the
State
of
Illinois,
to
wit
:
One
undivided
one-half (') of cast one-half Cj) of W. % of lot No.
three in block fifty-seven (f>7) of original town of
Chicago.
Also, an undivided one-sixth (1-6) of undivided four(4-5) of twenty-three
west ten (10)(23),
acresT. 38,
of N.
E. U of N. W.
x/ififths
of section
R. 14.
Also, an undivided one-sixth (1-6) of four-fifths (4-5)
of E. % of N. W. }i of N. W. >i of section 23, T. 38,
R.Also,
14. all ofthe assessors' subdivision of northwest
(N. W.) one quarter (>.;) undivided two-fifths (2-5) of
lot four (4), block 19, section 22, town 3'.*. and range
fourteen
for thoinsupport
and education
said
minor, or(14),
to invest
other real
estate as ofthe
the court
may direct.
KLIZA H. TOWNE, Guardian.
Chicago, Feb. 13, 1872.
19-21
WILLIAMS & THOMPSON,
Attorneys.
PUBLICATION
NOTICE
ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois,
county IN
of Cook,
ss. Superior
Court of Cook county. To March Term, A.D. 1872.
Edward Ely v. John Ilalliday.
Public notice is hereby given to the said John Halliday that a writ of attachment issued out of the
office of the clerk of the Superior Court of Cook
county,
dated
day ofEly,February
A.D.
1872, at the
suittheoftwenty-third
the said Edward
and against
the
estato
of
John
Ilalliday,
for
the
sum
of
six
hun
dred and eighty 11-100 dollars, directed to the Sheriff
of Cook county, which said writ has beeu returned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you the said John Halliday
shallCourt
personally
and appear
Superior
of Cookbecounty,
on or before
before the
the said
first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
March,
A.D.action,
1872, give
special will
bail and
plead to the
said
plaintiffs
judgment
be entered
against
you,
and
in
favor
of
the
said
Edward
Ely,
and
so
much of the property attached as may bo sufficient
to satisfy the said judgment and costs will bo sold to
satisfy the same.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Williams & Thompson,
Attorneys.
20-23
E. L.-19E^OTT,
Attorney,
8. HalMed St.
CHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
Illinois.
County
Cook, ss. Circuit court of ofCook
countv,
Aprilof
term,
A.D.
lfc~2.
Jonathan
C.
Bowles
vs.
Belle
Bowles.
In Chancery.
Affidavit of tho non-residence of Belle Bowles,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to tho said Belle Bowles
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and
thatsaid
a (summons
thereupon
issuedonout
said court
against
defendant,
returnable
theofthird
Mon
dayNow,
of April
next,
(1872.)
as
is
by
law
required.
unless you, the said Belle Bowles, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit court of Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
at Chicago, in said county, on the third Monday of
April, li.l', and plead, answer or demur to the said
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
mattersasand
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
willyou
be
taken
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the praver
of
said
bill.
NORMAN T, GASSETTE. Clerk.
E. L. Knott, Compl't's Sol'r.
18-21
ESTATE OF JOSEPH BROWN, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
or
demands
estaterequested
of Joseph
Brown,a
deceased,
and against
they arethehereby
to attend
term ofthe County court of the county of Cook, and
Stato of Illinois, to be held at the court house, in said
county,
thehereof,
first Monday
in and
the month
ofMay such
next
after theorondate
present
claims
demands
forand
thethen
purpose
ofthere
having
tho same
adjusted. WILLIAM S. BROWN, Administrator.
Dated Chicago. Feb. 13, 1872.
J. H. Knowltqn, Att'y19-24

News.

TENNEY, McCLELLAN c TENNEY,

Attorneys.
MORTGAGE SALE.Where**, Aaron H. Crosby
and
Adeline,
his
wife,
of Centralia,
countv
of Marion, and State of Illinois,
did, on inthothethirtieth
day
of
Juno,
A.
D,
1671,
execute
and
deliver
to me
their certain mortgage, which said mortgage was
re
corded in the recorder s office of said Marion county,
in the State of Illinois, on the 8th day of July. A. D.
1871,hereinafter
in volume Hdescribed,
of Mortgages,
page 194,
premof
ises
to secure
the ofthe
payment
oue certain promissory note made by the said A. H.
Crosby, dated on the thirtieth day of June, 1871, for tho
sum
one hundred
dollars,
with ofinterest
at the rateandofninety-seven
ten per cent,56-100
per annum,
payable
to
the
order
of
O.
B.
Farwell
live
months
the date thereof; and whereas it is provided in after
said
mortgage that in case of default in the payment of the
said note or any part thereof. Recording to the tenor
and effect thereof, the said C. B. Farwell, his legal rep
resentatives or attorney, after having advertised such
sale
in a newspaper
published
in Chicago,
Cooktwenty
county,days
Illinois,
may sell the
said premises,
or
any part thereof, and all right and equity of redemp
tion of the said Aaron II. Crosby and Adeline, his
wife, their heirs or assigns therein, at public vendue,
to the highest bidder, for cash, at the court house, in
said Cook county : and whereas default has been made
in the payment of said note and interest, now, there
fore, by virtue of the powerin me Tested by said mort
gage,
mortgagee,
sellMarch,
at 10
o'clockI, a.thein.,undersigned
on Wednesday,
the 6th will
day of
A.D.
at public
the court-house
door,
in said1^72,
Chicago,
Cookvendue,
county,at Illinois,
to the highest
bidder, for cash, the premises in said mortgage de
scribed, to wit: Lota three (3) and four (4), in block
one (1),of inIllinois,
the town
of Centralia,
or Marion,
State
together
with all county
and singular,
the
tenements and hereditaments, privileges and appurte
nances thereunto belonging, and all the right, title,
benefit and equity of redemption of the said Aaron 11.
Crosby
in and B.
to the
said prem
ises. and Adeline, his wife,
CHARLES
FARWELL.
Ten.ney, McClellan & Tznney.,
Att'ys for Mortgagee.
19-21
JAMES FRAKE,
Attorney, 115 West Madison St.
ESTATE
OF
ROBERT
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby
given SHEI'PARD,
to all persons having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
Robert
deceased, to present the same tor adjudicationShepnard,
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
SAMANTIIA SITEPPARD and
ROBERT D. SHEPPARD,
Executors.
Chicago, Feb. 16, A. D. 1872.
19-24
J. MILTON OLIVER,
Attorney, 30 South Clinton St.
ESTATE
GANIERE,
DECEASED.
Notice OFis GEORGE
hereby given
to all persons
having
claims
and demands
againstthe
thesame
estateforofadjudication
George Ganiore. deceased,
to present
and settlement at a regular term ol the County Court
of Cook county, to be holden at the Court House, in
the
of Chicago,
the first Monday of April, A. D.
1872,city
being
the 1st davon thereof.
MARGARETTA
GANIERE, Administratrix.
J. Milton Oliver, Attorney.
Chicago, January 22nd, A. D. 1872.
16-21a
FRANK PARTL,
Attorney, &i West Randolph Street.
CHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
Illinois,county.
countyTo
ol
Cook. ss. Superior
court ofof Cook
March
Term, A. D. 1872. Dorathea Binger v. Henry
Binger.InChaneery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Henry Binger,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
ofthe clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice
is hereby given
to thefiledsaidherHenry
that
the complainant
heretofore
bill ofBinger
complaint
in said court, on the chancery Bide thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of
March
is bysaid
law required.
Now, next,
unless(172,)
you,astho
Henry Binger, shall
personally bo and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county,
on thein said
first county,
day of aonterm
to be
holden
at Chicago,
the thereof,
first Monday
of March, 1072, and plead, answer or demur to tho
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the
things therein
charged
andagainBt
stated,
will matters
be taken and
asconfessed,
and a decree
entered
you according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
Frank Partl, Comp'ts
Sol'r. JACOBSON, Clerk.
19-22p
GOOKINS & ROBERTS,
Attorneys, 4G East Harrison Street.
HANCERY
of Illinois, County of
c Cook, as. NOTICE.-State
Circuit court of Cook county. April
Term.
A.D.
1872.
Stephen
P.
Hicks
v. Anna Hicks.
In Chancery.
; Affidavit of the non-residence of Anna Hicks, defend
ant above named, having been filed in the office of the
clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county, notice is
hereby
given tofiled
the his
saidbillAnna
Hicks that the
complain
ant heretofore
ofcomplainant
in saidcourt,
on
tho
chancery
side
thereof,
and
that
a
summons
there
upon issued out of said court against said defendant,
returnable on the third Monday of April next, (1872,)
asNow,
is by law
required.
unless
you, the said Anna Hicks, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said coun ty, on the third Monday
of April, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
of complaint.the
matters
and things bill
therein
charged and same,
Htated,and
willtho
be
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you
according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Gookins & Roberts. Comprts' Sol'rs.
19-22
THEO. SCHINTZ,
Attorney, Centra/ Union Block.
TESTATE
OF
FREDERICK
Xj Notice is hereby given to allBEHM,
personsDECEASED.having claims
and demands against the estato of Frederick Behm,
deceased,
to
present
the
tame
for
adjudication
set
tlement at a regular term of tho County court and
of Cook
county,
to
be
holden
at
the
court
house,
in
the
city
Chicago, on the first Monday of May. A. D. 1872, beingof
the sixth day thereof.
CHRISTIAN BEHM, Executor.
Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D. 1872.
21-26a
Thko. Schintz. Attorney.
ESTATE
FRANK
DECEASED.
Notice isOFhereby
given REK'HARDS.
to all persons having
claims
and demands against tho estate of Frank Iteicharda
deceased,
to
present
tho
same
for
adjudication
and
set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago,
Monday of May, A.D. 1S72,
being
the on
Bixththedayfirstthereof.
Chicago,
February
21,
A.D.REICHARDS.
1872.
i-25a
JOIIANN
Executor.
F. A. RIDDLE,
Attorney, 2T> West Madison Street.
ESTATE
OF
ANDREW
Notice is hereby given toNELSON,
nil personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Andrew Nelson, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement toat be
a regular
the County
Cookof
county,
holden term
at theofcourt
house, incourt
the ofcity
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1*72, being
the sixth day thereof.
WILLIAM M. L0UGHLIN, Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 28, A. D. 1872.
21-26a

SMALL & INGALLS,

Attorneys, 481 Wabash Avenue.
PUBLICATION
IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois.NOTICE
Cook county,
ss. Circuit court
of Cook county. April Term, A.D. 1872. James Allan
vs.Public
Thomas
S.
Burton
and
James
II.
notice is herebv given to theAdams.
said Thonins S.
Burton asd James H.Adams that a writ ofattachment
issued out ofthe office of the clerk ofthe Circuit court
of Cook county, dated the second day of February,
A, D. 1872, at the suit of the said James II, Allan, and
against the estate of the said Thomas S. Burton and
James H. Adams, for the sum of six hundred ninetysix dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook county,
which
said writ hasunless
beenyon,
returned
executed.
the said
Thomas S.be Bur
tonNow,
andtherefore,
James H. Adams,
shall
personally
and
appear before the said Circuit court of Cook county,
on or before the first day of the next term thereof, to
be
the courtof house,
in thol72t
city give
of Chicago,
on holden
the thirdat Monday
April, A.D.
special
hail and plead to the said plaintiff's action, judgment
will
be
entered
against
you,
and
in
fav
or
of
the
said
James 11. Allan, and so much ol" the property attached
as may bo sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and
costs will be sold toNORMAN
satisfv thoT.same.
GASSETTE, Clerk.
Small <fc Inoalls, Att'ys.
1S-21
HUGH A. WHITE,
Attorney 165 West Washington St.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
State
of Illinois.
Cook county,
Superior
of Cook county.
February
Term, ss.A. D.
1872. court
John
W. Doano, Patrick J. Towle, John Roper and John B.
Raymond, vs. S. B. Paige and J. A. Paige.Attach
ment.
Public notice is hereby given to tho said S. B. Paige
and J. A. Paige that a writ of attachment issued out
of the office of the clerk of thu Superior court of Cook
county,
the John
12th day
January,
A.D. ^72,
at the
suit
of dated
the said
W.ofDoane,
Patrick
J. Towle,
John Roper and John B. Raymond, and against the
estate of S. B. 1'aige and J. A. Paige, for tho sum of
five hundred and eighty-eight ft-i-100 dollars, directed
to the sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
returned
executed.unless you, the said S. B. Paige and J.
A.Now,
Paige,therefore,
shall personally
bo and appear before the said
Superior court of Cook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the court
house,
in tho
city1872,
of give
Chicago,
theand
firstplead
Monday
of
February.
A.D.
specialon bail
to the
said plaintiff's action, judgment will be entered against
and inJohn
favorRoper
of theand
saidJohn
JohnB. W.
Doane. Patrick
J.you,Towlo,
Raymond,
and so
much of the property attached as may be sufficient to
satisfy the said judgment and costs will be sold to sat
isfy
the same.
_Htron
A. White, Attorney. A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
ls-21
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
Statocounty,
of Illinois,
Cook Term,
County,A.D.
ss. 1872.
Superior
of Cook
February
Johncourt
W.
Doane, John Roper, Patrick J. Towle and John B.
Raymond, vs. C. M. Taylor.Attachment.
Public notice is hereby given to the said CM. Taylor
that a writ of attachment issued out of the office
SuperiorA.D.
court1872,
of Cook
ofthe
the isthclerk
dayofofthe
January,
at thecounty,
suit ofdated
the
said John W. Doane, John Roper, Patrick J. Towle
and
John
B.
Raymond,
and
against
the
estate
of
the
said
C. M.and
Taylor,
for tho
six thousand
hundred
eighteen
and sum
4VI00ofdollars,
directedsix
to
the sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said C. M. Taylor,
shall
be andonappear
beforethethofirst
saidday
Superior
court personally
of Cook county,
or before
of the
next term thereof, to be holden at the court house, in
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of February,
A.
1872, give
special bail
plead toagainst
the saidyou,plain
tiffsI).action,
judgment
will and
be entered
and
in favor of the said John W. Doane, John Roper,
Patrick
J.
Towle
and
John
B.
Raymond,
and
so
much
of
attached
as may
to satisfy
thetho
saidproperty
judgment
and costa
willbebesufficient
sold to satisfy
the
same.
A. JACOBSON. Clerk.
Hugh A. White, Attorney.
18-21
ROUNTREE & McHUGH,
Attorneys. Nixon's Building, cor. LaSalte and Monroe.
PUBLICATION
IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois,NOTICE
Cook county,
ss. Circuit Court
of
Cook
county,
April
Term,
A.D,
1872. Edward Donoghue v. Jeffrey Hodkinson.
1 -Public notice is hereby given to the said Jeffrey Hodkinson that a writ of attachment issued out of the of
fice of the clerk ofthe Circuit court of Cook county,
dated the 8th day of February, A.D. 1872, at the suit or
the said Edward Donoghue and against the estate of
Jeffrey
for thedirected
sum oftotwothe hundred
and ;twoHodkinson
25-100 dollars,
Sheriff
of Cook county, which said writ has been returned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Jeffrey Hodkin
son shall personally be and appear before the said
Circuit court of Cook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the Court
House,
of April,inA.theD. city
1872, of
giveChicago,
special onballthoandthird
pleadMonday
to the
said plaintiffs' action, judgment will be entered against
you, and in favor of the said Edward Donoghue, and
so much of the property attached as may be suffi
cient to satisfy the said judgment and costs will he
sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN
T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Rountree & MolH
oii. Attorneys.
20-23
ESTATE
MARGARET
F. C0MERFORD.
DEceased.OFNotice
is hereby given
to all person! hay
ing claims and demands against the estate of Margaret
F. Comerford, deceased, to present the same for adju
dication and settlement at aregularterm of tho County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the court
house
in he 1872,
city being
of Chicago,
first Monday of
April, A.D.
the firstondavthethereof.
JOHN
TWOHEY,
Executor.
Chicago, Feb. 9, A.D. 1872.
Rountrf.f. A McHugh, Attys.
18-23
HITCHCOCK, DUPEE & EVARTS,
Attorneys, cor. Fifth Ave. and Monroe St.
ESTATE OF BARTON EDSALL, DECEASED.
Notice iB hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Barton Edsall de
ceased,
for adjudication
ment attoa present
regular the
termsame
ofthe
County Courtandofsettle
Cookcounty, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicuo, on the first Monday of April, A. 1). 1S72, be
ing the 1st day thereof.
BELLE W. EDSALL.
Chicago, January 2?., A. D. 1872. Administratrix.
Hitchcock. Ditke A- Evarts, Attorneys.
16-2Ia
NISSEN & BARNTJM,
Attorneys, 126 West Randolph street.
INSTATE
JACOBgiven
KLEIN.

li Notice OF
is hereby
to all DECEASED.
persons having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
Jacob
Klein,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to bo holden at tho court house, in the
city
of Chicago,
thethereof.
first Monday of April, A.D.
1872, being
the firstonday
CRESCENTIA
Nissen & Barntm, Attys. KLEIN, Administratrix.
Chicago. Jan. 25. 1872.
D. J. CROCKER,
Attorney, 48 South Canal Street..
ESTATE OF CAROLINE UEINES, DECEASED.
Public notice is hereby given to all persons having
laims
demands
against the
of adjudica
Caroline
Heiues and
deceased,
to present
the estate
same for
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court
Cook
county, toonbethe
holden
the court
house
in theofcity
of Chicago,
first atMonday
of April,
A.D. 1872, being tho first day thereof.
* *
JACOB HEINES, Executor.
D. J. Crocker, Att'y for Estate.

Chicago
ROSENTHAL, PENCE & MOSES,
Attorneys, :fc)0 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE OF CATHERINE WEISHAAR, DEceased.Notice is hereby given to all persons hav
ing claiinn and demands against the estate of Catherine
Weishaar, deceased, to present tho same for adjudica
tion and settlenient at a regular term of tho County
court of Cook county, to be noldon at the court house,
In the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April,
A. D. Is72, being the fir*t day thereof.
CHIMIN, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12. A.ANN
D. 1872.
19-2-1
ESTATE
OF
GUSTAY
DASSLER,
DECEA8ED.Notice if hereby given to all personti having
claims
demands
against the
thesame
estatefor ofadjudica
tustav
Dossier,and
deceased,
to present
tion
and
settlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
court of Conk county, to bo holden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April,
A.D. Is72, being the first day thereof.
AlTtiCSTA DASSLER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A.D. 1872.
_ 19-24
ESTATE
OF
HENRY
A.
BOHLE,
DECEASED.Notice in hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demands
against
estate
Henry A. Bohle,
de
ceased,
to present
thethe
same
for ofadjudication
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in tho city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1S72,
being the first day thereof.
HENRY BOHLE, Administrator.
Chicago. Fob. 12, A. D. 1872.
1D-24
ESTATE
KEMMLElt,
DECEASED.
NoticeOFisRUDOLPH
hereby given
to all persons
hav
ing
claims and
demands
estate
of Rudolph
Kemmler,
deceased,
to against
presentthethe
same
for ad
judication and settlement at a regular term of the
County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court
Chicago,
on day
tho thereof.
first Mon
day ofhouse.
April,InA.the
D. city
1S72. of
being
the first
FREDERICK KEMMLER, Executor.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE
OF
WILLIAM
LAISTER,
DECEASED.Noticc is hereby given to all person* having claims
and demands against tho estate of William Laistor,
deceased, to present the samo for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1672, be
ing the firBt day thereof.
ROBERT C. WRIGHT and
JAMES W. COCHRAN.
Executors.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1372.
19-24
ESTATE
OF
JOnANN
KRUEGER.
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands
againstthethesame
estate
of .lohann Kruegor,
deceased,
to present
for adjudication
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on tho first Monday of April, A. I>. 1872, be
ing tho first day thereof.
SOPHIA KRUEGER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
W.
HUFMEYER.
DECEASED.
toall ofpersons
having
claims
and Notice
demandsis hereby
againstgiven
the estate
John W.
Hnfineyer,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication sjid set
tlement
a regular
the County
Cook
county, toat be
holden term
at theofcourt
house, incourt
the ofcity
of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
LOUISA HUFMEYER, Administratrix.
Chicago. Feb. 12. A. P. 1672.
19-24
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook County, March
Term, A.D. 1872. John Raber vs. William M. Zoariug.
Charles W. Pierce, Sarah Edwards and Enoch
Edwards.In
Affidavit of Chancery.
the non-residenco of Sarah Edwards
and
Enoch
Edwards,
twoinofthetheoffice
defendants
abovo
named,
having
been filed
of tho clerk
of
said Superior court of Cook county, notice is hereby
given to the said Sarah Edwards and Enoch Edwards
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against
on the first Monof
Marchsaid
next,defendants,
(W2.) as returnable
is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Sarah Edwards and Enoch
Edwards, shall personalty be and appear before said
Superior court of Cook county, on tho first day of a
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
on the first Monday of March, 1872, and plead, answer
or demur to the said complainant's bill of complaint,
the
andconfessed,
things therein
and same,
stated,and
willthebematters
taken as
and acharged
decree
entered against you according to the prayer of said
bill.
A.
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
Rosenthal, Pentk & Moses, CompPt's Sol'rs. 18-21
JNO. J. McKINNON,
Attorney, Room 6 .Sherman House.
TRUSTEE'S SALE.-Whereas. on the seventh day of
June, 1S71, Benjamin Newell and Harriet Newell
his wife, of Princeton, Bureau county. State of Illinois,
executed
trust deedwhich
of thatwas
daterocorded
of the realonestate
hereinaftertheirdescribed,
the
eighth day of June, 1*71, in the Recorder's office of
Bureau
county.
State
of
Illinois,
in
book
V.
of
mort
gages,
at page
37*, which
deedNewell,
was given
tosecuro
a certain
promissory
notetrust
of said
of even
date
with said trust deed, payable to the order of Alice M.
Ireson, for the sum of sixteen hundred dollars, with
interest thereon at ten percent, per annum, payablo
semi-annually
in advance,
notegiven
being for
payable
in
three
years after
date, andsaid
being
money
loaned the said Newell by the said Alico M. Ireson ;
and
whereas,
note to be1871,
paidhas
in
advance
from the
the interest
seventh on
daysaid
of December.
not been raid, nor any part thereof, as provided in
Baid trust need; and whereas, tho legal holder of said
note has requested the undersigned to make sale of
said real estate, as authorized by said trust deed, to
Eay said note and interest: Now, therefore, notice is
ereby given, that under and by virtue of the power
and authority given by said trust deed, and for the
purpose of paying tho note and interest aforesaid, on
the thirtieth day of March, 1872, at ten o'clock in the
forenoon of that day, at the north door of the court
house of said
Cook
county,
of Chicago,
provided
in said
trust
deed,)inIsaid
shallcity
proceed
to sell (as
at
public auction, to the highest cash bidder therefor, the
said real estate, to wit: the northeast quarter (n.e.
of section two f2), township fifteen (fol north, range
ten (ID), east of fourth (4) principal meridian, contain
ing one hundred and sixty (160) acres, more or less, in
the county of Bureau and State of Illinois, and all tho
right, title and interest in the same convoyed to me by
said trust deed.
EDWIN W. CHAMBERLAIN, Trustee.
DatedJ.February
9, 1872.
Jno.
McKinvon,
Att'y.
18-22
HIGH & TRUMAN,
Attorneys, 4m7 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE
OF
ELI N.given
SKINNER,
DECEASED
Notice is hereby
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Eli N.
Skinner,
deceased,
presentterm
the same
adjudication
and settlement
at atoregular
of thoforCounty
court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in
the
city
of
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
first
Monday
of April, A.D 1872, being the first day thereof.
BETSEY SKINNER and
JEREMIAH S. CLOUGH,
Chicago, February 5, A.D. 1872.
Executors.
High & Truman. Attys.
18-23a
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
And U. S. Commissioner.
Western Union Telegraph Office, 554 Wabash Ave,

Legal

GEORGE W. SMITH,
Attorney, JS'o. 47o Wabash Ave.
rpillS Is to certify that Chauncey T. Bowen,GeorgeW.
JL Shaw.
William
Fitrh, II.
Jonathan
The
odora
A. Shaw,
and 11.Alnu-nn
Winslow,Richards,
have formed
u limited partnership in accordance with tho laws of
the Stale of Illinois, and that, First, tho name or firm
under which the partnership is to be conducted is
Richards,
A Winslow:
Second, Tho
general
na
ture
of theShaw
business
to bo transacted
is the
purchase
and
nale
of
dry
goods
at
wholesale;
Third,
Chauneey
T. liowen and* George W. Shaw are the special part
ners therein,
William
Fitch. Jonathan
ards,
Theodoreand
A. Shaw,
andII.Almerin
H. W inslow,Rich
are
the general partners therein; that tho place of resi
dence of said George W. Shaw is the city of Dayton,
in the State of Ohio; that tho place of residence of
said
Chauin-ev
T. Bowen,
William
Fitch, Jonathan
Richards.
Theodore
A.Shaw,
and II.Almerin
H.Winslow, is the city of Chicago, in the Stato of Illinois;
Fourth. Thy said ( hauneey T. Bowen has contributed
to the capital stock uf said partnership the sum of one
hundred thousand dollars, and the said George. W.
Shaw has contributed thereto the sum of fifty thousand
dollars; Fifth, The period at which said partnership is
to
firstit day
February,
A.D.thirty1872,
andcommence
the periodisat tho
which
is to ofterminate
is the
first day of January. A.D. 175; Sixth, The principal
place of business of said partnership is the city of Chi
cago,
in the State
of Illinois.
in witness
whoroof,
tho said parties have hereto
signed their names this first day of February, A.D.
1872. (Signed)
WILLIAM H. FITCn,
JONATHAN
RICHARDS.
THEODORE A.
SHAW,
ALMERIN H. WINSLOW,
GEORGE W. SHAW,
CHAUNCEY T. BOWEN.
Stato of Illinois,")
County of Cook, /-ss.
City
01 Chicago,J
I, Edward
W. Russell, a Notary Public in and for
said city, do hereby certify that on this day personally
came before mo, Chauncey T. Bowen, George W. Shaw,
William
Fitch, Jonathan
Richards,
Theodoreto A.
Shaw, andH.Almerin
H. Winslow.
tome known
bo
tho persons whose names are subscribed to the fore
going instrument, and severally acknowledged tho
said instrument, by them signed, to bo their act and
deed, and that they executed the same for the uses and
purposes
thereinmysethand
forth.
Given undor
and official seal, this third day
of February, A.D. 1872.
(Signed)
/. S-/
->
EDWARD W. Notary
RUSSELL.
1L
Public.
State of Illinois,)
County of Cook, fss,
City
of Chicago,)
Almerin
II. W iuslow, being duly sworn, says that he
is one of tho general partners of the limited partner
ship
of Richards,
Shaw &toWinslow;
that stock
Chauncey
T.
Bowen
has contributed
the common
of said
partnership
the
sum
of
one
hundred
thousand
dollars
in rath, and that such amount has been actually and
in good faith applied to the same; that Georgo W.
Shaw has contributed to the common stock of said
partnership tho sum of fifty thousand dollars in cash,
and that such amount htm been actually and in good
faith applied to tho same.
ALMERIN H. WINSLOW.
SubscribedA.D.
and1872.
sworn to before me, this third day of
Februarv,
EDWARD W. RUSSELL.
Notary Public.
1--23
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.To whom it may con
cernpartnership,
: Whereas, and
the have
undersigned
have offormed
limited
filed articles
coparta
nership in the office ofthe clerk of tho county of Cook,
State
of
agreeably
toclerk
tho statute
in such case
made
andIllinois,
provided,
hasindesignated
the
Chicago
Legal
News and
as thesaidnewspaper
which notice
of such partnership shall be published, now therefore
noticeareIs as
hereby
given that tho terms of said copartner
ship
follows:
1st. Tho style of said firm Is, " M. T. Sworthout & C.
H. Nichols.''
2d. The business to be conducted by said firm is that
of the Retail Boot and Shoo business, in the city of
Chicago, Cook county. Illinois.
3d. Tho general partners are Manley T. 6worthout
and
Charles
H, Nichols,
the city
special
partner George
Nichols,
all residents
of said
of Chicago.
4th. The amount of capital stock which the said spe
cial partner^ George Nichols, has contributed to said
copartnership
tho sum of oneisthousand
dollars.
*>th. Tho saidiscopartnership
to commence
on tho
first day of February, A.D. In72, and terminate on tho
first day of February, A.D. ICT3,
MANLY
CHARLEST. II.SWORTHOUT,
NICHOLS,
18-23
GEORGE NICHOLS.
MORTON CULVER,
Attorney, 109 W. Washington St.
ESTATE
OF
HANS CHRISTIAN
BROCKgiven
HANto
SON, Deceased.Pubic
notice Is hereby
nil persons having claims and demauds against the
estate
Brock Hanson,
presentoftheHans
sameChristian
for adjudication
and settdeceased,
lenient at toa
regular
term
of
the
County
court
ef
Cook
to
bo holden at the courthouse in tho city ofcounty,
Chicago,
on the first Monday of April, A.D. 1672, being the first
day thereof.
SIGISMOND D. JACOBSON, Amiuistrator.
Chicago. February 7, A.D. 1872.
Morton Culver, Att y.
18-23
INSTATE OF EDWARD CASTLE, DECEASED.
J Notico is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands againBt tho estate of Edward
Castle,
to atpresent
the same
fortheadjudica
tion anddeceased,
sottlomont
a regular
term of
County
Court of Cook County, to bo holden at the Court
Houso, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
April, A.D. 1872, Doing the first day thereof.
LESTER I). CASTLE, Executor.
Chicago, February, A.D. 1872.
18-23a
ESTATE OF WILLIAMSCHAEFER. DECEASED.-iNotico is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of William Schaofer,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement toat boa regular
term
the County
Cook
county,
holden at
theofCourt
House,Court
in theofcity
of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872,
being the first day thereof.
ADOLPH CANDLER, Administrator.
James B. Bradwell, Att'y.
Chicago, January 26, A.D. 1872.
16-21
ESTATE
OF
LEVI
M.
MASON.
DECEASED.Public notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Levi M.
Mason,
deceased,attoa present
forCounty
adjudication
and settlement
regular the
termsame
of the
court
of Cook county, Illinois, to bo holden at the court
house in the city of Chicago, in said county, on the first
Mondav of April, A. D. 1872, being the first day
thereof. CORNELIA B. nALE, Administratrix.
Chicago,
January
A. D. 1872.
Beckwith,
Ayer &26,Kales,
Attys.
16-21a
ESTATE OF FRANCIS ROONEY, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to allpersons having claims
and demands against the estate of Francis Rooney,de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular torm of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court Houso, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday ofApril, A. D. 1872, being
the 1st day thereof.
JAMES FITZGERALD, Administrator,
Chicago, January 26, A. D. 1872.
M. J. Dunne, Att'y.
16-21a

News.

WILSON, PERRY & STURGES,

Attorneys, Ir'.i WaUish Ave.
I>UHLICATIGN* NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.Stato
of
Illinois,
Superior
court
of Cook county. To Cook
MarchI kiunty,
Term, ss.A. D.,
M72. Jacob
Biwbauer v. William W, Wheeler.
Public notice herebygiven to the said William W,
Wheeler that a writ of attachment issued out *>l the
office of till* clerk of the Superior court of Cook county,
dated
of Febuary,
A. D. 1*72,
the suit
of the tie*
saidpeuoml
Jucobdav
Bierbauer,
and against
theatestate
of
William W. Wheeler. f,.r the sum of five hundred and
thirty-one dollars and forty-three cents, directed to the
sheriff
Cook county, which faid writ has been re
turned ofexecuted.
Now. therefore unless you, the said William W.
Wheeler shall personally be and appear before the
said
Superior
of "Cook
or holden
before
the first
day ofcourt
the next
termcounty,
thereof, onto lte
atMonday
th court
house,
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
of March. A. D.. 1872, give special bail fir-t
and
plead to tho said plaintiffs action, judgment will be
entered against you, and in favor of the said Jacob
Bierbauor. and so much of the property attache'! ns
may be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and costs
will bo sold to satisfy tin* same.
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Wii-son, Perky A- AUGUSTUS
Stitruks, Attorneys.
21-24
EDWrN GREENE.
Attorney, i't Hubbard Court.
pHANCERY NOTIOE.-State of Illinois. County of
\j Cook, ss, Superior court of Cook county. To
March term. A.
D. 1872. Jane W. Sanders v. John M.
Sanders,In
Chancery.
Affidavit
of
the
of been
Johnfiled
M. inSan
ders, defendant abovenon-residence
named, having
the
office of tho clerk of said Superior court of Cook coun
ty, notice is hereby given to the said John M. San
ders that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and
thatsaid
a summons
thereupon
issued
out first
of said
court
against
defendant,
returnable
on the
Monday
of March next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you. tho said John M. SAnders, shall
personally
be andonappear
before
court
of
Cook county,
tho Ant
daysaid
of Superior
a term there
of, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first
Monday
March, 1872, and
answer the
or demur
to
the saidofcomplainant's
bill ofplead,
complaint,
same,
and the matters nnd things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
Enwis Greknk. Compl't's
Sol'r.JACOBSON, Clerk.
21-24
MAYBORN & BROWN,
Attorneys. Geneva, III.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACIIMENT.Stato of Illinois, county of Cook, ss. Circuit
court
of v.Cook
county.
April term, A. D. 1*72. Albert
\, West
Samuel
T. Morgan,
Public notice is hereby given to tho said Samuel T.
J.Iorgan, that a writ of attachment issued out of
tho officedated
of thothoclerk
court
county,
2oth ofdaytheofCircuit
January,
A. ofD. Cook
1872,
at tho suit of tho Albert A. West and against
tho estate of said Samuel T. Morgan, for the sum of
seventeen
hundred
the sheriff1
Cook connty,
w hich dollars,
said writdirected
has beentoreturned
execuof
ted.Now, therefore, unless you. tho said Samuel T.
Morgan, shall personally be and appear beforo the
said
court
of Cook
county,
or before
first
day orCircuit
tho next
term
thereof,
to beonholden
at thetheCourt
House,
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
third
Monday
of
April,
A. D.action,
1*72, give
special bail
plead to the
Baid
plaintiffs
judgment
will and
be entered
against
you,
in favor
of the said Albert
A. beWest,
and so
muchand
ofthetho
may
sufficient
to
satisfy
saidproperty
judgmentattached
and costsas will
helsold
to satisfy
tho same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Mayhorx & Brown, Att'ys.
21-24p
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook,
of A.
Cook
county.
To tho
March
term.ss.A. Circuit
D. 1872, court
Louisa
Wells,
complainant,
v. James G. Blunt, Nancy C. Blunt, John k. Myers
and William M. Halsted, executors of the estate of
William M. Halsted. deceased, William Crawford,
GeorgeT.F. Noble,
Foster.Francis
Newton B.Chapin.
Wells,
John
Little,Daniel
CarlisleL. Mason,
Georgo Mason and John Mohr, defendants.In Chan
cery.
Affidavit that James G. Blunt, Nancy C. Blunt, and
John K. Myers and William M. Halsted.exeeutorsofthe
estate
of above
William
M. Halsted,
deceased,
fourcause,
of theand
de
fendants
named,
iu the above
entitled
each of them, rewido out of the Stato of Illinois, so
that process cannot be served on them, having been
filed
tho office
of theis hereby
clerk ofgiven
Baid toCircuit
of
Cookincounty,
notice
the saidcourt
James
G.
Nancy C.executors
Blunt, and
Johnestate
K. Myers
and WilM.
liamBlunt,
M. Halsted.
of the
of William
Halsted,
tho complainant
and
on thedeceased,
2Sth daythat
of February,
A. D. 1.S72,heretofore,
filed her
bill
of
complaint
in
said
court,
on
the chancery
thereof, and that a summons thereupon
issued outsideof
said court against all said defendants named in the
title of said suit as aforesaid, returnable on the third
Monday
of March
as inis said
by law
required,
and
that said
suit isnext
now(1872),
pending
court,
on the
chancery side thereof.
Now, unless you, tho said James G. Blunt, Nancy C.
Blunt, andthe
John
K. Myers
and William
M. Halsted.ex
eeutorsof
estate
of William
M. Halsted,
deceased,
shall personally be and appear before said Circuit court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof,
to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third
Monday
of March, and
1S72, plead,
that being
of
said summons,
answertheorreturn
demurday
to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will bo taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
21-24
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
BROWN & RICKERTS,
Attorneys, Room 2, 11(1 West. Madison Street.
CHANCERY
Illinois,
countySlayof
Cook, ss. NOTICE.-State
Superior court ofofCook
county.
term. A. I>. 1*72. Anna Russell v. Josiah N. Russell.
In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Josiah N. Russell,
defendant abovo named, having been filed in the office
of the Clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Joeiah N. Russell that
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
in said court, on tho chancery side thereof, anu that
asaid
summons
thereupon
issued on
outthe
of said
against
defendant,
returnable
firstcourt
Monday
of
May next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Josiah N. Russell, shall
personally
bo and
appear
Superior
Court
ot
Cook county,
on the
firstbefore
day ofsaid
a torm
thereof,
to be
holden
at
Chicago,
iu
said
county,
on
tho
first
Monday
of May, is"2, and plead, answer or demur to the said
complainant's bill of complaint, tho same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed,
andofa said
decree
according
to the prayer
bill.entered against you
Augustus
jacobson, ciork.
Brown A Rickeuts, CompTs Sol'rs.
21-24
SAWIN & WELLS,
Attorneys.
"VTOTICE-APPLICATK
of whom
GUARDIAN
to SELL:
X^l real estate of wardsToN all
it may concern
Notice is hereby given that tho undersigned, as guar
dian of Jacob Laucr and Catherine Lauer, minors,
will apply to the Superior court of Cook county, State
of Illinois, upon the fourth day of March, A. D. Is72,
the same being the first day of the March torm, A. D.
1872. of said court,at ten o'clock a. m., for leave to
sell all the right, title and interest of the said minors,
Jacob
and Catherine
in andtwenty-four
to the following
real estate:
Lot elevenLauer,
(11), block
(21), in
Bushnall's addition to tho city of Chicago, county of
Cook, and Stato of Illinois.
19-21
JACOB SERAMOR, Guardian.

i59
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney. IS F.ast Harrison Street.
IS THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED1
States, for InthetheNorthern
Illinois.In
Bankruptcy.
matter District
of Josephof Childs.
Myer
W. Childs and Harry Childs, bankrupts. The under
signed, Robert E. Jenkins, amignee of the estate of
said bankrupts, hereby gives notice that on Saturday,,
the yth day of March, A. D. ^72, at lo o'clock iu the
forenoon (l-*)
of said
at thestreet,
front indoor
of number
eighteen
East day,
Harrison
the city
of Chi
cago, be will sell at public auction for cash in liand to*
the
highest
and
best
bidders,
all
the
right,
title
and
terest of tho said bankrupts or of either of them,iniu
and toThat
the following
described
and in
estate,
towit:
part of block
numberproperty
three (3),
Beits"
Division, on the west side of Western Row, between
Clark and Hopkins streets, in the city of Cincinnati*,
county of Hamilton, and State of Ohio, which de
scended to said bankrupts as heirs-at-law of Jacob*
Childs,
said bankrupts
thoowner indeceased,
severaltyeach
of anofundivided
one-ninthbeing
ot saidk
property
subject
to
the
dower
interest
of
Yetta
Childs
also, lot numbered twenty-five (V),iu block numbered1
fivo (.'), in Piatt & Grandin's division, and known as
numbers one huudred and twenty-six U2f>) and one
hundred and twenty-eight (128) Ninth street, iu the
city of Cincinnati, county of Hamilton, and State of
Ohio, each
said bankrupts
beinginterest
the owner
sev
eralty
of anofundivided
one-ninth
in saidinprop
erty Bubject to the dower interest of Yetta Childs p
said premises, No. 126 Ninth street, are also subject to
an
duringtwenty-eight
widowhood iu(2rt),saidinYetta
; also^
lot estate
numbered
blockChilds
numbered
one hundred and fifty-eight (l.v), and lot numbered
twenty-two (L'>7),
(22), ininblock
one ofhundred
and
fifty-seven
Tell numbered
City, county
Perry, and
Stato of Indiana, each of said Joseph Childs and said
Myer W.0110-11inth
Childs being
theproperty
owner insubject
severalty
of an
un
divided
in said
to the
dowerinterest
of
Yetta
Childs
:
alBo,
block
numbered
seventytwo, and lots numbered three (3), four (4), five (?), six.
(6) and seven (7), in block numbered thirty-three (33).
in the town of Clermont, county of St. Croix, and
State of Wisconsin ; said last described property being
tho
propertywill
of said
Myer
W. Childs
and *
all ofseparate
said property
be sold
subject
to allonly,
iucumbrances
ROBERT
E. JENKINS,
19-21 thereon.
Assignee
as aforesaid.
ASSIGNEE'S SALEIN THE DISTRICT COURT"
of theInUnited
StatesofforPhillip
the Northern
District
of
Illinois.
the matter
Wadsworth,
Gilbert
R. Smith and Benj. li. W. Locke, bankrupts In Bank
ruptcy
Public notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, theI9th day of March, a. d. 1^72, the undersigned assigneo
of
thehighest
above and
estate
offer
for sale,
to the
best will
bidder
for cash,
at theand
hoursell
of
ten o'clock, a. in., at my office, No. 17 Harmon Court,
in the city ofChicago, in the county ofCook, in the Stato
of
all theorright,
tho>
saidIllinois,
bankrupts,
eitherriff of - - . interest
them, inand
andestate
to theof fol
lowing described premises, that is to say : Commenc
ing at the S. E. corner of tne S, E. U of the S. E. J on
the
souththence
line ofwest
thenineteen
section, thence
northand
twenty
(2U>
chains,
<!'.') chains
eightyone (Ml) links thence north thirty-two (32) chains and
twenty (20) links to the right of way of the Ohio and
Mississippi Railway Company, thence along the line of
said
road west
about
twenty-four
(24 1 chains
and ninety
(y) links;
thence
south
fifty (50) chains
and ninety-five
('.>.*>) links thence east forty-four (44) chains, and seven
ty-one (71) links, to the place of beginning, containing
one hundred
and sixty-eight
acres,(1^ alleast,
in section,
sixteen
(lit), town
two (2), N. (lfis)
R- one,
situate
in the county of Marion and State of Illinois ; also the
southeast
\* of thel4 ofsection
southwest twenty-five
and the(23),
southwest
of the southeast
town one
hundred, range
and ^theofsoutheast
.'4 of\{tho
southwest
l4, andsixthe(6),south
the southeast
of
section twelve (12), town one hundred (loo), range four
(4), lying and being in the county of Alaniakeo and
State ofIowa;lown
also ninety-six
the southeast
of section
fifteeen
(w'i), quarter
range twenty-six
(2ti),
and
lying
and
being
in
thecounty
or
Hancock
and
State of Iowa ; also, the north half and the southwest
quarter of the southwest quarter of the northeast quar
ter, and the southeast qurater of tho northwest quar
ter of section thirteen (13^ town eighty-one (81)' range
twenty-three
lying and
in thehalf
county
of
Polk
and State(23),
of Iowa;
also,being
the north
of the
southwest quarter of section fourteen (14), town
eighty-three
(S3),
range
t\vrnty-three|
(23),
lying
and
being iu the county ot Story and State of Iowa; also,
the
norththehalfof
eastnorthwest
quarter ofquarter
section and
one the
(I), land
east the
halfnorth
of the
northeast quarter, and the north half of the southeast
quarter, and the southeast quarter of the southeast
quarter
section seven
(7). and
the northwest
ter
(if theofsouthwest
quarter
of section
eight (8),quar
and
tho
southwest
quarter
of
the
southeast
quarter,of and
the southeast quarter of tho sonthwest quarter
sec
tion fourteen (It), all in town ninety-six (%), rang
thirty-seven
(37),
lying
and
being
in
the
county
of
Clay and State of Iowa; also, the undivided one-half
Ca)
interest
of
Phillip
Wadsworth
iu
two
hundred
and.
forty-five (245) village lots in the village of Superior,
Wis. For
more
at my
office.
I will
alsodefinite
offer fordescription
sale and sellseetodeed
the highest
and best bidder for cash at the same time and place
the remaining unconverted assets belonging to the
above
or individual
estate
said of
bankrupts,
or either
of them,
viz : fifty-six
(.">) ofshares
the " Atlantic
and
Pacific Telegraph Company ;'' thirty (30) shares of the
"American Merchants' Union Express Company:"
forty-three (43) shares of the "Marquette & Pacific
Rolling Mill Co.": fifty shares of the;" Republic In
surance Western
Co." (Fire);
twenty-live
(2*>) shares
of the
"Great
Insurance
Co.," (Fire);
both of
the
last
named
of
the
citv
of
Chicago.
Also,
one
bond
for
one thousand (Sl.otKD dollars of the " Peck Gold Min
ing Co;" also the undivided one-half (M interest of
Philip Wadsworth, in a law suit between James Wadsworth, plaintiff, and Henry M. Shepard, defendant;
also the undivided interest of Philip Wadsworth in the
"West Side or Madison Street Stage Line."
GEORGE S. BOWEN, Assignee.
''hicngo, Feb. 21. 1S72,
20-22 1
JAMES B. BRADWELL,
Attorney, 115 W. Madison Street.
ADMINISTRATRIX'
REAL
ESTATE.
By virtue of au orderSALE
and OF
decree
of the
County
Court of Cook county, Illinois, made on the petition ot
the undersigned, Dorothea Ringleh, formerly Dorothea
Medelman, administratrix of the estate of Friedrich
Medelman, deceased, for leave to sell the real estate ot
said deceased, at the December term, A. D. lS71,of said
court, to wit. on the sixth day of December, A. D. 1871,
I shall, on Monday, the nth day of March, A. D. 1872,
at 2 o'clock p. m sell at public sale, at the east door
of
theinCourt
on Clarkandstreet,
city of Chi
cago,
said House,
Cook county,
Statein oftheIllinois,
the
real estate described as follows, to wit: the northeast
quarter
of
the
northeast
quarter
of
section
twentythree (23), in township thirty-six (36), rung thirteen
(13) east of the 3d P. M., In tho town of Bremen, in
Cook
State
of Illinois,
forty of
acres,
on
thecounty,
following
terms,
to wit : containing
cash on delivery
the
deed.
DOROTHEA RINGLEB,
(Formerly Dorothea Medelman.)
Administratrix
of the estate of Friedrich Medelman-,.
deceased.
James B. Beadwell. Att'y for Estate.
16-21
ESTATE OF SETH SHELDON. Jr., DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Seth Sheldon, junior,
deceased, to present the samef or adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago^on tho first Monday of April, A. D., 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
L. MARTHA SHELDON,
GEORGE W\ SMITH,
Administrators.
Chicago, Feb. 14, A. D. 1872.
IV- <

i6o

Chicago

Legal

News.

ATTORNEYS.
GEORGE C. FRY,
KAY
&
BROTHER,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
JU Clinton Street, Room 5, Chicago.
4-1*
8. A. GOODWIN.
E. C. LARNED.
H. 8. TOWUt. LAW PUBLISHERS, BOOKSELLERS, AND IMPORTERS,
Nos. 17 & 1 SOUTH SIXTH STREET,
GOODWIN, LARNED & TOWLE,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
PHILADELPHIA,
A'o. 376 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
12
HAVE RECENTLY PUBLISHED,
BATES * IIOIMiKS,
I.
Attorneys at Law, 13 W. Madison St.
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
Wharton's
American
Criminal
Law.
3 Toll. 8vo. SIXTH EDITION. 828.50.
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
A TREATISE ON THE CRIMINAL LAW OF THE UNITEDXSTATES. By Francis Wharton, LL.D.
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.
Sixth and Revised Edition. 3 vols. 8vo. *
26*
From the Hon. W. B. Reed's Addrets before the Law Academy of Philadelphia.
If you want a book to study while you are Btudents, and practice with when you become lawyers, where
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
you will find all you want, and, what in very important, find it exactly when you want it, I am glad to say
that that book is Mr. Wharton's Criminal Law, an good as any book, English or American, now in print.
MARTIN A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D,,
From the Hon. Jeremiah S. Black, formerly AttorneyGencral of the United State*.
659 State street.
24*
I considered the former edition a most valuable contribution to the learning of the profession, and this
is
undoubtedly
a great improvement. I do not think there is a more valuable law book in print, or one
MILLER, WILLIAMSON * MILLER,
more likely to come into universal use.
131) W. Randolph
Randol street.
From the Uox. John Perkins, of Louisiana.
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
The profession owes much to the book, Wharton's American Criminal Law, as, without it, regular
practice In criminal mutters would, in many places, be impossible. Having had constant experience on the
In the trial of criminal cases, I speak advisedly of the estimation of the book. * * * I always have
HERNDON &. ORENDORF,
Office west side square. 27* bench
it in court on the bench.
From C. J. M. Mitterhair, Profeseor of Orimimal Lav in the University of Heidelberg, Baden, Germany.
JACKSONVILLE (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
The admirable mass of materials, collected with scrupulous exactitude, the well-disposed, clear and
logical
order
of the the
development,
the justice
the practical
aud afford
criticalanobservations,
are qualities
'ETCHAM, I. J.
which will
facilitate
study of theand
Criminal
Law toofevery
student, and
excellent digest
of cases
to every practical man.
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
ii.
PEPPER. WILSON 4 MARTIN
Room 2 Bank Building.
WHARTON'S PRECEDENTS OF INDICTMENTS AND PLEAS.
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
9 Vol*, mo. THIRD AND REVISED EDITION. 615.00.
SANFORD, E. Special attention giyen to Collec PRECEDENTS OF INDICTMENTS AND PLEAS, adapted to the use both of the Courts of tho United
tions and Real Estate.
52*
States and those of the several States ; together with Notes on Criminal Pleading and Practice, embrac
ing the English and American authorities generally. By Francis Wharton, LL.D. 2 vols. 8vo.
***Wharton's Criminal Law, 3 vols., and Wharton's Precedents, 2 vols., comprise, the former the Science,
the latter the Practice of Criminal Law of the State and Federal Courts of the United States. Together,
CALLAGHAN & Co. and
they
complete
bodyto of
Lawmayon betheconsidered
subject. asAlthough
other,form
theyaare
intended
ba the
usedAmerican
jointly, and
one work.entirely independent of each
From the Hon. A. V. Parsons, in an Opinion delirered in Ute Philadelphia Quarter Se**iom.
SUCCESSORS TO
I have examined it with considerable
nsiderable attention, and in my opinion the Precedents are selected with great
ability ; and every pleader will find them, generally, and perhaps without except
foil
There
is
a
brevity
and
clearness
Forma, which
I think will
cannot
the book to
every lawyer and Judge; andt inif most
theseofarethefollowed,
our records
be fail
relie\t 1commend
of
much
unnecessary
CALLAGHAN & COCKCROFT,
verbiage.
From the Philadelphia Age.
the best
Formcommentary,
Book extant one
in theof Department
of thebooks
Administration
Criminal
Respectfully call the attention of the profession to Law.ThisIt isis,unquestionably
also, by its copious,
running
the most valuable
in practiceofwith
which
the lawyer can provide himself. It Is adapted to the Federal Courts, and to eacli of the Estates of the Lnion,
Jfcheir large stock of
and embraces every felony and misdemeanor known to the Common Law and Statutes. It is as complete a
work of its kind as is to be found in law literature.
From the CHICAGO LEGAL NEWS.
The reputation of Mr. Wharton, as a writer upon Criminal Law, has been firmly established^ with the
Amoricau bar for many years, and in this branch of jurisprudence be is the Chitty of America, His works
are purely American. His Forma are short ami to the point,
and while they contain all the necessary aver
ayer;
LAW BOOBS. ments,
they are entirely free from the useless repetitions, so often found in English writers uponwary
criminal
law. These two volumes are a library in themselves to any criminal lawyer.
Embracing the REPORTS of all the leading
in.
Courts in this Country and England.
We hare a very full assortment of

Wharton's Conflict of Laws.

One Volume, 8ro. 87.50.
New Text Books and Digests, A TREATISE ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, OR PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. With Notice*
of Anglo-American, Roman, German and French Jurisprudence. By Francis Wharton, LL.D. 8vo.
From the Chicaoo Legal News.
And an unusually full line of
To the lawyer in general practice few books will bo found more useful than Wharton on the Confliot of
Laws.
It
is
a
library
in
itself.
It
states
existconflict
betweenwith
The those
citizenof and
his government;
the rule which must govern when the lawstheofrelations
one Statewhich
or nation
another
; the effect to
RARE AND VALUABLE WORKS,
be
given
to
foreign
judgments
and
decrees;
the
capacity
to
hold
and
transmit
real
and
personal
the
effect to be given to the foreign probate of wills ; the rights of foreign executors, administratorsestate;
and guar
divorce aud domicil, as well as many other subjects equally important.
out of print, which we are offeringsat lowest current dians ; the law of marriage,
From Mr. Justice Strong, of tlte Supreme Court of the United State*.
prices.
I am greatly indebted to you for a copy of " Wharton on the Conflict of Laws," which I have read with
more than satisfaction. The science of Private International Law has made remarkable advances in late
years, and ofis becoming
vast consequence
thai it should
be more
thoroughly
by most
We would also call attention to our superior facili members
the legal ofprofession.
Mr. Wharton's
book has
rendered
a large understood
acquaintancethan
withit itis not
only
ties for importing, being in monthly receipt of
possible, hut easy. It is very thorough and accurate, and far in advance of anything we have upon this sub
ject, on either side of the water. A noble contribution to sound legal learning.
CONSIGNMENTS FROM LONDON
IV.
direct, which we are selling at unusually low figures.
Milliard on the Law of Contracts.
A large collection of SecondTwo Volume*. Svo. 815.00.
Books, Dlgreats and Report* kept constantly on
THE LAW OF CONTRACTS. By Francis Hilliard, author of the "Law of Torts," "The Law of
Injunctions," etc. 2 vols. Svo.
Catalogues sent promptly upon application.
From the Chicago Legal News.
We predict that these volumes will receive a warmer welcome from the profession than ever accompanied
any other of the valuable works of Mr. Hilliard, and advise all our readers who are in active practice to add
them to their libraries.
Address
From the Philadelphia Legal Intelligencer.
A glance at the table of contents will show that the author has not omitted to discuss any of the multifa
rious titles embraced within this very comprehensive title of the law. The vast field of inquiry suggested by
CALLAGHAN & CO., the title " Contract" is thoroughly explored.
From the Pittsburgh Lrpal Journal.
Mr. HUliiird has long been known to the profession as an able, industrious and painstaking lawyer and
author, and in the present work he has displayed an amount of research, subtlety of discrimination, and
525 Wabash Ave.,
familiarity with the progress of the decisions which fully sustain his previously well-earned reputation.
From the
LouitrrilleinCourier-Journal.
The author's work on Torts is firmly
established
the good opinion of the profession, and will surely
materially assist the salo of the present work which is the result of his comprehensive studies on the former
CHICAGO, ILL.
subject, and is. therefore, the complement of that work. We very heartily commend it to the profession,
believing that it deserves, and will receive, the same appreciation and use given to the work on Torts.
From
Cincinnati
Gazette.
Mr. Hilliard has the merit of illustrating
verythefully
whatever
he undertakes to explain. His present
work is no exception to its predecessors. A prominent feature is the presentation in the text of the points of
SS25S. TREES! IMPLANTS! important
decisions. The student is thus relieved of much of the labor ot tracing out marginal references
to their sources. A large part of these decisions are recent ones, so that apart from its own merits, Mr.
flower occno I
llilliard's work is, in a sense, supplementary to other authorities on the same subject.
GARDEN OCCUO
Apple and Crab, 100 2|to 4 ft., ii ; 4 to 6 ft., <3.
FromandpMDBftICK
BRIGHTLY,
I have looked through the work
am muchC.pleased
withEsq.
the arrangement of the subject, and the
Pear, stand., extra, llyear, Bartlett, etc., 3 to 4 yt., thorough
manner in which the learned author has treated it. We have many books on the subject of con
tracts, nut nevertheless this is a valuable addition to the lawyer's library. One great advantage which it
per doz., 52.50.
possesses over others is that it gives the results of the very latest cases on one of the most important topics
Seed*, Peach,'hush.,'$2; Apple Osage, new, bush., of
the law. That it will have tlie extensive circulation to which it is justly entitled, I sincerely hope.
$12.
Potatoes, Early; Rose, White] Peach Blow, per
KAY & BROTHER'S Publications for sale by E. B. Myers,
bush, $2.
Seedling*, 1000 Soft Maplo, Si; Ash. (3; Elm, (2. Callaghan & Co., Cockcroft & Co., Chicago, 111., and by the Trade
Illustrated Catalogue 100 pages, aud Prico List, 10c.
15-27
F. K. PIKENIX, Bloomington, 111. generally throughout the country.

AD VERTIHEMENT.
STEVENS &HAYNES
Law Publishers,
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
LONDON.
forts in all Classes of Literature
SUPPLIED TO ORDER,
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
Orders Promptly Filled.
and Officers of Public li
braries may rely upon the moat
careful attention to their
C'omui1hmIonu.
By importing DIRECT from England, a consider
able saving is effected, especially in the Customs duty,
from which Public Institutions in Uie United States are
exempt.
SUNDRY mistakes have been made by our Foreign
and
in addressing
ters, Colonial
we beg toCorrespondents
notify that the members
of ourtheir
firm let
are
Henry G. Stevens aud Robert W. Hayxes, the son
and
stepson
ol
the
late
Valentine
Stevens,
the
eminent
Law Publisher. Since our father's death we have con
tinued to carry on the business of Law PubllalierM,
Bookseller* and Exporters, at the above ad
dress.
DuringRobert
his recent
to the
United
States
and
Canada,
W. visits
Hayxes
secured,
many
Friends
and
Correspondents
;
we
are
thus
enabled
to
give
ref
erences of the highest character in most of the princi
pal American cities.
We have no connection whatever with any other
house of business, and to prevent delay and miscar
riage, our Correspondents abroad are respectfully re
quested to plainly address their letters to us as fol
lows :
STEVENS & HAYNES,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
LONDON,
ENGLAND.
Extract from " Report of Julius Rosenthal, Esq.,
Librarian to the President and Members of
the Chicago Law Institute," November, 1870.
" To our collection of English Reports a valuable
addition has been made by the importation of a
full and well preserved set of the House of Lords
Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58
volumes.
" English books were imported directly free of
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the
firm of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose
diligence, promptness, and care in rilling our or
ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
MASTER'S SALE.State of Illinois, Cook county.
In Chancery. Joseph B. Whitniore v. David
Alexander Orubbs. Mary Jane Grubbs.Cosmon Eisendrath and Henry Begensburg. Foreclosure of mort
gage.
Public notice is hereby given that in pursuance of a
decree entered by said court in the aboveentitled cause
on the 28th day of February, A. D. 1.S72, 1, John Woodbridge, master iu chancery of said Cook county, will,
on Wednesday, the tenth day of April, A. D. 1*72, at
the hour of ten o'clock in the forenoon of said day, at
thethe
eastcitydoor
the eastin wing
of thecounty
old court
house,
in
of of
Chicago,
said Cook
expose
lor
sale at public auction, aud sell to the highest bidder
for cash, all the following described land and real es
tate, situate in the city of Chicago, in Cook county, in
the Stale flfl)
of Illinois,
follows, to (17)
wit lying
: Lot
eighteen
and thatdescribed
part of lotas seventeen
west of a line running north and south midway be
tween
Clarkofstreet
La Salle
in
Jamot'sNorth
subdivision
lots oneaudhundred
and street,
fourteen
(114), one hundred and fifteen (US) and oue hundred
and
part and
of lots
one hundred
aud
foursixteen
(loi) and(116),
one and
hundred
five (lo.M,
in Bronaon's
addition to Chicago, now also known and distinguished
as lot five ('>), in the Assessors' division of lot 103 and
parts of lots \m and 105, and of sub-lots 15 to 20 of
Jamot's subdivision of parts of lots loi and lOA, in
Bronson's
to Chicago,
er's office ofaddition
said Cook
county, recorded
in book inIfiltheofrecord
maps,
page 74, with the buildings aud improvements thereon.
JOHN WOODBRIDGE,
Master in Chancery of Cook County.
Chicago,
29, 1*72.
J. C. x J. Feb.
J. Knickerbocker,
Compl't's Sol'rs. 21-23
MASTER'S SALEState of Illinois, Cook county.
In Chancery. Evan Davis v. Emilie Wirth and
Charles Wirth. Foreclosure of mortgage.
Public notice is hereby given that iii pursuance of a
decree entered by said court in the above entitled
cause
on the ZSth
day inofchancery
February,-fA.said
D. Cook
1*72, I,county,
John
Woodbridge,
master
will, on Wednesday, the tenth day of April, A. D. Id72,
at the hour of ten o'clock in the forenoon of said day,
at
of the eaat
wingCook
of tho
old court
house,
iu the
the east
city door
of Chicago,
in said
county,
expose
for
sale at public auction, and sell to the highest bidder
for cash, all the following described land and real es
tate, situate in the city or Chicago, in Cook county, in
the State of Illinois, described as follows, to wit : Lot
fourteen
(14),(27),
in inWaughop's
of block
twenty-seven
the Canal subdivision
Trustees' subdivision
ofsection
seven
(7),
in
township
thirty-nine
(;V.<),
north
of range fourteen (14), east of the third cid) principal
meridian.
JOHN WOODBRIDGE,
Master in Chancery of Cook County.
Chicago Feb. 29, 1872.
J. C. & J. J. Knickerbocker, Compl't's Sol'rs. 21-24
TESTATE
OF JAMES
FERGl'SON
1-J the undersigned
was. onN. the
25th day of-Whereas,
January,
1*72, by the Hon. County court within and for the
county of Cook, and State of Illinois, appointed execu
tor of the estate of .Tames N. Ferguson, deceased; and,
whereas,
am unable
to further
said
estate by Ireason
of absence,
thisadminister
is to notify upon
all whom
it may concern, that I shall present my resignation of
saidholden
trust atChicago,
the nextinsession
of said
Countyoncourt,
to
be
Cook
county,
the first
Monday ofatApril
next, atsaid
10 o'clock
in the forenoon.
JAMES F. HALEY.
^Chicago, Feb. 27, 1872.
21-24
ROGERS & ROGERS.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS.
St Paul. Minn.
46*
J. H. BATTEN,
STATION Kin ,
185 LA SALLE STREET,
Law Stationery and Legal Blanks.
19-30

Qhicago

Jegal

^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, In the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 22.

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, MARCH 9, 1872.

privilege of going into the United States

courts for the collection of debts due
him by citizens of other States, whether
he holds the debts in his own right, or as
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. administrator.
Nos. 32 and 33. December Term, 1871.
The judgments of the Circuit Court
J. L. Rice, Adm'r, etc., of W. J. Turbiville, de are affirmed.
ceased, et al. v. Russell Houston, Adm'r, etc.,
of A. W. Vanleer, deceased, et al.
THE RIGHT OK ADMINISTRATORS AND EX
Through the kindness of Hon. Jas. K.
ECUTORS TO SUE AND BE SUED IN THE
Edsall, of the Dixon bar, we have re
FEDERAL COURTS.
That suits may be maintained in a Federal Cir
cuit Court by executors or administrators if they ceived the following opinion :
are citizens of a different State from the party sued,
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
on the ground that they are the real parties in in
terest, and it makes no difference that the testator
Opinion Filed Jan. 22, 1872.
or intestate were citizens of the same State with
the defendants, and could not, if alive, have sued Alva D. Drew, Appellant, v. Leonard W. Beal,
in the Federal courts ; nor is the status of the par
Appellee.
ties affected by the fact that the creditors and leg
from Lee.
atees of the decedent are citizens of the same INSTRUCTIONS Appeal
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS
State with the defendants.Ed. Legal News.
MEASURE
OF
DAMAGES
FOR FRAUD AND
Mr. Justice Davis delivered the opin
DECEIT IN THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY.
ion of the court.
1. Instructions Should be in Bill of Excep
These suits were brought in the Circuit tions.That errors in giving or refusing instruc
tions
will not be considered when the clerk has
Court by Houston, a citizen of Kentucky,
into the transcript made by him instruc
the administrator of the estate of A. W. copied
tions as given and refused, and exceptions to giv
ing
and
refusing them, as that does not show that
Vanleer, against the plaintiffs in error,
ore a part of the record ; that they can only
to recover on notes given by them to the they
become
such
being incorporated into the.record
decedent. The defendants below craved by means of abvbill
of exceptions.
2.
Measure
of
Damages for Decf.it in Exoyer of the letters of administration,
changk
ok
PnorERTY.That
it appeared the ap
which were granted by the proper au pellee had been fraudulentlyifdeceived
as to the
thority of Tennessee, and then pleaded land,
his damages would be the valueof his house
and
lot,
less
the
S.S0U.
and
less
the
actual
value of
in abatement that, as administrator of
land ; that this would restore the plaintiff to
Vanleer, Houston was not a citizen of the
the
condition
he
was
in
before
the
bargain
Kentucky, but the creature of the law of made, and be all he was entitled to receivewas
as
Tennessee, and, therefore, not entitled to damages.
3.
Rule
as
to
Value
of
the
Property.That
sue the debtors of the estate in the Fed the parties had, by their agreement, fixed an esti
eral courts. This question of jurisdiction mate and value upon the property which each
is the only point in the case. Although sold and transferred to the other, and it was not
the jury to make a new contract for them, or
in controversies between citizens of dif for
fix a new price upon the plaintiff's property for
ferent States, it is the character of the him.
He was entitled to the benefit of his bar
real and not that of the nominal parties gain.
4.
DamagesHow
Estimated.Thatthe defend
to the record which determines the ques
had received the consideration agreed to be
tion of jurisdiction, yet it has been re ant
paid by the plaintiff, and the latter was entitled to
peatedly held by this court that suits can have such a tract of land as this was represented,
if he has not got it, he is damaged by reason
be maintained in the Circuit Court by and
not getting it, and the proper measure of dam
executors or administrators if they are of
ages is the difference between the actual value of
citizens of a different State from the the land and the value of such a piece of land as
was represented to be by the defendant; that
party sued, on the ground that they are this
such is the measure of damages in an action for
the real parties in interest, and succeed breach
of a warranty on a sale of personal prop
to all the rights of the testator or intes erty, and it is the same in an action for deceit in
tate by operation of law. And it makes a sale.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the court by Sheldon, J.
no difference that the testator or intes
This was an action on the case brought
tate were citizens of the same State with
the defendants, and could not, if alive, by Beal against Drew in the Lee Circuit
have sued in the Federal courts ; nor is Court, to recover damages for the deceit
the status of the parties affected by the and fraud alleged to have been practiced
fact that the creditors and legatees of the by the latter upon the former, in the sale
decedent are cit'zens of the same State and exchange ofcertain real estate,wherewith the defendants (Chappedelaine v. by Beal sold and conveyed a house and
Dechenaux, 4 Cranch, 306-7 ; Browne et lot in Dixon, he owned, for eighty acresof
al. v. Strode, 5 Cranch, 303 ; Childress' land in Mason county, Missouri, belong
Ex. v. Emorv et al., 8 Wheaton, 609 ; Os ing to Drew and the sum of $800, the
borne v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheaton, 856 ; fraud charged consisting in alleged fraud
McNutt v. Bland et al., 2 Howard, 15 ; ulent representations in regard to the
Irvine v. Loury, 14 Pet, 298 ; Huff v. Missouri land. One error assigned is in
Hutchinson, 14 How. 586 ; Coal Com the giving and refusing of instructions.
The bin of exceptions does not con
pany v. Blatchford, 11 Wallace, 172).
In this state of the law on this subject, tain any instructions, nor show any rul
it is not perceived on what ground the ing of the court thereon, nor exception
right of Houston to maintain these suits to any such ruling. Consequently no
can be questioned. He was a citizen of instructions appear in the record, and
Kentucky, had the legal interest in the we cannot take notice of any.
The clerk has copied into the transnotes sued on, by virtue of the authority
conferred on him by the court in Ten script made by him, instructions as given
nessee, and, therefore, had a right to and refused and exceptions to giving and
bring his action in the Federal or State refusing them, but that does not show
that they are a part of the record. They
courts at his option.
It is to be presumed, in the absence of can only become such by being incorpo
an averment in the pleadings to the con rated into the record by means of a bill
trary, that Houston, when appointed ad of exceptions/as repeatedly ruled by this
ministrator, was a citizen of Kentucky, court. Laundus v. McCollins, 4 Scam.,
and if so, the appointment was legal, for 419 ; Corey v. Russel, 3 Gilm. 367 ; Petty
the laws of Tennessee do not forbid the v. Scott, 5 id. 209 : Mayher v. Howe ; 12
probate courts of that State to entrust a 111.. 379 ; Moss v. Flint 13 id. 570 ; Smith
citizen of another State with the duties v. Wilson, 20 id. 186 ; Ballace v. Leon
of administering on the estate of a per ard, 37 id. 43 ; Gill v. People, 42 id. 321,
son domiciled at the time of his death in Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Vanduser, 49
ib. 491.
Tennessee.
This disposes two of the errors assigned
But if the fact be otherwise, as seems
to be admitted in argument, and Houston in overruling defendant's motion for a
were a citizen of Tennessee at the time new trial.
he got his letters of administration, the
[Note.The motion for a new trial was
liability of the defendants to be sued in
the Federal courts remains the same, be not included in the bill of exceptions,
cause there is no statute of Tennessee but the orders of the court entered by
requiring an administrator not to re the clerk, showed that such motion was
move from the State, and the general entered, overruled, and an exception
law of the land allows any one to change
his citizenship at his pleasure. After he saved.]
has in good faith changed it, he has the
Objections are taken to various rulings
Efjc Courts.

of the Court, upon the trial, which will

be considered.
The plaintiff, on his direct examina
tion, was asked his opinion as to the
value of the Missouri land in the fall of
1869. The defendant asked leave to
cross-examine him as to his means of
knowledge before his answering the ques
tion, which the court refused to allow.
The witness hadalready disclosed enough
by his testimony to show that he was
competent to give an opinion as to the
value of the land, and the defendant in
such a case, was properly denied the
privilege to cross-examine the witness as
to his means of knowledge, until his ex
amination in chief had been concluded.
In the examination of the witness
Kneinin he was asked by plaintiff's
counsel whether defendant told him
Gray had shown him the land, objection
was made to the question by defendant's
counsel which was overruled by the court
and excepted to, and the witness replied,
" he said that Gray said it was worth $18
per acre."
No motion was made to exclude the
amount, and whatever maybe said as to
the answer, the question propounded to
the witness was clearly proper as wheth
er the defendant had seen the land or
not, had a material bearing upon the
question of fraud. Evidence of what
Hays, who had bought the land of the
witness Scott, said to the witness in con
nection with the buying, was properly
rejected as being mere hearsay testi
mony.
The defendant, on his examination, had
testified that he had bought the land of
John D. Heaton and was thereupon asked,
" how much did Heaton tell you was
prairie and how much timber, at the
time you purchased of him ?" The ques
tion was objected to and the objection
sustained and exception taken.
Drew made his representations from
his personal knowledge of the land, he
had visited it in 1856 ; the statements were
in regard to the condition and quality of
the land at the time of the sale and ex
change in 1869. Whatever timber had
ever been upon the land, seems, at that
time, to have been mostly cut off; what
Heaton told the defendant at the time he
sold him the land, eleven acres before,
might not have been altogether irrelevant
asaffectingthequestion ofthe defendant's
honest belief of the condition and qual
ity of the land at the time he sold to
Beal, and might properly have been ad
mitted, but the weight to which it was
entitled as evidence in this respect, was
so light in view of the other testimony
in the case, that its rejection cannot be
looked upon as a substantial error.
The court rejected evidence of the
value of the house and lot in Dixon. It
is insisted this was admissible as affect
ing the question of damages ; that the
jury had a right to believe from the ev
idence that the contract was that Beal
agreed to sell his house and lot for $800,
and this Missouri land, represented to be
of a certain character, that he conveyed
the house and lot and received the $800
and the deed of the land. Then if it
appeared that Beal had been fraudulent
ly deceived as to the land, his damages
would be the value of his house and lot,
less the $800 and less the actual value of
the land ; that this would restore the
plaintiff to the condition he was in be
fore the bargain was made, and be all he
was entitled to receive as damages.
According to this rule, had the proof
been that the Dixon property was worth
no more than $800, as the plaintiff had
received that sum in the trade, he would
not be entitled to recover any dam
ages, however great the differences be
tween the value of the land as it was
and what it would have been if as rep
resented to be. The parties had, by
their agreement, fixed an estimate and
value upon the property which each
sold and transferred to the other, and it
was not for the jury to make a new con
tract for them or fix a new price upon

Whole No. 180.

the plaintiff's property for them. The
Elaintiff was entitled to the benefit of
is bargain.
The defendant had received the con
sideration agreed to be paid by the plain
tiff, and the latter was entitled to have
such a tract of land as this was repre
sented to be, and if he has not got it, his
damages, by reason of not getting it, and
the proper measure of damages, we
think, is the difference between the
actual value of the land and the value of
such a piece of land as this was repre
sented to be by the delendaut.
Such is the measure of damages in an
action for breach of a warranty on a sale
of personal property. Wallace v. Wren,
32 111., 146 ; Woodworth v. Woodburn, 20
111., 1S4. And it is the same on an action
for deceit in a sale. Stiles v. White et
al., 11 Mete., 356. And the same rule
seems to obtain upon the sale of real
estate where the action is for deceit in
relation to its quantity or condition.
Whitney v. Allaire, 1 Comst., 305.
We think, then, an inquiry into the
value of the Dixon house and lot was
not properly involved, and that the court
rightly rejected evidence in regard to it.
Perceiving no error in the record, the
judgment of the court below must be af
firmed.
Eustace, Barge & Dixon, for appel
lant.
Jas. K. Edsall, for appellee.
ENGLISH EQUITY COURT.
Court of Appeal in Chancery. Thurs
day, Nov. 16, 1871.
[Before the Lord Chancellor (Hatherley).]
Pride v. Bubb.
MARRIED WOMANREAL ESTATEPOWER
TO DISPOSE OF BY WILLSEPARATION
DEEDFINES AND RECOVERIES ACT (3 <fc 4
Will., 4, c. 74), s. 77.
A separation-deed between husband and wife
contained the recital of an agreement that the
wife should enjoy her present and future real and
personal estate to her separate use. and in all re
spects free from her husband's debts, liabilities,
engagements, dispositions, control and interfer
ence; and the deed contained a covenant by the
husband to the like effect, but it contained
no conveyance by the wife of the real es
tate to which she was entitled in fee. The wife
disposed of the real estate by will, and died in the
lifetime of her husband :
Held (affirming the decision of the Master of the
Rolls), that the wife could contract as to her real
estate by deed under the statute, and that on the
agreement of the husband with her to forego his
claims, she became entitled to the properly for her
separate use, and could deal with it as any other
person, unfettered by a marriage contract or any
other contract, could do.
This was an appeal bv the plaintiffs
from a decision of the Master of the
Bolls. The suit was one of equitable
ejectment in which the plaintiffs claim
ed as heirs and the defendants as deviBees of Margaret Welch, who died,
without leaving issue, in 1851, in the life
time of her husband, who died in 1853.
The facts were as follows :
Richard Hill, by his will executed in
1801, devised real estate to his wife for
life, with remainder to trustees in trust
for his children, of whom Margaret
Welch was one, as his wife should, by
deed or will appoint, and in default of
appointment, amongst the children
equally. After the death of the testa
tor, the widow by her will appointed,
parts of the property in trust for Marga
ret Welch for life for her separate use,
with remainder in trust for her in tail,
leaving the remainder after the estate
tail undisposed of, and also appointed
other parts of the property to others of
the children. Margaret Welch survived
the other children and became entitled
to the whole of their interests, and in
May, 1846, she was thus entitled to the
testator's real estate, as to part, for her
separate use for life, with remainder
after her death in tail, and ultimate re
mainder in fee ; and as to other parts
after her death as she should by deed
or will appoint, and in default of appoint
ment, in fee. In 1846 she and her
husband separated, and a deed was
executed which was acknowedged by
her, and which contained a recital that
it was agreed that she should hold all

Chicago
real estate to which she or her husband
in her right, might be entitled, for
her sole and separate use. The first
operative part of the deed was a series
of covenants by the husband alone, com
prising the usual provisions in a separa
tion deed, and amongst others a cove
nant that the husband, his heirs, execu
tors, and administrators should permit
his wife, her heirs, executors, and ad
ministrators, and assigns, to hold and en
joy for her and their separate use, free
from the control of her husband, his
heirs, executors, or administrators, and
by deed or will to devise, bequeath or
dispose of the real and personal proper
ty to which the said W. Welch, as hus
band, or the said W. Welch, and Marga
ret, his wife, or either of them in her
right, were or was, or at any time might
be or become in any manner whatsoever,
seized, possessed, interested or entitled ;
and the covenant further provided in
detail for the enjoyment of the property
by Sirs. Welch to her separate use, and
for further assurance by her husband
the covenantor. By another operative
part the husband assigned the same
property to a trustee in trust that she
should enjoy, give, devise, bequeath, and
dispose of the same as therein express
ed. Besides other provisions for carry
ing out the objects of the deed, there
was an assignment by the wife of her
separate life interest in the real estate
and of her personal estate, to the trus
tees, and an appointment of the real
estate over which she had a power to the
trustee upon trust to pay cost and indem
nify himself, and subject thereto upon
trust as she should by deed or will ap
point, and in default as to the life inter
est and personal estate, in trust for her
separate use and disposal as therein
mentioned, and as to the lands appointed
in trust for her right heirs. The deed
which was duly executed and acknowl
edged by the wrife, contained no convey
ance by her of the real estate to which
she was entitled in fee. By her will
made in 1846, Mrs. Welch, after reciting
the power of appointment given her by
the separation deed, in exercise of the
said power, devised and bequeathed her
real and personal estate as therein men
tioned. The present suit was instituted
by the heirs of Richard Hill and Marga
ret Welch against the trustees of the
property, and persons claiming to be en
titled thereto under the will of Mrs.
Welch who were in possession, for the
administration of the trusts of the wills
of Richard and Sarah Hill, and the de
livery up of possession of the lands and
for other auxiliary relief. The bill, hav
ing been dismissed by the court below,
the plaintiffs appealed.
Sir R. Palmer, Q. C, the Solicitor Gen
eral (Jessel Q. C.), and Collins, for the
appellants, contended that a married
woman could not obtain a power to dis
pose of her real estate by will, unless
she actually conveyed it in proper form
to such uses as she should by will ap
point, and that a mere agreement be
tween her and her husband, although
by deed acknowledged, was insufficient.
They referred to Crofts v. Middleton, 27
L. T. Rep. N. S. 114 ; 8 De G. M. & G.
192 ; Dillon v. Grace, 2 Sech. & Lef. 463 ;
Taylor v. Meades, 11. L. T. Rep. N. S. 6 ;
34 L. J., 203, Ch. ; Thornton v. Bright, 2
M. & C. R. 230 ; Ramsden v. Smith, 23 L.
T. Rep. 166 ; 2 Dr. 298, 302 ; 3 & 4 Will. 4,
c. 74 (Fines and Recoveries Act) ; David
son's Precedents, vol. 5, p. 1084 (note) ;
Jarman on Wills, vol. 1, p. 33.
Sir R. Baggallay, Q. C, Southgate, Q.
C, C. Hall, and Taylor for the respon
dents, not were ca:lied upon.
The Lord Chancellor, (Hatherley).I
do not think I ought to call upon you
Sir Richard Baggallay, in this case, be
cause I apprehend that it is not to be
disputed that when a woman is the own
er of real estate to her separate use,
she is, to all intents and purposes, in the
position of a feme sole, so as to be able
to dispose of that estate by deed
or will. I think there were doubts ex
isting in some part of the profession as
to how far the doctrine with reference to
the separate property of a married wo
man could be held to extend to a case
where the heir was to be affected by any
instrument, unless it was by some con
veyance in which the husband and wife
would have to concur, and how far the
provisions which were made simply for
securing the wife against the interfer
ence of the husband were or were not to
be considered as provisions giving her
power to dispose of the property as

Legal

against the heir. Now the object of this

deed is clearly to place this lady, with ref
erence to all her real property, howsoever
and whensoever acquired, in exactly the
same position as if she had no husband
at all ; in other words to give her the
whole of the property to her separate
use. If that had been limited by a will
made anterior to her marriage, nobody
disputes that in that case it would come
precisely within the doctrine laid down
by Lord Westbury in Taylor v. Meads, that
she would hold "it as a feme sole and be
able to make a will, the husband being
placed out of the way. I apprehend
that by a deed duly executed, in which
her husband concurred, the whole of her
property might be placed in that posi
tion without requiring anything more to
be done on her part, and without re
quiring any actual conveyance or assign
ment or any other instrument, and sim
ply by the "agreement of the husband,
who alone was interested in the deter
mination of that matter because the hus
band, who is the sole person who is to de
termine whether or not that shall be so,
says : " Now I, for a valuable considera
tion, for the indemnity I received with
respect to the debts of my wife, and the
annuity of 40J. which I received out of
her estate, agree with her to abandon all
my authority and control over all her pres
ent and future property, whatsoever that
may be ; and that she, her heirs, execu
tors, administrators, and assigns, shall
hold this property exactly as if I were
out of the way ; and in no way will I in
terfere with or control her arrangements
in that respect." That is stated to be
the purport and object of the two part
ies interested in entering into this engage
ment. Then the husband enters into an
express covenant on his part that he will
abstain from interfering, and that, there
fore, his wife shall hold the property
henceforth free. By this particular part
of the deed- she goes on to make certain
arrangements which she was desirous of
executing. She also exercises the pow
er by herself, and says: " I hold every
thing I have and everything I can have,
as a free woman, apart from the inter
ference of my husband, and I say that
power I may exercise at any time that
may seem proper so to do." For some
reason or other, possibly, she might not
have been thinking of the reversion, but
nothing can authorize the court to say
that it must be admitted on that account
that all her property is to be affected by
it. Of course, she does not deal with the
future property by way of assignment
indeed she could notbut when you
find that the future, as well as the past
property is dealt with, it is impossible to
hold that this reversion is not to be con
sidered as being within the intent and
meaning ofall parties to the instruments.
It is, in other words, saying that, " as to
all that property, my wife shall stand in
the position of a feme sole} and she shall
have power to deal with it as she pleas
es." That is the power which she has
expressly bargained for, and ought to
retain. I am quite satisfied, with refer
ence to the Fines and Recoveries Act.
that the reasoning and decisions in Croft
v. Middleton was intended to displace
the erroneous notion I there fell into of
saying that the deed was not intended
to give effect to that which could be op
erated upon de facto, if the deed were
executed, and not as to matters settled
by contract. It seems to me that the
lady has acquired by purchase to herself
this right, and that right having been
once acquired, the husband is put out of
the question altogether ; and as regards
any doubt that might have arisen in
one's mind as to the position of her fu
ture property, that doubt is solved when
once it is determined that any person
holding an estate by gift to her separate
use, although otherwise not able to dis
possess her heir, is put in a position in
which she can deal with property as any
other person unfettered by a marriage
contract, or any other contract, can do.
I think that the decision of t he
Master of the Rolls must be upheld, be
ing right in principle, and that the ap
peal must be dismissed with costs.
Solicitors: W. W. Gabriel, Lincoln'sinn-fields ; T. White and Son, 11 Bedfordrow.
ENGLISH CASE.
Jan. 18, 22.Labocchere v. Dawson.
SALE OF GOODWILLVENDOR CARRYING ON
THE SAME BUSINESS CIRCULARS AD
DRESSED TO CUSTOMERS OF LATE FIRMINJUNCTION.
The vendor of a business as a going concern is

News.

at full liberty to set up a new business, and to

publish advertisements or circulars, addressed to
the public in general and soliciting custom ; but
he is not at liberty, either by circular, or privately
by letter, or personally, or by his travelers, to so
licit his former customers to continue to deal with
him, or not to continue to deal with the purchaser
of the business.
The defendant and his elder brother,
Benjamin Dawson, for many years pre
vious to 1869, carried on an extensive
business in partnership at the Kirkstall
Brewery, near Leeds.
In April, 1869, Benjamin Dawson died,
and the business was thenceforward car
ried on by the defendant alone for the
benefit of himself and Benjamin Daw
son's representatives. In November,
1869, a suit was commenced to adminis
ter Benjamin Dawson's estate. On the
12th of June, 1871, an agreement in writ
ing was entered into, with the sanction
of the Court in the above suit, for the sale
of the business as a going concern, to the
plaintiffs Labouchere and Staniforth, as
trustees for the Kirkstall Brewery Com
pany (Limited). The agreement pro
vided that the sale should include the
goodwill of the brewery business hither
to carried on at the premises at Kirkstall,
and the exclusive right to use the name
of Benjamin Dawson & Sons, in connec
tion with the business of brewers.
There was no stipulation that the de*
fendant should not engage in the same
business. Upon the completion of the
sale, the defendant removed to Burtonon-Trent, where he engaged in business
as a brewer, and he sent circulars to per
sons who had been customers of the late
firm, and who continued to deal with the
Kirkstall Brewery Company, soliciting
orders for beer. There was evidence
that some of such persons had, in conse
quence of the defendant's solicitation,
transferred their custom from the Kirk
stall Brewery Company to the defendant.
The defendant, however, did not repre
sent that the business he had engaged in
was the same or a continuation of that
of the late firm ; nor did he brew the
same sort of beer as that sold by the
Kirkstall Brewery Company.
The plaintiffs moved for an injunction.
The Solicitor-General, Fry, Q. C, and
W. F. Robinson, for the plaintiffs.
Sir Richard Baggallay, Q. C, and A.
G. Marten, for the defendant.It is ex
pressly laid down by Lord Eldon, that
after sale the partners are at full liberty
to engage in the same business, and that
those who buv the goodwill buy it with
the full knowledge that it is liable to the
chance of the partners not retiring from
trade, and carrying off the business of the
old establishment : Cook v. Collingridge,
Collyer on Partnership, p. 216; Davies v.
Hodgson, 25 Beav. 182 ; Johnson v. Helley, 13 W. R. 38, 34 Beav. 63; Shackle v.
Baker, 14 Ves. 468 ; Hall v. Barrows, 12
W. R. 322; Cruttwell v. Lye, 17 Ves. 335.
If the vendor may engage in business, he
may solicit custom of the public at large ;
and if of the public at large, why not of
particular persons ? There is no false or
fraudulent representation here, as in
Churton v. Douglass, 7 W. R. 365, J. Joh.
174.
No reply.
Jan. 22.Lord Romilly, M. R., said that
the suit appeared to involve a new point.
The defendant was fully justified in en
gaging in business at Burton-on-Trent,
but was he justified in soliciting the cus
tomers of the late firm personally to deal
with him? It was suggested that if the
defendant had an undoubted right to so
licit the public at large to be his custom
ers, he could not be precluded from solic
iting any particular persons ; but he could
not be allowed by so doing to violate the
principle of equity, that he who sells a
thing shall not afterward impair the
value of that which he has sold. That
principle must govern the case. He had
been asked where he would draw the
line with respect to advertisements, and
his answer was that he would draw
the line in each case with regard to the
facts established in it. The defendant
was, in his opinion, entitled to publish
any advertisement or any circular ad
dressed to the public in general, but he
was not entitled either by circulars or
private letters, or in person, or by his
travelers, to solicit the customers of the
late firm. There must be an injunction
to restrain the defendant, his partners,
servants and agents from applying to any
Jerson who, previously to the I2th of
une, 1871, was a customer of the late
firm, either privately, by letter, or per
sonally, or by his travelers, asking such
person to continue to deal with him,
the defendant, or not to continue to deal

with the Kirkstall Brewery Company ;

but as the point, so far as his Lordship
was aware, was a new one, costs would
not be given.
Solicitors, Nash, Field & Lavton ; Paterson, Snow & Burney.London Weekly
Reporter.
XXXIV. INDIANA REPORTS.
Our thanks are due James B. Black:,
Reporter of the Supreme Court of Indi
ana, for advance sheets of the 34th vol
ume of his Reports, from which we take
the following head-notes :
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
1. Legislative power. When the con
stitution of a State vests in the General
Assembly all legislative power, as does
ours (article 5, section 1), it is to be con
strued as a general grant of power, and
as authorizing such legislature to pass
any law within the 'ordinary functions
of legislation, if not delegated to the fed
eral government or prohibited by the
State constitution.(Opinion by Buskirk, J.)The Lafayette et al. R. R. Co.,
v. Geiger.
CONSTRUCTION.
2. Constitutions and Statutes. Constitu
tions are to receive a strict construction,
and acts of the legislature are to be lib
erally construed.
" INCORPORATED COMPANY."
The words " incorporated company"
in sec. 6 of article 10 of the Constitution
of this State, refer to those associations
which are created for public benefit, and
to which the government delegates a por
tion ofits sovereign power, to be exercised
for public utility,such as turnpike,
bridge, canal, and railroad companies.
lb.
SUBSCRIPTION FOR RAILROAD STOCK BY
COUNTY.
3. By the general grant of legislative
power, the General Assembly of this
state is empowered to authorize counties
to subscribe for stock in railroad compa
nies, and section 6 of article 10 of the
constitution recognizes this power, and
so limits it as to prevent such subscrip-r
tion unless the stock be paid for in
money at the time of the subscription..
A county cannot subscribe for such stock
without appropriate affirmative legisla
tion authorizing it.lb.
act of 1869.
4. The authority granted by the act of
May 12th, 1869, (Acts 1869, p. 92), to
counties to subscribe for stock in rail
road companies, to be paid for at thetime of the subscription, is a legitimateexercise of the power conferred on the
legislature by section 1 of article 5, and.
section 6 of article 10 of the Consti
tution ; and the means provided in said,
act to raise the money with which to
pay for said stock are appropriate, plain
ly conducive to the end proposed, and.
not prohibited by the Constitution or in
consistent with the letter or spirit there
of.lb.
TAKING EFFECT.
5. The fact that a vote of the people is
necessary to carry the provisions of said
act of 1869, into execution, does not ren
der the taking effect of the act depend
ent upon any authority other than the
legislative power of the General Assem
bly, and therefore does not render the
act in conflict writh section 25 of article 1
of the Constitution.lb.
GENERAL AND LOCAL LAWS.
6. County Commissioners. Said act isnot in conflict with the constitutional re
striction upon the enactment of local or
special laws ; and it is in accord with
the provision of the Constitution author
izing the legislature to confer upon
county boards powers of a loc*il admin
istrative character.lb.
RATE OF ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION.
7. Said act is not in conflict with the
constitutional requirement that " the
General Assembly shall provide by law
for a uniform and equal rate of assess
ment and taxation," the rate in each
county in which an appropriation is
made under said act being uniform and
equal throughout such county.lb.
ELECTION.
8. Change of voting placesInspector's
returnnotice of election. An election un
der said act, resulting in favor of the
making of an appropriation by a county
in aid of the construction of a certain
railroad, there being no fraud, no legal.

Chicago
voter being prevented from voting, and
no illegal voter being permitted to vote,
it was held, was not rendered illegal by
the facts that the county commissioners
changed the places of voting, in one of
the townships, two days before such elec
tion, of which change no notice was giv
en to the voters ; that the inspectors in
two of the townships made no return of
the votes taken therein, where, if the
whole number of votes in said townships
had been cast against the appropria
tion, there would still have been a clear
majority of all the votes cast in the
county in favor of the appropriation ;
and that the question submitted to the
voters of the county was for or against a
subscription of stock in said railroad by
said county, a resolution adopted by the
commisioners when they ordered a vote
to be taken being published in the elec
tion notice, to the effect that if the vote
of the county should be in favor of an
appropriation, they would subscribe for
stock in said railroad company, for and
on behalf of said county, and the ques
tion of donating money to aid in the con
struction of said railroad not being ad
mitted in said notice.lb.
PLEADING.
Mayor's Court Complaint for violation
of Ordinance.An action commenced be
fore the mayor of a city incorporated un
der the general law for the incorporation
of cities, to recover a penalty for the vi
olation of a city ordinance, is a civil suit
in which an appeal may be taken under
the same restrictions as if the action
were commenced inajustice'scourt ;and
the complaint, if{it conform to the re
quirements of section nineteen of said
general law, need not be more technical
or full than in a civil suit commenced be
fore a justice of the peace.(Opinion by
Petit, C. J.) City of Goshen v. Croxton.
POOR.
1. Medical services toPleadingAbate
ment.In a suit against the board of
county commissioners for medical ser
vices rendered by the plaintiff to the
poor of a certain township upon the em
ployment of the township trustee, an
answer setting up the fact that the plain
tiff has presented said claim to said
board for allowance and has appealed
from the decision of the board thereon,
and that the appeal is still pending, must
show the perfecting of such appeal ac
cording to the statute. Such an answer,
and also an answer that said claim has
been presented by the plaintiff to said
board for allowance and is still pending
before the board, are answers in abate
ment, and must be verified by affidavit.
(Opinion by Downey, J.)Com. Mor
gan Co. v. Holman et al., p. 256.
2. Where medical services are ren
dered by a physician to persons as poor
persons of a township in pursuance of
an employment by the proper township
trustee, such employment, in the absence
of fraud or collusion, is conclusive in a
suit to enforce the collection of the claim
against the county for such services,
without regard to the question whether
such persons were properly entitled to
such services under the poor laws or not.
16.
JURISDICTION.
1. Special appearance.The question
whether jurisdiction of the person of
the defendant in a civil action has been
acquired by the court can be raised in
such action, not by an attorney as amicus
curue, but only by a special appearance ;
and the better practice is to present it
by plea in abatement.(Opinion by
Bxskirk, J.)Baily.v. Schruder, p. 200.
DIVORCE.
2. Custody of children."Where in a
suit for a divorce, the court having juris
diction of the subject matter and of the
parties, an order has been made granting
the custody of the children of the mar
riage to one of the parties until the fur
ther order of the court; afterwards, in
an application to change said order, the
court retains its jurisdiction of the sub
ject matter and of the parties, without
reference to change of residence.lb.
CONTRACT.
Proposition not accepted.A mere prop
osition made by a defendant-surety in a
judgment to the judgment-plaintiff, while
the judgment is in full force, that if the
latter will accept other, sureties from the
principal defendant, and release or enter
satisfaction of the judgment so as to dis
charge said defendant-surety therefrom,
he will surrender to the principal de
fendant a promissory note which he

Legal

holds against said principal defendant,

does not constitute a contract, notwith
standing the judgment-plaintiff should
afterwards perform the tilings so to be
done by him, unless said judgmentplaintifl agrees with said defendantsurety to accept such other sureties from
said iprincipal defendant, or gives said
defendant-surety notice that he will act
upon said proposition.(Opinion by
Downey, J.)Ritenour v. Mailiews, p. 279.
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
Striking cause from docket. The Su
preme Court will presume in favor of the
action of the court below in striking a
cause from its docket, where the ground
on which the order was made is not
shown by a bill of exceptions.(Opinion
by AVorden, J.) Carr v. Thomas, p. 292.
PARTNERSHIP.
Sale of partner's interest to his copartners
^partnership debts. One of a firm com
posed of two partners sold his interest
in the partnership to his copartner, the
contract of sale not containing any pro
vision that [the buyer should pay the
debts of the firm, or that the seller should
receive any certain sum, but it being
stipulated in said contract that the seller
was to be paid in notes and accounts be
longing to the firm, and for any excess
due him over and above said notes and
accounts the buyer was to execute his
promissory notes to the seller.
Held, in an action by the seller against
the buyer for the failure of the latter to
perform his part of the contract, that the
facts that, at the time of the sale, the
firm was indebted in a sum greater than
its entire assets, and that said indebted
ness had been paid by the defendant,
constituted a good defense.(Opinion
by Petit, J.) Coffin v. Mitchell, p. 598.

News.
CHICA GO A TTORNE VS.

Barker A Waitc, 46 East Harrison.

Batei & Hodges, 113 Went Madison street.
BeattJe, C. J., 46 South Canal.
BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison atreet.
Bouncy, Kay & Griggs, 120 West Washington street.
Bentley, Bonnett, Ullmau & Ives. 376 Wabash ave.
Brouse, 0. R., 400 Wabash avenue.
Carmichael, D. L 815 Prairie avenue.
Chase, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue,
Clarkson A Van Schaack, 4.VI Wabash avenue.
Deane & CnhiU, room 7, Lind's Block.
Dent & Black, 710 Wabash avenue.
Eldridge A Tourtalotte, 401 Wabash avenue.
Ewing A Leonard. 4*7 Wabash avenue.
Ellin, B. W., 115 West Madison Btreet.
Felkcr, Wm. S., 92 Deaplaincs street.
Goodwin, I)., jr., n. e. corner Monroe and La Salle.
Goudy A Chandler, Union Central Block.
Graham, Geo. T., GO South Canal.
Herbert A Quick, 61 Union Central Building, and 529
State street.
Hoyne, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michigan
and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne, Horton & Hoyne, 207 Michigan avenue.
Hitchcock, Dupce A Evarts, corner Wells and Mon
roe streets.
Howe A Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
Knickerbocker, J. C. A J. J., 168 West Washington
Leary. D. James, 95 West Madison.
Magruder, B. D., 181 West Madison.
McClelland, Thos. S., 46 South Canal, room 6.
Mooro A Caulflcld, 54 Central Union Block.
Monroe, BislM?e A Gibbs, S23 Wabash avenue.
Norton, Jessie O., 3*6 Wabash avenue.
Nissen A Burnum, 126 W. Randolph, and 376 State.
Otlst E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Perkins, N. C, 479 Wabash av., cor. Eldridge court.
Reynolds, W. C, 176 West Washington st.
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 South Canal.
Rorke, M. A. A Son, Room 57, Central Union Block.
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, Masonic Building, s. w.
cor. Randolph and Halsted, and 350 Wabash avenue.
I Sawln A Wells, 7'.t West Madison St.
Scammon, McCagg A Fuller, 339 Wabash avenue.
Scoville, Geo., 30 South Clinton.
Through the kindness of Consider H. Small A inpalls, 481 AVabash Ave.
Willett, of the Chicago bar, we have Smith, Upton A Waterman, 133 West Monroe street.
Tenny, McClellan ATenny, 464 Wabash avenue.
received the following opinion :
Thomas, Sidney, 364 South State Btreet
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Waughop, J. W., 401 Wabash"avenue.
Opinion Filed Jan. 22, 1872.
Williams A Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
William Y. Johnson et al. v. David Salisbury. Walker, Dexter A Smith, 562 Wabash avenue.
Appeal from Cook.
Wilson, Perry A Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
CONTRACT UNDER SEALASSUMPSIT WILL
NOT LIE KOK FAILURE TO PERFORMCOV
ENANT TO RECOVER DAMAGES OR TREAT
ING THE CONTRACT AS RESCINDEDTRO
PAYNE & HAWHE,
Attornn/s, 45 HuUxird (hurt.
VER OR REPLEVIN FOR THE PROPERTY
CHANCERY
Illinois,
CountyMayof
AFTER DEMAND IS THE ACTION.
Cook, ss. NOTIOE.-State
Circuit court ofofCook
county.
Opinion by Lawrence, C. J.
term, A. D. 1872. Saniantha M. Williord v. Putnam
Williard.In Chancery'.
The plaintiff in this case has recovered S. Affidavit
of the non-residence of Putnam S. Williard,
a verdict and judgment for the value of defendant ahove named, having been filed in the office
of
the
clerk
said Circuit court of Cook county,
a horse, buggy and harness, delivered to notico is herebyofgiven
the said Putnam S. Williard
the defendants upon a contract underseal, that tho complainanttoheretofore
filed her bill of
complaint
in
said
court,
on
the chancery side thereof,
by which they agreed, upon certain condi and that a summons thereupon
issued out ofsaid court
tions, to convey to the plaintiff a lot in against said defendant, returnable on the third Mon
of February (1872,) as is by law required, and also
Chicago. The action is assumpsit, and is day
an alias summons returnable on the third Monday of
based upon the theory that the defend May.
A. D. 1872.
Now.unless
you,the Bald Putnam S.Williard,shall per
ants have refused to perform their con sonally
be and appear before said Circuit court of Cook
county,
on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
tract. Without expressing any opinion
in said
third toMonday
on the sufliciencv of the evidence to sus atMay,Chicago,
1*72, and
plead,county,
answeronorthe
demur
the saidof
complainant'* bill of complaint, the same, and the
tain an action of" any character, we are matters
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
willyou
be
obliged to say that assumpsit will not taken asand
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
lie.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
The sale of the horse, buggy and har
Payne A Hawhe, Compl't'a Sol'rs.
22-25
ness, or their conversion in some way
into money or money's worth, would be
TURNER, BRAWLEY & TURNER,
Attorneys, cor. Canal and Madison Streets.
the only ground upon which assumpsit PUBLICATION
county
would lie. There is no proof of such a
ot Cook, ss. NOTICE.-Statoof
Superior court ofIllinois,
Cook county.
term, A. D. 1*72. William Stevens v. Edwin
sale, and the plaintiff must bring cove March
Hal
man.Attachment.
nant on the sealed inst rument to recov
Public notice is hereby given to the said Edwin Halmnnthethatclerk
a writ of attachment court
issued ofoutCook
of thecounty,
office
er his damages, or, treating the contract of
as rescinded, trover or replevin for the dated the first ofdaytheof Superior
March,
A.
D.
1*72,
at
tho
suit
the Baid William Stevens, and against the estate of
of
property after demand made.
said Edwin llalnian, for the sunt of four hundred
The case is like Cruel v. Kirkham, 47 the
and eighty-oue dollars and eighty cents, directed to
sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
111., 249, and we can only repeat here the
executed.
what was said in that case, that the ob returned
Now,
therefore,beunless
you, thobefore
said the
Edwin
personally
and appear
said Halman,
Superior
jection, although technical, is one which shall
court of Cook county, on or before the first day of the
we must recognize as valid so long as term thereof, to be holden at the court house, in
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March,
the distinctions between the various the
A. D. 1672, give special bail and plead to the said plain
common law actions are maintained, and tiffs action, judgment will be entered against you, and
in favor of the said William Stevens.andso much of the
it is not for us to abolish them.
property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy tho
said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the
Reversed and remanded.
same.
AUGUSTUS
Consider H. Willett, for appellant.
Clerk JACOBSON.
Superior Court.
TvRNEn, Brawi.ev A Turner, Pl't'irs Att'ys. 22-26p
GOUDY & CHANDLER,
Altornciw, C-rntral Union Jilock.
pHANCERY
Illinois,
countyMayof
^ Cook. ss. NOTICE.-State
Circuit court ofofCook
countv.
QTATE OF ILLINOIS, County of Cook. M, In the term,
A. D. 1*72. George Tolle v. Frederick Eit-kenO Superior court of Cook county. Henry S. Pitkin
berg, Mathilda Eickenberg, William Moer-*cke, Maria
v. Eliza Pitkiu.In Chancery.
Turney, and
George
W. Schuabel,
Zebulon Chancery.
M. Hall, Henry
To Eliza l'ttkiu, defendant in the above entitled Hanson
Alexander
Thomson.In
cause:
Take
notice,
that
on
the
6th
day
of
April,
A.
D.
1*72, at nine o'clock in the forenoon of said dav, or as Affidavit of the non-residence of Frederick Eicken
soon thereafter as counsel can he heard, the under berg. one of the defendants above named, and that said
signed will sue out of the office of the clerk of the Maria Turney, upon due inquiry, cannot be found in
Superior court, of the county of Cook aforesaid, a said State, having been filed in the ofllcoof the clerk of
dedimus protestatum, or commission, under the seal said Circuit court of Cook county, notico is hereby
of
and directed
J. F. Roberts,
the given to the Baid Frederick Eickenberg and Maria
citysaid
of court,
New York,
in the tocounty
of New Esq.,
York,ofand
Turney that the complainant heretofore filed his bill
State of New York, at his office, No. 57 Broadway of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of
street,
or
to
any
judge
or
justice
of
the
peace
of
the
county and State last above mentioned, to take the said court against said defendants, returnable on the
depositions of Rev. S. H. Weston, Charles C. Prentiss, third Monday of May next (1*72), as Is by law required.
Now-iinless you, the said Frederick Eickenberg and
Samuel
F. Prentiss.
T. S. Mercor
nedy, upon
the interrogatories
filedand
in theWilliam
office ofKen
the Maria Turney, shall personally be and appear before
said Circuit court of Cook county, on the first day of
clerk
01
snid
Superior
court,
to
be
read
in
evidence
on
the part of the said complainant on the hearing of the a term thereof, to beholden at Chicago, in said county,
above entitled cause now pending in the said Superior on the third Monday of May, 1*72, and plead, answer
court on the chancery side thereof; when and where or demur to the said complainant's bill of complaint,
you
cancommission
appear and iffilesocross-interrogatorioB,
and join the same, and the matters and things therein charged
in said
you wish.
and stated, will be takon as confessed, and a decree
Dated this th day of March. A. D. 1S72.
entered against you according to the prayer of said
bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
GOUDY * CHANDLER.
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, Compl't's. Sol'rs. 22-25
22-25
Solicitors for said Complainant.

AD VER TISEMENT.
STEVENS &HAYNES
La-rr Publishers,
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
AMERICAN & COLONIAL ACCENTS,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
LONDON.
Works in all Glasses of Literature
SUPPLIED TO ODDER.
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished) and
Orders Promptly Filled.
The Truafeea and Officers of Public JLJbrarle* may rely upon the moat
careful attention to their
Commission*.
By importing DIRECT from England a consider
able saving is effected, cf}*cjially in the Customs duty,
from which I*ublic Institutions in the United States are
ezemjtt.
SUNDRY mistakes have been made by our Foreign
and Colonial Correspondents in addressing their let
ters, we beg to notify that tho members of our firm are
Henry G. ;>tevkns and Robeht W. Hayneb, the son
and
ot theSince
lat<? our
Valentine
thehave
eminent
Lawstepson
Publisher.
lather'sStevens,
death we
con
tinued to carry on the business of Lsh Publisher*,
Hookaellers and Exporters, at the above ad
dress.
During his recent visits to the United States and
Canada, IIoi:ert W. Haynes secured many Friends
and Correspoudents ; we are thus enabled to give ref
erences of the highest character in most of the princi
palWoAmerican
havo nocities.
connection whatever with any other
house of business, and to prevent delay and miscar
riage, our Correspondents abroad are respectfully re
quested to plainly address their letters to us as fol
lows :
STEVENS & HAYNES,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
LONDON,
ENGLAND.
Extract from " Report of Julius Rosenthal, Esq.,
Librarian to the President and Members of
the Chicago Law Institute.*' November, 1870.
" To our collection of English Reports a valuable
addition has been made by the importation of a
full and well preserved set of the House of Lords
Coses, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58
volumes.
" English books were imported directly free of
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the
firm of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose
diligence, promptness, aud care in rilling our or
ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
JNO. J. McKINNON,
Attorney, Room 6 Shin/tan House.
TRUSTEE'S
SALEWhereas,
theHarriet
seventhNewell
day or
June, 1871, Benjamin Newellonand
his wife, of Princeton, Bureau county, State of Illinois,
executed
trust deedwhich
of thatwas
daterecorded
of the realonestate
hereinaftertheirdescribed,
tho
eighth
day
of
June,
1871,
in
the
Recorder's
Bureau county. State of Illinois, in book V. ofoffice
mortof
gages,
at page
378, which
deedNewell,
was given
to secure
a certain
promissory
notetrust
of said
of even
date
with said trust deed, payable to tl.e order of Alice M.
Ireson, for the sum of sixteeu hundred dollars, with,
interest thereoninatadvance,
ten percent,
per being
annum,
payable
semi-annually
said note
payable
in
three years after date, aud being given for money
loaned the said Newell by the said Alice M. Ireson ;
and
whereas,
note to be1871,
paidhas
in
advance
from the
the interest
seventh on
daysaid
of December
not been paid, nor any part thereof, as provided in
said trust deed; and whereas, the legal bolder of said
note has requested the undersigned to make sale of
said
real note
estate,andas interest:
authorized
by therefore,
said trust notice
deed, to
pay said
Now,
is
hereby given, that under and by virtue of the power
and authority given by said trust deed, and for the
purpose of paying the note and interest aforesaid, on
the thirtieth day of March, 1872, at ten o'clock in the
forenoon of that day, at the north door of the court
house of said
Cook
county,
of Chicago,
provided
in said
trust
deed,)inIsaid
shallcity
proceed
to sell(as
at
public auction, to the highest ca*h bidder therefor, the
said real estate, to wit: the northeast quarter (u.e. JO
of
twoof (2),
township
fit'tceumeridian,
(1*0 north,contain
range
tensection
(Hi), east
fourth
(1) principal
ing one hundred and sixty (160) acres, more or Icsb. in
the county of Bureau and State of Illinois, and all the
right, title and interest in the same conveyed to me by
Baid trust deed.
EDWIN W. CHAMBERLAIN, Trustee.
Dated February y, 1872.
Jno. J. McKixnon. Att'y.
15-22
ESTATE
OF
MARGARET
F.
COMERFORD,
T>Eceased. Notice is hereby given to all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Margaret
F. Comerford, deceased, to present the same for adju
dication and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court
Cook
to beon holden
the court
house inof he
city County,
of Chicago,
the firstat Monday
of
April, A.D. 1672, being tho first day thereof.
JOHN
TW0HEY,
Executor.
Chicago. Feb. 9. A.D. 1872.
Rountree & McHugh. Attys.
1S-23
BONNET, FAY & GRIGGS,
Attorneys.
PUBLICATION
IN bs.
ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois,NOTICE
Cook county,
Circuit court of
Cook
county.
March
term,
A.
D.
1872.
Joseph E. Bates
v. The Anchor Life Insurance Company.
Public notice is hereby given to the said The Anchor
Life
writof of
ment Insurance
issued out ofCompany
the office ofthatthe aclerk
the attach
Circuit
Court
of
Cook
county,
dated
the
26th
day
of
February,
A. D. 1872, at the suit of the said Joseph E. Bates,
and
against
thethe
estate
ofofThefour
Anchor
Life and
Insurance
Com
pany,
for
sum
hundred
twenty-ono
and 13-lim dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook
county, which said writ has been returned executed.
Now. therefore, unless you, the said Tho Anchor
Life Insurance Company, shall personally be and
appear before the said Circuit Court ot Cook county,
on or before the first day of the next term thereof, to
be holden at the Court House, In the city of Chicago,
on the third Monday of March, A.D. 1872, give special
bail
plead toagainst
the saidyou,
plaintiff's
will and
be entered
and in action,
favor ofjudgment
the said
Joseph E. Bates, and so much of the property attached
ns
may
be
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
said
judgmeut
aud
costs will be sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Bonnet, Fay A Griggs, Attorneys.
22-25

164

Chicago

Chicago Legal News.

ILei Vintit.
CHICAGO, MARCH 9, 1872.
PUBLISHED JtVERY SATURDAY BY
The Chicago Legal STews Co.,
AT 115 MADISON STREET.
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
Terms :
Two Dollars per annum, in advance. Single cop
ies Ten Cents.
CE ia mt 115

Removal.We shall move into our

new offices, Nos. 161 and 163 La Salle
street, in about three weeks.
We call attention to the following
opinions reported at length in this issue :
Executors and Administrators as
Parties in the Federal Courts.The
opinion of the Supreme Court of the
United States, delivered by Davis, J.,
stating when suits may be maintained by
executors and administrators in a Fed
eral Circuit Court.
Measure of Damages for Fraud and
Deceit in the Exchange of Property.
The opinion of the Supreme Court of
Illinois, by Sheldon, J., stating the rule
for estimating the damages in an action
brought for fraud and deceit in the ex
change of properly. The main question
decided by the court is an important
one, and we believe it has never before
been passed upon by the court.
Will of Married Woman.The opin
ion of Lord Chancellor Hatherley, as to
the power of a married woman to dis
pose of her estate by will.
Sale of Goodwill of Business.An
interesting opinion, delivered by Lord
Romilly, M. R., in which it is held that
a person who had sold the goodwill of
a business, had the right to solicit the
public at large to deal with him, but was
not entitled, either by circulars or pri
vate letters or in person, or by his trav
ellers, to solicit the customers of the late
firm.

Legal

the expiration of their present terms.

Judge Cole has the respect, not only of
the bar, but of the whole people of Iowa.
He is an able, faithful judge, a fine, clear
writer. The resignation of such a judge
can but be viewed in the light of a
calamity to the State.
Records to be Restored.The follow
ing order was entered on Monday last in
the chancery branch of the Superior
Court of this county :
The pleadings in chancery causes in
this court which were destroyed in the
late fire must be restored by the respec
tive parties as follows :
Original, amended and supplemental
bills or petitions and bills of revivor, to
gether with the accompanying exhibits,
affidavits, bonds, etc., must be restored
by the parties who filed the same on or
before the 1st day of May next.
Cross-bills and all pleas, answers, rep
lications and accompanying exhibits, af
fidavits, bonds, etc., must be restored on
or before the 1st day of June next. In
case of failure to comply with this rule,
the causes will be dismissed, or defaults
entered therein for want of prosecution
according to the nature of the case.
decent ^utltcations.
Index to Precedents in Conveyancing,
and to Common and Commercial
Forms, arranged in alphabetical order
with subdivisions of an analytical na
ture : together with an appendix con
taining an abstract of the Stamp Act,
1870, with a Schedule of Duties; the
Regulations relative to, and the Stamp
Duties payable on, Probates of Wills,
Letters of Administration, Legacies,
and Successions. By Walter Arthur
Copinger, Esq., of the Middle Temple,
Barrister-at-Law, author of" The Law
of Copyright in Works of Literature
and Art." Stevens and Haynes, Lon
don, law publishers, Bell Yard, Temple
Bar. 1872.
We have received from Messrs.
Stevens and Haynes, a volume bearing the
above title, containing 570 pages. It is
well printed upon good paper, and will
be of great assistance in directing the
reader to the book and page where he
may find a form upon any given subject.
It is an index to about 10,000 precedents,
in which the author has combined an
analytical with an alphabetical order of
arrangement. Mr Copinger says: "Many
a precedent in its entirety, now obsolete,
may prove useful and suggestive as a
guide in the preparation of a deed, more
suited to the style and phraseology of
modern times, and the learning and pre
cision of our earlier draftsmen may be
resuscitated, if for this purpose alone,
with advantage. A vast number of val
uable forms lie scattered in our law
books, unknown to the many, and diffi
cult of discovery at the moment when
required, and the majority of these
have been carefully selected and indexed
in this volume." We remember, shortly
before the fire, of reviewing Mr. Copinger's volume on the Law of Copyrightin
works of Literature and Art, and were
much pleased with the able and scien
tific manner in which that branch of
the law was presented.

NOTES TO RECENT CASES.

Deed with a Restriction.A grantee
under a conveyance with a restriction
that none but a dwelling-house shall be
erected on the premises, and that the
" building, when erected, is not to be oc
cupied for the purpose of carrying on
any offensive trade or calling whatever,"
cannot use a part of a dwelling so erect
ed as a grocery store. Dorr v. Harrohon,
3 Am. Rep., 398.
Lost Draft.Where a bank discount
ed a draft on the faith of a letter of credit
from the drawee, and the draft was lost
in the course of transmission to the
special endorsee of the bank, it was held
that the bank could recover ofthe drawee
THE PATENT AGENTS' CASE:
in equity, on offering indemnity against THEIR TAX BY" THE DISTRICT GOVERNMENT
the draft.
DECLARED LEGALTWO JUSTICES OF THE
DIBTRIGT SUPREME COURT DISSENT FROM
THIS OPINION.
Resignation of Judge Cole.Judge
In the Supreme Court of the District
Cole, editor of the Western Jurist, has re in General Term, on Saturday, Judge
signed his place upon the Supreme Bench Humphreys delivered the opinion of the
of Iowa, to take effect on the 30th of the court in the case of Alexander et al. v.
District of Columbia, generally
present month. We are not advised as The
known as the " patent attorneys' case.
to the reasons of the Judge for taking In this case the plaintiffs seek to enjoin
this step, but presume it was on account defendant from collecting from them a
of the smallness of the salary. We license tax as patent agents. Judge
says a suit at law affords a
should not be surprised if some of the Humphreys
full, complete and adequate remedy for
judges of our own Supreme Court do a mere trespass ; and the collection of a
not, for the same reason, resign before tax illegally assessed is a trespass, and

News.

the known remedies at law have been

held sufficient to protect the tax-payer.
* * * A single action at law would
test the question of the right of the gov
ernment to the tax, and if the tax is ille
gal it would be a trespass to collect, and
plaintiffs could recover it from the officer
collecting it. As it is shown that com
plainants have a full, complete and ade
quate remedy at law for all alleged griev
ances, and that tribunal is fully com
petent to protect them in all their rights,
duty demands them to remand com
plainants to the court of law for redress.
The decree below is reversed, the in
junction dissolved, and bill dismissed.
Judge Cartter concurred, and said that
he did not see why this class of persons
should be exempted more than another.
The national and State governments had
from time immemorial claimed and as
serted the right to tax the professions.
Judge McArthur, in addition, said the
district government clearly had the
power to levy the tax complained of un
der the organic act. Much had been
said in the argument as to this class of
persons being government instrumental
ities. He regarded every inhabitant of
the country as a government instrumen
tality, and if persons were to be ex
empted from taxation because their busi
ness brought them in contact with the
government, there would be no taxes.
Judge Olin dissented from the opinion
of the majority, saying that the act in
question prevented" any one coming here
and appearing before a department of
the government. This act was simply
levying blackmail upon persons who
came here in the prosecution of business.
If they had this right, why not require a
one-legged wood-sawyer to procure a
license, and were John Bunyan living,
they would not permit him to tinker
without a license. If they had the right
to impose a license, they had the power
to make the amount what they pleased.
If this kind of legislation goes on much
longer, the seat of government, he feared,
would be moved to Keokuk or Madagas
car, or somewhere else. He placed his
dissent on broader grounds than did
Judge Wylie, for he held the law to be
void.
Judge Wylie stated that he had given
a written opinion when he issued the in
junction, and briefly reviewed that opin
ion.Exchange.
LIV ILLINOIS REPORTS.
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman
L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following
head-notes to cases to appear in the 54th
volume of Illinois Reports :
EVIDENCE IN CHANCERY.
1. Of the preservation thereof.Where a
decree in chancery recites that the case
was heard upon proofs, and then finds
the facts charged in the bill to be true,
it will be inferred the facta were found
upon the testimony. Such a decree will
be sustained, though it does not purport
to set out the testimony, and it is not
otherwise preserved in the record.
(Opinion by Breese, J.)Manck v.Manck,
p. 281.
PARTNERSHIP.
2. Power of a court of equity to authorize
a surviving partner to sell really owned by
the firm, at private sale.Real estate, pur
chased and held by a partnership firm
for the purposes of the firm, so far par
takes of the character of personalty that
it is under the control of a court of equity
in making a final adjustment of the af
fairs of the partnership, whether in stat
ing an account between the partners, or
in marshaling the assets for the payment
of debts. The realty being impressed
with this character, as assets of the firm,
a court of equity has the power to vest
in a surviving partner the discretion to
dispose of it at public or private sale.
lb.
3. Whether such porver should be exer
cised.But such power should be exer
cised by the court with great caution,
and only under circumstances which
preclude the probability that fraud or
wrong could be perpetrated. In this
case the partnership was insolvent, and
it became necessary to sell the realty to
pay debts. On bill filed by the surviving
partner against the representatives of
the deceased partner, for a settlement of
the partnership, it was considered not
improper to authorize the complainant
to sell the realty belonging to the firm,
at public or private sale, as he might
elect, the circumstances suggesting that

there could be no motive on his part to

abuse the trust.lb.
4. But the court desire to be distinctly
understood as refusing to say such a de
cree could be rightfully rendered in an
ordinary case.Jo.
DEMURRER TO SPECIAL PLEA.
1. Wliere fads alleged therein were given
in evidence under general issue. The as
signment of error on the ruling of the
court sustaining a demurrer to a special
plea will not be considered where the
defendant on the trial gave in evidence
under the general issue all the facts al
leged in such plea.(Opinion by Breese,
J.)Reichart v. Koerner, p. 306.
ASSIGNEE AFTER MATURITY.
2. Subject to what defense. Where a notewas paid by a surety thereon, and taken
up by him for the purpose of recoveringfrom his principal, but afterwards de
livered baclc to the payee for the solepurpose of being collected by him from
the principal, for the benefit of the sure
ty, and by the indorsement of the
payee after the note was thus returned
to him, and after its maturity it came to
the hands of a third person, the latter
would hold the note subject to the de
fense of such payment.lb.
3. Had the surety returnod the note to
the payee for the purpose of giving it
circulation, then he could not have
availed of such defense.lb.
WRIT OF ERROR TO A COUNTY COURT.
A writ of error does not lie to a countycourt, to bring in review the propriety
of the action of that court in the appoint
ment of an administrator.(Opinion by
Breese, J.)Horner v. Goe, p. 285.
GARNISHMENT.
1. Against whom it will lie. Process of
garnishment will not lie against the debt
or of a garnishee against whom an exe
cution nas been returned nulla bona.
(Opinion by Brebse, J.)III. R. R. Co. _
Weaver, p. 319.
CHANCERY'.
Debtor and creditor. And it seems even
a court of chancery, on a bill filed for
Kuch purpose, would have no authority to
apply a debt due the garnishee, against
whom an execution has been returned
no property found, in payment of the
judgment.26.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
PROCEEDINGS OF.
Monday, February 26.
On motion of Mr. J. M. Carlisle, William H.
Jones, Esq., of Indiana, was admitted to practice
as an attorney and counselor of this court
On motion of Mr. Joseph H. Bradley, J. M..
Harris, of Maryland, was admitted to practice as
an attorney and counselor of this court.
No. 95. President, etc., of the Delaware and
Hudson Canal Company, appellants, v. Henry C.
Clark. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Southern District of New
York. Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opinion of
the court, affirming the decree of the said Circuit
Court in this cause, with costs.
No. 119. Charles and Henry Relche, plaintiffs in
error, v. Henry A. Smythe, collector, etc. In error
to the Circuit Court of the United States for the
Southern District of New York. Mr. Justice Davis
delivered the opinion of the court, reversing the
judgment of the said Circuit Court, with costs, and
remanding the cause, with directions to award a
venire facias de novo.
No. 99. The Wilmington and Weldon Railroad
Company, plaintiff in error, v John A. Reid,
sheriff, etc.
No. 100. The Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Com
pany, plaintiff in error, v. John A. Reid, sheriff,
etc.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of
North Carolina. Mr. Justice Davis delivered the
opinion of the court, reversing the judgments of
the said Supreme Court, with costs, and remand
ing the causes for further proceedings, in conform
ity with the opinion of this court.
No. 394. Bartemeyer, Sr., plaintiff in error, v.
The State of Iowa. In error to the Supreme Court
of the State of Iowa. Mr. Justice Miller delivered,
the opinion lot the court, dismissing the writ of
error In .this cause, with costs. DissentingMr.
Justice Swayne, Mr. Justice Bradley, and Mr. Chief
Justice Chase.
No. 68. Eber B. Ward, plaintiff in error, v. The
United States. In error to the Circuit Court of the
United States for the District of Michigan. Mr.
Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court,
reversing the judgment of the said Circuit Court,
and remanding the cause with directions to award
a new trial. DissentingMr. Justices Bradley,
Davis and Clifford.
No. 101. David Gibson et al., appellants, v. Americus Warden et al. Appeal from the Circuit Court

Chicago

Legal

News.

of the United States tot tVvc Southern District of No. 108 (for which 120 was substituted). Peter will be heard on Friday, the 8th instant, until after
Ohio. Mr. Justice Sviavno delivered the opinion Conrad, appellant, v. Hiram K. Hazlett et al. The argument upon the return of the Secretary of the The Standard American Work Jtuit
of the court, reversing the decree of the said Cir argument of this cause was continued by Mr. F. Treasury to the writ of the alternative mandamus
cuit Court, with costs, and remanding the cause A. Dick, of counsel for the appellees, and con heretofore awarded ; and at the close of business
A. TREATISE
with directions to enter a decree in conformity cluded by Mr. J. A. Wills, for the appellants.
on that day the court will adjourn until Monday,
ON THE WRONGS CALLED
with the opinion of this court.
No. 123. The Traders' National Bank of Chicago, the 18th instant.
No. 105. The New Haven Steam Transportation appellants, v. George W. Campbell, assignee. This No. 122. John T. Butler, plaintiff in error, v.
Company, appellants, v. The steamboat Conti cause was argued by Mr. M. W. Fuller, of counsel Francis Watkins ct al. This cause was argued by Slander and Libel,
nental, etc. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the for the appellees, and submitted on printed argu Mr. Duncan Y. Campbell and Mr. P. Phillips, of
AND ON THE
United States for the District of Connecticut. Mr. ments by Mr. B. C. Cook and Mr. George C. Camp counsel for the defendants in error, and submitted
Justice Clifford delivered the opinion of the court, bell, for the appellants.
on printed arguments by Mr. W. H. Peckham, for Remedy by Civil Action for those Wrong*.
reversing the decree of the said Circuit Court, Adjourned until Monday morning at eleven the plaintiffs in error.
with costs, and remanding the cause for farther o'clock.
By JOHlf TOWXMHEND,
proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this
Monday, March 4.
of the New York Bar.
Wearing Arms.The Alabama State
court.
On motion of Mr. D. N. Cooley, H. D. Beam, Journal
says : "On Monday, Judge BusNo. 92. Hiram O. Alden, plaintiff in error, v. The Esq., of Washington, D. C, was admitted to prac
teed read, in open court, the following
THE SECOND EDITION OF THIS SUCCESS
First National Bam of Chicopee. In error to the tice as an attorney and counselor of this court.
Circuit Court of the United States for the District No. 89. The Norwich and New York Transporta stinging and just rebuke of the common FUL WORK, GREATLY ENLARGED AND IM
PROVED,
IS NOW READY. The publisher believeand
cowardly
practice
of
carrying
pistols
of Maine. Mr. Chiet Justice Chase announced tion Company, appellant, v. William A. Wright et
it is a treatise of no ordinary merit. They know that
the decision of the court, affirming the judgment al. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United and butcher knives on the person :
" Information has reached me that a the author brought to his task a long and extensiveOf the said Circuit Court in this cause, with costs, States for the District of Connecticut. Mr. Justice
practice in his profession, an unusual familiarity witlv
by a divided court.
Bradley delivered the opinion of the court affirm considerable number of the persons at the branch of law treated upon/a vast general reading,,
No. 18. The United States, appellants, v. John ing the decree of the said Circuit Court, and re tending on this court, come into its pres together with a long apprenticeship to author-craft..
, Silvey : and
manding the cause with instructions, etc., each ence wearing firearms or other deadly These qualifications have 'enabled him to produce a.
No. 24. The United States, appellants, v. Thos. U. party paying their own costs. Mr. Justice Strong weapons. My sources of information work replete with recondite learning, and presenting1
W. Crussell.
was not present at the argument, and took no part leave me no room to doubt its correct an exhaustive view of his subject in the most logical
ness. To bring deadly weapons into a court and convincing form.
These causes were argued by Mr. Assistant Attor in this decision.
ney-General Hill and Mr. Solicitor-General Bris- No. 94. The steamship Thames, etc., appellants, ofjustice during the sittings, is an offense While the author deals with each topic upon princi
tow, of counsel for the appellants, and by Mr. v. Billopp Seaman. Appeal from the Circuit Court the highest character and deserving ple, he is profuse in the citation of authorities; tin
of References to Decisions Exceed Two Thou
James Hughes, for the appellees.
of the United States for the Southern District of of extreme punishment. It is a flagit NoteB and
occupy one-half of the volume, which con
No. 118. Joseph U. Bradley, plaintiff in error, v. New York. Mr. Justice Strong delivered the ious and unpardonable contempt of the sand,
over seven hundred pages.
George P. Fisher. The argument of this cause opinion of the court affirming the decree of the law, and an indecent and monstrous ex tains
TOWNSHBND'S SLANDER AND LIBEL is pub
was commenced by Mr. J. M. Harris, of counsel said Circuit Court in this cause, with costs and in hibition of the fell spirit of turbulent lished
in a large, handsome Svo volume. Best Law
crime. It must be met and crushed. To Book style.
for the plaintiff in error.
terest.
Price. 07.50. Sent by mail or expretwdo
less
than
stamp
it
as
abominable
No.
ill.
William
C.
Hall
and
John
S.
Long,
plain
upon
receipt
of price.
[For Tuesday's proceedings, see last
would
be
a
reproach
to
civilization,
tiffs in error, v. The Nashville and Chattanooga
tiv Sold by all Law Booksellers.
issue of the Legal News.]
Christianity
and
law.
The
marshal
and
Railroad Company. In error to the Circuit Court
of the United States for the Middle District of Ten his attendants are charged with the duty BAKER, VOORHIS & CO.P
Wednesday, February 28.
Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opinion of excluding from the court-room any
No. 93 (for which No. 119 was substituted). Paul nessee.
Law Book Publishers,
of
the
court,
reversing the judgment of the said person guilty of this wicked practice,
Sears et al.,appellants,v. The British steamer Scotia,
and they are authorized to make court
06
Nassan
Street, New Torsi.
Circuit
Court,
with
costs,
and
remanding
the
cause
etc., ct al. The argument of this cause was com
eous and civil examination of the per
menced by Mr. James C. Carter, of counsel for the for further proceedings in conformity with the son, and any one refusing to be so ex
of this court.
appellant*, and by Mr. D. D. lord, for ihe appel opinion
No. 54. The United States, plaintiffs in error, v. amined, shall not be allowed admission CALLAGHAN&Co.
lees.
Abijah Tarble. In error to the Supreme Court of to the court-room."
Thursday, February 29.
the State of Wisconsin. Mr. Justico Field dellv-.
On motion of Mr. Thomas Hoyne, M. W. Fuller, ered the opinion of the court, reversing the judg
SrCCBSSSKS TO
The Pacific Law Reporter of the 27th
Esq., of Illinois, was admitted to practice as an ment of the said Supreme Court, and remanding
of
February,
says
:
''We
have
the
able
attorney and counselor of this court.
the cause for further proceedings in conformity
CALLA6HAN & C0CKCROFT,
On motion of Hon. Matt. H. Carpenter, Ben with the opinion of this court. DissentingMr argument of Hon. Matt H. Carpenter,
jamin J. Brown, Esq., of Michigan, was admitted Chief Justice Chase.
before
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
to practice as an attorney and counselor of thiB No. 40. The United States, appellants, v. The
Respectfully call the attention of the profession toStates, Dec. 7, 1871, on the application of
court.
Itheir large stock of
Heirs of Juan Bautista Vigil, deceased. Appeal
Mrs.
Myra
Bradwell,
editor
of
tne
Chi
No. 93 (for/which 119 was substituted). Paul from the Supreme Court of the Territory of New
bears et al.. appellants, v. The British steamer Mexico. Mr. Justice Davis delivered the opinion cago Legal News, to be admitted to the
Scotia, etc., et al. The argument of this cause was of the court, reversing the decree of the said Su bar. We shall give a digest of it, as we
concluded by Mr. E. C. Benedict, of counsel for preme Court, and remanding the cause with di
look upon it as a valuable and logical
the appellees.
rections to dismiss the petition.
No. 108 (for which 120 was substituted). Peter No. 120. A. W. Norcross et al., appellants, v. The document."
Conrad, appellant, v. Hiram K. Hazlett and Adam steamboat Laura, etc. Appeal from the Circuit
Embracing tho REPORTS of all the
Weaver. The argument of this cause was com Court of the United States for the District of Lou
Courts in this Country and England.
Mrs. Myra Clark Gaines is, we under
menced by Mr. J. A. Wills, of counsel for the ap isiana. Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion
pellants, and continued by Mr. F. A. Dick, for the of the court, affirming the decree of the said Cir stand, now prosecuting her litigation We bare a yery full assortment of
appellees.
in the courts of New Orleans in person
cuit Court in this cause, with costs.
Friday, March 1.
No. 86. The steamboat Telegraph, etc.. appel
On motion of Mr. E. S. Davis, Jay Hyatt, Esq., of lant, v. John Gordon et al ; and
New Text Books and Digests*
BUSINESS NOTES.
Buffalo, N. Y., was admitted to practice asan attor
No. 87. Propeller Mary J. Vaughn, appellant, v.
ney and counselor of this court.
Our readers will learn from the adver
John Gordon ct al. Appeals from the Circuit
and an unusually full Una of
No. 490. Wade Hampton, plaintiff in error, v. Court of the United States for the Southern Dis tisement of the well-known firm of Kay
John D. Rouse. The motion to dismiss this cause trict of New York. Mr. Justice Swayne delivered
RASE AND VALUABLE WORKS,
was argued by Mr. P. Phillips, in support of the the opinion of the court, affirming the decree of & Brother, of Philadelphia, on the last
same, and by Mr. W. W. Boyce in opposition the said Circuit Court in this cause, with coBts and page of this issue, that they have recent
offeringl at lowest current
thereto.
interest. DissentingMr. Chief Justice Chase, Mr. ly published several valuable law books. out of print, which we are
prices.
No. 529. Thos. Roop et al., plaintiffs in error, v. Justice Clifford, and Mr. Justice Field.
Back Volumes of the Legal News.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ex rel. At
No. 107. The City of Lexington, plaintiff In error,
torney-Genera'.. The motion to dismiss this cause v. Joseph C. Butler. In error to the Circuit Court Will our readers, who have back volumes We would also call attention to our superior
was argued by Hon. John Scott In support of the of the United States for the District of Ken of the Legal News, bound or unbound, ties for importing, being in monthly receipt of
same. The court declined to hear argument In tucky. Mr. Justice Clifford delivered the opinion which they will dispose of, send us their
CONSIGNMENTS FBOM LONDON
opposition thereto.
of the court, affirming the judgment of the said
No. 529. Thos. Roop et al., plaintiffs in error, v. Circuit Court in this cause, with costs and in address, and the condition and price of
their volumes ?
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ex rel. At terest.
direct, which we are selling at unusually low figures.
torney-General. In error to the Supreme Court of No. 490. Wade Hampton, plaintiff in error, v.
A large collection of Second-hand Textthe State of Pennsylvania. Ordered by the court John;D. Rouse. In error to the Circuit Court of
Boohs, Digests and Reports kept constantly on.
that the writ of error in this cause be dismissed the United States for the Southern District of
with coste.
Mississippi. Mr. Chief Justice Chase delivered the
No. 610. Augustin J. Ambler, appellant, v. Rod opinion of the court, dismissing the writ of error JAMES CQCKCROFT & CO.,
Catalogues sent promptly upon application.
ney M. Whipple et al. The motion to rescind and in this cause, with costs.
Law
Booksellers
and
Publishers,
annul the order docketing 'and dismissing this No. 1. Original. Tho State of Florida v. The
cause was argued by Mr. B. F. Butler in support of State of Georgia. On motion of H. P. Farrow,
Address
499 WABASH AVENUE.
the same, and leave granted Mr. James Hughes to Attorney-General of the State of Georgia, It was
examine the transcript proposed to be filed.
ordered by the courtjthat this cause be dismissed
No. 355. Peter Monzer, appellant, v. Thomas unless cause to the contrary be shown on or before
CALLAGHAN & CO.,
NEW BOOKS.
Shirley. The motion to dismiss this cause was the 19th of April next.
submitted on printed argument by Mr. John Bax
Perry on Trust*.
ADDITION TO FOKTY-FIRST EQUITY BULK.
525 Wabash Ave.,
ter in support ol the same, and leave granted Mr. If the complainant, in his bill, shall waive an Qazzam's Digest of English and Ameri
May nard to file briefs by Friday next.
can Decisions,
answer under oath, or shall only require an an
No. 48. The United States, plaintiff in error, v. swer under oath with regard to certain specified
CHICAGO, ILL.
on Slander and Libel.
Alfred Huger and Charles Lownds. In error to interrogatories, the answer of the defendant, Townshend
TEassacnusetts
Reports.
Vol.
104.
the Circuit Court of the United States for the Dis though under oath, except such part thereof as
ESTATE OF WATSON GOWAED, DECEASED.trict of South Carolina. On motion of Mr. Solicitor- Bhall be directly responsive to such interrogato New York Report*. Vol. 4S.
is hereby
to allofpersons
claims
and Notice
demands
neaintgiren
the estate
Watsonharing
Gownrd,
de
Kerr
on
Fraud.
General Bristow, ordered by the court that the ries, shall not be evidence in his favor, unless the
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
Court
of
Cook
writ of error in this cause be dismissed.
cause be set down for hearing on bill and answer Kerr on Injunctions.
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
No. 288. The United States, appellants, v. Ralph only, but may nevertheless be used as an affidavit Milliard on Contracts. 1 Vols.
Chicago, on the first Monday of May. A. D. 1872. beinn
the sixth day thereof.
Meldrim. Appeal from the Court of Claims. On with the same effect as heretofore, on a motion to
GUSTAVUS
Administrator.
motion of Mr. Solicitor-General Bristow, ordered grant or dissolve an injunction, or on any other
Chicago March
6. A. D.GOWABD,
1872.
IN
PRESS.
NEARLY
READY.
J. C. 4 J.J. KNlCKEBnocKES.Att'ysforAdm'r.
by the court that the appeal in this cause be dis incidental motion in the cause ; but this shall not
missed.
prevent a defendant from becoming a witness in
DILLON
ROGERS & ROGERS,
No. 9. Original. Ex parte John H. Russell, peti his own behalf under section 3 of the act of Con
ATTORNEYS
St Paul,
ANDMinn.
COUN6ELOB8.
ox
tioner. The motion for a writ of mandamus on gress of July 2, 1864.
the Court of Claims, etc., was argued by Mr. Wil
ADJOURNMENT.
liam Penn Clark in support of the same, and by The Chief Justice announced the following or MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
J. II. BATTEN,
Mr. Assistant Attorney-Generals Hill and Mc- der:
STATrOIVER,,
A
TKEATISE
by
Hon.
Jons
F.
Dillon,
TJ.
S.
Circuit
Hichael in opposition thereto.
185 LA SALLE STREET.
Ordered : That no motions requiring argument Judge.
Law Stationery and Legal Blanks.
1Mb

Chicago
J. C. & J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
Attorneys, 1G3 W. Washington St,
MASTER'S SALE.State of Illinois Cook county.
In Chancery. Joseph B. Whitmore v. David
Alexander Grubbs. Mary Jane Grubbs, Coemon Eisendrath and Henry Regeusburg. Foreclosure of mort
gage.
Public notice is hereby given that in pursuance of a
decree entered by said court in the above entitled cause
on the 26th day of February, A. I). 1*72, 1, John Woodbridge, master in chancery of said Cook county, will,
on Wednesday, the tenth day of April, A. I>. 1872, at
the hour of ten o'clock in the forenoon of said day, at
the east door of the east wing of the old court house,
in the city of Chicago, in said Cook county, expose tor
sale
at public
anddescribed
sell to thelandhighest
bidder
for cash,
all theauction,
following
and real
es
tate,
situate
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
in
Cook
county,
in
the State of Illinois, described sis follows, to wit: Lot
eighteen (18) and that part of lot seventeen (1") lying
westtof
of aline
north and south midway be
ali running
tween North
("lark street and La Salle street, in
Jamot'a subdivision of lots one hundred and fourteen
(1H). one hundred and fifteen 015) and one hundred
and sixteen (116), and part of lotE one hundred and
four (104) and one hundred and five (105), in Broneon's
addition
Chicago,
also known
anddistinguished
as lot fiveto(S).
in thenow
Assessors'
division
of lot 103 and
5arts of lots H4 and lai, and of sub-lots 15 to 20 of
amot's
subdivision
of
parts
of
lots
104
105, in
Bronson's addition to Chicago, recorded inand
the record
er's
of said
Cook county,
in book 164 ofthereon.
maps,
pageoffice
74, with
the buildings
ami improvements
JOHN
WOODBRIDGE,
Master in Chancery of Cook County.
Chicago, Fel. 29, ls72.
J. C. & J. J. Knickerbocker, Compl't's 8orrs. 21-23
MASTER'S
SALE.State
of Illinois,
county.
In Chancery.
Evan Davis
v. EmilioCook
Wirth
and
CharlOS Wirth. Foreclosure of mortgage.
Public notice is hereby given that in pursuance of a
decree
court in the
cause onentered
the 2-Sthbydaysaid
of February'.
A. D.above
1872, I,entitled
John
Woodbridge, master in chancery -*f said Cook county,
will,
on
Wednesday,
tho
tenth
day
of
April,
A.
D.
1872,
at the hour of ten o clock in the forenoon of said day,
at the east door of the east wing of the old courthouse,
in the city of Chicago, in said Cook county, expose for
sale
at public
anddescribed
sell to thelandhighest
bidder
for cash,
all theauction,
following
and real
es
tate, situate in the city of Chicago, in Cook county, in
the State of Illinois, described as follows, to wit : Lot
fourteen (H), in Waughop's subdivision of block
twenty-seven (27), in tho Canal Trustees' subdivision
of section seven (7). in township thirty-nine (39), north
of range fourteen (14). east of the third (3d I principal
meridian.
JOHN WOODBRIDGE,
Chicago, Feb. 31aster
29, 1872.in Chancery of Cook County.
J. C. J. J. Knickerbocker, Comprt'e Sol'rs. 21-24
ESTATE
OF MARY
ANN given
CAVANAUGH,
DEceased.Notice
is hereby
to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate ofe
Mary Ann Cavanaugh, deceased, to present the sa ui
for adjudication and settlement at a regular term of
tho County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court house, in the city of Chicago on the first Monday
of
May, A.D.
1*72, being
Chicago,
February
19. A.theD. l>th
1872.day thereof,
21-25
JOHN CORBETT, Administrator.
G. A. FOLLANSBEE,
Attorney ]S1 La Salic Street.
ADMINISTRATOR S SALE OF REAL ESTATE.
By virtue of an order and decree of the County
Court
of Cook county,
Illinois, made
the of
petition
of
the undersigned
administrator
of theonestate
Fred-crick Biermann, deceased, for leave to sell the real es
tate
of
said
deceased,
at
tho
February
term.
a.
d.
of said court, to wit, on the uoth day of February, a.1872,
p.
1872, between
1 shall ontheThursday,
18th day
April,
a. i,
1872,
hours of ]utheo'clock
a.m.ofand
5 o'clock
p. m. of Baid day. Bell at. public sale on the premises,
the following
situated
in the
town
of Leyden,described
county of real
Cook,estate,
and State
of Illinois,
to wit :
Being(3),a part
of the northwest
of section
three
congressional
townshipquarter
forty (40).
north
range twelve (12), cast of the third principal meridian,
and west
bounded
follows : commencing
at a postquar
dist
ant
of theassouth-east
corner of the aforesaid
ter
section
seventeen
07)
chains
and
fifty-six
(56)
links
to centre* of road and north nine and on e-half (9^)
degrees east with centre ofsaid road twelve (12) chains
and seventy-one(71) links, and running from thence
north nine and one-half (9'*) degrees east with centre
of said road nine (9) chains and sixty-two (62) links to
the centre of Des Plains River, thence south thirtyfour
CM) degrees
degrees east
east with
six (6)centre
chains,
south
five (55)
of thence
said river
fourfifty(4)
chains and forty-one (41) links, thence south thirtyseven and one-half (37?*) degrees west three (3) chains
and!
ninety
links,westthence
north and
eighty
and
one-half
(Ht?a)(90)degrees
six (6) chains
fifty-five
(55) links to the place of beginning, containing 4 70-100
acres
moretoorwit
less: (variation 5, 30' E,) on the follow
ing terms,
One thousand dollars In six months from the day oftho
sale, with interest at the rate of 6 percent, per annum,
to se secured by the promissory note of the purchaser,
with cash
mortgage
theday
premises
ance
in handupon
on tho
of sale. sold, and the bal
HEINRICH BIERMANN,
Administrator of the estate of
Frederick Biermann, deceased.
<}. A. Follansbee. Attorney.
20-25
GC C.WertBROWNELL,
Baudotoh Street.
.-/CHANCERY
NOTICE.State
Illinois,
County
\J Cook, 68. Superior
court ofofCook
county,
Marchof
"Tcrin. A. D. 1872. Ellen S. Des Rosicrs v. 1. Arthur
SDes Rosiers In Chancery.
Affidavit that I. Arthur Des Rosiers. defendant above
named, conceals himself so that process cannot be
served upon him. having been filed in the office of the
clerk
of said
notice
is hereby
givenSuperior
to tho court
said I.of Cook
Arthurcounty,
Des Rosiers
that theincomplainant
filedside
herthereof,
bill of com
plaint
said court, onheretofore
tho chancenr
and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
ofNow,
Marchunless
next,you,
(1872.)
law required.
t he as
saidis I.byArthur
Des Rosiers, shall
personally bo and appear before said Superior court of
Cook countyt on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,
first Monday
of March,
1872, andin said
plead,counts,
answeron orthedemur
to the
Baid complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
C. Brownell. Compl't's Sol'r.
20-23
ESTATE OF EDWARD CASTLE, DECEASED.
is herebyagainst
given to
persons
having
claimsNotice
and demands
the allestate
of Edward
Castle,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook County, to bo holden at the Court
House, A.D.
in the1S72,
citybcinsr
of Chicago,
first Monday of
April,
the firstondaythethereof.
LESTER D. CASTLE, Executor.
Chicago, February, A.D. 1S72.
lS-23a
STATE
OF
8ETH
SHELDON.
JR.,
DECEASED.Ali
is hereby given to all persons having claims
E Notice
and
demands
againstthe
thesamef
estate orof Seth
Sheldon,and
junior,
deceased,
to present
adjudication
set
tlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
court
of
Cookof
county, to ho holden at the court house, in the city
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D., 1372, be
ing the first day thereof.L. MARTHA SHELDON,
GEORGE W. SMITH,
Administrators.
Chicago, Feb. 14, A. D. 1872.
19 24

Legal

TENNEY, McCLELLAN & TENNEY,

Attorneys.
MORTGAGE
Aaronin the
H. county
Crosby
and Adeline,SALEWhereas,
his wife of Centralia,
of Marion, and State of Illinois, did, on the thirtieth
day of June, A. D. 1871, execute and deliver to me
their certain mortgage, which said mortgage was re
corded in the recorders office of said Marion county,
in
of Illinois
on the 6thpageday19-t,ofofJuly. A.D.
1671,theinState
volume
H of Mortgages,
the premof
ises hereinafter described, to secure the payment
one certain promissory note made by the said A. H,
Crosby, dated on the thirtieth day of June, 1871, for tho
sum of one hundred and ninety-seven 55-100 dollars,
with interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum,
payable to the order of C. B. Farwell five mouths after
the date thereof; and whereas it is provided in said
mortgage that in case of default in the payment of the
said effect
note orthereof,
any part
to the
and
the thereof,
said ( '. B.according
Farwell. his
legaltenor
rep
resentatives or attorney, alter having adverte d such
sale twenty days in a newspaper published in Chicago,
Cook county, Illinois, may hell the said premises, or
any part thereof, and all right and equity of redemp
tion
theheirs
said orAaron
Crosby atandpublic
Adeline,
his
wife, of
their
assigns11.therein,
vendue,
to the highest bidder, for cash, at the court house, in
said Cook county ; and whereas default has been made
in the payment of said note and interest, now. there
fore, by virtue of the power in me vested by said mort
gage, I, the undersigned mortgagee, will sell at 10
o'clock a. ni., on Wednesday, the 6th day of March,
A. D. 1672, at public vendue, at the court-house door,
in said Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, to the highest
bidder, for cash, tho premises in said mortgage de
scribed, to wit: Lots three (3) and four (4), in block
one (1), in the town of Centralia, county of Marion,
State of Illinois, together with all and singular, the
tenements and hereditaments, privileges and appurte
nances thereunto belonging, and all the right, title,
benefit and equity of redemption of the said Aaron II.
Crosby and Adeline, his wife, in and to the eaid prem
ises.
Tenney, McCi.ei.lan ACHARLES
Tennev, B. FARWELL.
Att'ys for Mortgagee.
U>-21
The above sale is adjourned till April 1, 1872, at the
same time and place.
C. B. FaRWELL. Mortgagee.
Tenney, McClellan A Tenney, Att'ys.
22-25
WILLIAMS & THOMPSON,
Attorney*.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.State
of
Illinois,
of Cook,
sa. A.D.
Superior
Court of Cook county.county
To March
Term,
1872.
Edward Ely v. John Halliday.
Public notice is hereby given to tho said John Hal
liday
writ ofof attachment
the
the Superiorissued
CourtoutofofCook
office that
of thoa clerk
county, dated the twenty-third day of February A.D.
1S72, at the suit of the said Edward Ely, and against
the
of Johnll-loo
Halliday,
the sumtoofthesixSheriff
hun
dredestate
and eighty
dollars,fordirected
of Cook county, which said writ has been returned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you the said John Halli
day shall personally be and appear before tho said
Superior Court of Cook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
March, A.D. 1872, give special bail and plead to the said
plaintiff's action, judgment will be entered against
you, and in favor of the said Edward Ely, and so
of the
property
attached
maywillbe be
sufficient
tomuch
satisfy
the said
judgment
and ascosts
sold to
satisfy the tame.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON. Clerk.
Williams* Thompson,
Attorneys.
20-23
A. H. DALTON,
Attorney. Thornton.
STATE OF ELIZABETH BERGER, DECEASED.
Ei Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Elizabeth
Berger, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house,
in
citybeing
of Chicago,
on the
first Monday of May,
A. D.the1872,
the (ith day
thereof.
JOHN BERGER, Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 28, A. D. 1872.
21-26
JAMES FRAKE,
Attorney, 115 West Madison St.
ESTATE
OF
ROBERT
DECEASED.
Notice Is hereby
given SHEPPARD,
to all persons having
claims
and demands against the estate of Robert Shcppard,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
tor
adjudication
and
set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
SAMANTHA SHEPPARD and
ROBERT D. SHEPPARD.
Executors.
Chicago, Feb. 16, A. P. 1B72.
19-24
J. V. LeMOYNE,
Attorney.
ESTATE OF MICHAEL HANLON, DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Michael Hanlon,
deceased, to present the same lor adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
ing the 6th day thereof.
HANNAH nANLON, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D. 1672.
21-26a
DENT & BLACK,
Attorneys. 740 Walxish Avenue.
ESTATE OF ELMA HOWELL, DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having clainiB
and 'domands
against
of Elma Howell,
de
ceased,
to present
the the
sameestate
for adjudication
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago,
on the
Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
ing
the sixth
day first
thereof.
ANNIE E. HOWELL, Executrix.
Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D. 1872.
21-26a
SN0WH00K & GRAY,
Attorneys, :io Wert Monroe Street.
ESTATE OF PATRICK McALPIN, DECEASED.
Noticelis hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Patrick McAlpin,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement
a regular
the County
Cook
county, toat be
holden term
at theofcourt
house, incourt
the ofcity
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
May,
A.
D.
1872,
being
the sixth day thereof.
Chicago, Feb. 27,MICHAEL
A. D. 1872. SCANLON, Executor.
21-2tia
ESTATE
MICHAEL
Deceased.
Notice isOFhereby
given to URWANGER.
all persons having
claimb
and demands against tho estate of Michael Urwanger,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement, at a regular term ofthe County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1672, being
the firBt day thereof.
URWANGER, Executrix.
Chicago, Feb. 15,ANNA
A. D. 1872.
19-24a
"RSTATE
OF JAMES
FERGUSON.-Whereas,
-Li
the undersigned
was, onN. the
25th day of January,
1872, by the Hon. County court within and for tho
county of Cook, and State of Illinois, appointed execu
tor of the estatoof James N. Ferguson, deceased; and,
whereas, I am unable to further administer upon said
estate by reason of absence, this is to notify all whom
it may concern, that I shall present my resignation of
said trust at the next session of said County court, to
bo holden at Chicago, in said Cook county, on the first
Monday of April next, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
JAMES F. HALEY.
Chicago, Feb. 27, 1872.
21-24

News.

WILSON, PERRY & STURGES,

Attorneys. 470 Wabash Ave.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois, Cook County, ss. Superior court
ofCook county. To March Term, A. D., 1872. Jacob
Bierbauer v. William W. Wheeler.
Public notice is hereby given to the said William W.
Wheeler
thatclerk
a writ
of attachment
issued
outcounty,
of the
office of the
of the
Superior court
of Cook
dated the second day of Febuary, A. D. 1872, at the suit
of
the saidW.Jacob
Bierbauer,
estateand
of
William
Wheeler,
for the and
sumAgainst
of five the
hundred
thirty-one
dollars
and
forty-three
cents.directed
to
the
sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been re
turned executed.
Now, therefore unless you, the said William W.
Wheeler shall personally be and appear before tho
said
Superior
of Cook
or holden
before
the first
day ofcourt
the next
termcounty,
thereof, on
to he
atMonday
th*! court
house,
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
of March, A. D.. 1872, give special bail first
and
plead to the said plaintiff1! action, judgment will be
entered
against
you,
and
in
favor
of
the
said
Jacob
Bierbauer. and so much of the property attached as
mar be
he Bold
sufficient
to satisfy
the said judgment and costs
will
to satlsfv
the same.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Wilson, Perry & Sturges. Attorneys.
21-24
EDWIN GREENE,
Attorney, 4b Hubbard Court.
/CHANCERY
NOTICE.State
of Cook
Illinois,county.
County Toof
\J Cook, ss. Superior court of
March term, A. D. Ia72. Jane W. Sanders v. John M.
Bandera.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of John M. San
ders, defendant above named, having been filed in the
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook coun
ty, notice is hereby given to tho said John M. San
ders that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out ofsaid court
against said defendant, returnable ou the first Monday
ofNow.
Marchunless
next, you,
(1872.)theas said
is bv John
law required.
fif. Superior
Sanders, court
shall
personally
be and appear
before said
of Cook county, on the first day of a term there
of, to be holden at Chicago, In said county, on the first
Monday of March, 1&72. and plead, answer or demur
to the said complainant's bill of complaint, tho same,
and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decreeentered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
Edwin Greene, Compl't's
Sol'r.JACOBSON, Clerk.
21-24
MAYB0RN & BROWN,
Attorneys. Genera, III.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.State
of
Illinois,
countyterm,
of Cook,
ss. Circuit
court of Cook county. April
A. D. 1872.
Albert
A. West v. Samuel T. Morgan,
Public notice is hereby given to the said Samuel T.
Morgan, that a writ of atttachment issued out of
the
officedated
of thethoclerk
court
county,
2uth ofdaytheofCircuit
January,
A. ofD. Cook
1872,
at the suit of the Albert A. West and against
the estate of said Samuel T. Morgan, for the sum of
seventeen hundred dollars, directed to tho sheriff of
Cook county, which said writ has been returned execu
ted.Now, therefore, unless you. the said Samuel T.
Morgan, shall personally be and appear before the
said
courtterm
of Cook
county,
or beforo
first
day oTCircuit
the next
thereof,
to be onholden
at thetheCourt
House, in the city of Chicago, ou the third Monday of
April,
A. D.action,
1*72, give
special bail
said
plaintiff's
judgment
will and
be plead
enteredto the
against
you, and in favor of the said Albert A. West, and so
much ofthethesaidproperty
maybelsold
be sufficient
to
satisfy
judgmentattached
and costsas will
to satisfy
the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Mayhorn A Brown, Att'ys.
21-24p
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois. County of
\J Cook.ss. Circuit court of Cook county. To the
March term. A. D. 1672. Louisa A. Wells, complainant,
v. James G. Blunt. Nancy C. Blunt, John K. Myers
and William
M. Halsted,
executors
of the Crawford,
estate of
William
M. Halsted.
deceased,
William
George F. Foster. Newton Chapin. Daniel L. Wells,
John T. Noble, Francis B. Little, Carlisle Mason,
Georgo Mason and John Mohr, defendants.In Chan
cery.
Affidavit that James G. Blunt, Nancy C. Blunt, and
John K. M vers and William M. Halsted.exocutorsofthe
estate of William M. Halsted, deceased, four of the de
fendants above named, in the above entitled cause, and
each of them, reside out of the State of Illinois, so
that process cannot be Berved on them, having been
filed
the office
of theis hereby
clerk ofgiven
said toCircuit
of
Cookincounty,
notice
the saidcourt
James
G. Blunt, Nancy C. Blunt, ana John K. Myers and Wil
liam M. Halsted,
the estate of William
M.
Halsted,
deceased,executors
that theof complainant
heretofore,
and on the 2.sth day of February, A. D. 1872, filed her
bill of complaint
said court,
on the chancery
thoreof,
ami that ainsummons
thereupon
issued outside
of
said court against all said defendants named in the
title
of
said
suit
as
aforesaid,
returnable
on
the
third
Monday of March next (1672), as is by law required,
and that said suit is now pending in said court, on the
chancery side thereof.
Now, unless you. the said James G. Blunt, Nancy C.
Blunt, and John K. Myers and William M. Halsted, ex
ecutors
of the estate
Williambefore
M. Halsted,
deceased,
shall personally
be andof appear
said Circuit
court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof,
to bo holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third
Monday of March, 1572, that being the return day
of said summons, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and adocree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
21-21
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
BROWN & RICKERTS,
Attorneys, Boom 2. llfi Wed Madison Street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, couuty of
Cook, ss. Suporior court of Cook county. May
term, A. D. 1572. Anna Russell v. Josiah N. Russell.
InAffidavit
Chancery.of the non-residence of Josiah N. Russell,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the Clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Josiah N. Rn*sell that
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, ana that
a summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said
defendant,
returnable
the first Monday of
May next
(IS12), as
is by law on
required.
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
Josiah
N. Russell,
shallof
personally be and appear before said Superior
Court
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
Chicago,
in saidanswer
county,orondemur
the first
Monday
of
May,at1S72,
and plead,
to the
said
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
same,
and
matters and things therein charged and Btated, will the
bo
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Brown & Rickerts, Comp't's Sol'rs.
21-24
MORTON CULVER,
Attorney, 109 W. Washington St.
ESTATE
OF
HANS CHRISTIAN
BROCKgiven
HANto
SON, Deceased.Pubic
notice is hereby
all persons having claims and demands against the
estate of Hans Christian Brock Hanson, deceased, to
present the same for adjudication and settlement at a
regular term of the County court of Cook county, to
bo holden' at the court house in the city of Chicago,
ou the first Monday of April, A.D. 1672, being the first
day thereof.
SIGISMOND D. JACOBSON, Amiuistrator.
Chicago,
FebruaryAtt'y.
7. A.D. 1372.
MomoN Cclver,
i

GEORGE W. SMITH,
Attorney, So. 475 Wabash Ave.
TniS is to certify that Chauncey T. Bowen.GeorgeW.
Shaw.
William
Fitch, H.
Jonathan
Richards,
The
and H.
Almeriu
Winslow,
formed
odore
A. Shaw,
a limited
partnership
in accordance
withhave
the laws
of
the State of Illinois, and that, First, the name or firm
under which the partnership is to be conducted is
Richards, Shaw & Winslow; Second, The geueral na
ture of the business to be transacted is the purchase
and sale of dry goods at wholesale; Third, Chauncey
T. Bowen and George W. Shaw are the special part
ners therein, and William H. Fitch, Jonathan Richnrds, Theodore A. Shaw, and Almerin H. Winslow, are
the general partners therein; that the place of resi
dence of said George W. Shaw is the city of Dayton,
in the State of Ohio; that the place of residence of
said
Chauncey
T. Bowen,
William
Fitch, Jonathan
Richards,
Theodore
A.Shaw,
and H.Almerin
H.Winslow,
is
the
city
of
Chicago,
in
the
State
of Illinois:
Fourth, The said Chauncey T. Bowen has contributed
to the capital stock of said partnership the sum of one
hundred thousand dollars, and the said George W.
Shaw has contributed thereto the sum of fifty thousand
dollars;
F\fth, isThetheperiod
said partnership
to commence
first atdaywhich
of February.
A.D. 1S72,is
and the period at which it is to terminate is the thirtyfirst day of January. A.D. 1*75; Sixth, The principal
place of business of said partnership is the city of Chi
cago,
in the State
of Illinois.
In witness
whereof,
the said parties have hereto
Bigned their names this first day of February, A.D.
'2" (Signed)
WILLIAM H. FITCH,
JONATHAN RICHARDS.
THEODORE A. SHAW,
ALMERINW.H.SHAW.
WINSLOW,
geuim;k
CHAUNCEY T. BOWEN.
State
Illinois,"
Countyof ofIllinois,')
Cook, >
City
of
Chicago,)
I, Edward W. Russell, a Notary Public in and for
said
do hereby
certify T.that
on thisGeorge
day personally
camecity,
bsfore
me, Chauncey
Bowen,
W. Shaw,
William H. Fitch, Jonathan Richards, Theodore A.
Shaw, and Almerin H. Winslow. to me known to be
tho
persons
whose names
are subscribed
to the fore
going
instrument,
and severally
acknowledged
the
said
instrument,
by
them
signed,
to
be
their
act and
and
deed, and that they executed the same for the uses
purposes therein set forth.
Given under my hand and official seal, this third day
of February, A.D. 1872.
(.Signed)
|L B J.
EDWARD W. RUSSELL.
Notary Public.
State
of
Illinois.
County of Cook,
City of Chicago^,)
Almerin H. W inslow, being duly sworn, says that he
is one of the general partners of the limited partner
ship
of Richards,
Shaw &toWinslow
; that stock
Chauncey
T.
Boweu
has contributed
the common
of said
partnership the sum of one hundred thousand dollars
in cash,
such amount
has been
in
good and
faiththatapplied
to the same;
thatactually
George and
W.
Shaw has contributed to the common stock of said
partnership the sum of fifty thousand dollars in cash,
and
suchtoamount
faiththat
applied
the same.has been actually and in good
ALMERIN H. WINSLOW.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this third day of
February, A.D. 1572.
^
EDWARD W. RUSSELL.
{lb}
Notary Public.
R0UNTREE & McHUQH,
Attorneys. Nixon's Building, cor. LaSalle and Monroe.
PUBLICATION
IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois,NOTICE
Cook county,
ss. Circuit Court
of
Cook
county,
April
Term,
A.D.
1872. Edward Don*
oghtie v. Jeffrey Hodkinson.
Public notice is hereby given to tho said Jeffrey Hod
kinson that a writ of attachment issued out of the offfiue of the clerk of the Circuit court of Cook county,
dated
the Edward
8th day ofDonoghuc
February,andA.D.
1872, atthetheestate
suit of
the said
against
of
Jeffrey
Hodkinson
for
the
sum
of
two
hundred
and ;two 25-100 dollars^ directed to the Sheriff
of Cook county, which said writ has been returned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Jeffrey Hodkin
son shall personally be and appear before the said
Circuit court of Cook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the Court
House,
of April,inA.theD. city
1872, of
giveChicago,
special on
bailtheandthird
pleadMonday
to the
said plaintiffs1 action, judgment will be entered against
you, and in favor of the said Edward Donoghue, and
so
of thethe
property
attached and
as may
cientmuch
to satisfy
said judgment
costs bewillsuffibe
sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Rountree & McHugh, Attorneys.
20-23
FRANK PARTL,
Attorney, 33 West Randolph Street.
(CHANCERY NOTICE.-State oflllinois, county ot
J Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
March Term, A. D. 1872. Dorathea Dinger v. Henry
Binger.InChancory.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Henry Binger,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of
the isclerk
of said
courtHenry
of Cook
county,
notice
hereby
givenSuperior
to the said
Binger
that
the complainant neretofore filed her bill of complaint
In said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons
thereupon
issued out
of said
against
said defendant,
returnable
on the
firstcourt
Monday
of
March next, (1672,) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Henry Binger, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county,
on thoin said
first county,
day of aonterm
to be
holden
at Chicago,
the thereof,
first Monday
of
March,
1872.
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, aud
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
Frank Parti.. Comp'ts
Sol'r. JACOBSON, Clerk.
19-22p
DANIEL GOODWIN, Jr.,
Attorney, 19 Nixon's Building,
TniS
is
to
that theandundersigned
have formed
a limitedcertify
partnership,
have filed articles
of co
partnership in the office of the clerk of the county of
Cook,
State
of
Illinois,
agreeably
to
the
statute
in
such
case made and provided, and said clerk has designated
the Chicago Legal News as the newspaper in which
notice of such partnership shall be published; now,
therefore, notice is hereby given that the terms of said
copartnership
follows:
1st. The nameareofassaid
firm is R. M. Oliver.
2d. The business to be conducted by said firm is that
of packing pork and vending meat, fresh and cured, at
No. 593 South Halsted street. Chicago.
3d. The general partner is Richard M. Oliver; the
special partner is the Allerton Packing Co., a corpora
tion duly existing under the laws of the State of Illi
nois, all of Chicago.
4th. Tho
amount
of capitalPacking
stock Co..
which
said
special
partner,
the Allerton
has the
contrib
uted to said copartnership is the sum of twelve thou
sand dollars.
5th. The said copartnership is to commence on the
first day of March, A. D. 1*72, and terminate at the will
of either party, evidenced by notice in writing served
ten dayB beforo said termination.
RICHARD M. OLIVER.
22-27
THE ALLERTON PACKING CO.
CHARLES DRLESSLEIN,
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
And U. S. Commissioner.
Western Union Telegraph Office, 554 Wabash Ave

Chicago

Attorney,
'A ><^l RpiJV1* ^ra/'
STATE
JuR*
J
Notice isOF
hereby
gWen to LL*
PersonsDECEASED.havingclaims
E
and demands against the ee1* or John Farrell.deceased,
to
present
the
same
T
adjudication
set
tlement at a regular term of tno County courtand
of Cook
county, to be holden at the covirt house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872,
being the sixth day thereof.
MICHAEL BRENNAN, Administrator.
Chicago, February 23, A. P.J1S72.
21-26
ESTATE
OF
C.
LOUIS
KURTZ,
DECEA8ED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claimi
and demands against the estate of C. Louis Kurtz,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D.
1672, being the sixth day thereof.
MAKGARETHA KURTZ, Executrix.
Chicago. February 23, A.D. 1^72.
21-26
Clowry A Bakmm, Attorneys.
ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER FLYNN, Deceased.Notice i8 hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Christopher
Flynn, deceased, to present the Banie for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D.
1872, being
the sixth ANN
day thereof.
BRIDGET
FLYNN, Administratrix.
Chicago, February 23, A. D. 1872.
21-26
Clowry A Barmm, Utorneys.
ESTATE OF TERESA BATTO, DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Teresa
Batto, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D.
1872, being the sixth day thereof.
SEGALLE, Executor.
Chicago. FebruaryJOSEPH
23, A.D. 1872.
21-26
Clowry & Bakmm, Attorneys.
ESTATE
HANNAH
Deceased.
Notice OF
is hereby
givenHALDSWORTH,
to all persons having
claims
and demands against the estate of Hannah Haldsworth,
deceased, to present the same tor adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D.
1872, beingJAMES
the sixthWILLIAM
day thereof.HALDSWORTH,
Administrator.
Chicago, February 23, A. D. 1872.
Clowry A Barium, Attorneys.
21-26
M. A. RORKE & SON,
Attorneys. Room 57, Central Vnion Block.
"INSTATE
ELIZA
-Li Notice isOF
hereby
given toTURNER,
all personsDECEASED.having claims
and demands against the estate of Eliza Turner, de
ceased, toat present
sameof for
set
tlement
a regulartheterm
the adjudication
County Court and
of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, being
the sixth day thereof.
THOMAS A. TURNER. Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 29, A. D. 1872.
21-26
M. A. Rorke A Son. Attorneys.
ESTATE OF WILLIAM CLOWRY, DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of William
Clowry, decease**, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the1872,
city being
of Chicago,
first Monday of April,
A.D.
the firstondavthethereof.
ANN CLOWRY,
Administratrix, and
MARTIN BRENNAN,
Administrator of said Estate.
Chicago, Feb. 6. 1872.
19-24
JAMES SPRINGER,
Attorney. t'69 Wabash Avenue.
C1HANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, Couuty
1
of
Cook,
ss.Superior
of Cook
county.
May
term, A. D. 1872.
Leroy J.court
Needham
v. Mary
J. Needham.In Chancery.
Affidavitabove
of thenamed,
non-residence
defendant
having of
beenMary
filed J.in Needham,
the office
of
the
Clerk
of
said
Superior
Court
of Cook
county,
notice is hereby given to the said Mary
J. Needham
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a Bummons thereupon issued out of said
court against said defendant, returnable on the first
Monday of May next (IS72), as Is by law required.
Now, unless
you,appear
the saidbefore
MarysaidJ.Superior
Needham,
shall
personally
be and
court
ot
Cook county, on the first day of the term thereof, to be
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
first
Monday
of May, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the
things therein
charged
and against
stated,
will matters
be taken and
as confessed,
and a decree
entered
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
James Springer, Compl't's Sol'r.
21-24
WM. LAW, JR.,
145 MAY
W. Madison
St.
rpo ALL Attorney.
WHOM IT
CONCERN.Public
X notice is hereby given that the undersigned guar
dian of the person and estate of George P. Scriven, a
minor,county,
wilt make
application
to theterm,
Circuit
of
1872, to
Cook
Illinois,
at the march
a. d.court
be holden at the Court House, in the city ofChicago,
county and State aforesaid, which said term com
mences on the third Monday of March, a. n. 1872, for
leave to sell the following described real estate, to
wit :
Lot fifteen (IK) in Ellis' east or second addition to
Chicago,
Cookancounty.
State ofonIllinois,
the pur
pose
of paying
incumbrance
said realforestate,
and
investing the proceeds of such property in such man
ner as the court ' appointing the undersigned as such
guardian shall direct, or for such other legal purpose
as the said Circuit court shall direct.
February 24th, a. I>. 1812.
GEORGE McELWAIN,
Guardian, etc,
Wm. Law, Jr., Att'y.
20-22
ESTATE
OF
GUNDER
OLESON,
DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demandB against the estate of Gunda Oleson.
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court ot
Cook connty, to be holden at the court house, in the
city
of Chicago,
first Monday of May, A.D.
1872. being
the 6thondaythe
thereof.
Chicago, February 19, A.D. 1872.
CHARLES GLADDING. Administrator.
James Miciiie, Att'y.
21-26
fpO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.-We. the underX signed, have formed a limited copartnership to be
carried on under the name of Fletcher, Lazear A
Cheney, in Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, from
January 1. 1872, till January 1, 1874, to carry on the
business
of buying,
selling, andThe
manufacturing
and
selling, harness
and carriages.
said undersigned,
F. I. Lazear, M. E. Fletcher and George A. Cheney,
are
John Amerman,
Bronson,theandgeneral
Josiaspartners,
Parks, and
of Norwalk,
in the ofState
of
Ohio, are the special partners, and have respectively
paid into the common stock two thousand dollars in
cash.
M. E. FLETCHER,
F.
I. LAZEAR,
GEORGE
A. CHENEY,
JOHN AMERMAN,
17-22
JOSIAS PARKS.

Legal

D. S."MiPRIDE,
Staff:ofStreet.
\\THEREAS.Attorney,
K- M- Whipple,
the city of Chicago.
11
county
of
Cook,
and
State
of Illiuuis.
un the
third day of June. A. D. 1n'>>i, make,
exeeutedid.and
de
liver to the undersigned, Benjamin Lombard, his
promissory note, hearing date the day and yt-ar afore
said,
for the
two ofthousand
dollars,
on
or before
thesum
firstofday
December,
A. D.payable
1*69, with
interest thereon at the rate often per cent, per auuuui ;
and. whereas, the said Whipple, by his agreoment in
writing under seal, with said Lombard, gave and
transferred to said Lombard, as collateral security for
the payment of said note ami interest thereon, fifteen
" Lake Ontario and Hudson River Railroad Company
mortgage bonds11 for the sum of one thousand dollars
each;
said1, bonds
bearing
dateatApril
1^7,cent.,
and pay
able Aug.
le*7y. with
interest
sevenA, per
pay
able semi-annually, on Feb. 1 and Aug. 1, and num
bered
17.11,
17A3,
1754,
1757,
1758,
1759,
17M),
1787,
1788,
17.-9, 1790, 1791, 179s, 17W, WKi. and it was provided in
Baid agreement that said Lombard or the holder or
holders of said note, or his or their agent or attorney,
if said note or the interest thereon or any part thereof
is not paid in full at maturity, may sell the said collat
erals at public or private sale, without notice, and
apply the proceeds toward* paying said note, after de
ducting reasonable charges, attorney fees, and ex
penses
selling.tho said R. M. Whipple has made de
And, of
whereas,
fault
in
payment
the principal
interest given
due on
said note: now, oftherefore,
noticeunci
is hereby
to
said Whipple and all others whom it may concern, that
on Wednesday, the 27th day of March, A. D. 1872. at
ten
of that
day, on
at Adams
the north
westo'clock
corner inof the
the forenoon
new city hall,
situate
and
La
Salle
streets,
in
said
city
of
Chicago,
I,
under
signed Benjamin Lombard, shall sell at publictheauction,
to the highest and best bidder therefor for cash, all of
said bonds or so many thereof as shall be necessary to
pay said note and interest due thereon and the costs of
making such sale, including attorney fees.
BENJAMIN LOMBARD.
Dated Chicago, Feb. 24, 1S72.
D. S. Prii>e, Attorney.
21-23
\T|rHEREAS, R. M. Whipple, of the city of Chicago,
TT county of Cook, and State of Illinois, did, on tho
third to
daythe
of June,
A. D. 1M9,Benjamin
make, execute
and his
de
liver
undersigned,
Lombard,
promissory note, bearing date the day and year afore
said, for the sum of two thousand dollars, payable on
or before the first day of January, A. D. W7U, with in
terest thereon at the rate of ten percent, per annum;
and, whereas, the said Whipple, by his agreement in
writing under
seal,Lombard,
with said
Lombard,security
gavo and
transferred
to said
as collateral
for
thepaymentof said note, two "convertible mortgage
bonds"
of
the
Lyons
(.Iowa)
Central
Railroad
Com
pany, numbered 468 and 7.r>9, and being for 0110 thou
sand dollars each, with seven per cent, interest ; and it
was provided in said agreement that said Lombard or
the holder or holders ofsaid note.or his or their agent or
attorney,
note or
thereonmay
or any
thereof isifsaid
not paid
in the
fullinterest
at maturity,
sell part
the
said collaterals at public or private sale, without no
tice, and apply the proceeds towards paying said note,
after deducting reasonable charges, attorney fees, and
expenses
of selling.
And. whereas,
the said R. M. Whipple has made de
fault
in
payment
of the principal
interest
on
said note ; now, therefore,
notice isand
hereby
givendue
to said
Whipple and all other persons whom it may concern,
Wednesday,
27th day
of March,
1872,
atthatten00o'clock
in the the
forenoon
of that
day, at A.
theD.north
west corner of the new city hall, situate on Adams and
La Salle streets, in said city of Chicago, I, tho under
signed Benjamin Lombard, shall sell at public auction
to
the highest
and best bonds
bidder" therefor
for thereof
cash, said
"convert
Ible mortgage
or so many
as
shall he necessary to pay said note and interest due
thereon and the costs of making such snle, including
attorney fees.
BENJAMIN LOMBARD.
Dated Chicago, Feb. 21, 1?72.
D. S. Pride, Attorney.
21-23
TiniEREAS, R. M. Whipple, of the city of Chicago,
TT county of Cook, and State of Illinois, did. on the
third day of June, A. D. lf*;y, make, execute and de
liver to the undersigned, Benjamin Lombard, his
promissory note, bearing date the day and year afore
said, for the sum of two thousand dollars, payable on
or
before
the first
dayrate
of February,
D. 1870,
with in ;
terest
thereon
at the
of ten perA.cent,
per annum
and,
whereas,
the
said
Whipple,
by
his
agreement
in
writing under seal, with said Lombard, gave and
transferred to said Lombard as collateral secu
rity for the payment of said note, a " certificate of
La Crossedue
andon Milwaukee
Railroad
for
dividends
*' First
Mortgage
LandCompany,"
Grant
.Bond,"
No. 3li, dated
Jun.
2S, 18.V:
*lCertificate
of Stock,
No.
166, in the River and Lake Shore City Railway Com
pany,"
for 200 shares,
par value $?',
datedNo.March
22,
1865; "Mortgage
and Convertible
Bond,
12, New
London, Williinantic and Palmer Railroad Corpora
tion," for one thousand dollars, dated July 20. 1550.
And it was provided in said agreement that said Lom
bard or the nolder or holders of Bald note, or his or
their agent or attorney, if said note or tho Interest
thereon or any part thereof is not paid in full at matu
rity, without
may sell notice,
the saidand
collaterals
at public
private
sale,
apply the
proceedsor towards
paying
Baid
note,
after
deducting
reasonable
charges
.
attorney fees, and expenses of selling.
Anil,
whereas,
the
said
R.
M,
Whipple
has
made
de
fault in payment of the principal ana interest due 011
said
note;and
nowalltherefore,
noticewhom
is hereby
givenconcern,
to said
Whipple
other persons
it may
that on Wednesday, the 27th day of March, A. D. W2,
at
toucorner
o'clockofin the forenoon of that day, at the north
west
the new cily hall, situate on Adams and
La Salle streets, in said city of Chicago, I, the under
signed, Benjamin Lombard, shall sell at public auction
to the highest and best bidder therefor for cash, said
Certificate of La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad Com
pany, for dividends dueon First Mortgage Land Grant
Bond,
No. Lake
3160; Shore
Certificate
of Stock.Company,
No. 166, for
in the
River and
City Railway
200
shares; and Mortgage and Convertible Bond, No. 12,
New London, Wilfimantic and Palmer Railroad Cor
poration, or so many thereof as shall be necessary to
pay said note and interest due thereon, and the costs of
making such sale, including attorney fees.
BENJAMIN LOMBARD.
Dated Chicago. Feb. 24, 172.
D. S. Pride. At torney.
21-23
HARDING & McCOY,
Attorneys, 368 Wabash Avenue.
TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.Public no
tice is hereby given that the undersigned guardian
of the estate
of Kenneth
Brownto and
Frank court
Brown,of
minors,
will make
application
the Circuit
Cook county, Illinois, at the first day of the April
term, a. d. 1*72, to be holden at the Court House, in the
city ofcommences
Chicago, county
StateMonday
aforesaid,
whicha.said
d.
term
on theand
third
of April,
1872, for
leave: to sell the following described real es
tate,
to wit
The west halfoflot one in block ninety-three (93) in tho
school section addition ofChicago, in Cook county.State
ofIllinois, for the purpose of investing the proceeds of
such property in such maimer as tho court, appoint
ing the undersigned as such guardian, shall direct, or
for
other legal purpose
as said
court
shallsuch
direct.
CAROLINE
M. Circuit
BROWN.
February 2ft, 1872.
Guardian, etc.
Harding A McCoy, Attorneys.
ESTATE OF JOSEPH BROWN, DECEA8ED.Notice is hereby
all persons
havingBrown,
claims
or demands
againstgiven
the toestate
of Joseph
deceased, and they are hereby requested to attnnd a
term of the County court of the county of Cook, and
State of Illinois, to be held at the court house, in said
county, on the flrstjMonday in the month of May next
after the date hereof, and then and there present such
claims or demands
for theS.purpose
of Administrator.
having the same
adjusted,
WILLIAM
BROWN,
Dated Chicago, Feb. 13, 1872.
J. H. Knowlton, Att'y19-24

News.

ROSENTHAL, PENCE & MOSES,

Attorney?, ST)0 Wabash Arniue.
ESTATE
OF CATHERINE
DEceased.Notice
is hereby givenWEISHAAR,
to all persons havIiig claims and demands against the estate of Catherine
Weishaar, deceased, to present the tamo for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to he holden at the court house,
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April,
A. D. Io72, being the first day thereof.
ANN
CHIMIN, Administratrix.
Chicago. Feb. 12. A.
D. 1872.
ly-24
INSTATE OF GI STAV DASSLER, DECEASED.j Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Gustav
Dossier, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and
settlement
the County
court
of Cook
county,attoaberegular
holdenterm
at theofcourt
house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April,
A.D. 1872, being the first day thereof.
AUGUSTA
Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb.
12. A.D. DASSLER,
1872.
19-24
INSTATE OF HENRY A. BOHLE, DECEASED.4 Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demands
against
estate
Henry A. Bohle,
de
ceased,
to present
thethe
same
for ofadjudication
and set
tlement at a rogular term of the County court of Cook
county,
holden
the courtofhouse,
Chicago,toonbo the
firstat Monday
April,in A.theD.city1872,of
being the first day HENRY
thereof. BOHLE, Administrator.
19-24
Chicago. Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
ESTATE
OF
RUDOLPH
KEMMLER.
DECEASED.
Notico is hereby given to all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Rudolph
Kemmler, deceased, to present the same for ad
judication and settlement at a regular term of the
County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
day of April, A. D. 1872, being the first day thereof.
FREDERICK: KEMMLER, Executor.
Chicago. Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE OF WILLIAM LAISTER, DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of William Leister,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and settlementot a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to bo holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 172, be
ing the first day thereof.
ROBERT C. WRIGHT and
JAMES W. COCHRAN,
Executors.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
INSTATE
OF
JOHANN
KRUEGER,
DECEASED.
J Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Johann Krueger,
deceased, to present the same tor adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county,
holden
the courtofhouse,
city beof
Chicago,toonbtho
first atMonday
April, inA. tho
D. 1872,
ing the first day thereof.
SOPHIA
Administratrix.
Chicago. Feb.
12, A. D.KRUEGER,
1*72.
19-24
INSTATE OF JOHN W. HUFMEYER. DECEASED.
A Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demands
againstthe
thesame
estateforofadjudication
John W. Hufmeyer,
deceased,
to present
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first dav thereof.
Administratrix.
Chicago. LOUISA
Feb. 12, A.HUFMEYER,
D. W2.
19-24
T
PARTNERSHIP.-To
whom
may con-a
Aj IMITED
cern : Whereas,
the undersigned
haveit formed
limited partnership, and have filed articles of copart
nership
the office
of the clerk
the county
of Cook,
State
of iuIllinois,
agreeably
to theofstatute
in such
case
made and provided, and said clerk has designated the
Chicago Legal News as the newspaper in which notice
of such partnership shall be published, now therefore
notice is hereby given that the terms of said copartner
ship are as follows:
1st. The style of said firm is, " M. T. Sworthout A C.
H.2d.Nichols.''
The business to be conducted by said firm Is that
of the Retail Boot and Shoe business, in the ctty of
Chicago,
county.
Illinois.
3d. TheCook
general
partners
are Manley T. Sworthout
and Charles H. Nichols, the special partner George
Nichols, all residents of said city of Chicago.
4th. Tho amount of capital stock which the said spe
cial partner, George Nichols, has contributed to said
copartnership is the sum of one thousand dollars.
5th. The said copartnership is to commence on the
first day of February. A.D. 1872, and terminate on the
first day of February, A.D. 1873.
MANLY T. H.SWORTHOUT,
CHARLES
NICHOLS.
18-23
GEORGE NICHOLS.
THEO. SCH3NTZ,
Attorney, Central Vnion Block.
TESTATE
FREDERICK
Notice isOFhereby
given to allBEHM,
personsDECEASED.having claims
and demands
againstthethe
estate
of Frederickand
Behni,
deceased,
to present
same
for adjudication
set
tlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
court
of
Cookof
county,
to
be
holden
at
the
court
house,
in
the
city
Chicago, on the first Monday of May A. D. 1S72, being
the Bixlh day thereof.
CHRISTIAN
Chicago. Feb. 27. A.
D. 1872. BEHM, Executor.
21-26a
Theo. Schintz. Attorney.
ESTATE OF FRANK REICHARDS. DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Frank Refchards
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A.D. 1872,
being
the sixth
day thereof.
Chicago,
February
21. A.D. 1872.
20-25a
JOHANN REICHARDS. Administrator,
P. A. RIDDLE,
Attorney, 25 Wett Madison Street..
ESTATE
OF
ANDREW
Notice is hereby given toNELSON,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Andrew Nelson, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the Connty court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, being
the sixth
dav thereof.
WILLIAM
M. LOUGHLIN, Administrator.
Chicago. Feb. 2\ A. D. 1872.
21-26a
D. J. CROCKER.
Attorney. 4S South Canal Street.
ESTATE
OF CAROLINE
HEINES,
DECEASED.
Public notice
is hereby given
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Caroline
Heines, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of tho County
court
Cook
county, toonbethe
nolden
the court
house
in theofcity
of Chicago,
first atMonday
of April,
A.D. 1872, being the first dav thereof.
JACOB
HEINES,
Executor.
D. J. Crocker. Att'y for Estate.
18-23
EWING & LEONARD,
Attorneys. 487 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE OF JOHN GEMMELL, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of John Gemmcll, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment
of the
County
Cook
county,at toa regular
be holdenterm
at the
Court
House,Court
in theofcity
of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
ing the sixth day thereof.
MARGARET N. GEMMELL,
21-26
Administratrix.

167
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
ASSIGNEE'S SALE-IN THE DISTRICT COURT
of theInUnited
StatesofforPhillip
the Northern
District
of
Illinois.
the matter
Wadsworth,
Gilbert
R. Smith and Benj. B. W. Locke,bankruptsIn Bank
ruptcy.
Public
is hereby
given
on Tuesday,
the
19th
day ofnotice
March,
a. d. 172,
the that
undersigned
assignee
of the above estate will offer for sale, and sell
to the highest and best bidder for cash, at the hour of
ten o'clock, a. in., at my office. No. 17 Harmon Court,
in tho city ofChicago, iu the county ofCook, in the State
of Illinois, all the right, title, interest and estate of tho
Baid bankrupts, or either of them, in and to the fol
lowing described premises, that is to say : Commenc
ing
at the line
S. E.ofcorner
of the thence
S. E. north
of thetwenty
S. E. U(20)
on
the south
the section,
chains, thence west nineteen (19; chains and eightyone
(M > (in/
linkslinks
thence
north
and
twenty
to the
rightthirty-two
of way of(32)thechains
Ohio and
Mississippi Railway Company, thence along the line of
said
road ;west
about
twenty-four
(24) chains
and ninety
(yo; links
thence
south
fifty (5ti) chains
and ninety-five
(.95) links thence east forty-four (44) chains, and seven
to the place (16a)
of beginning,
ty-one
(71) links,
one hundred
and Bixty-eight
acres, allcontaining
in section,
sixteen (16), town two (2), N. R one, (l^ east, situate
in
the
county
of
Marion
and
State
of
Illinois
; also tho
southeast l4 of tho southwest U. and the southwest
K
of the southeast i of section twenty-five (25), town ono
hundred,
range
six
(6),
and
the
southeast
\i
of
the
southwest l4, and the south i-2 of the southeast '4 of
Bection twelve (12), town one hundred (loo), range four
(4), lying and being In the county of Alamakee and
State of Iowa; also the southeast quarter of section
fifteeen (15), town ninety-six (96), range twenty-six
(26),
lying; also,
and being
in thehalf
county
and
Stateand
of Iowa
the north
andofHancock
the southwest
quarter of the southwest quarter of the northeast quar
ter, and tho southeast qurater of the northwest quar
ter of Bection thirteen (13) town eighty-one (Hi)' range
twenty-three
lying and
in thehalf
county
of
Polk and State(23),
of Iowa;
also,being
the north
of the
southwest quarter of section fourteen (14), town
eighty-three (83), range twenty-three| (23), lying and
being
iu the county
Storytheandnorth
Statehalfof
of Iowa
; also,
the northwest
quarterot and
the north
east quarter of section ono (1 ), land the east half of the
northeast quarter, and the north half of the southeast
quarter,
the seven
southeast
quarter
the southeast
quarter ofand
section
(7), and
the ofnorthwest
quar
ter
of
tho
southwest
quarter
of
section
eight
(8), and
the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter,
and
the southeast quarter of the sonthwest quarter of sec
tion fourteen (14), all in town ninety-six (96), range
thirty-seven (37u lying and being in the county of
Clay and State of Iowa: also, the undivided one-half
(Ja) interest
in two hundred
and
forty-five
(245)of Phillip
village Wadsworth
lots in tho village
of Superior,
Wis.
For
more
definite
description
see
deed
at
my
office. I will also offer for sale and sell to the highest
and best bidder for cash at the game time and place
the remaining; unconverted assets belonging to the
above or individual estate of said bankrupts, or either
of them, viz : fifty-six (56) shares of the '* Atlantic and
Pacific
Telegraph
CompanyLnion
;" thirty
(30) shares
of the
"American
Merchants'
Express
Company;'*
forty-three
(43)
shares
of
the
"Marquette
A
Pacific
Rolling Mill Co." ; fifty shares of the .'* Republic In
surance Co." (Fire); twenty-five (25) shares of tho
"Great Western Insurance Co.," (Fire); both of the
last named of the city of Chicago. Also, one bond for
one thousand ($i,0Ot>) dollars of tho " Peck Gold Min
ing
Co;"Wadsworth,
also the undivided
interest
Philip
in a law suitone-half
betweenCS)
James
Wadsof
worth, plaintiff, and Henry M. Shepard, defendant;
also the undivided interest of Philip Wadsworth in the
"West Side or Madison Street Stage Line."
GEORGE S. BOWEN, Assignee.
Chicago. Feb. 21. 1X72.
20-22
G00KINS & ROBERTS,
Attorneys. 4<i East Harrison Street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook,
courtP. of
Cookv. county,
April
Term,
A.D.ss.1*72.Circuit
Stephen
Hicks
Anna Hicks.
In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Anna Hicks, defend
ant above named, having been filed in the office of the
clerk of Baid Circuit court of Cook county, notice Ib
hereby given to the said Anna Hicks that the complain
ant heretofore filed his hill of complainant in saidcourt,
on the chancery side thereof, and thatasummons there
upon issued out of said court against said defendant,
returnable
the third Monday of April next, (1S72,)
as is by lawonrequired.
Now,
unless
the before
Baid Anna
sonally be and you,
appear
said Hicks,
Circuitshall
courtperof
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on thethird Monday
of
1872, andbillplead,
answer or same,
demurand
to the
saidApril,
complainant's
of complaint,the
tho
matters and things' therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against yon
according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN
T. GASSETTE,
Clerk.
Gookins A Robrrts.
Compl'ts1
Sol'rs.
19-22
/CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. March
term. A. D. \S12. James H. Fisk v. Carter Smith,
Emanuel
Points. Minnesota
Ewing.
Mary Ann
L. Schutler
and
Schutler,
her husband,
Lavinia
Bond,
Charles D. Bond, Catharine E. Kearns, Eli Kearns,
William
A.
Ewing,
in
his
own
right
and
as
executor
George W. Ewing, deceased, George W. Ewing, Mary01 "
Sturges, Susan Muggins, Howard Huggins. David B.
Hood, William E. Hood. Louisa Sturges, Charlotte F.
Thruston, Dickinson P. Thruston. Lavinia A. Holladay, Jesse Holladay, James M. Marshall. Caroline E.
Sweetzer, Madison Sweetzer. Clara E. Root, Lewis B.
Root,
Clara E.
Green, Emma Kumler and CharlesKurnler.In
Chancery.
Affidavit ofthe
non-real''* nr ofall the above-named
defendants, excepting Carter 'Smith. Emanuel Points,
James M. Marshall and William A. Ewing, tuning
been
filedcounty,
in the ofHceofthe
Clerkgiven
of saidCircuit
of Cook
notice is hereby
to the saidcourt
non
resident defendants that the complainant heretofore
filed his bill ofcomplaint insaid court, < m the chancery
side thereof, and that a summons thereupon Issued out
of said court against said defendants, returnable on
the third Monday of March next (1872,) as 1b by law
required.
Now, unless you, the said Minnesota Ewing, Mary
L. Schutler and
Schutler, her husband. Lavinia
Ann Bond, Charles D. Bond, Catharine E. Kearns, Ell
Kearns, George W. Ewing. Mary Stnrges. Susan Hugfins, Howard Huggins. David B. Hood. William E.
lood,
Sturges,
Charlotto
F. Thruston.
Dickin
son
P. Louisa
Thruston,
Lavinia
A. Holladay,
Jesse Holladay,
Caroline
E.
Sweetzer,
Madison
Sweetzer,
Clara
E.
Root, Lewis B. Root, Clara E. Green, Emma Kumler
and Charles Kumler, shall personally be and appear
before said Circuit court 01 Cook county, on the first
day of a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said
county, on the third Monday ofMarch, 1872, and plead,
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill o
complaint, the same, and the matters and things
therein charged and stated, will be taken as confessed,
and.a decree entered against you according to the
prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. Sol'rs.
GASSETTE, Clerk.1
Gookixs A RonERTg.Compl't's
HIGH ft TRUMAN,
E
Attorney?, 4*7 Wabash Avenue.
STATE OF ELI N. SKINNER, DECEASED*.-.
hereby against
given totheallestate
persons
claimsNotice
and isdemands
of having
Eli N.
Skinner, deceased, to present the same for adjudication,
and;settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook couuty. to be holden at the court house, in
the city of Chicago, in Bald county.on the flrstMonday
of April, A.D 1672, being the first day thereof.
BETSEY SKINNER and
JEREMIAH
Chicago, February 5, A.D.
1672. S. CLOUGIT,
Executors.
High k Truman, Attys.
18-23a.

Chicago

Legal

News.

ATTORNEYS.
GEORGE C. FRY,
KAY
&
BROTHER,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
34 Clmltnx Street, Room 5, Chicago.
4-1*
IMPORTERS,
. A. GOODWIN.
K. C. LARNED.
H. 8. TOWLK. LAW PUBLISHERS, BOOKSELLERS, AND
ISTos. 17 & lO SOUTH: SIXTH STREET,
GOODWIN, LARNED & TOWLE,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
PHILADELPHIA,
No. 376 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
12
HAVE RECENTLY PUBLISHED,
RATES fc HOIMH,
I.
Attorneys at Law, 13 W. Madison St.
-GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake. Utah.
Wharton's
American
Criminal
Law.
3 Vol*. 8vo. SIXTH EDITION. HUM.
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
A TREATISE ON THE CRIMINAL LAW OF THE UNITEDiSTATES. By Francis Wharton, LL.D.
Kb. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.
Sixth and Revised Edition. 3 vols. Svo.
26
From the Hon. W. B. Reed's Address before the Law Academy of Philadelphia.
If you want a book to study while you are students, and practice with when you become lawyers, where
you will find all you want, and, what is very important, find it exactly when you want it, I am glad to say
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
that that book is Mr. Wharton s Criminal Law, as good as any book, English or American, now in print.
^JHAS. M. HARRIS,
From the Hon. Jeremiah S. Black, formerly Attorney-General of the United States.
E. cor. Clark and Adams.
33*
I considered the former edition a most valuable contribution to the learning of the profession, and this
is
undoubtedly
a great improvement. I do not think there is a more valuable law book in print, or one
ARTIN A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D.,
24* more likely to come
into universal use.
659 State street.
w
From the Hon. John Perkins, of Louisiana.
MILLER, WILLIAMSON 4 MILLER,
The profession owes much to the book, Wharton's American Criminal Law, as, without it, regular
130 W. Randolph street.
Sractice in criminal matters would, in many places, be impossible. Having had constant experience on the
ench in the trial of criminal cases, I speak advisedly of the estimation of the book. * * * I always have
SPRINGFIELD tILL.) ATTORNEYS.
it in court on the bench.
From C. J. M. Mitterhair, Professor of Crimimal Laic in Oie University of Heidelberg, Baden, Germany.
HERNDON & ORENDORF,
Office west side square.
The admirable mass of materials, collected with scrupulous exactitude, the wall-disposed, clear and
27* logical
order
of the the
development,
the justice
the practical
aud afford
criticalanobservations,
are qualities
which will
facilitate
study of theand
Criminal
Law toofevery
student, and
excellent digest
of cases
JACKSONVILLE (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
to every practical man.
'ETCIIAM, I. J.
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
PEPPER, WILSON 4 MARTIN,
Room 2 Bank Building.

WHARTON'S PRECEDENTS o"" INDICTMENTS AND PLEAS.

8 Yoli. Svo. THIRD AND REVISED EDITION. $15.00.
PRECEDENTS OF INDICTMENTS AND PLEAS, adapted to the use both of the Courts of the United
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
States and thoso of the several States ; together with Notes on Criminal Pleading and Practice, embrac
JAN FORD, E. Special attention given to Collecing the English and American authorities generally. By Francis Wharton, LL.D. 2 voIb. Svo.
J tions and Real Estate.
32*
***Wharton's Criminal Law. 3 vols., and Wharton's Precedents, 2 vols., comprise, the former the Science,
and the latter the Practice of Criminal Law of the Stat*- and Federal Courts of the United States. Together,
they form a complete body of the American Law on the subject. Although entirely independent of each
other, they are intended tu be used jointly, and may be considered as one work.
From the Ho.v. A. V. Parsons, in an Opinian delivered in tfte Philadelphia Quarter Sessions.
I have examined it with considerable attention, and in my opinion the Precedents are selected with great
NEW
ability ; and every pleader will find them, generally, and perhaps without exception, safe to follow. * * *
There is a brevity and clearness in most of the Forms, which I think cannot fail to commend tho book to
every lawyer and Judge; and, if these aro followed, our records will be relieved of much unnecessary
verbiage.
From the Philadelphia Age.
the best
Formcommentary,
Book extant one
in theof Department
of thebooks
Administration
Criminal
Law.ThisItIs unquestionably
also, by itB copious,
running
the most valuable
in practiceofwith
which
the lawyer can provide himself. It is adapted to the* Federal Courts, and to each of the States of the Union,
and embraces every felony and misdemeanor known to the Common Law and Statutes. It is as complete a
work of its kind as is to be found in law literature.
From the Chicago Legal News.
The reputation of Mr. Wharton, as a writer upon Criminal Law, has been firmly established with the
American
bar
for
many
years,
and
in
this
jurisprudence
he is they
the Chitty
His works
are purely American. His Forms are shortbranch
and toofthe
point, and while
containofallAmerica.
the necessary^
aver
ments, they are entirely free from the useless repetitions so often found in English writers upon criminal
DILLON
law. These two volumes are a library in themselves to any criminal lawyer.
ON
hi.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

Wharton's Conflict of Laws.

One Volume, Svo. 97.30.
A TREATISE ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, OR PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. With Notices
of Anglo-American, Roman, German and French Jurisprudence. By Francis Wharton, LL.D. Svo.
From the Chicago Legal News.
To the lawyer In general practice few books will be found more useful than Wharton on the Conflict of
Laws. It is a library in itself. It states the relations which exist between the citizen and his government ;
the rule which must govern when the laws of one State or nation conflict with those of another; the effect to
be given to foreign judgments and decrees ; the capacity to hold and transmit real and personal estate; the
effect to be given to the foreign probate of wills; the rights of foreign executors, administrators and guar
dians ; the law of marriage, divorce and domicil, as well as many other subjects equally important.
From Mr. Justice Strong, of the Supreme Court of the United States.
I am greatly indebted to you for a copy of " Wharton on the Conflict of Laws," which I have read with
more than satisfaction. The science of Private International Law has made remarkable advances in late
years,
and ofis becoming
vast consequence
that it should
be more
thoroughly
understood than
by most
members
the legal of
profession.
Mr. Wharton's
book has
rendered
a large acquaintance
withit itis not
only
possible, but easy. It is very thorough and accurate, and far in advance of anything we have upon this sub
ject, on either side of the water. A noble contribution to sound legal learning.

We have In press, and will shortly Issue, a

TREATISE ON THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS, with full reference to En
glish and American cases, by the Honorable
JOHN F. DILLON, United States Circuit
Judge.
This work is designed to meet a want long
Sett by the members of the profession.
Judge Dillon has devoted several years to
the most careful preparation of the text and
IV.
rates ; and this fact, together with hlB high
reputation as a Jurist, guarantee the excel
Hilliard on the Law of Contracts.
lence of the work.
Two Volumes, Svo. 813.00.
Complete in one large octavo volume.
THE LAW OF CONTRACTS. By Francis Hilliard, author of the "Law of Torte," "The Law of
Injunctions," etc. 2 vols. Svo.
From the Chicago Legal News.
We predict that these volumes will recoi ve a warmer welcome from the profession than ever accompanied
any other of the valuable works of Mr. Hilliard, and advise all our readers who are in active practice to add
JAMES COCKCKOFT & CO., them to their libraries.
From the Philadelphia Legal Intelligencer.
A glanco at the table of contents will show that the author has not omitted to discuss any of the multifa
rious titles embraced within this very comprehensive title of the law. The vast field of inquiry suggested by
the title *' Contract" is thoroughly explored.
LAW booksellers,
PittsburghasLegal
Journal.
Mr. Hilliard has long been knownFrom
to thetheprofession
an able,
industrious and painstaking lawyer and
author,
and
in
the
present
work
he
has
displaved
an
amount
of research, subtlety of discrimination, and
499 Wabash Avenue,
familiarity with the progress of the decisions which fully sustain his previously well-earned reputation.
From the
LouisvilleinCourier-Journal.
The author's work on Torts is firmly
established
the good opinion of the profession, and will surely
materially assist tho sale of the present work which is the result of his comprehensive studies on the former
CHICAGO.
subject, and is, therefore, the complement of that work. We very heartily commend it to the profession,
believing that it deserves, and will receive, the same appreciation and use given to the work on Torts.
From
Cincinnati
Gazette,
TREES! fflIN,PLANTS !
Mr. Hilliard has the merit of illustrating
verythefully
whatever
he undertakes to explain. His present
work
is
no
exception
to
its
predecessors.
A
prominent
foature
is the
presentation
the marginal
text of thereferences
points of
important
decisions.
The
student
is
thus
relieved
of
much
of
tho
labor
of tracinginout
FLOWER cccnc I
to their sources. A large part of these decisions are recent ones, so that apart from its own merits, Mr.
GARDEN OCCUO S
Hilliard's work is, in a sense, supplementary to other authorities on the same subject.
Apple aid Crab, 100 2 |to 4 ft., $4 ; 4 to 6 ft., $5.
FromandFrederick
Brightly,
I have looked through the work
am muchC.pleased
withEsq.
the arrangement of the subject, and the
Pear, atand., extra, 1,'year, Bartlett, etc., 3 to 4 |ft., thorough
manner in which the learned author has treated it. We have many books on the subject of con
secdoz , S2.50.
tracts,
but
nevertheless
this
is
a
valuable
addition
to
tho
lawyer's
library.
greatmost
advantage
possesses over others Is that it gives the results of the very latest cases on oneOno
of the
importantwhich
topicsit
Seed*, Peach, bush., $2; Apple Osage, new, bush., of
the law. That it will have the extensive circulation to which it is justly entitled, I sincerely hope.
in
SPotatoea, Early Rose, White' Peach Blow, per
KAY & BKOTIIER'S Publications for sale by E. B. Myers,
huh, $2.
aeedUns*, 1000 Soft Maple, $1; Ash, $3; Elm, (2. Callaghan & Co., Cockcroft & Co., Chicago , 111, and by the Trade
ffiluatrated Catalogue 100 pages, and Price List, 10c.
U-n
F. K. PBCENIX, Bloomlngton, 111. generally throughout the cowitry.

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney, 18 East Harrison .Strert.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
States for the Northern Districtof Illinois. In the
matter of Sands Ale Brewing Company, bankrupt.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to an order this
day entered in said court, I, the undersigned assignee
of the estate of said bankrupt, will sell at public auction
for cash to the highest and best bidders, at tho front
door of number eighteen (IS) East Harrison Btreet,
In the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State of
Illinois, in said district, on Saturday, tho sixth (6th)
day of April, A. 1S72, commencing at ten o'clock in
the forenoon ofD.said
day, and continuing until all
the property hereinafter described shall be sold, all the
following^ described real estate and property, all being
in the said city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State
of Illinois, to wit : Beginning at the southwest comer
of lot eight O) of John S. Vogt's subdivision of the
south
one-third
of outof lot
of theofCanal
Trustees'
subdivision
the twenty
southwest(20)quarter
frac
tional section three (3), in township thirty-nine (3y>.
north
of range
of third
principal
meridian;
thencefourteen
running(14).
northeastalong
the west
lineof
said lot eight (8), and along said last-named line pro
duced to the north line of that part of out lot twenty
(20),
conveyed
PeterJanuary
Kantcnbuger
to Peter
Goobel
by d'-ed,bydated
2, l&>and
andwife
recorded
in
the recorder's office of Cook county. Illinois, February
4,east1852,
in
book
45
of
deeds,
at
page31i
;
thence
running
along said north line of said lot so as aforesaid
conveyed to Peter Goebel to the west line of Pine
street, as the same was extended by the common coun
cil ofline
the of
cityPino
of Chicago
thence
running
the
west
street to; the
north
line ofalong
Pearson
street, and thence west along the north line of Pearson
street to the place of beginningsaid property having
a frontage of one hundred and sixty-seven (167) feet on
Pearson street, by a frontage of one hundred and seven
(107jengine,
feet on and
Pinethestreet,
alsodebris
the of
boiler
and
brick,together
iron andwith
other
de
stroyed buildings and machinery on said premises.
Also a certain leasehold estate in premises known aud
described as lot fourteen (14), in the Assessors' division
of
(2j and lotoften
(10),twenty
in the south
andblock
northtwotwo-thirdH
block
(20), one-third
in Canal
Trustees* subdivision of section three (.3). township
thirty-nine (3'J), north of range fourteen (1.4), east of
third principal meridian, being the property west of
Pine street, leased to the said Sands Ale Brewing Com
pany
Albert Sinords,
by twenty-one
lease dated September
first,
A. 1). by1S0>said
lease runs
(L'l) years from
said
5th
September,
and
is
subject
to
a
revaluation
every five years, and said leasehold will be sold subject
to all arrearages of rents and taxes.and all of said
premises are to be sold free and discharged of all Hens
and
for 1S71Also
excepted),
to theincumbrances
provisions of(taxes
said order.
lots twoaccording
(2), three
(3)
ana
four
0),
in
John
S.
Vogt's
subdivision
of the
south one-third (l3) of block or out lot number twenty
(20), in the Canal Trustees* subdivision of the south
west quarter of fractional section three (3), township
thirty-nine
(3'.')( north range
fourteen
(11),hundred
east of
third
principal
the
east one
[loo] let-t
of lot meridian.
five [5J, iu Also
the Assessors'
division of
the north two-thirds of said block, or out lot twenty
[20] of the ('anal Trustees' subdivision of fractional
sectionahthree
[3], ofinlottownship
range Assessors'
aforesaid.
Also,
that part
seven m,and
in thesai-.
division of said; north two-thirds of block or uiit lot
twenty j.L*uJ aforesaid, bounded and described as fol
lows, that is to say : commencing at the northeast cor
ner
of said
[7 J,seven
and running
thenceand
south
on
the east
linelotofseven
said lot
[7] thirty-five
66-100
[35
30-100]
feet,
more
or
less,
to
the
south
line
of
said
lot seven [7], and thence west on saidsouth line ninety
[yo] feet, more or less, to a point one hundred and
ninety-six
[1%] feet
east line
of the
west line
of saidnow
lot
seven
[7], being
tho east
of Green
Bay street,
called Rush street; thence northwesterly on a line
parallelandwith
west feet,
line ofmore
saidorlotless,
sevento [7]
thirtyseven
7-losaid
[37 7-loJ
a point
in
the north line of said lot seven [7], one hundred and
ninety-six [ 1%] feet east of said west lino of said lot
seven [7], and thence east on the north line of said lot
seven [7] to tho place of beginning, being a portion of
the property conveyed to said Bauds Ale Browing
Company by William Lill, by deed dated the let day oi
July,
A.D. 186S. [.S5]
Also,
of the
west eighty-five
feettheof east
lot fiveforty
[5] of[40]thefeet
Assessors'
division
of
the
north
two-thirds
of
block
twenty
[20]
of the Canal Trustees' subdivision of the southwest
quarter
of
fractional
section
three
[3],
township
thir
ty-nine l_:t'.t], north range fourteen [14], cast of the
third principal meridian. Also, that part of said
block or outoflotthetwenty
[20]quarter
of tho ofCanal
Trustees'
subdivision
southwest
fractional
sec
tion three, township and rango aforesaid, described as
follows: commencing one hundred and ninety-six
[1D6] feet[formerly
east of aGreen
point on
east line
of Rush
street
Baythestreotj,
seventy-five
and 5a [75}2] feet in a southerly direction from
the northwest corner of said block, running
thencelinesoutherly
on thirty-seven
a line parallel
the
west
of said block,
and 7-10with
[37 7-10],
feet
theco
east
to
the
west
line
of
lot
two
[21
John S. Vogt's subdivision of the south one-third of
of
out lot twenty [20] of the south-west quarter of frac
tional
section
three
[3]
aforesaid,
if
said
west
line
were
Sroduced and extended norththence north on said
ne so produced to a point due west of the placa of
beginning,
thence oast
tholots
place
of beginning.
a certain leasehold
estateto in
numbered
twelve Also
and
thirteen [12 and 13] of the assessor's division of block
number twenty [2n] in Canal trustees subdivision of
section three [3] aforesaidbeing the property [east of
Pine street] leased to said Sands Ale Brewing Com
pany
by Albert
Snierds.
lease datedyears
September
1st,
A. D. ItSSS;
said lease
runsbytwenty-one
from said
date, and is subject to a re-valuation every five years
and said leasehold will be sold subject to all arrear
ages for rents and taxesand the iron, brick and other
debris upon said premises will bo sold together with
said leaseall
property
beingof inIllinois.
the cityAnd
of
Chicago,
countyofofsaidOook,
and State
all
of
said
property
will
be
sold
[except
as
aforesaid]
free and discharged ofall encumbrances, by order ofsaid
court; and also by order of said court the said lots two
[2], throe [3] and four [4] of John S. Vogt's subdivision
of the south one-third of said out lot twenty j[20], and
the said parts of lots five [5] and seven [7.1 in the said
assessors' division of the said north two-thirds of said
lot twenty [20] with all brick, iron and other debris
thereon, will be offered for sale together in ono body,
and they will be so sold. And further particulars
regarding said sale and said property may be obtained
on application to the
undersigned.
ROBERT
E. JENKINS.
Assignee of Sands Ale Brewing Co., a Baukrupt.
22-26
^hjcagn^lan h yj
FELKER & MARX,
A t/ornfyn.
CHANCERY NOTICE. -State of Illinois. County
of Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. April
term, A. D. 1S72. John Hirschsteiner v. Babetta
Hirsclisteiner.In
Chancery. of Babetta Hirsch
Affidavit of the non-residence
steiner, defendant above named, having been filed in
the office of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook
county, notice is hereby given to the said Babetta
Hirschsteiner that the complainant heretofore filed his
bill of complaint in said court, on the chaucery side
thereof,
andagainst
that a summons
thereupon
issued ou
outthe
of
sold court
said defendant,
returnable
third Monday of March instant (1872), as is by lawjrequired.
Now, unless you, the said Babetta Hirschsteiner, shall
personally be and appear before said Circuit court of
Cook county, on trie first day of a term thereof, to b
holden at Chicago, In said county, on the third Mon
day of April, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to
the
complainant's
oil!therein
of complaint,
the Muted,
same,
and said
the matters
and things
charged and
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the
prayer ofT. said
bill.
NORMAN
CASSETTE,
Clerk.
22-25
Felker & Marx, Compl't's Sol'rs.

Qhicago

Jegal

^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1971, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 23.

Efie Courts.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
December Term, 1871.
Theodore D. Rogers v. Louis K. Retteii et al.
In error to the Circuit Court of the United Stntw for
the Di/trict of California.
EVIDENCECOMPARISON OF HANDWRITING.
1. The English Rule.That the ancient rule of
the common law did not allow of testimony de
rived from a mere comparison of hands: that
there has been a great diversity of opinion in the
different courts of this country in relation to this
species of evidence. But in England this rule of
the common law lias been changed by statute, so
that in the courts there at the present day, in civil
suits, the witness can compare two handwritings
with each other in order to ascertain whether they
were both written by the same person.
2. When Evidence by Comparison not Admissi
ble.That evidence by comparison of hands is
not admissible when the witness has had no pre
vious knowledge of the handwriting, but is culled
upon to testily merely from a comparison of
hands.
3. When Admissible.That a person who is ac
quainted with the handwriting of another, al
though he may never have seen him write, may
testily as to the" genuineness of a signature toan in
strument, although his knowledge may be derived
by a comparison previously made.Ed. Legal
News.
Opinion of the court by Davis, J.
Two points are made by the counsel
for the plaintiff in error against the af
firmation of this judgment.
It is insisted, 111 the first place, that
the grant in 1845, by Sanchez to Briones,
if genuine, should have been excluded
from the jury because it purported to be
a grant by a justice of the peace of the
jurisdiction, and no such officer had any
power to grant land in California after
the end of the year 1843. But in the
state of the record this court is not call
ed upon to decide this question, for it
does not appear that the objection was
taken in the court below.
It it> true the 'grant was attacked
there, but on an entirely differentground.
The main controversy concerning it was,
whether or not it was genuine. Its va
lidity, if genuine, does not seem to have
been questioned. We are not, therefore,
required to travel through thevarious laws
of Mexico, the acts of California govern
ors, and the proceedings of departmental
assemblies to determine at what period
of time the powers of justices of the
peace, acting as alcaldes, to grant build
ing lots within their jurisdiction, ceased.
It is insisted, in the second place, that
comparison of handwriting is in no
case legal evidence, and as it was admited to prove the genuineness of the dis
puted paper, the judgment should, on
that account, be reversed. It is certain
ly true, that the ancient rule of the com
mon law did not allow of testimony de
rived from a mere comparison of hands,
and equally true that there has been a
great diversity of opinion, in the differ
ent courts of this country, in relation to
this species of evidence. But in England
this rule of the common law, as it re
spects civil proceedings, has been abro
gated by the legislature, so that in the
courts there, at the present day, in civil
suits, the witness can compare two writ
ings with each other, in order to ascer
tain whether they were both written by
the same person. Taylor on Evidence,
2 volume, page 1,484. It is, however,
not necessary for the purposes of this case
to discuss the subject in all its bearings,
nor to depart from the rule laid down
by this court in Strother v. Lucas (6 Pe
ters, Too), that evidence by comparison
of hands is not admissible when the wit
ness has had no previous knowledge of
the handwriting, but is called upon to
testify merely from a comparison of
hands. The witnesses who testified in
this 1 ease had previous knowledge of
Sanchez's handwriting. It is true this
knowledge was not gained from seeing
him write, nor from correspondence
with him, but in a way equally effectual
to make them acquainted with it. San
chez was for many years, under Mexican
rule in California, in official position,
acting as justice of the peace, transacting
the duties of alcalde, corresponding with
the governor, and exercising for a time

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, MARCH 16, 1872.

the power conferred upon him to grant
small parcels of land to deserving per
sons (Colonial History of San Francisco,
by Dwindle.) Necessarily, in the course
of the administration of the duties of his
office, he had occasion frequently to at
tach his signature to papers of import
ance. These papers, after the United
States took possession of the country,
were deposited in the recorder's office of
San Francisco, and the surveyor general's
office, where the Mexican archives are
kept. Sanchez also, as did most of the
native Californians and Mexicans who
had been in public life, appeared before
the United States land commission,
which sat in San Francisco to determine
the validity of Spanish grants, and gave
his depositions. These depositions, with
the other papers of the commission, at
the expiration of it, were taken to the
office of the land commissioner at Wash
ington. As no question was raised on
the trial of the genuineness of these va
rious writingsSanchez was present and
interposed no objectionthey must be
considered, ifnot as havingbeen acknowl
edged by him, at least as having been
proved to the satisfaction of the court.
In this condition of things, Sears, the
clerk in the recorder's office for eight
years, having the especial charge of the
records ; Hopkins, the custodian of the
archives for an equal length of time, and
Fisher, the secretary and interpreter for
the board of land commissioners, were
called upon to testify upon the subject
of the disputed signature. In order to
lay a foundation for their competency,
they were requested to state whether
they were acquainted with the hand
writing of Sanchez, and to give their
means of knowledge. Each and all an
swered that they were familiar with
it, and told how they knew it. Sears
had frequently seen it in his office,
and had, many times, made certified
copies of the papers to which it was at
tached, for the use of the courts. In
deed, so familiar was he with it that, in
speaking of it and the handwriting of an
other person, he said, " I have seen so
many instruments and papers passing
through my hands that these signatures
(naming them) are like household im
plements with us."
Hopkins, an expert in detecting writ
ing not genuine, had examined the cor
respondence of Sanchez, while justice of
the peace, with the governor, and other
papers in the archives, to which his sig
nature was affixed quite often, and was
therefore well acquainted with it.
Fisher knew it because he had the cus
tody, during the term of the board of
land commissioners, of all the deposi
tions taken by them, and acted as inter
preter for those who could not speak the
English language. The party making
the depositions was required to sign them
after one of the commissioners had ad
ministered the oath. Then they passed
into Fisher's hands, as secretary, who
indorsed them and put them among the
papers of the case. Sanchez's testimony,
with many others, was taken, and, al
though Fisher could not swear he had
actually seen him write his name, he be
lieved he had, and, at any rate, he
should know his signature from having
seen it to the depositions.
The circuit court, after these witnesses
had stated the manner in which they
formed their knowledge ofthe handwrit
ing of Sanchez, allowed them to testify
whether his signature to the grant in
controversy was genuine or not ; and the
inquiry is, did the court err in its ruling
on this point ? Obviously, the evidence
is not obnoxions to the objection that it
is a mere comparison of hands ; that is
a comparison by a juxtaposition of two
writings, in order to enable a witness,
without previous knowledge of the hand
writing of the party, to determine bysuch comparison whether both were writ
ten by the same person.
The witnesses in this case were con
versant with the signature of Sanchez,
and swore to their belief, not by com

paring a disputed with an acknowledged

signature, but from the knowledge they
had previously acquired on the subject.
The text writers all agree, that a witness
is qualified to testify to the genuineness
of a controverted signature if he has the
proper knowledge of the party's hand
writing. The difficulty has been in deter
mining what is proper knowledge, and
how it shall be acquired. It is settled
everywhere, that if a person has seen
another write his name but once he can
testify, and that he is equally competent
if he has personally communicated with
him by letter, although he has never seen
him write at all. But is the witness in
competent unless he has obtained his
knowledge in one or the other of these
modes ? Clearly not, for in the varied
affairs of life there are many modes in
which one person can become acquaint
ed with the handwriting of another, be
sides having seen him write or corres
ponded with him. There is no good
reason for excluding any of the modes
of gettiug information, and if the court
on the preliminary examination of the
witness, can see that he has that degree
of knowledge of the party's handwriting
which will enable him to judge of its
genuinuncoo, he should be permitted to
give to the jury his opinion on the sub
ject.
This was done in this case, and it is
manifest that the three witnesses told
enough to satisfy any reasonable mind
that they were better able to judge of
the signature of of Sanchez, than if they
had only received one or two letters
from him, and saw him write his name
once.
U. S. CIRCUIT COURT, S. D. OF NEW
YORK.
Opinion filed Feb. 23, 1872.
William a. Brit-ton v. Benjamin F. Butler.
THE CONFISCATION ACTS CONSTRUEDMIL
ITARY OCCUPATION OF NEW ORLEANSAUTHORITY OF COMMANDERSEIZURE OF
PROPERTY-GENERAL BUTLER'S CASE.
1. Commercial Intercourse UnlawfulDrafts
Void.That on the facts set up in the first special
plea, it appears that en the first of September,
1802, and when the matters alleged In the said
plea took place, commercial intercourse between
the State 01 Mississippi and the city of New Or
leans was un awful, and that being so. the drafts
drawn by persons doing businessin Natchez, Miss
issippi, on persons doing business in New Orleans,
were illegal and void instruments.
2. ConfiscationSeizure of the Drafts.That
these moneys were not seized while passing be
tween loyal and disloyal territory: that the plea
that the defendant, having captured these void
drafts in the discharge of his duty as commander
of the army at New Orleans, and took away from
the persons who were the drawers of the drafts
certain moneys belonging to the plaintiffand paid
them into the Treasury of the United States, and
that by order of the President of the United States
those moneys have been passed upon and audited
and credited to him, is no warrant for saying that
the transaction as set up in the plea, if one of seiz
ure, was lawful ; that the moneys are not even
averred to have been the property of an enemy or
ofan insurgent ; that the fact that the drawers ofthe
bills were within the insurgent territory, and the
bills were drawn there, although it may warrant
the presumption that the drawees were debtors to
the drawers to the amount of the bills, does not
warrant the presumption that the moneys In the
hands of the drawees were not the moneys of the
drawees, or were the moneys of persons within
the insurgent territory, or were the moneys of the
enemy ; that the case, then, as one of seizure, is
one of seizure in loyal territory of the moneys of
persons in such territory not alleged to have been
enemies of the United States.
3. What Constitutes Confiscation.That even
if the moneys were the property of an enemy of
the United States, or were the representative of
debts due to such enemy, the plea sets up no au
thority for their seizure : that the mere declaration
of war does not confiscate enemy prop rty, or
debts due to an enemy, nor does it so vest the
property in the government as to support judicial
proceedings for the confiscation of the property or
debts without the expression of the will of the
government through its proper department to that
effect.
4. Confiscation Acts.The court discusses the
Confiscation Acts at some length, and construes
them.
5. Martial Law.That there is nothing in the
mere existence of martial law which, on the facts
alleged in the plea, justifies the seizure of the
moneys.
6. Military Occupation of New Orleans.
That the city, after its actual, substantial, com
plete and permanent military occupation and con
trol of the United States, in May, 1862, could not
be regarded as in actual insurrection, nor could
its inhabitant be regarded as sublect, in most re
spects, to treatment as enemies.
7. Statute of Limitations.The court construes

Whole No. 181.

the acts of Congress limiting the time within
which actions may be brought for wrongs com
mitted during the late rebellion under color of
authority, etc.En. Legal News.
Blatchkord, J.Thissuit was brought
in a State court and transferred into this
court. The declaration is in assumpsit,
on the money counts and an account
stated. The damages are laid at S15,000,
and the causes of action are alleged to
have occurred at New Orleans, in the
State of Louisiana, on the 1st day of
September, 1862.
The defendant pleads the general issue
and two special pleas. To each of the
special pleas a special demurrer is
interposed by the plaintiff, alleging de
fects in substance and form.
The first special pica avers that, from
the 24th of February, 18G2, until the 10th
of December, 1802, the defendant was a
Major-General of Volunteers, duly com
missioned by the President, in the ser
vice of the United States, and was
assigned to the military geographical
department of the Gulf, including within
its bounds the State of Louisiana, and,
as such commander so assigned, took
possession of the city of New Orleans
and the adjacent portion of said State
of Louisiana, and held the same by the
armed forces of the United States, of
which he was in command in time of
war, and, with such armed forces, was
engaged in carrying on the war and sup
pressing the recent rebellion against the
United States, then having broken out
into public territorial war in said State
of Louisiana and the adjacent States of
Mississippi and Texas ; that, by due pro
clamation, according to the customs and
usages of war, martial law was declared
and proclaimed and obtained in said
department, fry.: tb'i 1st f1' Mav in said
year 1802, all the time till the Kith day
of December in said year, and during all
said time the defendant was acting un
der the orders and proclamations of the
President of the United States, and in
administration, and in virtue and under
color of the Acts of Congress ; that, on
the 10th of August, 1801, pursuant to the
statutes of the United States in such case
made and provided, the inhabitants of
the States of Louisiana and Mississippi
and other States, were, by proclamation
of the President of the United States,
declared to be in a state of insurrection
against the United States, and that all
commercial intercourse should cease, as
by such proclamation will fully appear ;
that at the time of the promises and un
dertakings, and of the supposed griev
ances complained of by the plaintiff,
and subsequently thereto, such proclama
tion was and remained in full force and
virtue ; that on or about the 1st of Sep
tember, in said year, the pickets of the
armed forces of the United States, then
under the command of the defendant,
and stationed on the outer lines of the
camp or garrison of New Orleans, for
the protection of said camp or garrison
against the enemy, captured a person
endeavoring to make his way furtively
from the lines and territory occupied by
the enemy, to wit : from the city of
Natchez, in said State of Mississippi,
then in the armed occupation of the
enemv, to the said city of New Orleans,
then in the armed occupation and pos
session of the United States forces, as
aforesaid; that there were found con
cealed upon the person so captured two
or more drafts, checks, or bills of ex
change, drawn by persons or firms doing
business in said city of Natchez, then in
the occupation of the enemy, upon per
sons or firms doing business in the said
city of New Orleans, then in the occupa
tion of the United States forces; that,
thereupon, the defendant, as such Ma
jor-General, and in obedience to the or
ders and proclamations of the President
of the United States, and in the adminis
tration, and in virtue and under color of
the Acts of Congress in such case made
and provided, captured said drafts,
checks, or bills of exchange, and caused
the proceeds thereof, when collected, to

Chicago
be turned over to the treasury of the
United States, which said proceeds have
been duly passed upon, audited and
credited to him by the order of the
President of the United States ; and that
out of the acts and doings aforesaid, and
not otherwise, arose the said several
causes of action of which the plaintiff
complains.
Under the provisions of the 5th section
of the Act of July 13th, 18(31, (12 U. S.
Stat, at Large, 257), and the proclama
tion of the President of August IGth,
1601, (Id. 1202) the inhabitants of the
States of Mississippi and Louisiana (with
certain specified exceptions) were de
clared to be in a state of insurrection
against the United States, and all com
mercial intercourse between the said
States of Mississippi and Louisiana and
the inhabitants thereof, and the citizens
of other States and other parts of the
United States, was made unlawful after
tke date of said proclamation, with the
said specified exceptions. One of those
exceptions excepted from the inhabi
tants of the State of Louisiana the in
habitants of such parts of that State as
might be, from time to time, occupied
and controlled by forces of the United
States, engaged in dispersing the insur
gents against the laws, Constitution and
Government of the United States. On
the facts set up in the first special plea,
it clearly appears that on the 1st of Sep
tember, 1802, and when the matters
alleged in the said plea took place, com
mercial intercourse between the State of
Mississippi and the city of New Orleans
was unlawful. That being so, the drafts,
checks, or bills of exchange, mentioned
in that plea, drawn by persons doing
business m Natchez, Mississippi, on perBons doing business in Xew Orleans,
were illegal and void instruments, ( The
Ouachita. Cotton, 0 Wallace, 521, 530 ; Woods
v. Wilder, 43 New York, 104.)
The defendant contends that as the
bills of exchange were thus void they
were subjects of confiscation; that, as
martial law prevailed, and there were no
courts and no civil authorities, the bills
of exchange became confiscate at the
will of the commanding General, with
out any of the ordinary processes of law ;
that the bills thus became the property
of the United States, in the hands of
the General in command j and that he
on behalf of the United States, and as
its agent, collected the amounts for
which they were drawn, being the same
moneys to recover which this suit is
brought; and that that is a defense to
the suit.
It is difficult to see how the conse
quence logically follows the premises.
If the bills of exchange were void, then,
even if they were confiscable by mere
seizure, it is difficult to see how their
seizure and confiscation passed a title to
the United States to the moneys in the
hands of the drawees of the bills in
New Orleans, which the defendant sets
up that he afterwards received as a col
lection of the bills. The bills are not
averred to have been accepted by the
drawees before they were seized. The
confiscation by the seizure, if of any
thing, was merely of the naked pieces
of paper seized. It gave no valid claim
to the United States to collect from the
drawees the moneys expressed in the
bills. If the moneys were seized in the
possession of the drawees, the transac
tion was no different from what it would
have been if the bills of exchange had
never been drawn or seized. If the
moneys were voluntarily paid by the
drawees to the defendant, on a demand
for them, as being drawn for by the bills,
the bills being void instruments, their
seizure could confer n the United
States and on the defendant no title to
receive or retain the moneys, which
they would not have had if the bills had
never been seized or presented. The
transaction set up in the first special
plea comes down, then, to this, that the
defendant, by order of the President of
the United States, either took or received
the moneys referred to, which are the
monevs sued for.
If the defendant took the moneys by
seizing them, the act, so far as the special
plea shows, was unlawful. The moneys
are not therein alleged to have been for
feitable or subject to seizure forany cause
whatever. No Act of Congress, or pro
clamation or order of the President, is
referred to, which made such moneys
forfeitable or liable to seizure. They
were not seized while passing between
loyal and disloyal territory. They were

Legal

in loyal territory. The plea is that the

defendant, having captured these void
drafts, in the discharge of his duty, took
away from the persons who were the
drawees of the drafts, certain moneys
belonging to the plaintiff, and paid them
into the treasury of the United States,
and that, by the order of the President
of the United States, those moneys have
been passed upon, audited and credited
to him. There is no warrant for saying
that the transaction, as set up in the
plea, if one of seizure, was lawful. The
moneys are not even averred to have
been the property of an enemy or of an
insurgent. The fact that the drawers of
the bills, which are alleged in the plea
to have been drafts, checks or bills of
exchange, were within the insurgent ter
ritory, and that the bills were drawn
there, although it may warrant the pre
sumption that the drawees were debtors
to the drawers to the amount of the bills,
does not warrant the presumption that
the moneys in the hands of the drawees
were not the moneys of the drawees, or
were the moneys of persons within the
insurgent territory, or were the moneys
of the enemy. The case, then, as one "of
seizure, is one of the seizures, in loyal ter
ritory, of the moneys of persons in such
territory, not alleged to have been ene
mies of the United States.
Even if the moneys were the property
of an enemy of the United States, or
were the representative of debts due to
such enemy, the plea sets up no author
ity for their seizure. The mere declara
tion of war does not confiscate enemy
property, or debts due to an enemy,
nor does it so vest the property or the
debts in the Government, as to support
judicial proceedings for the confiscation
of the property or debts, without the ex
pression of the will of government,
through its proper department, to that
effect. Under the Constitution of the
United States, the power of confiscating
enemy property and debts due to an
enemy is in Congress alone ( Brown v.
United States 8 Oranch ,110). In legislating
on the subject, Congress has passed vari
ous Acts, but none of them authorize the
confiscation of moneys situated as the
moneys in this case are alleged by the
plea to have been situated. The Act
of August 0th, 1801 (12 U. S. Stat, at
Large, 319), provides for the seizure by
the President, and the condemnation by
judicial proceedings, of property acquired
or disposed of with intent to employ the
same in aiding the insurrection, and
propertv knowingly so emploved. The
Act of July 17th, 1802 (Id., 589) provides
for the seizure by the President, and
the application to the support of the
army of the United States, through judi
cial proceedings, of the proceeds of the
property, money, credits and effects of
persons holding office under the insur
gents, and of persons owning property
in loyal territory, who aid the rebellion,
and of persons in the rebel States, in
arms or aiding the rebellion, who do not
return to their allegiance within sixty
days after warning by proclamation.
The act of March 12, 1803 (Id., 820), pro
vides for the confiscation, through judi
cial proceedings, of property coming
from within the insurgent States into the
loyal States, otherwise than according to
regulations prescribed by that act. All
of these acts provide for a seizure only
with a view to judicial proceedings.
Even if a seizure in this case was lawful,
no judicial proceedings are set up, but
only a turning over of the moneys to the
treasury of the United States.
Considered as a capture of documents
constituting the evidence of debts due to
an enemy (if that is predicable of un
accepted bills), and as giving the right
to capture the moneys, representing the
debts, as the property of the enemy, the
transaction stands in no different pos
ture. The bills captured were not the
debts. The possession of the unaccept
ed bills gave no right to the captors to
take physical possession of the moneys
of the drawees, and could have no effect
to divest or affect the title of the drawees
to such moneys, or their right ofpossession
in the same. (HaUeck on International
Law, chap. 19, sec. 8.)
The act of March 2, 1867, (14 U. S. Stat,
at Large. 432,) is invoked in aid of the
plea. That act provides that all acts
and orders of the President, or acts done
by.his authority or approval, after March
4th, 1861, and before July 1st, 1S(>6, " re
specting martial law. military trials by
courts martial or military commissions,
or the arrest, imprisonment, and trial of

News.

persons charged with participation in

the late rebellion against the United
States, or as aiders or abettors thereof,
or as guilty of any disloyal practice in
aid thereof, or of any violation of the
laws or usages of war, or of affording
aid and comfort to rebels against the au
thority of the United States, and all pro
ceedings and acts done or had by courts
martial or military commissions, or
arrests and imprisonments made in the
premises, by any person, by the author
ity of the orders or proclamations of the
President, made as aforesaid, or in aid
thereof," are thereby approved in all re
spects, legalized and made valid, " to
the siime extent and with the same ef
fect as if said orders and proclamations
had been issued and made, and said
arrests, imprisonments, proceedings and
acts had been done under the previous
express authority and direction of the
Congress of the United States, and in
pursuance of a law thereof previously
enacted and expressly authorizing and
directing the same to be done." It also
provides that no court shall have
or take jurisdiction of, or in any man
ner reverse, any of the proceedings had
or acts done as aforesaid, nor shall anv
person be held to answer in any of said
courts for any act done or omitted to be
done, in pursuance, or in aid, of any ofsaid
proclamations or orders, or by authority,
orwitti the approval ofthe President,with
in the|period aforesaid and respecting any
of the matters aforesaid ;" and that " all
officers, and other persons, in the ser
vice of the United States, or who acted
in aid thereof, acting in the premises,
shall be held prima facie, to have been
authorized by the President." This act
applies solely to " the matters" and
" the premises" mentioned in it, and
those do not embrace the transactions
set up in the plea. The fact that mar
tial law obtained in New Orleans on the
1st of September, 1802, does not, on the
allegations in the plea, make an order of
the President authorizing or approving
the seizure of these moneys, an act or
order of his respecting martial law, or
make the act of the defendant in seizing
the moneys an act of his respecting
martial law, within the meaning of the
statute. There is nothing in the mere
existence of martial law, which on the
facts alleged in the plea, justifies the
seizure of the moneys. In the case of
The Venice, (2 Wallace, 258,) the Supreme
Court, referring to the re-occupation of
New Orleans by the forces of the United
States, in May, 1862, and to the procla
mation of the commanding General on
the 6th of that month declaring the city
to be under martial law, and also declar
ing that " all the rights of propertv, of
whatever kind, will be held inviolate,
subject only to the laws of the United
States," says, that under the act of July
13, 1861, and the proclamation of the
President, of August 16th, 1861, the city
of New Orleans, after its actual, substan
tial, complete and permanent military
occupation and control by the United
StateSj in May, 1862, could not be regard
ed as in actual insurrection, nor could its
inhabitants be regarded as subject, in
most respects, to treatment as enemies,
and that such military occupation and
control drew after it the full measure of
protection to persons and property con
sistent with a necessary subjection to
military government. The plea sets up
no necessity for the seizure of the
moneys, and no justification therefor,
within these principles.
If the moneys were volunarily paid to
the defendant, and not seized by him by
military power, the fact that he received
them as Major General, and in obedience
to the orders of the President, and paid
them into the treasury, and that such
pay has been approved by the President,
cannot vary his liability "for them to the
plaintiff, if he would be liable for them
in case no such fact existed, on evidence
to be adduced bv the plaintiff under his
declaration. Whether, if the case ever
comes to trial on the plea of the general
issue, the plaintiff can make out the de
fendant's liability, is another question.
All 1 mean to say" is, that, if the deiendant is otherwise liable, the facts set up
in the plea constitute no defense to the
action.
The demurrer to the first special plea
must, therefore, be allowed, with leave
to the defendant to amend, on payment
of costs.
The second special plea avers, that the
pretended acts which, if true, would
give to the plaintiff' the supposed causes

of action mentioned in the declaration,

were performed, if performed by the de
fendant, as a Major-General of Volun
teers in the Army of the United States,
dulv commissioned by the President, and
under and in pursuance of the laws of
the United States, and the orders and
proclamations of the President, and dur
ing the late rebellion of the Southern
States against the authority of the gen
eral government of the United States ;
and that said supposed causes of action
did not, nor did any or either of them,
accrue within two years next before the
commencement of this action, nor within
two years after March 3d, 1863.
The statute relied on as supporting
this plea is the 7th section of the Act of
March 3d, 1863, (12 U. S. Stat, at Large;
757), which enacts, that no suit or pros
ecution, civil or criminal, shall be main
tained for any arrest or imprisonment
made, or other trespasses or wrongs done
or committed, or act omitted to be done,
at any time during the present rebellion,
by virtue or under color of any authority
derived from, or exercised by or under,
the President of the United States, or by
or under any Act of Congress, unless the
same shall Have been commenced within
two years next after such arrest, impris
onment, trespass or wrong may have
been done or committed, or act may have
been omitted to be done, provided,
that, in no case, shall the limitation here
in provided, commence to run until the
passage of this Act, so that no party
shall, by virtue of this Act, be debarred
of his remedy by suit or prosecution un
til two years from and after the passage
of this Act." It is sufficient to say, that
this suit is an action of assumpsit, and is
not a suit for an arrest or imprisonment
made, or a trespass or a wrong done
or committed, or an act omitted to be
done, during the rebellion. Moreover,
the plea does not aver that the "preten
ded acts,'1 which it refers to, were arrests
orimprisonmentsortrespasses or wrongs.
The 4th section of the same Act makes
an order of the President or under his
authority, made during the existence of
the rebellion, a defense onlv to an action
or prosecution, civil or criminal, "for any
search, seizure, arrest or imprisonment
made, doneor committed, or acts omitted
to be done, under and by virtue of such
order or under color of any law of Con
gress." The nature of the action, for the
purposes of the demurrer to this plea,
can be judged of only by the declaration.
The demurrer to the second special
plea is, therefore, allowed, with leave to
the defendant to amend on payment of
costs.
Vose & McDaniel, Plffs. Att'ys.
E. P. Wheeler, of Counsel.
Develin, Miller & Trull, Defts. Att'ys.
Jonx E. Develin, of Counsel.
SUPERIOR COURT OF COOK
COUNTY.
The United States v. David Muir.
NATURALIZATION POWER OF COURT TO
SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AT SUBSEQUENT
TERM CONSIDERED.
1. Naturalization.That a proceeding to natu
ralize a foreigner is a judicial one, and the finding
of the court thereon a judgment.
2. United States Bound.That the United States
having the right, by its attorney, to appear and
contest the petition*, would be so far bound by the
judgment that it could not treat it as a niiility
against itself, and must attack it, if at all, in tile
mode proper for one who is substantially a party
to a judgment prima facie.
3. Power of Court to set aside Judgment.In
this ease the judgment of naturalization having
been entered some years, the court, on mere mo
tion, refuses to set it aside on the ground of fraud
in obtaining it, and reviews the Illinois decisions
upon the power of a court, on motion, to set aside
a judgment after the term has expired at which it
was rendered.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion by Jameson, J.
January 27, 1800, David Muir, a Scotch
man by birth, and a subject of the Queen
of Great Britain and Ireland, applied to
this court for naturalization, under the
laws of Congress for that purpose. He
filed his sworn petition in the form
usual in the case of' minors eomingto the
United States. To this were appended
affidavits of Charles Old and James Cox,
witnesses, stating upon oath the same
facts set out in the petition. A certified
copy of these papers has been filed, the
originals having been destroyed with all
the records in the ease. Upon this peti
tion such proceedings were had that a
judgment of naturalization was entered,
and the oath renouncing his former al
legiance and to support the Constitution
of the United States was administered to
said Muir, a certified copy of which is
also before me.
Some time in the fall of 1871, before

Chicago
the late fire \>y vfkicb. the files and rec
ords of the court v?ere destroyed, a ver
bal motion was made by the District At
torney for the Northern District of Illi
nois, in behalf of the United States, for a
rule upon said Muir to show cause why
the judgment should not be set aside and
vacated. The rule was entered and a
day fixed for the hearing, but on account
of the loss of the files which in the mean
time had occurred, the rule was not ar
gued at the time named. It was renewed
on the 1st of January last, and upon
special appearance and objection to the
jurisdiction of the court, argument was
had a few days ago, and I am now to pass
upon that objection.
The objection is, that it is not in the
power of this court to set aside a judg
ment rendered by it at a preceding term,
upon motion. It is well settled that the
proceeding to naturalize a foreigner is a
judicial one, and the finding of the court
a judgment. Spratt and Spratt, 4 Pet.
393 ; McCarthy v. Marsh, 5 N. Y., 383. In
re an alien, 7 Hill, 137. In re Clark, 18
Barb., 444; Ritchie v. Putnam, 13 Wend.
624 ; The Acorn, 2 Abb. U. S. R., 444. It
is, however, a judicial proceeding of
unique character, arising under a special
law by which the State Court is author
ized to act as a quasi Federal Court.
There is, in fact, generally, but a single
party, the person applying to be natural
ized, who nles his petition and furnishes
the only evidence considered by the
court. In other words, the proceeding is
commonly an ex parte one. And yet in
contemplation of law the United States
may perhaps be considered as present at
the examination of witnesses, and the
rendition of the judgment, in the person
of the court acting under its 'authority.
At all events, having the right, doubt
less, by its attorney, to appear and con
test the petition, the United States would
be so far bound by the judgment that it
could not treat it as a nullity against it
self, and must attack it, if at all, in the
mode proper for one who is substantially
a party to a judgment prima facie valid.
The object of the petition in such cases
being to be declared entitled to privi
leges of which the United States is the
common fountain, and the United States
having in advance authorized the State
courts to unseal that fountain, it must in
the first instance be regarded as a con
senting party to the judgment by which
that is done. If a wrong has been done
to it, it must show that fact as other par
ties do.
Can that be by a motion merely ?
Some of the earlier, though not the
earliest, cases in this State recognized in
the courts a discretion on motion to set
aside their judgments after the lapse of
the term. In the first case, Morgan v.
Hays, Breese, 126, the Supreme Court
had refused to sanction that principle,
giving excellent reasons why it ought
not to be permitted, but, under the cir
cumstances, declined to reverse the judg
ment of the lower court. The court be
low had entered a judgment, and then
continued the cause to the next term, at
which term it set it aside. Smith, J.,
says : " The court was therefore wrong in
setting aside the judgment ; but, as the
court, from the confused state of the
record, may be supposed to have consid
ered that the case had been reserved for
a review at a future term, and, as we are
by no means satisfied that the plaintiff
ought, from the evidence contained in the
bill of exceptions, to have recovered, we
do not feel disposed to interfere with
that part of the decision." The decision
was, however, reversed on another
ground. The same rule was declared in
Garner v. Crenshaw, 1 Scam., 143, to hold
after one full term, in cases of default.
It was said to be too late to set aside
the default after the term had elapsed.
There then follow several cases in
which a laxer doctrine was sanctioned.
The first of these was Sloo v. State
Bank, 1 Scam., 429, in which a judgment
rendered at the May term against Sloo
and McClintock, partners, on a power of
attorney executed by McClintock alone,
was sought, at the next term, to be set
aside as to Sloo, upon motion : held that
the motion should have been sustained.
The next was that of Lyon v. Boilvin, 2
Gil., 635, in which an attorney had en
tered the appearance of a party without
authority, and it was held that a judg
ment rendered against the party upon
such unauthorized appearance would be
set aside on motion. So in Truett, v.
Wainwright, 4 Gil., 418, it was held, that
a judgmen* rendered against a person-

Legal

who had not been served with process,

nor authorized his appearance to be en
tered, might be set aside by a bill in
chancery, or by a motion in the court in
which judgment was rendered.
The later cases have reversed this
rule, and brought the practice back to
where it was when Morgan v. Hays was
decided. The leading case is that of
Cook v. Wood, 24 111., 295.
In that case default was entered at
the April term, 1857, and judgment ren
dered. At the Octoberterm following, the
default was opened on affidavits showing
that the defendants had supposed the
suit dismissed and thus probably had
neglected to put in their defense, the
cause was again tried and judgment less
by over $5,000 was rendered, and a writ
of error sued out to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the de
cision of the court below, holding that
after a term has expired, a court has not
discretion or authority to set aside a
judgment rendered thereat, but that it
may amend it in mere matter of form
upon motion to the other party j that after
the lapse of the term application to
change the judgment, should be made to a
Court of Equity, or resort be had to a writ
of error. The court remark upon the
fact that the judgment was set aside at
the next term succeeding that at which
the default was taken, and the judgment
entered up. In that case, the defend
ant stood better than in Garner v. Cren
shaw, where a full term had intervened.
On the other hand, the court noted that
in Garner v. Crenshaw, no judgment was
spoken of, and the court thought it had
the right to presume there was a default
only, which is interlocutory, and that no
formal judgment had been entered upon
it. The precise question presented there
fore in that case, did not arise in Cook v.
Wood ; hence the latter was considered
on the authorities de novo, and the con
clusion reached which I have mentioned.
In State Savings Institution v. Nelson,
49 111., 171, where the court below had, on
motion, set aside a judgment against the
sheriff of this county, this same rule was
applied. It was held, that the power of
the court was gone after the lapse of the
term, except to amend in matters of form
or to correct clerical errors.
In the opinion of the court, in Cook v.
Wood, an intimation was thrown out that
"judgments entered up by fraud, might,
perhaps," to use the words of the court,
on due notice by scire facias, or other
wise, be vacated at a subsequent term,
by the same court," though it is added
that " untainted with fraud they must
stand until set aside by this court."
It is doubtful what weight ought to be
given to this intimation. It probably
should not be very great, since the same
court in the subsequent case of Babcock
v. McClamant, 58 111., 217, express a
doubt of the power of a court to correct a
judgment on motion, even for fraud of
the grossest kind. The fraud in question
was that of altering the judgment on
the record of the court by increasing the
amount. A bill was filed to correct the
judgment, but the court below dismissed
the bill, as it seems, on the ground that
a complete remedy had been provided
by our statute, permitting a stay of exe
cution until a motion to quash could be
heard at the next term of court. The
Supreme Court, on appeal, reversed this
decision, and referring to the ground,
stated, say: "This may be true of the
execution and levy, but it is not clear
that the Circuit Court could correct the
judgment on motion. But even if it
could," the court add, " it is more satis
factory and complete to grant the relief
in equity."
As the basis of the motion to vacate
this judgment is the allegation, support
ed by depositions, that the facts sworn to
by the respondent and his witnesses in
regard to his residence in the United
States were false, and that he had for
eighteen years before taking the oath
been a resident, and for many years a
tax-payer and voter, of the Dominion of
Canada, in short, that the judgment was
entered upon false and fraudulent testi
mony, this decision of our Supreme
Court would seem to be decisive of this
motion. I see no reason why fraud com
mitted in procuring a judgment to be en
tered upon false testimony should be ex
aminable on motion any more than fraud
in altering the record of a judgment.
Were there any doubt on this point,
however, I should regard it as in sub
stance removed by the opinion of the
District Judge of the United States for

News.

the District of Michigan, delivered in

what I may consider this very case. In
1867, the United States revenue officer at
Detroit caused a vessel named The Acorn,
belonging to this respondent, Muir, to be
libeled in Admiralty for forfeiture as en
rolled and licensed in the United States
upon false representations as to her and
the respondent's national character,
charging that Muir represented himself
on oath to be an American citizen, when
in fact he was a subject of the Queen of
Great Britain and Ireland.
Upon the trial of the cause, the judg
ment now sought to be set aside was in
troduced by the respondent to prove
himself a citizen of the United States
the certified copy now before me being
used as evidence. To this it .was replied,
that the judgment of naturalization was
procured upon perjured testimony, and
depositions of witnesses were offered
tending to show that such was the fact,
and the court (Longyear, J.) was asked
to receive the evidence to impeach the
judgment thus collaterally. This he re
fused to do, requiring the libellant, as I
am informed, to impeach it, if at all, by
a direct proceeding in this court, and
dismissed the libel. In rendering his
decision he defined the fraud which, in
his opinion would, and which would
not, render judgments impeachable in a
collateral proceeding, and said :
"They may be impeached by facts in
volving fraud or collusion, but which
were not before the court or involved in
the issue or matter upon which judg
ment was rendered. They may not be
impeached for any facts, whether involv
ing fraud or collusion or not, or even
perjury, which were necessarily before
the court, and passed upon." The
Acorn, 2 Abb. U. S. R., 444. But, if facts
involving fraud or even perjury would
not be admitted to impeach a judgment
collaterally, ought they to be admitted
in a proceeding only nominally direct,
like this, in which there are, as we shall
see, no formal pleadings, and in which
none of the safeguards that ought to sur
round the rights of parties litigant can
exist? The objection to allowing evi
dence of such facts to impeach a judg
ment collaterally is, that the party
sued was summned into court to try
another and a different issue, and conse
quently was not apprised by the plead
ings that he was to meet, nor could be
supposed able to meet, then and there,
the new issue forced upon him. In sub
stance, the same objection holds good to
an attempt to try the very important
question involved in this motion in the
informal way proposed. I do not think
it ought to be allowed.
If no other reason existed for refusing
to make this rule absolute, it would be
enough that so long a time has elapsed
since not only the judgment was entered
six years,but since the supposed per
jury became known to the United States,
and an application to this court was de
clared necessary to set aside its judg
ment,three to five years. Since then
there has been ample time in which to
prepare a bill. In my judgment, a pro
ceeding in that manner is always more
satisfactory and complete than by mo
tion. In this case I think there would
be peculiar hardship in going into an
inquiry involving consequences so vital
to the respondent in the manner pro
posed. The United States have filed no
petition, no affidavit, not even a written
motion. Upon a verbal application this
rule was entered, and there have been
placed on file copies of the depositions
of witnesses used in the libel suit at De
troit, bearing on the question of the res
idence of the respondent at and before
the time of the judgment. Citizenship
must be a slight boon if it can be divest
ed upon such an application made after
the lapse of so many years. A man's
good name must be a thing of trivial mo
ment in the eyes of a court which would
permit it to be aspersednay, judicially
blasted,by a decision adverse to him
in such a proceeding.
A suggestion has been made that, on
the face of the judgment, or of the certi
fied copy of the petition, affidavits and
final oath of the respndentall there is
to represent the judgment in this case
enough appears to show that it is void,
in that it was rendered upon affidavits
of the respondent himself, and of his two
witnesses, whereas it has been judicially
determined that it ought to be based up
on the sworn testimony of witnesses in
open court. In re An alien, 7 Hill, 137.
Were it proper to go into the question at

171
all, it could be easily shown that the sug
gestion is unfounded. The fact is, as
counsel agree, that this judgment was
rendered by myself, but it is within my
positive recollection, and I think the
proof could be easily made, that no judg
ment of naturalization has ever been
entered by me upon affidavits, but only
upon the sworn statements of witnesses
in open court, as the rule requires, al
though, doubtless, affidavits are also
drawn up and presented in the form now
before me. It will be observed that it
nowhere appears from the papers filed,
that only affidavits were used at the hear
ing, and it is merely, I judge, an inference
of counsel that such was the fact.
For these reasons the rule is discharg
ed.
United States District Attorney Glover,
and Hervey and Goodwin, for United
States ; Rae and Mitchell for defendant.
THE NEW ILLINOIS PRACTICE ACT
We are indebted to Senator Edsall
for an official copy of the new Practice
Act, passed at the present session of the
legislature. It will be in force on the
first day of July next. Notwithstanding
its great length, on account of its impor
tance to the Illinois bar, we print it
entire:
A BILL FOB AN ACT IN REGARD TO PRAC
TICE IN COURTS OF RECORD.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the People of
the State of Illinois, represented in the Gen
eral Assembly, That the first process in all
actions to be hereafter commenced in
any of the courts of record in this state
shall be a summons, except actions where
special bail may be required ; which sum
mons shall be issued under the seal of
the court, tested in the name of the clerk
of such court, dated on the day it shall
be issued, and signed with his name, and
shall be directed to the sheriff, (or, if he
be interested in the suit, to the coroner
of the county,) and shall be made return
able on the first day of the next term of
the court in which the action may be
commenced. If ten days shall not inter
vene between the time of suing out the
summons and the next term of court, it
shall be made returnable to the succeed
ing term. The plaintiff may, in any case,
have summons made returnable at any
term of the court which may be helcl
within three months after the date there
of.
\ 2. It shall not be lawful for any
plaintiff to sue any defendant out of the
county where the latter resides or may
be found, except in local actions, and ex
cept that in every species of personal ac
tions, in law, when there is more than
one defendant, the plaintiff commencing
his action where either of them resides
may have a writ or writs issued, directed
to any county or counties where the
other defendants, or either of them, may
be found : Provided, that if a verdict shall
not be found, or judgment rendered
against the defendant or defendants, res
ident in the county where the action is
commenced, judgment shall not be ren
dered against those defendants who do
not reside in the county, unless they
appear and defend the action.
I 3. It shall be the duty of the sheriff
or coroner to serve all process of sum
mons, or capias, when it shall be practic
able, ten days before the return day
thereof, and to make return of such pro
cess to the clerk who issued the same,
by or on the return day, with an indorse
ment of his service, the time of serving
it, and the amount of his fees : Provided,
that when such process shall have been
directed to a foreign county, the officer
executing the same may make return
thereof by mail ; and the clerk may
charge the postage and tax the amount
in his fee bill.
1 4. An incorporated company may be
served with process, by leaving a copy
thereof with its president, if he can .be
found in the county in which the suit is
brought ; if he shall not be found in the
county, then by leaving a copy of the
process with any clerk, secretary, sup
erintendent, general agent, cashier, prin
cipal, director, engineer, conductor, sta
tion agent, or any agent of said company
found in the county.
2 5. Process against a county may be
served by leaving a copy thereof with
the clerk or chairman of the county
board, or clerk of the county court in
counties not under township organiza; tion, until a board of county commis

1 72
sioners is elected, as provided in the
constitution.
8 6. In suits against a city, village or
town, process may be served by leaving
a copy thereof with the mayor or city
clerk, in case of a city, and with the
president of the board of trustees or
clerk, in the case of a village, and with
the supervisor or town clerk, in the case
of a town.
\ 7. If it shall not be in the power of
the sheriff or coroner to serve a sum
mons or capias ten days before the re
turn day thereof, he may execute the
same at any time before, or on the return
day ; but if not served ten days before
the return day thereof, the defendant
shall be entitled to a continuance, and
shall not be compelled to plead before
the next succeeding term.
\ 8. Whenever it shall appear, by the
return of the sheriff or coroner, that the
defendant is not found, the clerk shall,
at the request of the plaintiff, issue an
other summons or capias, as the case
may be, and so on until service is had.
\ 9. If a summons or capias is served
on one or more, but not on all of the de
fendants, the plaintiff may proceed to
trial and judgment against the defendant
or defendants on whom the process is
served, and the plaintiff may, at any
time afterwards, have a summons, in the
nature of scire facias, against the defend
ant not served with the first process, to
cause him to appear in said court, and
show cause why he should not be made
a party to such judgment ; and upon
such defendant being fully served with
such process, the court shall hear and
determine the matter in the same man
ner as if such defendant had been origi
nally summoned or brought into court,
and such defendant shall also be allowed
the benefit of any payment or satisfac
tion which may have been made on the
judgment before recovered, and the judg
ment of the court against such defendant
shall be that the plaintiff recover against
such defendant, together with the de
fendant in the former judgment, the
amount of his debt or damages, as the
case may be.
fi 10. It shall not be necessary here
after, in any action of mandamus or quo
warranto, to set out the cause of action in
the writ, but it shall be sufficient to sum
mon the defendant in a summons in the
usual form, commanding the defendant
to appear and answer the plaintiff in an
action of mandamus or quo warranto, as
the case may be, and the issues shall be
made up by answering, pleading or de
murring to the petition as in other cases.
\ 11. When several joint debtors are
sued and any one or more of them shall
not be served with process, the pendency
of such suit or the recovery of a judg
ment against the parties served shall be
no bar to a recovery against such as are
not served, in any suit which may be
brought against them in any other place
than in the county where the first suit is
brought. This section shall not be so
construed as to allow more than one sat
isfaction.
12. If any sheriff or coroner to whom
any summons, capias or subpoena shall
be delivered, shall neglect or refuse to
make return of the same before or on
the return day of such process, the plain
tiff may enter a rule requiring said sneriff
or coroner to make return of such pro
cess, on a day to be fixed by the court, or
to show cause on that day why he should
not be attached for a contempt of the
court ; and the plaintiff shall, thereupon,
cause a written notice of such rule to be
served on such sheriff or coroner ; and
if good and sufficient cause be not shown
to excuse such officer, the court shall ad
judge him guilty of a contempt, and
shall proceed to punish such officer as in
other cases of contempt.
$ 13. The clerk of any court in which
a suit is pending shall, from time to time,
issue subpoenas for such witnesses, and
to such counties in the State, as may be
required by either party ; and every
clerk who shall refuse so to do, shall be
fined, at the discretion of the court, in
any sum not exceeding one hundred dol
lars.
\ 14. The clerks of the courts shall
keep a docket of all the causes pending
in their respective courts, in which shall
be entered the names of the parties, the
cause of action, and the name of the
plaintiff's attorney, and he shall furnish
the judge and bar, at each term, with a
copy of the same, in which all indict
ments and causes to which the people
may be a party shall be first set down,

after which shall be set down all cases in

law, in order, according to the date of
their commencement, and lastly, the
suits in chancery. Where the business
of the court shall be so large as to re
quire it, separate dockets may be made
of the criminal, law and chancery cases.
\ 15. The clerk shall set and apportion
the causes for as many days of the term
as he may think necessary, or be directed
by the judge ; and all subpcenas for wit
nesses shall be made returnable on the
day on which the cause in which the
witnesses are to be called is set for trial,
01 the first day of the term, when such
day has not been fixed.
i 16. All the causes shall be tried or
otherwise disposed of in the order they
are placed on the docket, unless the
court, for good and sufficient cause, shall
otherwise direct.
17. If the plaintiff shall not file his
declaration, together with a copy of the
instrument of writing or account on
which the action is brought, in case the
same be brought on a written instrument
or account, ten days before the court at
which the summons or capias is made re
turnable, the court, on motion of the de
fendant, shall continue the cause at the
cost of the plaintiff, unless it shall ap
pear that the suit was commenced with
in ten days of the sitting of the court, in
which case the cause shall be continued
without costs, unless the parties shall
agree to have a trial ; and if no declara
tion shall be fiW ten days before the
second term of the court, the defendant
shall be entitled to a judgment, as in case
of a non-suit: Provided, that in all suits
by capias, where the defendant shall
have been arrested, and in replevin and
attachment, the plaintiff may be requir
ed to file his declaration at the first term,
and the defendant may have a trial at
such term, unless sufficient cause for a
continuance is shown.
\ 18. Any deed, bond, note, covenant
or other instrument under seal (except
penal bonds), may be sued and declared
upon or set off as heretofore, or in any
form of action in which such instrument
might have been sued and declared up
on or setoff if it had not been under seal,
and demands upon simple contracts, may
be set off against demands upon seal
ed instruments, judgments or decrees.
\ 19. It shall not De necessary, in any
pleading, to make profert of the instru
ment alleged ; but in any action or de
fense upon an instrument in writing,
whether under seal or not, if the same
is not lost or destroyed, the opposite par
ty may have oyer thereof, and proceed
thereon in the same manner as if profert
had been properly made according to
the common law.
\ 20. In actions brought on penal
bonds, conditioned for the performance
of covenants, the plaintiff shall set out
the conditions thereof, and may assign
in his declaration as many breaches as
he may think fit ; and the jury, whether
on trial of the issue or of inquiry, shall
assess the damages for so many breaches
as the plaintiff snail prove, and the judg
ment for the penalty shall stand as a se
curity for such other breaches as may
afterwards happen, and the plaintiff
may, at any time afterwards, sue out
a writ of inquiry, to assess damages for
the breach of any covenant or cove
nants contained in such bond, subse
quent to the former trial or inquiry ; and
whenever execution shall be issued on
such judgment, the clerk shall indorse
thereon the amount of damages assessed
by the jury, with the costs of suit, and the
sheriff or coroner shall only collect the
amount so indorsed : Provided, that in all
cases where a writ of inquiry of damages
shall be issued for any such breaches
subsequent to the first trial or inquiry,
the defendant, or his agent or attorney,
shall have at least ten days' notice, in
writing, of the time of executing the
same.
\ 21 . The distinctions between the ac
tions of " trespass" and " trespass on the
case," are hereby abolished ; and in all
cases where trespass or trespass on the
case has been heretofore the appropriate
form of action, either of said forms may
be used, as the party bringing the action
may elect.
% 22. Counts in trover and replevin
may be joined in the same action.
\ 23. At any time before final judg
ment in a civil suit, amendments may
be allowed on such terms as ;ire just and
reasonable, introducing any party nec
essary to be joined as plaintiff or defend
ant, discontinuing as to any joint plain

tiff or joint defendant, changing the

form of the action, and in any matter,
either of form or substance, in any pro
cess, pleading or proceeding which may
enable the plaintiff to sustain the action
for the claim for which it was intended
to be brought or the defendant to make
a legal defense. The adjudication of the
court allowing an amendment shall be
conclusive evidence of the identity of the
action.\ 24. In case another defendant is
added, summons may issue against such
defendant, returnable to the next term
of the court, and he may be proceeded
against in the same manner as if he had
been made a defendant at the com
mencement of th6 suit.
\ 25. No amendment shall be cause for
a continuance unless the party affected
thereby, or his agent or attorney, shall
make affidavit that in consequence there
of he is unprepared to proceed to or
with the trial of the cause at that term,
and that he verily believes that if the
cause is continued, he will be able to
make such preparation.
\ 26. It shall not be necessary to file a
declaration in any scire facias to revive
a judgment or foreclose a mortgage, in
any court of record in this State.
I 27. On the appearance of the defend
ant or defendants, the court may allow
such time to plead as may be deemed
reasonable and necessary.
\ 28. The defendant may plead as many
matters of fact in several pleas as he
may deem necessary for his defense, or
may plead the general issue, and give
notice, in writing, under the same, of the
special matters intended to be relied on
for a defense on the trial ; under which
notice, if adjudged by the court to be
sufficiently clear and explicit, the de
fendant shall be permitted to give evi
dence of the facts therein stated, as if
the same had been specially pleaded and
issue taken thereon.
\ 29. The defendant in any action
brought upon any contract or agreement,
either express or implied, having claims
or demands against the plaintiff in such
action, may plead the same, or give no
tice thereof, under the general issue, or
under the plea of payment; and the
same, or such part thereof as the defend
ant shall prove on trial, shall be set off
and allowed against the plaintiff's de
mand, and a verdict shall be given for
the balance due. And if it shall appear
that the plaintiff is indebted to the de
fendant, the jury shall find a verdict for
the defendant, and certify to the court
the amount so found ; and the court
shall give judgment in favor of such de
fendant, with the costs of his defense.
If the cause is tried by the court, the
finding and judgment shall be in like
manner.
I 30. When such plea or notice of set
off shall have been interposed, the plain
tiff shall not be permitted to dismiss his
suit without the consent of the defend
ant, or leave of the court.
\ 31. If the defendant shall plead or
give notice of any set-off, he shall file
with such plea or notice a copy of the
instrument or account upon which he in
tends to rely.
\ 32. Whenever it shall become neces
sary, for the attainment of justice, to al
low a plaintiff to reply several matters
to the plea of a defendant, or to allow a
defendant to rejoin several matters to
the replication of a plaintiff, the court in
which the action shall be pending, on
the special application of the party de
siring so to reply or rejoin, may allow
the same to be done.
\ 33. No person shall be permitted to
deny, on trial, the execution or assign
ment of any instrument in writing,
whether sealed or not, upon which any
action may have been brought, or wrhich
shall be pleaded or set up by way of de
fense or set-off, or is admissible under
the pleadings where a copy is filed, un
less the person so denying the same
shall, if defendant, verify hisplea by affi
davit; and if plaintiff, shall file his affi
davit denying the execution or assign
ment of such instrument : Provided, if
the party making such denial be not the
party alleged to have executed or as
signed such instrument, the denial may
be made on the information and belief
of such party.
<S 34. In trials of actions upon con
tracts, express or implied, where the ac
tion is brought by partners, or by joint
payees or obligees, it shall not be neces
sary for the plaintiff, in order to main
tain any such action, to prove the copart

nership of the individuals named in such

action, or to prove the christian or sur
names of such partners, or joint payees
or obligees ; but the names of such co
partners, joint payees or obligees shall
be presumed to be truly set forth in the
declaration, petition or bill : Provided,
that nothing herein contained shall pre
vent the defendant in any such action
from pleadingin abatement as heretofore,
or of proving, on the trial, either that
more persons ought to have been plain
tiffs, or that more persons have been
made plaintiffs than have a legal right to
sue, or that the christian or surname is
other and different from the one stated
in the declaration, petition or bill.
\ 35. In actions upon contracts, express
or implied, against two or more defend
ants, as partners or joint obligors or
payors, whether so alleged or not, proof
of the joint liability or partnership of
the defendants, or their christian or sur
names, shall not, in the first instance, be
required to entitle the plaintiff to judg
ment, unless such proof shall be ren
dered necessary by pleading in abate
ment, or unless the defendant shall file a
plea in bar denying the partnership or
joint liability or the execution of the
instrument sued upon verified by affida
vit.
\ 36. If the plaintiff in any suit upon
a contract, expressed or implied, for the
payment of money, shall file with his
declaration an affidavit showing the
nature of his demand and the amount
due him from the defendant after allow
ing to the defendant all his just credits,
deductions and set offs, if any, he shall
be entitled to judgment as in case of de
fault, unless the defendant or his agent
or attorney, if the defendant is a resi
dent of the county in which the suit is
brought, shall file with his plea an
affidavit stating that he verily Relieves
he has a good defense to said suit upon
the merits to the whole or a portion of
the plaintiff's demand, and if a portion,
specifying the amount (according to the
best of his judgment and belief.)
Upon good cause shown, the time for
filing such affidavit may be extended for
such reasonable time as the court shall
order. No affidavit of merits need be
filed with a demurrer, plea in abatement
or motion : Provided, that if the plain
tiff, his agent or attorney, shall file an
affidavit stating that affiant is taken by
surprise by such plea and affidavit of
merits, and that he believes that plain
tiff has testimony to support his claim
against the defendant, which he cannot
produce at that term of court, but ex
pects to produce by the next term, the
court shall continue such cause until the
next term.
\ 37. When any part of the demand is
upon an account, and the defendant shall
suffer default for the want of an affidavit
of merit, or for non-appearance, or for
nil dicit, the affidavit of merit so filed
with the declaration may be taken as
prima facie evidence of the amount due
upon such account, but the court may re
quire further evidence.
\ 38. For want of appearance the
court may give judgment by default, ex
cept in cases where the process has not
been served, or declaration filed, ten
days before the term of the court.
\ 39. The court may, in its discretion,
before final judgment, set aside any de
fault, and may, during the term, set
aside any judgment upon good and suf
ficient cause, upon affidavit, upon such
terms and conditions as shall be deemed
reasonable.
40. In all- suits in the courts of
record in this state, upon default, where
damages are to be assessed, it shall be
lawful for the court to hear the evidence
and assess the damages, without a jury
for that purpose : Provided, that either
party may have the damages assessed by
a jury.
\ 41. In all cases in any court of
record of this State, if both parties shall
agree, both matters of law and fact may
be tried by the court, and upon such
trial either party may; within such time
as the court may require, submit to the
court written propositions to be held as
law in the decision of the case, upon
which the court shall write "refused"
or " held," as he shall be of opinion is
the law, or modify the same, to which
either party may except as to other
opinions of the court.
\ 42. When either party shall apply
for a continuance of a cause on account
of the absence of testimony, the motion
shall be grounded on the affidavit of the

173
party so arjplyiog, or his authorized
agent, showing that due diligence has
been used to obtain such testimony, or
the want of time to obtain it, and what
particular fact or facts the party expects
to prove by such evidence ; and if the ev
idence is the testimony of a witness, his
place of residence, or if his place of resi
dence is not known, showing that due
diligence has been used to ascertain the
same, and that if further time is given
his place of residence can be ascertained.
43. Should the court be satisfied that
such evidence would not be material on
the trial of the cause, or if the other party
will admit the affidavit in evidence, the
cause shall not be continued.
2 44. When the affidavit is concerning
the evidence of a witness, the party ad
mitting such affidavit shall be held to
admit only that if the absent witness was
present, he would testify as alleged in
the affidavit, and such admission shall
have no greater force or effect than
if such absent witness were present and
testified as alleged in the affidavit, leav
ing it to the party admitting such affida
vit to controvert the statements contained
therein, or to impeach said witness, the
same as if such witness were present and
examined in open court.
g 45. It shall be a sufficient cause for a
continuance of any case, in time of war
or insurrection, that the defendant is in
the military service of the United States,
or of this State, if it shall be made appear
to the court by affidavit, and that the
presence of the defendant is in any de
gree necessary for a full and fair defense
of the suit. The costs of a continuance
under this section shall abide the result
of the suit.
$ 46. In all suits at law or in equity,
pending in any court of this State at any
time when the general assembly is in
session, it shall be a sufficient cause for a
continuance if it shall appear to the court,
by affidavit, that any party applying for
such continuance, or any attorney, so
licitor or counsel of such party, is a mem
ber of either house of the general as
sembly, and in actual attendance upon
the session of the same, and that the at
tendance of such party, attorney, solic
itor or counsel in court is necessary to a
fair and proper trial of such suit ; and,
on the filing of such affidavit, the court
may continue such suit; and when so
continued, no trial or other proceeding
shall be had therein until the adjourn
ment of the general assembly, nor within
ten days thereafter. Such affidavit shall
be sufficient, if made at any time during
the session of the general assembly,
showing that, at the time of making the
same, such party, attorney, solicitor or
counsel is in actual attendance upon such
session of the general assembly.
I 47. The foregoing section shall not
apply to cases of application for contin
uance by reason of the absence of any
attorney, solicitor or counsel who shall
not have been actually employed in such
suit prior to the commencement of such
session of the general assembly, nor to
the practice in the supreme court.
I 48. In all civil actions, each partyshall be entitled to a challenge of three
jurors, without showing cause for such
challenge.
\ 49. Every person desirous of suffer
ing a non-suit on trial, shall be barred
therefrom unless he do so before the
jury retire from the bar.
\ 50. If one or more of the counts in a
declaration be faulty, the defendant may
apply to the court to instruct the jury to
disregard such faulty count or counts.
? 51. The court, in charging the jury,
shall only instruct as to the law of the
case ; and the court may, at the request
of either party, require the jury to ren
der a special verdict upon any fact or
facts in issue in the cause ; which verdict
shall be entered of record and proceed
ings had thereon as in other cases. When
the Special finding of fact is inconsistent
with the general verdict, the former
shall control the latter, and the court
shall give judgment accordingly.
\ 52. Hereafter no judge shall instruct
the petit jury in any case, civil or crim
inal, unless such instructions are reduced
to writing.
53. And when instructions are asked
which the judge cannot give, he shall,
on the margin thereof, write the word
" refused ;" and such as he approves he
shall write, on the margin thereof, the
word " given ;" and he shall in no case,
after instructions are given, qualify, mod
ify, or in any manner explain the same
to the jury otherwise than in writing,

excepting to the giving or refusing, any

instruction may be entered at any time
before the entering of final judgment in
the case.
\ 54. And such instructions, so given,
shallbe taken by the jury in their re
tirement, and returned by them, with
their verdict, into court.
\ 55. Papers read in evidence, other
than depositions, may be carried from
the bar by the jury.
\ 50. It shall be sufficient for the jury
to pronounce their verdict, by their fore
man, in open court, without reducing
the same to writing, and the clerk shall
enter the same in form, under the direc
tion of the court ; and if either party
may wish to except to the verdict, or for
other causes, to move for a new trial or
in arrest of judgment, he shall, before
final judgment be entered, or during the
term it is entered, by himself or counsel,
file the points in writing, particularly
specifying the grounds of such motion,
and final judgment shall thereupon be
stayed until such motion can be heard
by the court. But no more than two
new trials upon the same grounds shall
be granted to the same party in the same
cause, nor shall any verdict or judgment
be set aside for irregularity only, unless
cause be shown for the same, during the
sitting of the court at the term suchjudgment or verdict shall be given. In all
cases where a new trial shall be granted
on account of improper instruction hav
ing been given by the judge, or improp
er evidence admitted, or because the ver
dict of the jury is contrary to the weight
of the evidence, or for any other cause not
the fault of the party applying for such
new trial, said new trial shall be granted
without costs, and of right.
| 57. Whenever an entire verdict shall
be given on several counts, the same
shall not be set aside or reversed on the
ground of any defective count, if one or
more of the counts in the declaration be
sufficient to sustain the verdict.
I 58. When judgment shall be arrested
for any defect in the record of proceed
ings after the first process, the plaintiff
shall not be compelled to commence his
action anew ; but the court shall order
new pleadings to commence with the
error that caused the arrest.
\ 59. If, during the progress of any
trial in any civil cause, cither party shall
allege an exception to the opinion of the
court, and reduce the same to writing, it
shall be the duty of the judge to allow
the said exception, and sign and seal the
same, and the said exception shall there
upon become a part of the record of
such cause.
\ 60. Exceptions taken to decisions of
the court, upon the trial of causes in
which the parties agree that both mat
ters of law and fact may be tried by the
court, and in appeal cases, tried by the
court without the intervention of a jury,
shall be deemed and held to have been
properly taken and allowed, and the
party excepting may assign for error,
before the supreme court, any decision
so excepted to, whether such exception
relates to receiving improper, or reject
ing proper testimony, or to the final
judgment of the court upon the law and
evidence.
\ 61. Exceptions' taken to decisions of
the court, overruling motions in arrest
of judgment, motions for new trials,
motions to amend, and for continuances
of causes, shall be allowed ; and the party
excepting may assign for error any de
cision so excepted to.
\ 62. Exceptions taken to decisions of
any court in this State, overruling mo
tions in arrest of judgment for new
trials, or for continuances, or change of
venue, shall be allowed in criminal ca
ses, and in penal and qui tarn actions ;
and the party excepting to such de
cisions may assign the same for error, in 1
the same manner as in civil cases.
\ 63. All affidavits read in court dur
ing the progress of any cause, and relat
ing thereto, shall be filed and preserved
by the clerk.
\ 64. A party intending to move, out
of term, to set aside or quash any ex
ecution, replevin bond or other proceed
ings, may apply to the judge at his cham
ber, for a certificate (and which the said
judge may in his discretion grant), cer
tifying that there is probable cause for
staving further proceedings until the
order of the court on the motion ;
and a service of a copy of the certificate
at the time of, or after the service of the
notice of the motion, shall thenceforth
stay all further proceedings accordingly.

But in no case shall the judge grant such prosecuted by said corporations, without
certificate when the error complained of requiring any bond to be given, as is now
may, by the direction of the judge to the required by law.
clerk issuing the process, be corrected,
1 72. Authenticated copies of records of
but the judge shall order the correction, decrees, judgments and orders appealed
and the clerk shall make the correction from, shall be filed in the office of the
in the process as if ordered in term time ; clerk of the supreme court, on or before
nor unless the applicant shall have given the second day of the succeeding term
notice to the opposite party, or his at of said court : Provided, twenty days
torney of record, ifthey or either of them shall have intervened between the date
can be found in the county from which of the decree, judgment or order appeal
ed from, and the sitting of said supreme
the writ issued.
\ 65. Any person, for a debt bona fide court; but if ten days, and not twenty,
due, may confess judgment by himself shall have intervened, as aforesaid, then
or attorney duly authorized, either in the record shall be filed, as aforesaid, on
term time or vacation, without process. or before the tenth day of said succeed
Judgments in vacation shall have like ing term ; otherwise, the said appeal
force and effect, and from the date there shall be dismissed, unless further time
of become lliens, in like manner and to file the same shall have been granted
by the supreme court upon good cause
extent as judgments entered in term.
I 66. The writ of error coram nobis is shown.
hereby abolished, and all "errors in fact
73. When appeals from decrees,
committed in the proceedings of any judgments, or orders for the recovery of
court of record, and which by the com money are dismissed by the supreme
mon law could have been corrected by court for want of prosecution, or for failing
said writ, may be corrected by the court to file authenticated copies of records, as
in which the error was committed, upon required by law, the court shall enter
motion in writing made at any time judgment against the appellant for not
within five years after the rendition less than five nor more than ten per
of final judgment in the case, upon rea cent, damages on the amount recovered
sonable notice. When the person enti in the inferior courtfor the collection
tled to make such motion shall be an in of which the appellee shall be entitled
fant, femme covert, non compos mentis, to execution as on other judgments.
J 74. The parties in any suit or pro
or under duress, at the time of passing
judgment, the time of such disability ceeding at law, or in chancery, in any cir
shall be excluded from the computation cuit court, or the superior court of Cook
county, may make an agreed case, con
of said five years.
I 67. Appeals from all circuit courts taining the points of law at issue between
and from the superior court of Cook them, and file the same in the said court;
county, may be taken to the supreme and the said agreed case, with the decis
court from all final judgments, decrees ion thereon, may be certified to the su
or orders : Provided, such appeals shall preme court by the clerk of such courts,
be prayed for and allowed at the term at without certifying any fuller record in
which the judgment, decree or order was the case ; and upon such agreed case be
rendered : And provided, the party pray ing so certified and filed in the supreme
ing for such appeal shall, within such court, the appellant or plaintiff in error
time, not less than twenty days, as shall may assign errors, and the case shall
be limited by the court, give and file in then be proceeded in in the same manner
the office of the clerk of the court from as it might have been had a full record
which the appeal is prayed, bond, in a been certified to said supreme court.
75. Any judge of a circuit court, or
reasonable amount to secure the adverse
party, to be fixed by the court, with suf the superior court of Cook county, may,
ficient security to be approved by the if the parties litigant |assent thereto, cer
court. If the appeal is from a judg tify any question or questions of law
ment for the recovery of money, the con arising in any case tried and finally de
dition of the bond shall be for the pros termined before him, to the supreme
ecution of such appeal, and the payment court, together with his decision thereon,
of the jndgment, interest, damages and or the parties in the suit may agree as to
cost, in case the judgment is affirmed. the questions or points of law arising in
In all other cases the condition shall be the caseand the same may be certified
directed by the court with reference to by the counsel or attorneys of the respec
the character of the judgment, decree or tive parties, who shall sign their names
order appealed from. The obligee in thereto ; and upon such certificate being
such bond may at any time, on a breach made, the same shall be filed in the
of the condition thereof, have and main court rendering the decision, and a
tain an action at law, as on other bonds. copy of such certificate, certified by the
\ 68. The clerk of the court may, by clerk of said court, with the decision
the order of the court, made at the time thereon, and final decision in the case,
of praying the appeal, and entered of to the supreme court, and filed therein ;
record, approve of the security offered and upon filing the same, the like pro
upon such bond, and such approval may ceedings may be had in the supreme
court as if a full and complete record had
be made in term time or vacation.
\ 69. Hereafter no appeal to the su been transcribed and certified to said
preme court shall be dismissed by reason court.
\ 76. The two preceding' sections shall
of any informality or insufficiency of the
appeal bond; if the party taking such ap not apply to cases in which the title to
peal shall, within a reasonable time, to be real estate is in question.
\ 77. No writ of error shall operate as
fixed by the court, file a good and suffi
cient appeal bond in such cause, to be a supersedeas unless the supreme court,
or some justice thereof in vacation, after
approved by said court.
i 70. In all cases where a judgment inspecting a copy of the record, shall or
or decree shall be rendered in any circuit der the same to be made a supersedeas,
court, or the superior court of Cook nor until the party procuring such writ
county, in any case whatever, either in shall file a bond in the manner and with
law or in chancery, against two or more the conditions required in case of appeal ;
persons, either one of said persons shall when the clerk issuing such writ shall
be permitted to remove said suit to the indorse thereon that it shall be a super
supreme court, by appeal or writ of error, sedeas, and operate accordingly. And
and for that purpose shall be permitted the parties in writs of error shall be sub
to use the names of all said persons, if ject to the same judgment and mode
necessary ; but no costs shall be taxed of execution as is provided in case of ap
against any person who shall not join in peal.
78. In all cases of appeal to the su
said appeal or writ of error. And all
such cases shall be determined in said preme court, or writ of error, the appel
supreme court as other suits are, and in lee or defendant in error may assign
the same manner that it would have cross errors ; and the court shall dispose
been if all the parties had joined in said of the same as in other cases of assign
appeal or writ of error.
ment of error.
\ 79. No judgment, decree or order
i 71. The corporations of the Illinois
Asylum for the Education of the Deaf and shall be reversed by the supreme court
Dumb, the Illinois State Hospital for the upon appeal or writ of error for want of
Insane, the Illinois Institution for the a joinder in error ; but upon error being
Education of the Blind, and the Board assigned, if the opposite party does not
of Education of the State of Illinois, and plead in proper time, the cause shall be
all other charitable, educational, penal treated as if error had been joined.
\ 80. In all cases of appeal and writs
or reformatory institutions under the
patronage or control of the State, may, of error, the supreme court may give
in all cases of appeal or writ of error by final judgment and issue execution, or
them to the supreme court, prosecute the remand the cause to the inferior court,
same without giving bond ; and the su in order that an execution may be there
preme court, or the judges thereof, in va issued, or that other proceedings may be
cation, may grant writs of supersedeas, had thereon.
or any writs of error or appeal, when
Continued on page 176.

Chicago

174

Chicago Legal News.

ILtx Vtncit.
CHICAGO, MARCH 16, 1872.
PUBLISHED IVEBY SATURDAY BY
The Chicago Legal News Co.,
AT 115 MADISON STBEKT.
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
Terms:
rwo Dollars per annum, In advance. Single cop
ies Ten Cents.
THE LEQAL NEWS OFFICE la at 118
WMt SlmdlsoM Street. The Printing
Establishment la at 13 N. JetTenan St.
We have been compelled, by the press
of advertisements upon our columns, to
issue twelve instead of eight pages this
week. The Legal News publishes more
decisions, and is furnished to subscribers
for less money, than any other legal
paper in America. If every one of our
subscribers would send us the name of
an additional subscriber, it would enable
us to make several improvements in the
News which we have been contemplat
ing for some time, and which would
greatly add to its usefulness.
"We call attention ;to the following
opinions reported at length in this issue :
EvidenceComparison op Handwri
ting.The^opinion of the Supreme Court
of the United States, delivered by Da
vis, J., deciding an interesting question
in regard to the proof of handwriting by
comparison.
Military Occupation of New Orleans
Seizure of Property.The opinion of
the Circuit Court of the United Slates,
for the S. D of New York, in General
Butler's case, delivered by Blatchford,
J., construing the law relating to confis
cation, defining the authority of military
commanders to seize property in time of
war, and sustaining the demurrers to all
of the special pleas of the defendant.
NaturalizationPower of Court to
set Aside.The opinion of the Superior
Court of Cook county, delivered by
Jameson, J., as to the power of a court,
on motion, to set aside a judgment of
naturalization at a subsequent term, on
the ground that it was obtained by fraud.
This decision of the learned judge con
tains a thorough review of the opinions
of the Supreme Court of this State, upon
the power of a court to set aside judg
ments after the term at which they were
rendered.
Chancery Jurisdiction.An opinion
of the Supreme Court of Illinois, as to
the right of an owner of land not in pos
session to file a bill in chancery to have
a cloud removed from his title.
Damages for not Stopping at Station
Improper Verdict.The opinion of
the same court, by Lawrence, J., as to
the liability of a railroad company for
taking a passenger beyond the station to
which he had paid his fare, without giv
ing him an opportunity to get off the
train, and holding that it was improper
for a jury to agree to take as their ver
dict a sum made by each juror marking
the amount he thought the plaintiff
should receive, adding these snms to
gether and dividing the result by twelve.
The New Practice Act.We would
call the special attention of our Illinois
readers to the Practice Act, published
entire in this issue. It makes many
changes in the present law, and will go
into effect on^the first of July next.

Legal

NOTES TO RECENT CASES.

LarcenyFalse Pretenses.The Com
mon Pleas Court of Philadelphia, in an
opinion delivered by Paxson, J., in Com
monwealth v. Yerkes, Jr. (from which
Ludlow and Finletter, JJ., dissented),
held, that obtaining a check from the
drawer, and afterwards misappropriating
the proceeds, was larceny ; that obtain
ing possession* of goods or property
animo furandi, by trick, fraud or artifice,
amounts to larceny. 29 Leg. Int., 60.
Tenants in Common.The Supreme
Court of California held, in Williams v.
Sutton, that each co-tenant is entitled to
the exclusive possession [of the entire
property as against all except co-tenants,
and one wrongfully in possession cannot
gainsay the right of each co-tenant to
the possession of the whole. 3 Pac. Law
R., 94.
Suit by Agent of Foreign Govern
ment.Malins, V. C, held, in The Re
public of Liberia v. The Imperial Bank
et al., that a subordinate officer of a for
eign government cannot without its au
thority file a bill in the name of his gov
ernment against the superior officer in
England. 25 L. T. Rep. N. S., 866.
NegligenceIce upon the Platform
of a Railaoad.At a railway station
some water had frozen upon the plat
form. The cause of this was unex
plained, but from the ice being nearly an
inch thick and extending nearly half
way across the platform, it had the ap
pearance of having been there some
time. A passenger who was waiting
upon the platform the arrival of a train
to be conveyed on his journey, not ob
serving the ice, stepped upon it and fell,
sustaining serious injury, and the Court
of Exchequer, in Shepherd v. The Mid
land R. R. Co., by Martin and Pigott,
BB., held that the defendants were guilty
of actionable negligence in allowing the
ice to remain upon the platform. 25 L.
T. Rep. N. S., 879.
Custody of Prisoner Pending Hear
ing on Habeas Corpus.The Supreme
Court of the United ^States, in an opin
ion delivered by Swayne, J., in Barth et
al. v. Clise, held, that by the common law
upon the return of a writ of habeas cor
pus, and the production of the body of
the party suing it out, the authority un
der which the original commitment took
place is superseded. After that time
and until the case is finally disposed of,
the safe-keeping of the prisoner is en
tirely under the control and direction of
the court to which the return is made ;
that the prisoner is detained not under
the original ^commitment, but under the
authority of the writ of habeas corpus;
that pending the "hearing he may be
bailed de die in diem, or be remanded to the
jail whence he came, or be committed to
any other suitable place of confinement
under the control of the court. The
learned judge, in support of this opinion,
cites The King v. Bethel, 5 Mod., 12 ;
Bacon's A. B. Title, Habeas Corpus, B. 12 ;
Anonymous 1 Ventris, 330; Sir Robert
Peyton's Case Id, 346 ; Hurd on Habeas
Corpus, 324, in re Kane, 14 How., 134.
See New York Transcript of February 12,
1872.
Order Finding who are Next of Kin
Conclusive.The Supreme Court of the
United States, held, in Canjolle et al. v.
Curtis et al, that the finding of a court
having probate jurisdiction, in a suit for
administration, which of the parties is
next of kin to the intestate, is conclusive
upon that question in a subsequent suit
in the Court of Chancery between the
same parties for distribution.

News.

decent publications.
Reports of the Life and Accident In
surance Cases determined in the
Courts of America, England and Ire
land, between January, 1871, and Jan
uary, 1872; together with most of the
prior English Cases, with Notes and
References. By Melville W. Bigelow,
of the Boston Bar. New York : Pub
lished by Hurd & Houghton. Cam
bridge: Riverside Press. 1872. For
sale by Callaghan & Co., Law Book
sellers, Chicago.
The mechanical execution of this vol
ume is faultless. It contains eight hun
dred pages, and is devoted exclusively
to the leading decisions of England and
America upon Life and Accident Insur
ance. The vast sums invested in life
insurance, and the many complicated
questions of law that are constantly
arising between the insured and the in
surer make the appearance of a volume
devoted entirely to Life and Accident
insurance, an event of importance to
those engaged in this branch of the
law. Mr. Bigelow has reported the
opinions in a careful, skillful manner.
His head-notes are very brief, and con
tain only the points decided by the
court.
In the case of N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v.
Clofton, reported p. 709, the Supreme
Court of Kentucky, held that the recent
civil war had not the effect to dissolve
a contract of life insurance entered into
prior to its commencement by parties on
opposite sides of the lines, and kept in
force until the breaking out of the war,
and that the non-payment of premium
during said war did not work a forfeit
ure of a life policy. In Sinclair admr.
v. The M. P. Assurance Co., by the
Queen's Bench, p. 596, that death from
the effect of a sun stroke is not death
from accident. In Witt v. Amis, by the
Queen's Bench, p. 594, that a policy of
insurance may be the subject of a donatio
mortu cauga. This volume contains
many very important opinions, and no
person engaged in the extensive prac
tice of the law can afford to be with
out it.
A Treatise on the wrongs called Slan
der and Libel, and on the Remedy by
Civil Action for those Wrongs. By
John Townshend. Second Edition.
New York : Baker, Voorhis & Co.,
Publishers, 66 Nassau St. 1872. Sold
by E. B. Myers, Law Bookseller, 393
Wabash Avenue, Chicago, 111. Price
$7.50.
Messrs. Baker, Voorhis & Co. have
spared no pains or expense in order to
make the second edition of Townshend
on Slander and Libel a model volume,
and we are pleased to be able to say that
they have performed their task in a man
ner that will be entirely satisfactory to
the bar. This volume contains over
seven hundred pages, and in size is con
siderably larger than the first edition.
Mr. Townshend says, while many addi
tions have been made, there are but few
modifications of the propositions as or
iginally published, and many proposi
tions for which, in his first edition, no
direct authority could be cited, have
since been legitimatized by judicial de
cision. The first edition ofthisworkis
too well known to the profession to re
quire a word of commendation from our
pen. It may be found in almost every
lawyer's office, of extensive practice, in
America. Mr. Townshend's style is
clear, concise, and pleasing. In the pre
paration of the text he has shown all the
characteristics of a great lawyer and an
able writer. The notes show great in
dustry and good judgment in the fre
quent citations they contain to the re
cent English and American authorities
to support the propositions stated in the

text. This volume is the result of hard,

careful brain labor, and will be a valua
ble addition to any library.
Reports of Cases in Law and Equity,
Determined in the Supreme Court of
the State of Iowa. By Edward H.
Stiles, Reporter. Volume IX, being
volume XXX of the series. Publish
ed by the Reporter, Ottumwa, Iowa.
1872.
The ninth volume of the Hawkeye
State Reports, from the hand of thisthoroughly competent reporter, makes
its appearance. It is somewhat larger
than the volumes heretofore issued, and
in mechanical execution reflects great
credit upon its publisher. The style of
the volume is admirable. The HeadNotes might, by some, be considered a
trifle too long, yet they are clear and ex
plicit. Mr. Stiles has spared no expense
in the preparation of this volume. We
are pleased to have in three adjoining:
States, three such able reporters as Free
man, Stiles and Black. There are sev
eral important cases in this volume,
among which may be named Stewart v.
Board of Supervisors of Polk Co., hold
ing that it is not unconstitutional for
the Legislature to pass laws to enable
towns and cities to aid in the construc
tion of railroads, and overruling the for
mer ; decision of the same Court in
Hanson et al. v. Vernon, et al. Parties
wishing the XXX Iowa, should send
their orders to Mr. Stiles at Ottumwa.
Report of the Proceedings and Argu
ments in the Probate Court of the city
and county of San Francisco, State of
California, on the trial to admit to
Probate the "Last Will and Testa
ment " of Horace Hawes (deceased).
By J. C. Bates, one of the Counsel for
Contestant. From the Short-Hand
Report of Messrs. Marsh & Osborne.
San Francisco : A. L. Bancroft & Co.,
Publishers, Booksellers and Stationers.
1872.
This is a volume of six hundred pages,
and, as its title indicates, contains the
testimony, pleadings, arguments of coun
sel, and authorities cited upon the trial
contesting the will of the deceased testa
tor on the ground of insanity.
A Compendium of Forms, with the Mode
of Procedure in the various Courts of
the State of Illinois ; which, with little
variation, will apply to those of neigh
boring States and Territories; with
Explanatory Notes and References in
tended for the use of Judges of Probate,
Clerks of Courts, Sheriffs, Coroners,
County Commissioners, Justices of the
Peace, Constables, Notaries Public, etc.,
together with a variety of useful Prec
edents in Conveyances. By James
Jones. Second Edition, improved and
enlarged, by Joseph Wright, Esq., At
torney and Counselor-at-Law. Chi
cago : E. B. Myers & Co. 1872. Price,
$7.50.
This is a neat volume of six hundred
and eighty-eight pages, and is more than
twice the size of the original edition
which was published over forty years
ago. Jones' Illinois Form-Book was de
servedly popular with the bar. It was
celebrated for its accurate, reliable forms,
and from the examination we have been
able to give the second edition by Mr.
Wright, we are satisfied the work will
maintain its well-earned reputation. We
know of no form-book so useful to Illi
nois lawyers as this one. It contains
forms for the Supreme Court, in common
law and chancery, bills, pleas, answers
and replications, conveyances, forms for
the County Court and justices, together
with the rules of the Supreme Court
of the United States Circuit and District
Courts for this district.
Back Volumes.Will parties having
back volumes of the Legal News bound
or unbound, which they will dispose of,
give us their address and the condition
and price of their volumes?

Chicago

Legal

Through the kindness of Charles J.

Beattie, of the Chicago bar, we have re
ceived the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed Sept. 28, 1871.
Anna Burton v. Martin Green.
Error to La Salle County.
1. Chancery Jurisdiction.Where a complain
ant alleges in his bill that at the time of filing the
bill, and prior thereto, the lull title in fee simple
to the tract of land described in the bill was vested
In him, and then prays for a conveyance of the
land by the defendant to him, a court of equity
has no jurisdiction of the subject matter, and can
grant mm no relief.
2 Allegations of BillPossessionRemedy
at Law.In such case, where there is no allega
tion in the bill that the complainant was in pos
session of the land, of which he seeks to compel a
conveyance, at the time of filing his bill, the in
ference must be that he was not in possession ; and
not being in possession, his remedy to recover the
possession was complete at law, by an action of
ejectment.
S. Lost DeedSubsequent Conveyance.The
fact that a widow receives a deed of premises to
herself to supply the place of a prior deed exe
cuted to her husband in his lifetime, and alleged
to be lost, constitutes no such equity as to give
chancery jurisdiction to compel the widow to con
vey to the complainant.
BReese, J., delivered the opinion of
the Court.
Complainant alleges in his bill, that at
the time of filing the same and prior
thereto, the full title in fee simple to the
piece of land described therein, was ves
ted in him. There is no allegation in
the bill that complainant was in posses
sion, the inference, therefore, must be
he was not in possession, and being bo,
his remedy to recover the possession was
complete at law by an action of eject
ment, in which he could not fail to re
cover, on showing a complete legal title
in himself. The fact that Mrs. Burton
had received of Hallam a deed to her
self, to supply the place of a prior deed
executed to her husband in his lifetime,
and alleged to be lost, constitutes no
such equity as to give chancery jurisdic
tion. Complainant claims through Bur
ton, and to establish his title at law, it
would only be necessary to prove the
execution of the deed by Hallam to Bur
ton, its subsequent loss. We fail to per
ceive any equity in complainant's bill.
The motion to dissolve the injunction
and dismiss the bill should have been
allowed. Refusing it was error, and for
this the decree must be reversed and the
cause remanded.
Mr. Charles J. Beattie, Jfor plaintiff
in error.
Messrs. Dickey, Rice & Lewis, for de
fendant.

cognizable in law or equity, according to

their respective forms of procedure ; con
cluding to remand such cases to the Dis
trict Court for re-formation of the
pleadings, advising that the greatest lib
erality should be allowed in relation to
amendments, especially where hearings
had been had upon the merits, without
objection as to form.
Starkweather, assignee, etc., vs. Cleve
land Insurance Co. Appeal in bankruptcy.
Griswold & Buckingham, for assignee.
Willey, Cary & Terrell, for insurance
company.
{We question the correctness of the
ing of the learned Judge, in the above
case.En. Legal News.]
AdmiraltyMortgage LienState
Law.Judge Emmons in deciding the
questions involved in these cases entered
into a very learned and thorough dis
cussion of the history of admiralty law
in this country and of the State lien or
watercraft laws of the several States,
with the long line ofconflicting and vary
ing authorities upon the subject, especial
ly as shown in the history of the decis
ions of the Supreme Court of the United
States upon the whole subject of admi
ralty and State law jurisdiction.
Held: In affirmance of the decision
of Judge Sherman, that the mortgages
upon these propellers should be paid
without reference to any liens asserted
under the State watercraft law.
That all such State liens were void un
der the recent decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States, although it
was difficult to reconcile with these de
cisions the dictum of Mr. Justice Clifford,
in the Belfast case, reported in 7 Wal
lace, and referred to in 11 Wallace.
The case of the Josephine, 38 N. Y.
Reports, and a recent decision of Judge
Blatchford, reported in the last number
of the " Internal Revenue Record," and
cases in other States, were referred to
in furtherance of this doctrine.)
The Judge further said in effect that
this view of the case made it unnecessary
to decide what would be the relative
rank of Mortgages recorded under the
national law and State liens, if valid.
The propellers Ironsides and Caldwell.
The Dwight Scott Cases. Appeal in
Bankruptcy.
Willey, Cary & Terrell, for mortga
gees.
Ranney, Williamson, Prentiss, Gris
wold and others, for State liens.

U. S. CIRCUIT COURT, W. D. OHIO.

Notes to opinions delivered by Hon.
H. H. Emmons, Circuit Judge, in Janu
ary 1872, as taken by Benjamin Weaver,
stenographer :
Assignment of Bankrupt terminates
Policy.This was a case where a policy
of insurance had been issued by the de
fendant to the bankrupt several months
before any proceedings in bankruptcy.
Proceedings in bankruptcy were com
menced, the insured was declared a bank
rupt, and all his property transferred to
and vested in said assignee, the property
covered by said policy included. Some
months after the transfer of the property
to the assignee in bankruptcy, the build
ing insured was destroyed by fire. Suit
brought for amount of policy.
Emmons, Judge, held : That at com
mon law the termination of all interest
of the insured in the property, defeated
the policy ; and that the transfer to the
assignee in bankruptcy terminated all
interest of the bankrupt in the property
insured.
That a transfer to an assignee in bank
ruptcy was within the terms of that pro
vision of the policy which declared that
the policy should be void in case of any
change or transfer of the title to the prop
erty insured. That the fact that the
bankruptcy was involuntary was imma
terial, as was also the fact that the trans
fer was made by operation of law.
Judge Emmons went into an elaborate
analysis and review of all the English
and American authorities bearing upon
this and analogous questions.
Policy held void for the above reasons,
and case remanded for further proceed
ings.
In pronouncing the opinion in this
case, Judge Emmons discussed the effect
of the recent decision of the Supreme
Court in reference to summary proceed
ings in bankruptcy, in cases properly

BILLS APPROVED BY THE GOV

ERNOR.
We are indebted to Edward Rummel,
Secretary of State, for the following list
of bills passed at this winter's session of
the General Assembly. This list em
braces sixty-seven laws, and includes all
bills signed by the Governor up to the
eleventh of the present month :
SENATE BILLS.
41. To amend act concerning Improvements on
Wabash river.
42. Concerning consolidation of townships in
Cook county for school purposes.
43. To extend powers of judges In vacation.
76. To prohibit stock animals from running at
large.
112. To legalize the payment by the Governor of
certain funds belonging to the State, etc.
121. An act in regard to practice in courts of
record.
138. To provide for holding special terms of cir
cuit courts.
182. Concerning the copying of the field notes
of the United States survey ofthe State of Illinois.
187. To repeal act relating to the town plat of
town of Cummington.
203. Providing for the payment of the "School
Tax Fund Orders," and the " School Fund Interest
Orders."
213. To prove title to lands granted to Illinois
Central Railroad Company.
237. To repeal an act therein named.
249. To regulate time of holding courts in the
eighthJudicial circuit.
250. To secure equality of assessments in school
districts.
262. To appropriate moneys in aid of State Board
of Agriculture, etc.
291. To make an appropriation to complete the
north wing of the Southern Insane ABylum.
293. To authorize cities having a population not
exceeding fifteen thousand inhabitants, to levy
and collect taxes for corporate purposes.
295. To establish the salary of the LieutenantGovernor.
298. To provide against the evils resulting from
the sale of intoxicating liquors in this State.
316. To attach Mercer county to the sixth judi
cial circuit.
334. To provide and furnish suitable rooms for
the supreme court in the central grand division
of this State, and to make an appropriation there
for.
372. Relating to the Illinois and Michigan Canal,
and the powers and duties of the canal commis
sioners.
400. An act to provide for the payment of defi
ciency of former appropriations for the current
expenses of the Illinois State Penitentiary.

i75

News.

414. An act concerning the increase of tae juris

diction of justices of the peace.
415. An act to enable the county of Cook to
issue bonds and borrow money for county pur
poses.
416. An act to provide for the assessment and
taxation of property when the records of assess
ments have been destroyed, etc.
418. An act to amend act in relation to fire com
panies.
430. An act to amend an act to cede jurisdiction
to the United States over certain lands, and for the
purchase of and condemnation of the same, etc.
HOUSE BILIA
7. For the protection of farmers and fruit grow
ers.
23. To repeal an act entitled an act to amend
chapter 30 of Revised Statutes, entitled " Bigamy,"
approved Feb. 8. 18!>8.
27. To prevent male animals from running at
large, etc.
120. Concerning ball in civil cases.
150. In regard to attachments in courts of record.
155. To provide for guardians for habitual drunk
ards.
l'J3. For the prevention of cruelty to animals, In
force March 31, 1869.
1%. For the relief of Walter B. Caswell.
223. Amend section 4 of chap. 80 of revised stat
utes of 1845, entitled " Paupers."
246. Repeal an act incorporating the city of
Nashville, in Washington county.
24H. In regard to garnishment.
24'J. In regard to attachments before justices of
the peace.
SOU. Enable cities, etc. to change name.
316. Provide for referees in civil cases.
368. In relation to certain surpluB funds.
373. In relation to the Little Wabash river Im
provement.
400. Incorporate railway companies.
434. Amend law of township organization.
449. To require Stale and county treasurers to
deliver up bonds and coupons issued in aid of
railroads, etc.
519. Restore uniformity In taxation in certain
counties.
544. An act to authorize county boards, or other
bodies, to enforce laws in regard to the prevention
of cruelty to animals.
563. An act authorizing cities to establish free
libraries and reading-rooms.
569. An act to repeal part of section 128, chapter
30, Revised Statutes, entitled " Criminal Jurispru
dence."
580. Fixing time of holding court in second ju
dicial circuit.
592. Fixing time of holding court in third judi
cial district.
697. For the protection of foundlings.
601. Providing for re-recording deeds, etc.
602. Prevent the unjust collection of taxes in
burnt districts.
625. Apportion the State of Illinois.
636. Cede jurisdiction to the United States over
certain lands, etc.
638. Appropriation for supreme court house at
Mt. Vernon.
650. Appropriation for fitting up hall of repre
sentatives.
663. In regard to agricultural societies, etc.
668. Repeal an act in regard to Chester, Randolph
county.
698. To allow agricultural societies to convey
lands.
733. An act to change the time of holding court
in the twelfth judicial circuit.
752. An act to fix the fees of township and county
collectors in a certain cose.
755. An act to provide the Governor with a con
tingent fund.
769. An act to prevent gaming houses.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
PROCEEDINGS OF.
Tuesday, March 5.
No. 125. George W. Dent, plaintiff in error, v.
Frantz Emmeger and C. Graham. This cause was
argued by Mr. B. A. Hill, of counsel for the de
fendants In error, and submitted on printed argu
ments by Messrs. Glover & Sheplcy, for the plain
tiff in error.
No. 126. George P. Stcinbach, plaintiff in error,
v. The Relief Fire Insurance Company of New
York. This cause was argued by Mr. A. Wolffand
Mr. A. Sterling, Jr., of counsel for the plaintiff in
error, and by Mr. William S. Bryan, for the de
fendant in error.
No. 127. Balle Payton, appellant, v. G. Helneker
and G. W. Palmore. This cause was argued by
Mr. C. Robinson, of counsel for the appellees, and
leave granted Mr. Henry Cooper ten days in which
to file printed briefs for the appellant.
No. 128. Isaac A. Davenport, appellant, v. John
R. Lamb et al. The argument of this cause was
commenced by Mr. W. W. Chapman, of counsel
for the appellant.
Wednesday, March 6.
On motion of Mr. P. Phillips, C. Swan, Esq., of
New York, was admitted to practice as an attorney
and counselor of this court.
On motion of Mr. S. S. Cox, Walter Clark, Esq.,
of North Carolina, was admitted to practice as an
attorney and counselor of this court.
No. 128. Isaac A. Davenport, appellant, v. John
R. Lamb et al. The argument of this cause was
commenced by Mr. W. W. Chapman, of counsel
for the appellant, and Mr. George H. Williams for
the appellee, and concluded by Mr. Chapman for
the appellant.
No. 129. The United States, plaintiffs in error, v.
C. J. Ballard. This cause was submitted on print
ed arguments by Mr. Solicitor-General Bristow, of
counsel for the plaintiffs In error, and by Mr. A.
G. Riddle for the defendant in error.
No. 130. The City of St. Louis, plaintiff in error,
v. Sophia Astley Klrkpatrick. In error to the Cir
cuit Court of the United States for the District of
Missouri. Ordered by the court that the writ of
error 'in this cause be dismissed with costs per
stipulation on file.

No. 131. The steamboat St. John, etc., appellants,

v. Abram E. Hasbrouch. This cause was argued
by Mr. Charles Jones, of counsel for the appel
lants, and by Mr. Charles Donohue for the appel
lee.
Thursday, March 7.
On motion of Mr. Phillips, Samuel T. Jones,
Esq., of New York, was admitted to practice as on
attorney and counselor of this court.
No. 379. Peter Clinton et al., plaintiffs in error, v.
Paul Englebrecht et al. This cause was argued by
Mr. Y. Hillyer, of counsel for the plaintiffs in
error, and by Mr. K. N. Raskin for the defendants
in error.
No. 132. The Home Insurance Company of New
York, plaintiff in error, v. Ellas R. Barton. This
cause was argued by Mr. M. H. Carpenter, of coun
sel for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. F. A. Dick
for the defendant in error.
Friday, March 8.
On motion of Hon. J. A. Garfield, Thomas K.
Bolton, Esq.. of Ohio, was admitted to practice as
an attorney and counselor of this court.
On motion of Mr. Attorney-General Williams,
E. C. DeLong, Esq., of Nevada, was admitted to
practice as an attorney and counselor of this
court.
No. 587. Alfred Ely, appellant, v. Douglas F.
Forrest. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia. On motion of Mr. N. Wilson,
ordered by the court that the appeal in this cause
be dismissed with costs.
No. 6. Original. The Commonwealth of Ken
tucky, petitioner, v. Geo. S. Boutwell, Secretary of
the Treasury of the United States. This cause was
argued by Mr. A. A. Burton and Mr. Joseph Casey, of
counsel for petitioner, and by Mr. Solicitor-General
Bristow, Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Hill, and
Mr. Attorney-General Williams for the Secretary
of the Treasury.
Adjourned until Monday, the 18th Instant, at 11
o'clock.
The Bigelow Block or Post Office
Site.Joseph E. De Haven has given
notice that on Monday next he, as guar
dian of Josephine A., Augusta L., and
Sarah E. De Haven, will file in the Cir
cuit court of this county a petition, and
ask for an order to sell certain lots be
longing to said minors ;which lots, we
understand, are in the block upon which
it is proposed to build the new post
office.
t(tuarj).
Alexander C. Coventry, for many
years a member of the Chicago bar, died
in the city of New York on the 6th inst.
No Chicago lawyer ever started in his
professional career with brighter pros
pects before him than Mr. Coventry.
Nature gave him a superior intellect,
which was improved and developed by
a thorough education. His friends and
connections were numerous and among
the most wealthy and influential of our
citizens. The law firm of Coventry &
Rountree, composed of the deceased and
John M. Rountree, Esq., who has lately
returned to our city, had a very extensive
practice. In 1861 Mr. Coventry was ap
pointed a member of the Board of Po
lice, and filled the position to the entire
satisfaction of the people. He was
president of the Board for four years.
After his retirement from the Police
Department, Mr. Coventry became oneof the legal advisers of the Chicago &
Northwestern Railway, but impaired
health compelled him to give up his
professional labors. He traveled in
Europe for several years, and upon his
return to the United States became a
resident of the city of New York, where
he continued to live up to the time of
his death.
BUSINESS NOTICES.
Removal.Frank J. Crawford has re
moved his law office from the Masonic
Building to 328 Wabash avenue.
Jones's Forms.We will, upon receipt
of the price, $7.50, send this volume,
containing 688 pages, to any address,
free of charges.

1 76
Continued from page 173.
\ 81. The supreme court, in case of a
partial reversal, shall give such judg
ment or decree as the inferior court
ought to have given, and for this pur
pose may allow the entering of a remit
titur either in term time or vacation, or
remand the cause to the inferior court
for further proceedings, as the case may
require.
4 82. When an appeal or writ of error
shall be prosecuted from a judgment,
decree or order to the supreme court,
and such appeal or writ of error is dis
missed, or the judgment decree or order
is affirmed, upon a copy of the order of
the supreme court being filed in the of
fice of the clerk of the court from which
the case was removed, execution may is
sue, and other proceedings be had there
in in all respects as if no appeal or writ
of error had been prosecuted.
? 83. When a cause or proceeding is
remanded by the supreme court, upon a
transcript of the order of the supreme
court remanding the same being filed in
the court from which the cause or pro
ceeding was removed, and not less than
ten days' notice thereof being given to
the adverse party or his attorney, the
cause or proceeding shall be reinstated
therein. In case of non-resident par
ties, or parties who cannot be found so
that personal notice cannot be served
upon them, the notice may be given as
in cases of chancery, or as may be di
rected by the court.
\ 84. If neither party shall file such
transcript within two years from the
time of the making of the final order of
the supreme court reversing any judg
ment or proceeding, the cause shall be
considered as abandoned, and no further
action shall be had therein.
\ 80. A writ of error shall not be
brought after the expiration of five years
from the passing of the judgment "com
plained of; but when a person, thinking
himself aggrieved by any decree or judg
ment that may be reversed in the su
preme court, shall be an infant, femme
covert, non compos mentis, or under
duress when the same was passed, the
time of such disability shall be excluded
from the computation of the said five
years.
\ 80. When any plaintiff in error shall
file in the office of the clerk of the su
preme court an affidavit showing that
any defendant resides or hath gone out
of this State, or on due inquiry cannot
be found, or is concealed within this
State, so that process cannot be served
upon him, and stating the place of resi
dence of such defendant if known, and
also the place of residence of the attor
ney who appeared in the cause in the
court to which the writ is directed, or
that upon diligent inquiry their places of
residence cannot be ascertained, the
clerk of the supreme court shall cause
publication to be made in some news
paper published in the county in which
his office is kept, containing notice of the
pendency of such suit, the names of the
parties thereto, the title of the court, and
the time and place of the return of sum
mons in the case ; and he shall also,
within ten days of the first publication
of such notice, send a copy thereof by
mail, addressed to such defendant and
attorney whose place of residence are
stated in such affidavit. The certificate
of the clerk that he has sent such notice
in pursuance of this section, shall be evi
dence.
Our thanks are due the law firm of
Wood & Barlow, of Effingham, for the
following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
III. Centbal R. R. Co. v. Jesse L. Abell.
WHEN A PASSENGER MAY RECOVER FOR
INJURIES RECEIVED IN LEAPING FROM A
TRAIN WHICH FAII.8 TO STOP AT STATION
VERDICTDIVISION BY TWELVE.
1. JfM.that ifa railway passenger holding a ticket
entitling him to alight at a particular station, is
carried past such station without his consent and
without being allowed a reasonable opportunity
of leaving the train, he has an action against the
company for whatever damages may have accrued
to him for non-delivery at the place of his desti
nation, but if he voluntarily leaps from the train
when in rapid motion, or under circumstances
which would necessarily or probably render such
an aat perilous, and receives bodily injury, he can
not recover damages for the injury, because it
would be the result of his own want of ordinary
care.
2. The court states under what circumstances a
passenger injured in leaping from a railroad train
may recover.
3. Verdict Obtained uy Dividing by Twelve.
That while Jurors may resort to a process of this
tort as a mere experiment, and for the purpose of
ascertaining how nearly the result may suit the

Chicago
views of the different jurors, yet a preliminary
agreement that each juror should privately write
upon a slip of paper the amount of damages to
which he thought the plaintiff entitled, and place
the slip in a hat, that the amounts should be added
together and their sum divided by twelve should
be the verdict, will vitiate a verdict found under
such an agreement.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the court by Lawrence,
C.J.
If a railway passenger, holding a
ticket entitling him to alight at a par
ticular station, is carried past such sta
tion without his consent, and without
being allowed a reasonable opportunity
of leaving the train, he has an action
against the company for whatever dam
ages may have accrued to him for non
delivery at the place of his destination.
But, on the other hand, if he voluntarily
leaps from the train when in rapid mo
tion, or leaves it under circumstances
which would necessarily or probably
render such an act perilous, and receives
bodily injury, he could not recover dam
ages for the injury, because it would be
the result of his own want of ordinary
care. Cases might occur, however, in
which a reasonable opportunity to alight
has not been given to a passenger, and
where he attempts to do so after the
train has resumed its motion, but before
the motion has become at all rapid, and
the stepping from the train would not
seem dangerous to a man of ordinary
prudence and judgment, and neverthe
less bodily injury follows. In such cases
the passenger would be entitled to re
cover damages for the injury because
the railway company has committed a
flagrant breach of duty, and the passen
ger is chargeable with no appreciable
negligence. He has a right to construe
the momentary halt of the train at the
station as an invitation to alight, and to
make use of the opportunity thus af
forded where not attended with appar
ent danger, holding the company re
sponsible if it does not furnish reason
able time to leave the train with safety.
The action of the court in giving, re
fusing and modifying instructions was
in substantial accordance with these
principles.
It is urged that the verdict is not sus
tained by the evidence, but we refrain
from the consideration of that point as
there is another upon which the case
must be sent to another jury. It appears
by the affidavit of the officer having in
charge the jury, that, after agreeing to
find for the plaintiff, they differed wide
ly as to the amount of damages, and it
was then agreed that each juror should
privately write upon a slip of paper the
amount of damages to which he thought
the plaintiff entitled, and place the slip
in a hat ; that the amounts should then
be added together and their sum divided
by twelve, should be the verdict. This
was done and a verdict returned accord
ingly.
It is true a jurer swears that there was
considerable consultation after this was
done, and that each juror agreed upon
the result thus reached as his verdict.
He does not, however, deny that an
agreement was made such as is stated in
the officer's affidavit, and we cannot
doubt it was that agreement which con
trolled the amount of the damages. The
rule upon this matter is well settled. It
is, that while jurors may resort to a pro
cess of this sort as a mere experiment,
and for the purpose of ascertaining how
nearly the result may suit the views of
the different jurors, yet a preliminary
agreement that such a result shall be
the verdict, will vitiate a verdict found
under and by virtue of Biich an agreement.
Dunn v Hall, 8 Blackf. 32 ; Dana v Tuck
er, 4 J. K., 487 ; Harvey v Rickett, 15 J.
R., 87.
This rule is so reasonable as to need
no comment. As this verdict was ev
idently found under the pressure of such
an agreement, the judgment must be re
versed.
LIV ILLINOIS REPORTS.
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman
L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following
head-notes to cases to appear in the 54th
volume of Illinois Reports :
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
1. Its effect. Upon the filing of a bill
in chancery to enjoin the sale of property,
levied on under execution, on the ground
that the property was not liable to levy,
and the subsequent filing of a supple
mental bill, setting forth the fact that in
the meantime the judgment on which
the execution issued had been reversed,

Legal

News.

it was held, the original bill showing no

ground for an injunction, and the supple
mental bill merely presenting matters
arising since the commencement of the
suit, which had no connection with the
ground of relief set forth in the original
bill, the injunction should be dissolved.
(Opinion by Lawrence, C. J.)Fahs el
al. v. Roberts et al.
DISSOLUTION OF INJUNCTION.
2. Assessment of damages. And should
damages be asked by the defendant on
the dissolution of the injunction, the re
versal of the judgment would be a proper
matter of consideration in their assess
ment.lb.
REVERSAL OP JUDGMENT.
3. Remedy as to pending levy. The re
versal of a judgment on which execution
has issued and been levied on property
of the defendant, is no ground for apply
ing to a court of chancery to enjoin the
sale, the reliefbeing adequate at law.lb.
4. In such case, the court, on motion,
would stay all proceedings under the re
versed judgment, and direct the sheriff
to discharge the property.lb.
INJUNCTION.
5. Release of errors at law. An injunc
tion sued out to enjoin the sale of prop
erty which has been levied on under ex
ecution at law, upon grounds independent
of the validity of the judgment, does not
operate to release the errors in the pro
ceedings in which the judgment was ren
dered, as would be the case where the
injunction has reference to the judgment
itself.Ib.
INSURANCE.
1. Of the effect of a renewal of a policy.
A renewal of an insurance policy is, in
effect, a new contract of assurance, and,
unless otherwise expressed, on the same
terms and conditions as were originally
contained in the policy. (Opinion by
Walker, J.)Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v.
Walsh, p. 164.
2. Of the premises becoming vacant. So
where a policy of insurance contained a
condition that if the premises insured
were vacated by the owner or occupant
for a period of more than thirty days
without notice to the company and con
sent indorsed on the policy, it should be
come void, it was held, upon a renewal
of the policy, if the premises were occu
pied when the renewal occurred, it, un
der the terms of the policy, became the
duty of the assured to give the same no
tice that was required under the original
contract of insurance, and obtain the con
sent of the company.Ib.
3. Of notice and consent under the original
contract. And notice to the agents of the
company, and their consent, while the
policy was originally in force, could not
be regarded as notice to the company and
bindingon them underthe renewal there
oflb.
4. Omission to indorse consent on the poli
cy. But it is not essential to the binding
force of the consent of the agent in such
case, given upon proper notice, that it
should be indorsed upon the policy.76.
5. Of a part of the premises becoming va
cant. Two houses were embraced in the
same policy, and insured for different
sums, and the policy provided that if the
insured premises should remain vacant
for a certain time without notice to the
company, the policy should become void.
It was held, the fact that one of the build
ings remained thus vacant, without no
tice to the insurer, would not invalidate
the policy as to the other.Ib.
6. Proofs ofloss and notice thereof. Where
a policy of insurance provides that, in
case of loss, the money shall be pajd in
sixty days after notice and proof of loss,
the company, by receiving and retaining
the notice, affidavit of loss, and other pa
pers, and making no objections, must be
regarded as admitting that they were
properly made and presented.Ib.
7. And the aasured is not required to
introduce in evidence the notice of the
loss, but may, by proof that he has de
livered the notice and other papers, and
that the company had interposed no ob
jection to their regularity, raise the pre
sumption that he has complied with the
requirements of the policy in that re
gard.Po.
8. Change of titlemortgage. A policy
of insurance contained this condition :
" Or if any change takes place in the title
or possession of the pro]>erty, whether by
sale, legal process, judicial decree, volun
tary transfer or conveyance; or if the
policy is assigned without consent of the
company indorsed thereon, then the pol

icy shall be void : " Held, a mortgage was

not embraced in such provision.Ib.
FORFEITURES.
9. Are odious to the law, and in enforcing
them courts should never search for that
construction of language which must
produce a forfeiture when it will bear an
other reasonable construction which will
not produce such a result.Ib.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS.
1. Of their pouter to execute promissory
notes.The power given to school direct
ors, by the statute of 1865, upon a vote of
the people, to borrow money for certain
purposes and issue bonds therefor, can
not be enlarged by construction or im
plication so as to authorize them to exe
cute promissory notes, which, in them
selves, would be binding on the district.
(Opinion by Lawrence, C. J.)School
Directors v. Sippy, p. 287.
2. Pleading and proofs in such case.
And in an action against the directors in
their corporate capacity to recover the
amount of a note executed by them, the
declaration should show an indebtedness
contracted in the manner and for the
purpose authorized by the statute, and on
the trial, proof should be made of these
facts ; the note would then be admissible
in evidence as tending to show the
amount of money loaned, but would not,
of itself, prove a liability.lb.
PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.
1. In suit upon a bond against school di
rectors.A party seeking to charge school
directors, in their corporate capacity, on
a bond executed by them, must aver in
his declaration and prove upon the trial,
facts which show it was issued within
the powers given them by the statute.
(Opinion by Lawrence, C. J.)School
Directors v. Charles Taylor.
2. So a declaration in a suit on such
bond which fails to aver that the bond
was given under authority of a vote of
the people for one of the purposes named
in the statute is insufficient.Ib.
A lawyer, upon a circuit in Ireland,
who was pleading the cause of an infant
plaintiff, took the child up in his arm9,
and presented it to thejury, suffused with
tears. This had a great effect, until the
opposite lawyer asked the child, " What
makes you cry?" "He pinched me,"
answered the little innocent. The whole
court was convulsed with laughter.
In Judge McArthur's Court, in Wash
ington, the other day, a lawyer called the
Judge's attention to the fact that a certain
case had been upon the docket for a de
cade. " I know it," said the Judge, " but
the case has not decayed."

THE

CHICAGO

LEGAL

NEWS

COMPANY.
PRINTING OFFICE,
15 North Jefferson Street ;
Business Office, 115 West Madison Street,

Particular attention given to all kinds of

LEGAL PRINTING :
INCLUDING
Attorneys' Abstracts,
Briefs and Dockets,
Books, Pamphlets and Reports.
Orders for this description of work will be execut
ed promptly in the neatest style of the art.
Decrees, Orders,
Mortgages, Deeds, Leases,
Checks, Notes, Drafts, Bonds,
Cards, Labels, Letter Headings,
Bills of Lading, Bill Heads,
Insurance Policies, Circulars,
Receipts, Hand-bills, etc., etc.,
Printed upon the shortest notice.

Chicago
JOHN 0- PECK,
Attorney, Room 2, X> H crt Randolph street,
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
^ Cook, w. Circuit court of Cook county, May
term, A. I). 1872. Margaret Graff v. William Graff.
InAffidavit
Chancery.of the non-residence of William Graff, de
fendant above named, having been filed in the office of
the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county, notice is
hereby given to tho said William Graff that the com
plainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint in said
court, on the chancery side thereof, and thatasummons
thereupon issued out of said court against said defend
ant, returnable on the third Monday of May next,
(1872,) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said William Graff, shall per
sonally be ami appear before said Circuit court ol
Cook
on thein first
day of aonterm
thereof,Monday
to be
holdencounty,
at Chicago,
said county,
thetbird
of^May.
1872,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
the
said complainant's bill of complaint,the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
John H. Peck, Compl'ts' SoPr.
23-26
THEO. SCHINTZ,
Attorney, Central Union Block.
TESTATE OF FREDERICK BEHM, DECEASED.
*-* Notice, is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Frederick Behm,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement
a regular
term
the County
Cookof
county, toat be
holden at
theofcourt
house, incourt
the ofcity
Chicago, on the first Monday of May A. D. 1672. being
the sixth day thereof.
CHRISTIAN
Chicago, Feb. 27, A.
D. 1872. BEHM, Executor.
21-2C*
Theo. ScmxTZ, Attorney.
|
F. ArEIDDLE,
Attorney. 2ft Wert Madmm Street.
ESTATE
OF
ANDREW
Notlce is hereby given toNELSON,
all personsDECEASED.having claims
and demands against the estate of Andrew Nelson, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, being
the sixthWILLIAM
day thereof.
M. LOUGHLIN, Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 28, A. D. 1872.
21-26a
ROSENTHAL, PENCE & MOSES,
Attorneys, 3o0 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE
OF CATHERINE
DEceased.Notice
is hereby givenWE1SHAAR,
to all persons hav
ing
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
Catherine
Weishaar, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house,
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April,
A. D. 1872, being theAN
firstN day
thereof.
GRIM
IN, Administratrix
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE OF GUSTAV DASSLER, DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Gustav
Dossier, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of tho County
court of Cook county, to be nolden at the court house
In the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April,
A.D. 1872, being the first day thereof.
AUGUSTA DASSLER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A.D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE OF HENRY A. BOHLE, DECEASED.Notice isagainst
hereby given
to allofpersons
claims
and demands
the estate
Henry having
A. Bohlc,
de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of tho County court of Cook
county, toonbe the
holden
the courtofhouse,
theD.city1872,of
Chicago,
firstat Monday
April,in A.
being the first day thereof.
HENRY BOHLE, Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
STATKOF RUDOTPH KEMMLER, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Rudolph
Kemmler, deceased, to present the same for ad
judication and settlement at a regular term of the
County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court
Chicago,
on day
the thereof.
first Mon
day ofhouse,
April,inA.the
D. city
1872, of
being
the first
FREDERICK KEMMLER, Executor.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
STATE
Notice isOF"vm^IAMLAISTER.
hereby giveu to all personsDECEASED.having claims
and demands against the estate of William Laister,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County courtof Cook
county, to bo holden at the court house, in tho city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
ROBERT C. WRIGHT and
JAMES W. COCHRAN,
Executors.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE
JOHANN
DECEASED.
Notice isOFhereby
given toKRUEGER.
all persons having
claims
and demands against the estate of Johann Krueger,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement toat bea regular
the County
Cook
county,
holden term
at thoofcourt
house, incourt
the ofcity
of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
SOPHIA KRUEGER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE OF JOHN W. HUFMEYER. DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of John W. Hufmeyer,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication yid set
tlement at a regular torm of the County court ui Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing tho first day thereof.
LOUISA HUFMEYER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12. A. D. 1872.
19-24
LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP.To
whom
it
may
cona
cern : Whereas, the undersigned have formed
limited partnership, and have filed articles of copart
nershipof inIllinois,
the office
of the clerk
the county
of Cook,
State
agreeably
to thoofstatute
in such
case
made and provided, and said clerk has designated the
Chicago
Legal
News
as
the
newspaper
in
which
notice
of such partnership shall be published, now therefore
notice is hereby given that the terms ofsaid copartner
ship are as follows:
1st. The style of said firm is, "M. T. Sworthout ft C.
H.Nichols/
2d. Tho business to be conducted by said firm 1b that
of the Retail Boot and Shoe business, in the city of
Chicago,
county.
Illinois.
3d. TheCook
general
partners
are Manley T. Sworthout
and Charles H. Nichols, the special partner George
Nichols, all residents of said city of Chicago.
4th. The amount of capital stock which the said spe
cial partner, George Nichols, has contributed to said
copartnership is the sum of one thousand dollars.
51 h.davTheof said
copartnership
to commence
on the
the
first
February,
A.D. L>72,isand
terminate on
first day of February, A.D. 1873.
MANLY
CHARLEST. II.SWORTHOUT,
NICHOLS,
18-23
GEORGE_ NIC110LS.
STATE
OF
FRANliltETcnARDS.DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Frank Rcichards
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A.D. 1872,
being
the sixth
day thereof.
Chicago,
February
21, A.D. 1S72.
20-25a
JOHANN RE1CHARDS. Administrator.

Legal

F. A. HOFFMAN, Jr.,
Attorney, Rottm 5, Lina's Block.
ESTATE OF THEODORE E. JOHNSON, Deceased.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Theodore E.
Johnson,
deceased,
presentterm
t lie of
same
adjudication
and settlement
at a toregular
the for
County
court of
Cook county, to bo holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of May, A. D. 1*72, being the sixth day thereof.
BERTHA JOHNSON, Administratrix.
Chicago, March lt>. A. D. 1872.
F. A/Hoffman, Attorney.
23-23
TAISTRICT
COURT
OF
THE
U.
S.
FOR
THE
DISJ. ' trict of Massachusetts. In the matter of The In
dependent Insuranco Company, bankrupt. In Bank
ruptcy.
A warrant in bankruptcy has been issued by said
court
against
the estateofoftheThecounty
Independent
Insurance
Company
ot Boston,
of Suffolk,
of the
State of Massachusetts, in said district, adjudged a
bankrupt upon the petition of its creditors; and the
payment of any debts, and the delivery of any prop
erty, the
belonging
saidanybankrupt,
its use,
and
transferto of
propertytobyit,it, or
aretoforbidden
by law. A meeting of the creditors ot said bankrupt,
to prove their debts, and choose one or more assignees
of its ( state, will be held at a court of bankruptcy, to
be
holden
Boston,
said district,
8th day
of
April,
A. D.at IK7JI
at 12ino'clock
m., at on
thethe
United
States
court house, before Samuel B. Noyes, Esq., one of the
Registers in Bankruptcy of said court.
ROLAND
23-34 U. 8. Marshal, Mass.
District,G.asUSHER,
Messenger.
ESTATE OF CONRAD KUHLMANN. DECEASED*
Notice is hereby giveu to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Conrad Kuhlmann,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement toat aberegular
Cookof
county,
holdenterm
at theot the
courtCounty
house,court
in theofcity
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872,
being the sixth day thereof.
CAROLINE Kl'nLMANN, Executrix.
Chicago,
2. A.D.
1*72. for Estate.
Clowey ftMarch
Barmh,
Attorneys
23-2S
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
MEYER,
DECEASED.-Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of John Meyer, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, In the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
ing the sixth day thereof.
ANNA MEYER,
ALBERT MEYER, and
ROBERT MEYER,
Executors.
Worth, Cook county, March 11, A. D. 1872. 23-2Sp
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cookies. Superior court of Cook county. April
term, A. D. 1872. Frank Kezlik v. Mary Kezlik.In
Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Mary Kezlik, de
fendant
above
named,
having
filed Incounty,
the office
of
the clerk
of said
Superior
courtbeen
of Cook
noticeiis hereby given to the said Mary Kezlik thai
the complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday ofApril
next, (1872,) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Mary Kezlik, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook countVj on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of April, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Clowry ft Barmh, Compl't's Sol'rs.
23-26
D. J. CROCKER.
Attorney, 48 South Canal Street.
ESTATE OF CAROLINE HEINES, DECEASED.
Public notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims
demands
against the
of adjudica
Caroline
Heines, and
deceased,
to present
the estate
same for
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
holden
at
tho
court
house
court
of
Cook
county,
to
be
in the city of Chicago, on tlfe first Monday of April,
A.D. 1872, being the first day thereof.
JACOB HEINES, Execntor.
D. J. Crocker. Att'y for Estate.
18-23
EWING & LEONARD,
Attorneys. 487 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE
JOHN
Notice isOFhereby
givenGEMMELL,
to all personsDECEASED.having claims
and demands against the estate of John Gommell, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment
torm
of the
County
Cookof
county,at toa regular
be holden
at the
Court
House,Court
in theofcity
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
ing the sixth day thereof.
MARGARET N. GEMMELL,
21-26
Administratrix.
ESTATE OF WILLIAM CLOWRY, DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of William
Clowry, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to bo nolden at the court house
in
the1872,
city being
of Chicago,
first Monday of April,
A.D.
the firstondaythethereof.
ANN CLOWRY,
Administratrix, and
MARTIN BRENNAN,
Administrator
of said Estate.
Chicago. Feb. 6. 1872.
19-24
M. A. RORKE & SON,
Attorneys, Room 57, Central Union Block.
"INSTATE OF ELIZA TURNER, DECEASED.^
Notice
is hereby
given
all persons
having
claims
and demands
against
thetoestate
of Eliza
Turner,
de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at tho court house, in tho city of
Chicago,
first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, being
the
sixth on
davthe
thereof.
THOMAS A. TURNER. Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 29, A. D. 1872.
21-26
M. A. Rorkk & So*. Attorneys.
DANIEL GOODWIN, Jr.,
Attorney, 19 Nixon's Buitdinh.
THIS
ib
to
that theand
undersigned
have formed
a limitedcertify
partnership,
have filed articles
of co
partnership in the office of the clerk of the county of
Cook, State of Illinois, agreeably to the statute in such
case made and provided, and said clerk has designated
the Chicago
News as shall
the newspaper
in which
notice
of suchLkdal
partnership
bo published;
now.
therefore, notice is hereby given that the terms of said
copartnership aro as follows:
1st. The name of said firm is R. M. Oliver.
2d. The business to he conducted by said firm is that
of packing pork and vending meat, fresh and cured, at
No. 593 South Halsted street. Chicago.
3d. Tho general partner is Richard M. Oliver; the
special partner is the Allerton Packing Co., a corpora
tion duly existing under the laws of the State of Illi
nois, ail of Chicago.
4th. The amount of capital stock which the said
special partner, the Allerton Packing Co., has contrib
uted to said copartnership 1b the sum of twelve thou
sand dollars.
5th.dayTheof said
copartnership
Is toterminate
commence
on will
the
first
March.
A. D. 1872, and
at the
of either party, evidenced by notice in writing served
ten days before said termination.
RICHARD M. OLIVER,
22-27
THE ALLERTON PACKING CO.

News.

GOOKINS & ROBERTS,

Attorneys, 16" Eart Harrison Street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. March
term, A. D. 1072. James H. Flak v. Carter Smith,
Emanuel Points, Minnesota Ewing, Mary L. Schutler
and
Schutler, her husband, Laviuia Ann Bond,
Charlea
Reams,
Keams,
William D.
A. Bond,
Ewing,Catharine
in his ownK.right
and asEli
executor
of
George
W.
Ewing,
deceased,
George
W.
Ewing.
Mary
Sturges, Susan Huitgins, Howard Huggins, David
B.
Hood, William E. Hood, Louisa Sturges, Charlolte V.
Thruston,
Thruston,
LaviuiaCaroline
A. Holladay,
Jesse Dickinson
Holladay, J*.James
M. Marshall.
E.
Sweetzer, Madison Sweetzer, Clara E. Root, Lewis B.
Root, Clara E. Green, Emma Kumler and Charles
Kumler.In
Affidavit of Chancery.
the uon-resK n<* ofall the above-named
defendants,
exceptingand
Carter
"Smith,A.Emanuel
James M. Marshall
William
Ewing, Points,
. ing
been
tiled
in
the
office
of
the
Clerk
of
said
of Cook county, notice is hereby given to Circuit
the saidcourt
non
resident defendants that the complainant heretofore
filed
his
bill
of
complaint
in
said
court,
<>u
the
chancery
side thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out
ot said court against said defendants, returnable on
the third Monday of March next (ifi72,) as is by law
reijtiired.
Now, unless you, the said Minntsota Ewing, Mary
L. Schutler ana
Schutler, her husband, Lavinia
Ann Bond, Charles D. Bond. Catharine E. Kearns, Eli
Kearns. George W. Ewing, Mary Sturges, Susan Huggins, Howard Huggins. David B. Hood. William E.
Hood,
Sturges,
Charlotte
F. Thruston,
Dickin
son
P. Louisa
Thruston,
Laviuia
A. Holladay,
Jesse Hidladav,
Caroline E. Sweetzer, Madison Sweetzer, Clara E.
Root, Lewis B. Root, Clara E. Green, Emma Kumler
and Charles Kumler, shall personally be and appear
before said Circuit court of Cook county, on the first
day of a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said
county, on the third Monday of March, 1872, and plead,
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill o
complaint, the same, and the matters and things
therein charged and stated, will be taken as confessed,
and a decree entered against yon according to the
prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. Sol'rs.
GASSETTE, Clerk.21-25
Gookins ft RoHERTS.Comprt's
CLOWRY & BARMM,
Attorneys, 3 North Canal Street.
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
Notico is hereby
givenFARRELL,
to all personsDECEASED.having claims
and demands against the estate of John Farrell, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago,
Monday of May, A. D. 1872,
being the on
sixththedayfirst
thereof.
MICHAEL BRENNAN, Administrator.
Chicago, February 23, A. D. 1872.
21-28
ESTATE
OF
C.
LOUIS
KURTZ,
DECEASED
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claimsand demands against the estate of C. Louis Kurtz,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement
regular
of court
the County
Cook county,at toa be
holdenterm
at the
house,courtof
in the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
May, A.D.
1872, being the sixth day thereof.
MAKGARKTHA KURTZ, Executrix.
Chicago, February 23, A.D. 1872.
21-26
Clowry ft Barmbi, Attorneys.
ESTATE
CHRISTOPHER
FLYNN,having
Deceased.Notice isOFhereby
given to all persons
claims
and demands against the estate of Christopher
Flynn, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D.
1872, being the sixth day thereof.
BRIDGET
Chicago,
FebruaryANN
23, A. FLYNN,
D. 1872. Administratrix.
21-26
Clowry & Barmh, \ttoineys.
T^STATB~OF
"~TERE"SA
BATTO,
DECEASED.
Ij Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against tho estate of Teresa
Batto,
deceased, atto apresent
for County
adjudication
and settlement
regularthe
termsame
of the
court
of Cook county, to be nolden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D.
1872, being the sixth day thereof.
JOSEPH SEGALLE, Executor.
Chicago, February 23, A.D. 1872.
21-26
Clowry A Barmm, Attorneys.
STATE OFHANNAH HOLDSW0RTH7Dkceased.
is hereby
to allotpersons
claims
and Notice
demands
againstgiven
the estate
Hannahhaving
Holdsworth.
deceased,
to
present
the
same
tor
adjudication
settlement at a regular term of the County courtandof
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicogo, on the first Monday of May, A. D.
1872, being the sixth day thereof.
JAMES WILLIAM HOLDSWORTH,
Chicago, February 23, A. D. 1872. Administrator.
Clowry ft Barmm, Attorneys.
21-26
JAMES SPRINGER,
Attorney, 669 Wabash Avenue.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Couuty
of Cook, ss.Superior court of Cook county. May
term, A. D. IS72. Leroy J. Needham v. Mary J. Needham.In
AffidavitChancery.
of the non-residence of Mary J. Needham,
defendant above named, having been tiled in the office
of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook county,
notice 1b hereby given to the said Mary J. Needham
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and
a summons
thereupon
issued out
of first
said
courtthat
against
Bald defendant,
returnable
on the
Monday
of Mayyou,
next
Is byJ.lawNeedham,
required. shall
Now, unless
the(1872),
said asMary
personally be and appear before said Superior court ot
Cook county, on the first day of the term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of
1*72, and bill
plead,of complaint,
answer or the
demur
the
saidMay,
complainant's
same,to and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of Baid bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk.
James Springer. Compl't's
Sol'r.
21-24
JESSE 0. NORTON,
Attorney.
"VTOTICE
FOR
to give
li tice, that onPUBLICATION.This
the 2d day of March,isA.D
1872,noa
warrant in bankruptcy was issued against the estate of
Arthur Scholz, John N.Young and William P. Wright,
doing business in the county of Cook, and State of Illi
nois, who have been adjudged bankrupts on their own
petition, that the payment of any debts and the deliv
ery of any property belonging to such bankrupts, to
them or for their use, and the transfer of any property
by them are forbidden by law; that a meeting of the
creditors of the said bankrupts to prove their debts,
and
or more
assignees toofbetheir
estate,
will tobe choose
held at one
a court
of bankruptcy,
holden
in
the city of Chicago, in said county of Cook, at the of
fice of and before Homer N. Hibbard, Esq., register, on
the ninth day of April. A. D. 1872, at ten o'clock a, m.
H. CAMPBELL,
U. 8.B. Marshal,
Messenger.
By
A.
B.
COTES, Deputy.
Jesse 0. Norton, Attorney.
23-25
ESTATE 0F_ELI ~nT SKINNER, DECEASED.Notice
is
hereby
given
to
all
persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Eli V.
Skinner, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of
to inbesaid
holden
at the
court
in
theCook
city ofcounty,
Chicago,
county,
on the
firsthouse,
Monday
of April, A.D 1872, being the first day thereof.
BETSEY SKINNER and
JEREMIAH
Chicago, February o, A.D.
1872. S. CLOUGH,
Executors.
Hiqii Truman, Attys.
18-23*

177
GEORGE W. SMITH,
Attorney, No. 475 Wabash Are.
THIS is to ccrtifv that Chauncoy T. Bowen.GeorgeW.
Shaw,
William
Fitch, H.
Jonathan
The
odore
A. Shaw,
and H.
Altuenn
Winslow,Richards,
have formed
a limited partnership in accordance with the laws of
tho State of Illinois, and that, First, tho name or firm
under
which
partnershipSecond,
is to Tho
be conducted
Richards,
Shawtheft Winslow:
general nais
ture of the business to be transacted is the purchase'
and sale of dry goods at wholesale; Third, Chauncoy
T. Bowen and George W. Shaw are the special part
ners therein, and William H. Fitch, Jonathan Rich
ards, Theodore A. Shaw, and Alnierin H. Winslow, are
the general partners therein; that the place of resi
dence of said George W. Shaw is the city of Dayton,
in the State of Ohio; that the place of residence 01
said Chauncey T. Bowen. William H. Fitch, Jonathan
Richards, Theodore A.Shaw, and Alnierin II. Wins
low, is the city of Chicago, in the State of Illinois:
Fourth, The said Chauncey T. Bowen has contributed
to tho capital stock of ?aid partnership the sum of one
hundred thousand dollars, and the said George W.
Shaw hiw contributed thereto the sum of fifty thousand!
dollars: Fifth, The period at which said partnership is
to
firstit isdayto ofterminate
February,
A.D.thirty1872,
andcommence
the period isat the
which
is the
first day of January, A.D. 1875; Sixth, The principal
place of business of said partnership is the city of Chi
cago,
in the State
of Illinois.
In witness
whereof,
the said parties have hereto
signed their names this first day of February, A.D.
1S72.
WILLIAM H.RICHARDS.
FITCH,
(Signed)
JONATHAN
THEODORE A.
SHAW,
ALMERINW.H.SHAW.
WINSLOW,
GEORGE
CHAUNCEY T. BOWEN.
State
Countyof ofIllinois,)
Cook, Vss.
City
of Chicago,J
I, Edward
W. Russell, a Notary- Public in and for
said city, do hereby certify that on this day personally
came before me, Chauncey T. Bowen, George W. Shaw,
WilliamandH.Alnierin
Fitch, Jonathan
Richards,
Theodoreto be
A.
Shaw,
H. Winslow,
to mo known
the persons whose names are subscribed to the fore
going instrument, and severally acknowledged the
said instrument, by them signed, to be their act and
deed, and that they executed the same for the uses and
purposes therein set forth.
Given under my hand and official seal, this third day
of February A.D. 1872.
(Signed)
fT . \
EDWARD W. Notary
RUSSELL,
1L-8-;
Public.
State of Illinois,)
County of Cook, >ss,
City
of ChicagoJ
Alnierin
II. Winslow, being duly sworn, says that he
is one of tho general partners of tho limited partner
ship of Richards, Shaw ft Winslow; that Chauncey T.
Bowen has contributed to the common stock of said
partnership the sum of one hundred thousand dollars
m cash, and that such amount has been actually and
in good faith applied to the same; that George W.
Shaw has contributed to the common stock of Baid
partnership the sum of fifty thousand dollars in cash,
and that such amount has been actually and in good
faith applied to the same.
WINSLOW.
Subscribed and sworn ALMERIN
to before me,H.this
third day of
February, A.D. 1872.
^
EDWARD W. RUSSELL.
fLgl
Notary Public.
18-23
ROUNTREE & McHUGH,
Attorneys, Nixon's Building, cor. LaSalle and Monroe.
PUBLICATION
IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois,NOTICE
Cook county,
ss. Circuit Court
of Cook county. April Term, A.D. 1872. Edward Don
oghue v. Jeffrey Hodkinson.
Public notice is hereby given to tho said Jeffrey Hodkinson that a writ of attachment issued out of the offfice
the 8th
clerk
Circuit court
of Cook
datedofthe
dayofoftheFebruary,
A.D. 1872,
at thecounty,
suit of
the said Edward Donoghue and against the estate of
Jeffrey Hodkinson for the sum of two hundred
and ;two 25-100 dollars, directed to the Sheriff
of Cook county, which said writ has been returned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you. the said Jeffrey Hodkin
son shall personally be ana appear before the Baid
Circuit court of Cook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the Court
House,
of April,inA.theD. city
1872, of
giveChicago,
special on
bailtheandthird
pleadMonday
to the
said plaintiffs' action, judgment will be entered against
you, and in favor of the said Edward Donoghue, and
so much of the property attached as may be suffi
cient to satisfy the said jndgment and costs will be
sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Rountbee ft McHroH, Attorneys.
20-23
rpRUSTEE'S SALE.Whereas. Jamet E. Cassidy and
X Margaret E. Cassidy, his wife, by their trust deed,
dated March 7, 1*70. and recorded March 8, 1K70, in the
Recorder's office of Cook county, Illinois, in book 521
of deeds, page 430 conveyed to the undersigned, Frank
R. Chandler,
following
real estate
in the
city
of Chicagotrustee,
in thethecounty
of Cook,
and State
of
Illinois, to wit: Lot numbered thirty (30), in Ellis*
east
addition
to
Chicagotsituated
on
Langley
street,
Id
the east part of said Elli*' addition, to secure the pay
ment date
of said
E. Cassidy's
promissory
note, of
of
even
withJames
said trust
deed, payable
to the order
the Sullivant Savings Institution, five years after date,
for tho sum of sixteen thousand dollars, with interest
at nine per cent, per annum, payable semi-annually,
both principal and interest payable at Claremont, New
Hampshire, in which said trust deed it was provided,
that In case default should be made In the payment or
either
thethe
principal
interest
ofsaid
note,become
on the day
on which
same ororeither
of them
should
due
and payable, then all and each ot the moneys secured by
said trust deed should, upon such default, become im
mediately due and payable, and also, thatincaseof such'
default, said trustee might sell and dispose of said real
estate, at public auction, at the north door of the court
house,
the city ofas Chicago,
the StateinoftheIllinois,
on
saidinpremises,
might beinspecified
notice or
of
such
sale,
for
the
highest
and
bc*t
price
the
same
would bring in cash, at least twenty days' public notice
having been previously given of the time and place of
such sale, by advertisement in one of the newspaper*
at
thatexecute
time published
in said
of Chicago,
and
make,
and deliver
to thecitypurchaser
or pur
chasers at such sale, good and sufficient deed or deeds
ofconveyance for the premises sold ; and, whereas, de
fault has been made in the payment of all the interest
accruing on said note Hince the first day of July, 1S7I,
and the holder of the same has requested the under
signed to make sale of said real estate to pay said note
and accrued interest : now, notice is hereby given that
on
Saturday,
day of April,
hour of
eleven
o'clockthein sixth
the forenoon,
and 1872.
uponatthethepremises
aforesaid, I shall proceed to sell said real estate, and
all
right,E.title,
benefit
equity E.
of Cassidy
redemption
saidtheJames
Cassidy
andand
Margaret
thereof
in,
public
to the highest bidder for cash, to>
payatsaid
noteauction,
and interest.
Dated March 15, 1872.
23-26
FRANK R. CHANDLER, Trustee.
ESTATE OF GUNDER OLESON, DECEASED.
Notice Is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Gunda Oleson.
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court ot
Cook comity, to be holden at the courthouse, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A.D.
1872,
being February
the 6th day19,thereof.
Chicago,
A.D. 1872.
CHARLES GLADDING. Administrator.
James Michie. Att'y.
21-20

i78

CHICAGO

Legal

NOW READY.

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.

JONES' FORMS & PROCEDURE

The Forms and Mode of Procedure in the various
Courts in the State of Illinois, and which, with little
variation,
will apply
thoseuseof the
neighboring
States
and Territories.
Fortothe
of Judges
of Probate,
Clerks
Courts, of
Sheriffs.
Coroners.
CountyConstables,
Commis
sioners,ofJustices
the Peace.
Lawyers,
Notaries Public, etc., with a variety of precedents iu
conveyancing. By James Jokes. Esq.
Second edition, revised and enlarged, by JoSF.ru
Wright.
IT CONTAINS
Forms of Writs and Proceedings in the Supreme
Court, Circuit Court, County Court, and tho United
States District and Circuit Court*.
in Chancery
such as Notices,
Summons,Orders
Bills
ofForms
Complaint,
Writs Practice,
of Injunction,
and Decrees, with a complete record suggesting the
various proceedings
perfecting
Appeal. in a cause, from filing a Bill to
In Actions and other proceedings at law, with com
plete records in Assumpsit, Case, Attachment, Eject
ment,
etc.used by Justices of the Peace in Criminal and
Forms
Civil matters, by Notaries Public, and by Clerks of
Courts in entries and proceedings in cases at Law and
in Chancery, from their commencement to riual Cer
tificate of Transcript of Record.
Forms used by Sheriffs and Coroners in holding in
quests.
Forms used in Naturalization, in Arbitration and
Award.
Of Affidavits, in Attachment and other cases at Law
and in Equity.
Forms used in AppealB from, and Certiorari to Jus
tices' Courts.
Forms of Plf.adino: Declarations, Pleas, Demur
rers, Replications, Bills for Foreclosurefor Divorce
in Dowerfor Specific Performance, etc., with An
swers, Replications, Decrees, Orders, and the Process
thereon
FormsinofEquity.
Notes, Bills of Exchange, Letters of Cred
it, Bonds, Bills of Sale, Bills of Lading. Releases, Cer
tificates of Stock, Proxies, Mortgages, Judgment
Notes, Agreements, etc.
Forms used in Conveyancing: In Depositionsin
structions for taking and certifying the same, de bene
eweAnandAppendix
otherwise.containing the RULES OF PRAC
TICE OF THE COURTS, as Amended and Revised to
tho present time.
An Octavo Volume. 700 pp. Bound in Law Sheet).
Price, $7,50. Sent free to any address on receipt of the
price,
E. B. TITERS,
23-24
No. 3l.<3 Publisher,
Wabash Avenue.

ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney, 18 Ead Harrison Street,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
States for the Northern District of Illinois. In the
matter of Sands Ale Brewing Company, bankrupt.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to an order this
day entered in said court, I, the undersigned assignee
of the estate of said bankrupt, will sell at public auction
for cash to the highest and best bidders, at the front
door of number eighteen (18) East Harrison street,
in the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State of
Illinois,
in saidA. district,
Saturday, atthetensixth
(6th)
day
of April,
D. 1872, on
commencing
o'clock
in
the forenoon of said day, and continuing until all
tho property hereinafter described shall be sold, all the
following described real estate and property, all being
in the said city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State
of Illinois, to wit : Beginning at the southwest corner
of lot eight (>) of John S. Yogi's subdivision of the
Bouth one-third of out lot twenty (20) of the Canal
Trustees' subdivision of the southwest quarter of frac
tional section three (3), in township thirty-nine (.iy),
north of range
of third
principal
meridian;
thencefourteen
running(14).
northeastalong
the west
line of
said lot eight (s), and along said last-named line pro
duced to the north line ot that part of out lot twenty
Qfli). conveyed by Peter Kantenbuger and wife to Peter
Goebel by deed, dated January 2, 1852. and recorded in
the recorder's office of Cook county, Illinois, February
4,east1852,
in book
of deeds,
running
along
said 45north
line atof page
said :i14
lot; sothence
as aforesaid
conveyed to Peter Goebel to the west line of Pine
Btreet, as the same was exteuded by the common coun
cil of the city of Chicago; thence running along the
west Hue of Pine street to tho north lino of Pearson
street, toandthethence
along the northproperty
line of Pearson
street
place west
of beginningsaid
having
a frontage of one hundred and sixty-seven (167) feet on
Pearson street, by a frontage of one hundred and seven
(107) feet on Pine street, and being tho property con
veyed
said wife
SandsandAleRichard
BrewingMcClevey
Company(widower)
by John by
>'.
Stailordto and
deed dated tho 26th day of January, A.D. 1*64, which
deed was duly recorded, iu the Recorder's office ofCook
county
on atthepage
15th18n,
daytogether
of March,
in
book aforesaid,
277 of deeds,
withA.I).
also1864,
the
boiler and engine, and the brick, iron and other debris
ofdestroyed buildings and machinery on said premises.
Also a certain leasehold estate in premises known and
described as lot fourteen (14), in the Assessors' division
of
(2) and lotoften
(10),twenty
in the south
andblock
northtwotwo-thirds
block
(2i), one-third
in Canal
Trustees' subdivision of section three (3). township
thirty-nine (39), north of range fourteen (14), east of
third principal meridian, beiug the property weBt of
Pine street, leased to the said Sands Ale Brewing Com
pany
Albert Smeeds,
by twenty-one
lease dated September
first.
A.
D. by1S6.Ssaid
lease runs
(21) years from
Baid r>th September, and is subject to a revaluation
every five years, and said leasehold will be sold subject
to all arrearages of rents and taxes,and all of said
premises are to be sold free and discharged of all liens
and
for ls71Also
excepted),
to theincumbrances
provisions ot(taxes
said order.
lots twoaccording
(2), three
(3)
and
four
(4),
in
John
S.
Vogt's
subdivision
of the
south one-third (l3) of block or out lot number twenty
(20), in the Canal Trustees' subdivision of the south
west quarter of fractional section three (3), township
thirty-nine (3*J), north range fourteen (14), east of
third
principal
the east onedivision
hundredof
[1I'M)] feet
of lot meridian.
five [5J, In Also
the Assessors'
the north two-thirds of said block, or out lot twenty
[20j of the Canal Trustees' subdivision of fractional
section three [:;], in township and range aforesaid.
Also, all that part of lot seven [7], in the sai ^ Assessors'
division
of said;
north bounded
two-thirdsandof described
block or out
twenty [20]
aforesaid,
as follot
lows, that is to say : commencing at the northeast cor
ner cast
of said
and running
thenceand
south
on
tho
linelotofBeven
said lot[ . j,seven
1 7 ] thirty-five
66-lntJ
' y-five
66- 1on
]
feet,
more
or
less,
to
the
south
line
of
said
nth
line
of
said
ot seven [7], and thence west on saidsouth line ninety
[90] feet, more or less, to a point one hundred and
ninety-six [196J feet east of the west line of said lot
seven [7], being the east lino ot Green Bay street, now
called Rush street: thence northwesterly on a line
parallel with said west line of said lot seven [7] thirtyseven
and line
7-ln of
[37 said
7-10}lotfeet,seven
more[7],orone
less.hundred
t a pointand
in
the north
ninety-six [1%1 feet east of said west line of said lot
seven [7j, and thence east on the north line of said lot
seven [7] to tho place of beginning, being a portion of
the property conveyed to said Sands Ale Brewing
Company by William LIU, by deed dated the 1st day of
July,
A. D. 1808. [85]
Also,
eastfive
forty
of the
west eighty-five
feettheoflot
[51 of[401thefeet
Assessors'
division
ot
the
north
two-thirds
of
ulock
twenty
[20]
of the Canal Trustees' subdivision of the southwest
quarter
of
fractional
section
three
[3],
township
thir
ty-nine [39], north rango fourteen [14], east of the
third principal meridian. Also, that part of said
block or out lot twenty [20] of the Canal Trustees'
subdivision of the southwest quarter of fractional sec
tion three, township and range aforesaid, described as
follows: commencing one hundred and ninety-six
[196] feet
east of aGreen
point on
east line
of Rush
street
[formerly
Baythestreet],
seventy-five
and > [75!^] feet in a southerly direction from
the northwest
block, witli
running
thence
southerlycorner
on a oflinesaidparallel
the
west thence
line of east
said block,
thirty-seven
andlot7-10two
[37 [21
7-10],of
feet
to
the
west
line
of
John S. Yogt's subdivision of the south one-third, of
out lot twenty [20] of the south-west quarter of frac
tional
section
[3] aforesaid,
if said west
produced
andthree
extended
norththence
northline
on were
said
line so produced to a point due west of tho placo of
beginning,
thence
east
to
tho
place
of
beginning.
Also
a certain leasehold estate in lots numbered twelve and
thirteen
[ 12 and 13]
assessor's
of blockof
number twenty
[2o] ofintheCanal
trusteesdivision
subdivision
section three [3] aforesaidbeing tho property [east of
Pino street] leased to said Sands Ale Brewing Com
pany
by Albert
Smeeds
lease datedyears
September
1st.
A. D. 186ft:
said lease
runsJbytwenty-one
from said
date, and is subject to a re-valuation every five years
and said leasehold will be sold subject to all arrear
ages for rents and taxesand the iron, brick and other
debris upon said premises will be sold together with
Bald leaseall of said property being in the city of
Chicago, county of Cook, and State of Illinois. And
all
said property will encumbrances,by
be sold [except asorder
aforesaid]
freeofanddischargedofall
ofsaid
court
;
and
also
by
order
of
said
court
the
said
lots two
[2], three [3] and four [41 of John S. Vogt'ssubdivision
ofthe
of [fll
saidand
outseven
lot twenty
and
the saidsouth
partsone-third
of lots five
[7] inl[20],
the said
assessors'
division
of
the
said
north
two-thirds
of
said
lot twenty [20] with all brick, iron and other debris
thereon, will be offered for sale together in one body,
and they will be so sold. And further particulars
regarding said sale and said property may be obtained
on application to the undersigned.
ROBERT
E. JENKINS.
Assignee of Sands
Ale Brewing
Co., a Bankrupt.
Chicago, March 9, 1872.
22-26
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.Northern District of Illi
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the
4thThe
dayundersigned
of March, A.hereby
1>. 1872.
gives notice of his appoint
ment
as
assignee
of
A. State
Shufeldt,
Jr., of who
Chi
cago, in the county ofGeorge
Cook, and
of Illinois,
has been adjudged a bankrupt, upon his own petition,
by tho District court of the United States in and for
said District,
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
23-25
Assignee.
SSIGNEE'S
NOTICE.Northern
District
of 1111' nolB, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the
11th
dayTheofundersigned
March, A. ID.hereby
1 gives
of his appointnotice
given
__
ient as assignee of Jacob Engel, of Chicago, in the
county
and State
who nasbybeen
adjudgedof aCook,
bankrupt,
uponofhiBIllinois,
own petition,
tho
District court of the United States, in and for said
District.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
23-25
Assignee.

PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL

concerned, that the undersigned, guardian of Ed
ward P. Towne, minor, will make application to the
Circuit court of Cook county. State of Illinois, at the
April term thereof, A. D. 1*72, to be holdon at the court
house, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of
April.
lo/2, forallanthe
order,
enabling
saidinterest
guardianof
to sell A.
andD.convey
right,
title and
said
minor,
in
the
following
described
real
estate,
sit
uated
in the ofState
Illinois,(>s)to wit
: One
undivided
ona-half
east ofone-half
of W.
% of
lot No.
three (3), in block fifty-seven (57) of original town of
Chicago.
Also, an undivided one-Bixth (1-6) of undivided fourflfths (4-5) of west ten (10) acres of N. E. X of N. W.
>4 of section twenty-three (23), T. 38, R. 14.
Also, an undivided one-sixth (1-C) of four-fifths (4-5)
ofE. }i of N. W. hi of N. W. U of section 23, T. 38,
B.An14. undivided 2-5of lot 4, block 19, Assessors' division
of the northwest fractional Quarter of sec. 22, town 39.
N. R. 14, E. 3d P. M., for the support and education of
the said minor, or to invest in other real estate, as the
court may direct.
23-25
ELIZA H. TOWNE, Guardian.
FELKER & MARX,
Attorneys.
CHANCERY NOTICE. -State of Illinois, Count/
of
Cook,
ss.
Circuit
of Cook county.
April
term, A. D. 1672. Johncourt
Hir6chsteiner
v. Babetta
Hirschsti'iner.In Chancery.
Affidavit of tho non-residence of Babetta Hirschsteiner, defendant above named, having been filed in
the office of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook
county, notice is hereby given to the said Babetta
Hirsehsteiner tliat the complainant heretofore filed his
bill
of complaint
said court,
on the issued
chancery
thereof,
and that ainsummons
thereupon
outside
of
said
court
against
said
defendant,
returnable
on
the
third Monday of March instant (1872), as is by law^required.
Now, unless you, the said Babetta HirBchsteiner, shall
personally be and appear before said Circuit court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, iu said county, on the third Mon
day of April, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same,
and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
22-25
Ff.lker & Marx, Compl't's Sol'rs.
ESTATE
OF
WATSON
GOWARD,
DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Watson Goward, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment
termat the
of the
County
Cookof
county,at toa regular
be holden
Court
House,Court
in theofcitv
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, being
the sixth dayGUSTAVUS
thereof. GOWARD, Administrator.
Chicago,
March
6, A. D. 1872. Att'yB for Adin'r. 22-27
J. C & J.J. Knickerbocker,
ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS,
IN REGARD TO THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICES
IN THE LEGAL NEWS.
The following order was entered in
the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, on the 28th
of July last:
" Ordered, that hereafter notices of
sales or other proceedings in bankruptcy
and admiralty cases pending in this
court may be published in the Chicago
Legal News with the same effect as if
published in either of the other papers
designated by the rules and orders of
this court for the publication of notices."
A similar order was also entered in
the Circuit Court in regard to notices in
that court.

News.

ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi

nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the 16th
day of September, A. 1). 1871.
The undersigned hereby gives notice of his appoint
ment as assignee of William Weitzell, of Chicago, in
the county of Cook, and State of Illinois, who has
been adjudged a bankrupt, upon his own petition, by
tho District court of the United States in and for said
District.
23-25
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
PAYNE & HAWHE,
Attorneys, 45 Hubbard (Jourt,
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. May
term,
A. D. 1872.Chancer}'.
Samantha M. Williard v. Putnam
S. Williard.In
Affidavit of the non-residence of Putnam 8. Williard,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to tho said Putnam S. Williard
that the' complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and
thatsaid
a summons
thereupon
issuedonout
against
defendant,
returnable
thoofsaid
third court
Mon
day of February (1872,) as is by law required, and also
an alias Bummons returnable on the third Monday of
May, A. D. 1872.
Now,unless you.the said Putnam S.Williard.shall per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit court of Cook
county, on tho first day of a term thereof, to be holden
at Chicago, in Baid county, on the third Monday of
May, 187U, and plead, answer or demur to the said
complainant's
bill therein
of complaint,
matters and things
chargedthe
andsame,
stated,and
willthe
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to tho prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
Payne <fe Hawhe, Compl't's Sol'rs.
22-25
TURNER, BRAWLEY & TURNER,
Attorneys, eor. Canal and Madison Streets.
PUBLICATION
county
A of Cook, ss. NOTICE.-State
Superior court ofof Illinois,
Cook county.
March term, A. D. 1872. William Stevens v. Edwin
Hohnan.Attachment.
Public notice is hereby given to the Baid Edwin Holroan
a writof oftheattachment
of thecounty,
office
of thethatclerk
Superior issued
court ofoutCook
dated the first day of March, A. D. 1872, at the suit of
the said William Stevens, and against the estate of
the said Edwin Holman, for the siim of four hundred
and eighty-one dollars and eighty cents, directed to
the sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
returned
executed.unless you, the said Edwin Holman,
Now, therefore,
shall personally bo and appear before tho said Superior
court of Cook county, on or before tho first day of the
term thereof, to be holden at the court house, in
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March,
A. D. 1872, give special bail and plead to the said plain
tiffs
action,
will beStevens.andiso
entered against
you,ofand
in
favor
of thojudgment
said William
much
the
property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy the
said
judgment
and
costs
wilt
be
sold
to
satisfy
the
same.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON,
Clerk Superior Court.
Turner, Brawley & Turner, PI't'tTs Att'ys. 23-26p
pHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of
county.KlekenMay
term,Cook,
A. D.ss.1872.Circuit
Georgecourt
Tolleofv. Cook
Frederick
berg, MHthilda Eickenberg, William Moen-cke, Maria
Turney, George W. Schuaoel, Zebulon M. Hall, Henry
Hanson
andofAlexander
Thomson.In
Chancery.
Affidavit
the non-residence
of Frederick
Eicken
berg, one of tho defendants above named, and that Baid
Maria Turney, upon due inquiry, cannot be found in
said State, having been filed in the office of tho clerk of
said Circuit
of Cook county,
noticeand
is hereby
given
to the court
said Frederick
Eickenberg
Maria
Turney that the complainant heretofore filed his bill
of
complaint
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued outside
of
said court against said defendants, returnable on the
third Monday of May next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, tne said Frederick Eickenberg and
Maria Turney, shall personally be and appear before
said
of Cookatcounty,
on inthesaid
firstcounty,
day of
a termCircuit
thereof,court
to beholden
Chicago,
on the third Monday of May, 1*72, and plead, answer
or demur to the said complainant's bill of complaint,
the same, and tho matters and things therein cnarged
and stated, will be tAken as confessed, and a decree
entered agaiust you according to tho prayer of said
bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, Compl't's. Sol'rs. 22-25
GOUDY & CHANDLER,
Attorneys, Ventral Union Slock.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, County of Cook, ss. In the
Superior court of Cook county. Henry S. Pitkin
v. To
Eliza
Pitkin.In
Chancery. in the above entitled
Eli/a
Pitkin, defendant
cause: Tako notice, that on tho 8th day of April, A. D.
1872, at nine o'clock in the forenoon of Bald dav, or as
soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, the under
signed will sue out of the office of the clerk of the
Superior
court, of the orcounty
of Cookunder
aforcBaid,
deuimus protestatinn,
commission,
the seala
of said court, and directed to J. F. Roberts, Esq., of the
city of New York, in tho county of New York, and
State of New York, at his office, No. 57 Broadway
street, or to any judge or justice ofthe peace ofthe
county and State lost above mentioned, to take the
depositions of Rev. S. II. Weston, Charles C. Prentiss,
Samuel F. Prentiss, T. S. Mercer and William Ken
nedy, upon the interrogatories tiled in the office of the
clerk of said Superior court, to be read in evidence on
the partentitled
of the cause
said complainant
of tt
above
now pendingonintho
thehearing
said Superior
when and where
court
on
tho
chancery
acery
side
thereof;
you can appear and file cross-interrogatories, and join
in said commission if set you wish.
Dated this 9th day of March, A. D. 1872.
GOUDYforA said
CHANDLER,
22-25
Solicitors
Complainant.
ESTATE
MARGARET
F. COMERFORD,
Dceased.OFNotice
is hereby given
to all persons hav
ing claims and demands againBt the estate of Margaret
F. Comerford, deceased, to present the same for adju
dication and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook County, to bo holden at tho court
house
in ho 1872,
city being
of Chicago,
first Monday of
April, A.D.
the firstondaythothereof.
JOHN TWOHEY, Executor.
Chicago, Feb.
9, A.D. 1S72.
Rountree
A McHuou,
Attys.
1S-23
BONNEY, FAY & GRIGGS,
Attorneys.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.Stato of Illinois, Cook couuty, ss. Circuit court of
Cook county. March term, A. D. 1872. Joseph E. Bates
v. Tho Anchor Life Insurance Company.
Public notice is hereby given to the said The Anchor
Life Insurance Company that a writ of attach
ment issued out of the office of tho clerk of the Circuit
Court of Cook county, dated the 26th day of February,
A. D. 1872, at the suit of tho said Joseph E. Bates, and
against the estate of Tho Anchor Life Insurance Com
pany,
for thodollars,
sum ofdirected
four hundred
and twenty-one
and 13-100
to the sheriff
of Cook
county, which said writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, tho said The Anchor
Life Insurance Company, shall personally be and
appear before the said Circuit Court of Cook countv,
on
or before the first day of the next term thereof, to
be holden
at the Court House, in the city of Chicago,
on the third Monday of March, A.D. 1872, give special
bail and plead to the said plaintiff's action, judgment
will be entered against you, and in favor ofthe said
Joseph
and soto much
thesaid
property
attached
as may E.beBates,
sufficient
satisfyofthe
judgment
and
costs will be sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Bonnet, Fay A Griggs, Attorneys.
22-25

D. S. PRIDE,
Attorney, oS2 State Street.
WHEREAS, R. M. Whipple, of the city of Chicago,
county of Cook, and State of Illinois, did, on the
third day of June, A. D. 186'.*. make, execute and de
liver to the undersigned, Benjamin Lombard, his
promissory note, bearing date the day and year afore
said, for the sum of two thousand dollars, payable on
or before the first day of December, A. I). lHy, with
interest thereon at the rate often percent, per annum;
and, whereas,
said with
Whipple,
his agreement
In
writing
undertheseal,
said byLombard,
gave and
transferred to Baid Lombard, as collateral security for
the payment of said note and interest thereon, fifteen
'* Lake Ontario and Hudson River Railroad Company
mortgage bonds" for the buiu of one thousand dollars
each;
said1, bonds
bearing
dateatApril
1857,cent.,
and pay*
pay
able Aug.
1879, with
interest
seven6,per
able semi-annually, on Feb. 1 and Aug- 1, and num
bered
1751, 1791,
1753, 179s,
1754, 1799,
1757, 1800,
1758,and1759,it was
1760,provided
1787, 1788,
IT.sy, 1790,
in
said agreement that said Lombard or the holder or
holders of Baid note, or his or their agent or attorney,
if said uote or the interest thereon or any part thereof
is not atpaidpublic
in fullorat private
maturity,
maywithout
sell the notice,
said collat
erals
sale,
and
apply the proceeds towards paying said note, after de
ducting reasonable charges, attorney fees, and ex
penses
selling.the said R. M. Whipple has made de
And, ofwhereas,
fault in payment of the principal and interest due on
said noto ; now, therefore, notice is hereby given to
said Whipple and all others whom it may concern, that
on
27th dayof that
of March,
D. 18*2,
ten Wednesday,
o'clock in thetheforenoon
day, atA.the
northat
west corner of the new city hall, situate on Adams and
La SalleBenjamin
streets, inLombard,
said cityshall
of Chicago,
I, theauction,
under
signed
sell at public
to
the
highest
and
best
bidder
therefor
for
cash,
all to
of
said bonds or so many thereof as shall be necessary
pay said note and interest due thereon and the costs of
making such sale, including attorney fees.
BENJAMIN LOMBARD.
Dated Chicago, Feb. 24, 1873.
D. S. Pride, Attorney.
21-23
WHEREAS, R. M. Whipple, of the city of Chicago,
county of Cook, and State of Illinois, did, on the
third
day theof June,
A. D. 1869,Benjamin
make, execute
and de
liver to
undersigned,
Lombard,
his
promissory note, bearing date the day and year afore
said, for the sum of two thousand dollars, payable on
or beforo the first day of January, A. D. 1870, with in
terest thereon at tho rate of ten per cent, per annum;
and,
whereas,
saidwith
Whipple,
his agreement
in
writing
undertheseal,
said byLombard,
gave and
transferred
to
said
Lombard,
as
collateral
security
for
the payment of said uote, two "convertible morf
bonds" of tho Lyons (Iowa) Central Railroad 1
pany," numbered 468 and 759, and being for one thou
sand dollars each, with seven per cent, interest : and it
was provided in said agreement that said Lombard or
the holder or holders ofsaid note.or his or their agent or
attorney,
saidpaid
note or
thereonmayor any
thereof isifnot
in tho
fullinterest
at maturity,
sell part
the
said collaterals at public or private sale, without no
tice, and apply the proceeds towards paying said note,
after deducting reasonable charges, attorney fees, and
expenses
of selling. said R. M. Whipple has made de
And,in whereas,
fault
payment the
of the principal and interest due on
said
note and
; now,
noticewhom
is hereby
givenconcern,
to said
Whipple
all therefore,
other persons
it may
that on Wednesday, the 27th day of March, A. D, 1872,
at ten o'clock in the forenoon of that day. at the north
west corner of the new city hall, situate on Adams and
La Salle streets, in said city of Chicago, I. the under
signed Benjamin Lombard, shall sell at public auction
to the highest and best bidder therefor for cash, said
"convertible mortgage bonds " or so many thereof as
shall
be necessary
to pay
said note
due
thereon
and tho costs
of making
suchandsale,interest
including
attorney fees.
BENJAMIN LOMBARD.
Dated Chicago, Feb. 24, 1872.
D. S. Pride, Attorney.
21-25
WHEREAS, R. M. Whipple, of the city of Chicago,
county of Cook, and State of Illinois, did, on the
third
day the
of June,
A. D. 1869,Benjamin
make, execute and de
liver to
undersigned,
Lombard, his
promissory note, bearing date the day and year afore
said,
for
the
sum
of
two
thousand
dollars,
payable
or beforo the first day of February, A. I). 1870,
with inon
terest thereon at the rate of ten per cent, per annum ;
and. whereas, the said Whipple, by his agreement in
writing underto seal,
said Lombard,
gave secu
and
transferred
said with
Lombard
aa collateral
rity for the payment of said note, A "certificate of
La
Crosse
and
Milwaukee
Railroad
Company,"
for
dividends due on " First Mortgage Land Grant .Bond,"
No.
3160,
dated
Jan.
28,
1858
:
Certificate
of
Stock,
No.
166, in the River and Lake Shore City Railway Com
pany," for 200 shares, par value $:.'.'>, dated .March 22,
1865; "Mortgage and Convertible Bond, No. 12, New
London, Willimantie and Palmer Railroad Corpora
tion," for one thousand dollars, dated July 20, 1850.
And it was provided in said agreement that said Lom
bard or the nolder or holders of Baid note, or his or
their agent or attorney, if said note or tho interest
thereon
anythepart
is notatpaid
in fullor atprivate
matu
rity, mayorsell
saidthereof
collaterals
public
sale, without notice, and apply the proceeds towards
paying said note, after deducting reasonable charges
attorney fees, and expenses of selling.
And, whereas, the *aid R. M. Whipple has made de
fault in payment of the principal and interest due ou
said note ; now. therefore, notice is hereby given to said
Whipple and all other persons whom it may concern,
that on Wednesday, the 27th day of March. A. D. 1872,
atwest
tencorner
o'clockofthe
in thenew
forenoon
of that
day,onatAdams
tho north
city hall,
situate
and
La
Salle
streets,
iu
said
city
of
Chicago,
I.
the
under
signed, Benjamin Lombard, shall sell at public auction
to the highest and best bidder therefor for cash, said
Certificate of La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad Com
pany, forNo.dividends
due on First
Mortgage
Bond,
3160; Certificate
of Stock,
No.Land
166, Grant
in the
River
and
Lake
Shore
City
Railway
Company,
for 200
shares; and Mortgage and Convertible Bond, No.
12,
New Loudon, Willimantie and Palmer Railroad Cor
poration,
or
so
many
thereof
as
shall
be
necessary
to
pay said note and interest duo thereon^
thereon, and tho costs of
making such sale, including attorney fees.
BENJAMIN L0
LOMBARD.
Dated Chicago, Feb. 24, 187
D. S. Pkidb, Attorney.
21-23
HARDING & McCOY,
Attorns'/*, -ICS M'abash Avenue.
TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.Public no
tice is hereby given that tho undersigned guardian
of the estate of Kenneth Brown and trank Brown,
minors, will make application to the Circuit court of
Cook county, Illinois, at the first day of the April
term,
a.Chicago,
d. 1872, tocounty
be holdenState
at theaforesaid,
Court House,
the
city
whichina.said
termofcommences
on theand
third Monday
of April,
d.
1872, for leave to soil the following described real es
tate,
to
wit
:
The west halfoflot one in block ninety-three (93) in the
school section addition ofChicago, in Cook county,State
ofIllinois, for the purpose of investing the proceeds of
such property in such manner as tho court, appoint
ing
such guardian,
direct,
or
for the
suchundersigned
other legalas purpose
as saidshall
Circuit
court
shall direct.
CAROLINE M. BROWN.
FebruaryA McCoy,
20, 1872. Attorneys.
Guardian, 21-23
etc.
Hardiso
INSTATE
JOSEPH
j Notice IsOF
hereby
given toBROWN,
all personsDECEASED.
havings
baviugclaims
or demands against the estate of Joseph Brown,
deceased, and they are hereby requested to attend a
term of the County court of the county of Cook, and
State of Illinois, to be held at tho court house, in said
county, on the firstjMonday iu the mouth of May next
after tho date hereof, and then and there present such
claims or demandB for tho purpose of having the same
adjusted. WILLIAM S. BROWN, Administrator.
Dated
Chicago, Feb.
13, 1872.
J. H. Knowlton,
Att'y19-24

Chicago
J. C. & J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
Attorney*, 163 W* Washington St,
MASTER'S SALE.-State of Illinois Cook county.
In Chancery. Joseph B. Whitmore v. David
Alexander Grubbs, Mary Jane Grubbs, Cosmon Eisendruth and Henry Regeusburg. Foreclosure of mort
gage.
Public notice is hereby given that in pursuance of a
dec ree entered by said court in the above entitled cause
on
the 28th
day inof chancery
February,ofA.Baid
D. is?If,
John Woodbridge,
master
CookI, county,
will,
on Wednesday, the tenth day of April, A. D. 1*72, at
the hour of ten o'clock in the forenoon of said day, at
the east door of the east wing of the old court house,
in the city of Chicago, in said Cook county, expose tor
pale at public auction, und soli to the highest bidder
for cash, all the following described land aud real es
tate, situate in the city of Chicago, in Cook county, in
the
State fofis)Illinois,
follows, to (17)
wit:lying
Lot
eighteen
and thatdescribed
part of lotas seventeen
west of a lino running north and south midway be
tween
Clarkofstreet
La Salle
in
Jaiunt'sNorth
subdivision
lots oneandhundred
and street,
fourteen
(114),
one
hundred
and
fifteen
(115)
and
one
hundred
and
part and
of lot*
one hundred
aud
lour sixteen
f KM) and(1 hij,
one and
hundred
five (lift),
in Bronson's
addition
Chicago,
also known
and distinguished
at- lot fiveto(),
in thenow
Assessors'
division
of lot KKi and
part* of lots KH and lift, and of sub-lots 15 to 20 of
Jauiot's subdivision of parts of lot* hH and 10ft, in
Bronson's addition to Chicugo, recorded in the record
erV
of said
Cook county,
in book 164 ofthereon.
maps,
paL'coffice
74, with
the buildings
and improvements
JOHN
WoODBRIDGK.
Master in Chancery of Cook Countv,
Chicago. Feb. >. le-72.
J. C. & J. J. Knickerbocker, CompPt's Sol'rs, 21-23
MASTER'S SALE.State of Illinois. Cook county.
In Chancery. Evan Davis v. Em1 lie Wirth and
Chariots Wirth. Foreclosure of mortgage.
Public notice is hereby given that in pursuance of a
decree entered by said court in the above entitled
cau.-e on the 2Mb. day of February, A. D. 1*72, I, John
Woodbridge.
master the
In chancery
CookA. county,
will,
on Wednesday,
tenth day^fofsaid
April,
D. 1*72,
at
the
hour
of
ten
o'clock
in
the
forenoon
of saidhouse,
day,
at the east door of the cast wing of the old court
in the city of Chicago, in said Cook county, expose for
sale nt public auction, and sell to the highest bidder
for cash, all tho following described land and real es
tate,
situate
in the citydescribed
of Chicago,
in Cooktocounty,
in
the State
of Illinois,
as follows,
wit : Lot
fourteen (14), in Waughop's subdivision of block
twenty-seven (27), in the Caiml Trustees' subdivision
of
seven (7).(Hj,
in township
thirty-nine
north
of section
ranye fourteen
east
of the
third (3d)(,'iy)7
principal
meridian.
JOHN
WOoDBKIlHiE,
Maxtor iu Chancery of Cook County.
Chicago, Feb. 2y, 1*72.
J. C. A J. J. Knickerbocker, CompPt's BoPra. 21-24
HSTATE
OF MARY
ANN given
CAVANAUGH,
DEceased.Notice
is hereby
to all persons
having claims and demands agains: the estate ofe
Mary Ann Cavanuugh. deceased, to present the sa ui
for adjudication ana settlement at a regular term of
the County
courttheofcitv
Cook county, toon bethe holden
at the
court
first Monday
of
May,house,
A.D. in1&72,
beingofthoChicago
f>th day thereof.
iy, A.
a. D.
u. 1*72.
iff.*.
Chicago, Februaryy IS',
21-25
JOHN
'
CoRHKTT, Administrator.
G. A. FOLLANSBEE,
Attorney, 181 La Salle Street.
ADMINISTRATORS SALE OF REAL ESTATE.
By virtue of an order and decree ofthe County
Court
Cook county,
Illinois, made
the of
petition
of
the of
undersigued
administrator
of theonestate
Fred
erick Biormann, deceased, for leave to sell the real es
tate of said deceased, at the February term, a. d. 1872,
of
court,ontoThursday,
wit, on the 30thiMhdayday
of February,
)b~2,saidbetween
I shall
April,
a.a. ,d.
1872,
tho hours of intheo'clock
a. in.ofand
5 o'clock
p. in. of said day. sell at public sale on the premises,
tho
situated
in the
townfollowing
of Leyden,described
county ofreal
Cook,estate,
aud State
of Illinois,
to wit :
Being a part of the northwest quarter of section
throe twelve
(.1), congressional
forty (40).
north
range
(12). oast of thetownship
third principal
meridian,
and west
bouuded
follows: commencing
at a postquar
dist
ant
of theassouth-east
corner of the aforesaid
ter section seventeen < 17) chains and fifty-six (56) finks
to centre! of road and north nine and on e-half(9'ff)
degrees oast with centre of said road twelve (12) chains
and seventy-one (71) links, and running from thence
north nine and one-half ('.''a) degrees east with centre
of said road nine (y) chains and sixty-two (62; links to
the
centre
of DeseastPlains
River,
thence south
thirtyfour
(.It) degrees
degrees
six (6)centre
chains,
south
five (55)
east with
of thence
said river
fourfifty(4)
chainsand
andone-half
forty-one(371*)
(41)degrees
links, west
thence
south
seven
three
(.">) thirtychains
and
ninety ('Mi)degrees
links, thence
north and
eighty and
one-half
six (6) chains
(rx>) links(xu'i)
to the place ofwest
beginning,
containingfifty-five
i 70-10U
acres more or less (variation 5, 'Jo' E,) on the follow
ing terms, to wit :
l ine thousanddollarsinsix mouths from the day of tho
sale,
interest
the rate of6note
percent,
annum,
to se with
secured
by theatpromissory
of the per
purchaser,
with mortgage upon the premises sold, and the bal
ance cash in hand on the day of sale.
HEINRICHof BIERMANN,
Administrator
the estate of
Frederick Biermaun, deceased.
G. A. FOLLANSBEE, Attorney.
20-25

Legal

TENNEY, McCLEIXAN & TENNEY,

Attorneys.
MORTGAGE SALE.-Whereas, Aaron II. Crosby
and
Adeline,
his
wife,
of Centralia,
county
of Marion, and State of Illinois,
did, on inthothethirtieth
day of June. A. 1), 1*71, execute and deliver to me
their
mortgage,office
whichofsaid
was re
cordedcertain
in the recorders
said mortgage
Marion county,
in the Statu of Illinois, on the 8th day of July. A. D.
1871, in volume H of Mortgages, page 11*1, of the prom
ises hereinafter described, to secure tho payment of
one certain promissory note made by the said A. 11.
Crosby, dated on the thirtieth day of June, 1871, for the
sum of one hundred and ninety-seven 55-KM) dollars,
with interest at the rate often per cent, per annum,
payable to the order of C. B. Farwell five mouths after
the date thereof; and whereas it is provided in said
mortgage that in case of default in the payment of the
said note or any part thereof, according to tho tenor
and effect thereof, the said ('. B. Farwell. his legal rep
resentatives or attorney, after having advertised such
sale
in a newspaper
published
iu Chicago,
Cooktwenty
county,days
Illinois,
may sell the
said premises,
or
any part thereof, and all right and equity of redemp
tion
of
the
said
Aaron
H.
Crosby
and
Adeline,
his
wife, their heirs or assigns therein, at public vendue,
to the highest bidder, for cash, at tho court house, in
said
countyof; and
hasnow,
beenthere
made
in theCook
payment
said whereas
note anddefault
interest,
fore, by virtue of the power in me vested bv said mort
gage, I, the undersigned mortgagee, will sell at 10
o'clock a. ni., on Wednesday, the 6th day of March,
A. D. 1872, at public vendue, at the court-house door,
in said Chicago, <Xok county, Illinois, to the highest
bidder,
cash,Lots
the three
premises
de
scribed,for
to wit:
(3) in
andsaid
fourmortgage
(I), in block
one (1), in the town of Centralia, county of Marion,
State
of Illinois,
together withprivileges
all and singular,
tho
tenements
and hereditaments,
and appurte
nances
thereunto
belonging,
and
all
the
right,
title,
benefit and equity of redemption of the said Aaron SI.
Crosby aud Adeline, his wife, in and to the said prem
ises.
CHARLES B. FARWELL.
Tenxev, McClku.an
A Tknney,
Att'ys for
Mortgagee.
19-21
The above sale is adjourned till April 1, 1^72, at the
same time and place.
C. B. FARWELL, Mortgagee.
Tenset, McClellan & Tknney, Att'ys.
22-25
WILLIAMS & THOMPSON,
Attorney*.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.State
of
Illinois,
of Cook,
ss. A.D.
Superior
Court of Cook county.county
To March
Term,
1*72.
Edward Ely v. John Halliday.
Public notice Is hereby given to tho said John Hal
liday that a writ of attachment issued out of the
office of the clerk of the Superior Court of Cook
county, dated the twenty-third day of February A.D.
1872, at tho suit of the said Edward Ely, and against
the
of John14-100
Halliday,
the sumtoofthesixSheriff
hun
dredestate
and eighty
dollars,fordirected
of Cook county, which said writ has been returned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you tho said John Halli
day shallCourt
personally
aud appear
said
Superior
of Cookbecounty,
on or before
before the
tho first
day of the next term thereof, to bo holden at the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on tho firBt Monday of
March, A.D. J872, give special bail and phudto tho said
plaintiffs action, judgment will be entered against
you, and iu favor of the said Edward Ely, and so
much of the property attached as may be sufficient
to
satisfythethesame.
saidjudgment and costs will be sold to
satisfy
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Williams A Thompson.
Attorneys.
20-23
A. H. DALT0N,
AtVjrney, Thornton.
ESTATE
DECEASED.
NoticeOFis ELIZABETH
hereby given BERGER,
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Elizabeth
Berger, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and
settlement
the County
court
of Cook
county, atto aberegular
holden term
at theofcourt
house,
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May,
A. D. 1872, being the 6th day thereof.
BKRGER, Administrator.
Chicago, Fob. 2*.JOHN
A. D. 1872.
21-26
JAMES FRAKE,
Attorney, 115 Wert Madmm St.
"INSTATE
OF
ROBERT
DECEASED.
I j Notice Is hereby given 8HEPPARD,
to all persons having
claims
and
demands
against
tbe
estate
of
Robert
deceased, to present the same lor adjudicationSheppard,
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county,
at the court
house,A.inD.the1872,
citybeof
Chicago,toonbetheholdeu
first Monday
of April,
ing the first day thereof.
SAMANTHA SHKPI'ARD and
ROBERT D. SHEPPARD,
Executors.
Chicago, Feb. I6._A.J>._1CT2:
19-24
J. V. LeMOYNE,
Attorney.
ESTATE OF MICHAEL IIANLON, DECEASED.Notfce
is
hereby
given
all persons
havingHunlou,
claims
and demands against the toestate
of Michael
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at
the County
Cook
county,
to aberegular
holden term
at theofcourt
house, court
in theofcity
of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
ing the 6th day thereof.
HANNAH
Administratrix.
Chicago, Fob.
27, A. D. HANLON,
1872.
21-26a

C. BROWNELL,
GG Went Randolph Street.
CHANCERY
NOTICE.State
Illinois,
County
Cook.ss. Superior court ofofCook
county,
Marchof
Term.
A.D.
1872,
Ellen
S.
Des
Hosiers
v.
I.
Arthur
Des Rosiers In Chancery.
Affidavit that I.Arthur Des Rosiers, defendant above
named,
conceals
himselfbeen
so that
cannot
be
served upon
him. having
filed inprocess
tho office
of the
clerk
of
said
Superior
court
of
Cook
county,
notice
is hereby given to the said I. Arthur Des Rosiers
that the coundainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable ou tho first Monday
of March next. (1*72.) as is by law required.
Now, unless
you. appear
tho saidbufure
1. Arthur
Rosiers,
shallof
personally
be and
said Dos
Superior
court
Cook county, on the Urst day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on tho first Monday
of March, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
Mid complainant's bill of complaint, thesame, and the
matters aud things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
C. Brown ell, Compl't's Sol'r.
20-23

SN0WH00K & GRAY,

Attorneys, :1T> Wert Monroe Street.
TESTATE
OF
PATRICK
1 j Notice is hereby
given toMcALPIN,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
aud
demands
against
the
estate
of Patrick McAlpin,
deceased, to present tho same for adjudication
and set
tlement toat be
a regular
the County
Cookof
county,
holden term
at theofcourt
house, incourt
the ofcity
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1S72, being
the sixth day thereof.
^hicago, Feb. 27,MICHAEL
A D. 1*72. SCANL0N, Executor.
2I-26a

ESTATE OF EDWARD CASTLE, DECEASED.

Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims
and demands
against the
the same
estateforof adjudica
Edward
Castle, deceased,
to present
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
April, A.D. 1872, being the first day thereof.
LESTER D. CASTLE, Executor.
Chicago, February. A.D. 1872.
18-23a
ESTATE
OF
SETH
SHELDON.
Jr.,
DECEASED*^
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Seth Sheldon, junior,
deceased, to present tho sarnef or adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D., 1872, be
ing the first dav thereof.
L. MARTHA
SHELDON,
GEORGE
W. SMITH.
Administrators.
Chicago, Feb. 14. A. D. lbT2.
19 24

T7STATE
MICHAEL
Deceased.
Xj Notice isOFhereby
given to URWANGER.
all persons having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
Michael
Urwanger,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement, at a regular term ofthe County Court of Cook
county, to bo holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, being
the first day thereof.
URWANGER, Executrix.
Chicago, Feb. 15,ANNA
A. D. 1872.
19-24a
TESTATE
OF JAMES
FERGUSON.-Whereas,
J the undersigned
was, onN. the
25th day of January,
1872, by the Hon. County court within and for the
county of Cook, and State of Illinois, appointed execu
tor
of the Iestateof
James
N. Ferguson,
deceased:
whereas,
am unable
to further
administer
upon and,
said
estate by reason of absence, this is to notify all whom
it may concern, that I shall present my resignation of
saidholden
trustutatChicugo.
the nextinsession
of said
Countyoncourt,
to
be
said Cook
county,
the first
Monday of April next, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
JAMES F. HALEY.
Chicago, Feb. 27, 1872.
21-24

DENT & BLACK,

Attorney*. 740 Wattarti Avenue.
TESTATE OF ELMA HOWELL, DECEASED.
J Notice Is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Elma Howell, doceased, to present the same for adjudication und set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
ing the sixth day thereof.
E. HOWELL, Executrix.
Chicago, Feb. 27,ANNIE
A. D. 1*72.
21-26a

News.

WILSON, PERRY & STURGES,

Attorneys, 471* Wabash Ave.
"PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
JT
State
of
Illinois,
Superior
court
ofCook county. To Cook
MarchCounty,
Term. ss.
A. D..
1872. Jacob
Bierbaucr v. William W. Wheeler.
Public that
noticea writ
is hereby
given to theissued
said William
W.
Wheeler
ot attachment
out of the
office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook county,
dated
of Febuary,
A. D. 1872,
the suitof
of the the
saidsecond
Jacobday
Bierbaucr,
and against
theatestate
William
W.
Wheeler,
for
the
sum
of
five
hundred
thirty-one dollars and forty-three cents, directed to and
the
sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been re
turned executed.
Now, therefore unless you, the said William W.
Wheeler shall personally be and appear before the
said Superior court of Cook county, on or before
the
davhouse,
of thein next
termofthereof,
holden
at tL-first
court
the city
Chicago,to onbe the
first
Monday of March. A. 1' . 1872, give special bail and
plead to the said plaintiff's action, judgment will be
entered
against
and of
in the
favorproperty
ot the attached
said Jacob
Bierbauer.
and soyou,much
as
may be sufficient tosutisfy the said judgment aud costs
will be sold to satisfy tho same.
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Wilson*. Perry Sl AUGUSTUS
Sti'hoes, Attorneys.
21-24
EDWIN GREENE.
Attorney, 45 Hubbard Court
CHANCERY
NOTICE.State
of Cook
Illinois.county.
CountyToof
Cook, ss. Superior court of
Maivh
term.
A.
D.
172.
Jane
W.
Sanders
v.
John M.
Sanders.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of John 31. San
ders, defendant above named, having been filed in the
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook coun
ty, notice is hereby given to the said John 31. San
ders that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and
thatsaid
a summons
thereupon
issued
out first
ofsaid
court
against
defendant,
returnable
ou the
Monday
of March next, (1872:) as is bv law required.
Now. unless you, the said John M. Sanders, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term there
of, to bo holden at Chicago, ni said county, on the first
March, 1872, and
answer the
or demur
toMonday
the saidofcomplainant's
bill ofplead,
complaint,
same,
and tbe matters aud things therein charged und stated,
will be taken as confe*ed,aud a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
Edwin Greene. Compl't's
Sol'r.JACOBSON, Clerk.
21-24
MAYB0RN & BROWN,
Attorneys. Geneva, IU.
"PUBLICATION
NOTICE
JL State of Illinois,
countyINof ATTACHMENT.
Cook, ss. Circuit
court of Cook county. April term, A. D. 1?"2. Albert
\. West v. Samuel T. Morgan,
Public notice is hereby given to tbe said Samuel T.
Klorgan,
that
of attachment court
issued out of
the
officedated
of theathowrit
clerk
county,
20th ofdaytheof Circuit
January. A. ofD. Cook
1672,
at the suit of the Albert A. West and against
the
estate
of
said
Samuel
T.
Morgan,
for
the
sum
seventeen hundred dollars, directed to the sheriff of
of
Cook county, which said writ has been returned execu
ted.
Now, therefore, unless you. the said Samuel T.
Morgan, shall personally be and appear before the
said
Circuit
courtterm
of Cook
county,
or before
first
day of
the next
thereof,
to beonholden
at thetheCourt
House, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of
April, A. D. 1872, give special bail and plead to the said
plaintiff*! action, judgment will be entered against
you, und in favor of tho said Albert A. West, and so
much
maybejsold
be sufficient
to
satisfyofthethesaidproperty
judgmentattached
and costsas will
to satisfy
the same.
JfORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Mayrorn A Brown, Att'ys.
2l-24p
/ iHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
\j Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. To the
March term, A. D. 1872. Loulsu A. Wells, complainant,
v. James G. Blunt, Nancy C. Blunt, John K Myers
and William M. Hulstcd, executors of the estate of
William M. Halsted, deceased, William Crawford,
George F. Foster. Newton Chapin, Daniel L. Wells,
John T. Noble, Francis B. Little, Carlisle Mason,
George Mason and John Mohr, defendants.In Chan
cery.
Affidavit that James G. Blunt, Nancy C. Blunt, and
John K. Myers and William M. Halsted.executors ofthe
estate of William M. Halsted, deceased, four of the de
fendants
above reside
named,out
iu tho
entitled
cause, and
each of them,
of above
the State
of Illinois,
so
that process cannot be served on them, having been
filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said James
G. Blunt, Nancy C. Blunt, and John K.Myers and Wil
liam
M. Halsted,
the estate of William
M.
Halsted,
deceased,executors
that thoofcomplainant
heretofore,
and on the 28th day of February, A. D. 1872; filed her
bill of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof,
that a summons
thereupon named
issued in
outthe
of
said
courtandagainst
alt said defendants
title of said suit as aforesaid, returnable on the third
Monday of March next (ltf72), as Is by law required,
and that said suit is now ponding in said court, on the
chancery side thereof.
Now,and
unless
saidandJames
G. Blunt,
NancyexC.
Blunt,
Johnyou,K. the
Myers
William
M. Halsted.
ecutors of the estate of William M. Halsted, deceased,
shall personally be and appear before said Circuit court
ot
county,
on the first
daycounty,
of a term
thereof,
to Cook
Ik' holden
nt Chicago,
in said
on the
third
Monday of March, 1872, that being the return day
of said summons, and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, aud
the
things therein
charged
and against
stated,
will matters
be takenaud
as confessed,
and a decree
entered
you ac cording to the prayer of said bill.
21-24
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
BROWN
Attorney,
Room 2.&libRICKERTS,
West Madison Street.
pHANCEKY
NOTICE.-State
Illinois,
countyMayof
Kj Cook. ss. Superior court ofofCook
county.
term. A. D. 1*72. Anna Russell v. Josiah N. Russell.
In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Josiah N. Russell,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
ofthe Clerk ofsaid Superior court ofCook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Josiah N. Russell that
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
asaid
summons
thereupon
issued on
outthe
of said
againstof
defendant,
returnable
firstcourt
Mouday
May next (1872), as is by law required.
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
Josiah
N.
Russell,
shallot
personally be and appear before said Superior Court
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, iu said county, on the first 31onday
of
May, 1872, and
answer orttiedemur
the said
complainant's
billplead,
of complaint,
same,to and
the
matters and things therein charged aud stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to tho prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Brown it Riokerts. Comp't's Sol'rs.
21-24
MORTON CULVER,
Attorney, 109 W. Washington St.
ESTATE OF HANS CHRISTIAN BROCK HAN
SON,
notice
is hereby
giventhe
to
all personsDeceased.Pubic
having claims and
demands
against
estate of Hans Christian Brock Hanson, deceased, to
present the same for adjudication and settlement at a
regular term of the County court of Cook county, to
be holden at the court house in the city of Chicago,
on the first Monday of April, A.D. 1872, being the first
day thereof.
SIGISMOND
JACOBSON,
Chicago.
February 7.D. A.D.
1S72. AmlDlftrator.
Morton Cclvbk, Att'y.
16-22

179
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
Barker k Waite, 40 East Harrison.
Bates & Hodges, IK! West Madison street.
Beattle, C. J., 45 South Canal.
BRADWELL, J. B., 113 West Madison street.
Bonuey, Fay & Griggs, 120 West Washington street.
Beiitley, Bennett, Clhnan A Ives. 376 Wabash ave.
Brouse, 0. R., 40() Wabash avenue.
Carmichaol, D. L M"> Prairie avenue.
Chase, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue.
Clarkson A Van Schaack, 4.Vi Wabash avenue.
Deane & Cahill, room 7, Lind's Block.
Dent & Black, 740 Wabash avenue.
Eldridge & Tourtalotte, *H Wabash avenue.
Ewing & Leonard, 4S7 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. W II.*. West Madison street.
Felker, Wm. S.. 92 Desplaiues street.
Goodwin, D., jr., n. e. corner Monroe and La Salle.
Goudy A Chandler, Union Central Block.
Graham, Geo. T., 60 South ('anal.
Herbert A Quick, f>l Union Central Building, and 529
State street.
Hoyne,
Phil.
A., Congress Hall, between Michigan
and Wabash
avenues.
Hoyne, Horton A Hoyne, 267 Michigan avenue.
Hitchcock, Dupee A Evarts, corner Wells and Mon
roe streets.
Howe A Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, 0. P., ^2 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert V... IS East Harrison street.
Knickerbocker. J. C. A J. J., 163 West Washington
Leery, 1). James, 93 West Madison.
Mogruder, B. D., 1*1 West Madison.
McClelland, Thos. 8., 4"> South Canal, room 6.
Moore A Caulfield, 54 Central Union Block.
Monroe, Bisbee A Gibbs, 52*1 Wabash avenue.
Norton, Jessie 0., 386 Wabash avenue.
Nissen A Barnuin. 126 W. Randolph, and 37o State.
Otis. E. A., 4.<1 Wabash avenue.
Perkins, N. C, 479 Wabash av., cor. Eldridge court.
Reynolds, W. C, 176 West Washington st.
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 4.1 South Canal.
Rorke, M. A. A Sou, Room 57, Central Union Block.
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, Masonic Building, s. w.
cor. Randolph and Halsted. and 330 Wabash avenue,
i Sawin A Wells, 7. West Madison St.
Scammon. McCagg A Fuller, 969 Wabash avenue.
Scoville, Geo., 30 South Clinton.
Small A iugalls, 4S\ Wabash Ave.
Smith, Upton A Waterman, ISA West Mouroe street.
Tenny, McClellan ATenny. 454 Wabash avouue.
Thomaa, Sidney, 361 South State street.
Waughop. J. W., 401 Wabash avenue.
Williams A Thompson, 551 Wabash aveuue.
Walker, Dexter A Smith, 962 Wabash avenue.
Wilson, Perry A Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.

AD VER TISEMENT.
STEVENS & HAYNES
I^ji w Publishers,
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
LONDON.
Worts in all Classes of Literature
NIPPLIED TO OBl>EB.
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
Orders Promptly Filled.
Truateea and Oflieera of Public Li
braries may rely upon tlie moat
enreful attention to their
t'ommisslous.
By importing DIRECT from England a consider
able saving is effected, especially in the Customs duty,
from which Public Institution* in tlic United States are
exempt.
SCNDRY mistakes have been made by our Foreign
and
iu addressing
ters, Colonial
we beg toCorrespondents
notify that the members
of ourtheir
firm let
arc
IIkn'kv G. Stevens and Robert W. Haines, the son
and stepson ol the late Valentino S'evens, the eminent
Law Publisher. Since our lather's death we have con
tinued tocarry on thebusiness of Las l*ut>ll*liera,
Kookaellera and Exporter*, at the abovo ad
dress.
During Kobeht
his recent
to the
United
States
and
Canada,
W. visits
Haynes
secured
many
Friends
and Correspondents ; we are thus enabled to give ref
erences of the highest character in most of the princi
pal American cities.
We have no connection whatever with any other
house
and to abroad
prevent are
delayrespectfully
and miscar
riage, of
ourbusiness,
Correspondents
re
quested
to
plainly
address
their
letters
to
us as fol
lows:
STEVENS & HAYNES,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
LONDON,
ENGLAND.
Krtract from " REPORT OP JULIUS ROSENTHAL, Esq.,
Librarian to the President and Members of
the Chicago Law Institute." November, 1870.
" To our collection of English Reports a valuableaddition has been made by the importation of &
full and well preserved set of the House of Lord*
Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 68
volumes.
" English books were imported directly free of
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the
firm of Stevens and Haynem in London, whose
diligence, promptness, and cRre in filling our or
der*, I have thankfully to acknowledge."

i8o

Chicago

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
QHAS. M. HARRIS,
S. E. cor. Clark and Aflnms.
ARTIN A. O'BRENNAN, LL.D ,
6f>9 State street.
21*
M
MILLER, WILLIAMSON A MILLER,
130 WJUndolphstreet.
SPRINGFIELD ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
HERNDON & ORKNDORF,
Office west side square. 27*
JACKSONVILLE ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
KETCHAM, I. J.

Legal

News.
ATTORNEYS.

RAY
LAW

PUBLISHERS,

&

BROTHER,

BOOKSELLERS,

AND

IMPORTERS,

IVos. 17 Sc 1 SOUTH SIXTH STREET,

PHILADELPHIA,
HAVE RECENTLY rVliLlSHED,
I.

Wharton's
American
Criminal
Law.
3 Vol*. 8vo. SIXTH edition, ftaa.oe.
9* A TREATISE ON THE CRIMINAL LAW OK THE I' NITKDtSTATES. By Fbancib Wharton, LL.D.
Sixth and Uuvised Edition. 3 vols. Svo.
MORRIS ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
From the Hon. W. B. Reed's Address beforr the Lav: Acatlemy of Philadelphia.
a hook to study while you are students, and practice with when you become law>ers, where
SANPORP. E. Special attention given to Collec you Ifwillyonfindwant
all
wont, and. what is v>ry important, find it oxuctly when you want it, I am glad to say
tions and Keal Kntat<\
52* that that book isyou
Mr. Wharton s Criminal Law, as good as any book, English or American, now in print.
From thellos. Jeremiah S. Black, formerly Attorney-General of the United State*.
I nuisirlrred the former edition a most valuable contribution to the learning of the profession, and this
is undoubtedly a great improvement. I do not think there is a more valuable law book in print, or one
more likely to come into universal use.
NEW
From the Hon. John Pehkins, of Louisiana.
The profession owes much to the book. Wharton's American Criminal Law is, without it, regular
experience on the
practice in criminal mutters would, in nmny places, be impossible. Having had con nit
bench in the trial of criminal cases, I speak advisedly of the estimation of the book, ; (i * I always have
it in court on the bench.
Fr>nu C. J. M. MlTTERMAlP., Proj'essor of Criminal Law in the University of Heidelberg, Baden, Germany.
The admirable mass of materials, collected with scrupulous exactitude, the well-disposed, clear and
logical order of the development, and the justice of the practical aud critical observations, are qualities
which will facilitate the study of the Criminal Law to every student, and afford an excellent digest of cases
to every practical man.
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
P'EPPER, WILSON & MARTIN,
Room 2 Bank Building.

DILLON
ON
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
We have in press, and will shortly Issue, a
TREATISE ON THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS, with full reference to En
glish and American cases, by the Honorable
JOHN F. DILLON, United States Circuit
Judge.
This work is designed to meet a want long
felt by the members of the profession.
Judge Dillon has devoted several years to
the most careful preparation of the text and
notes ; and this fact, together with his high
reputation as a Jurist, guarantee the excel
lence of the work.
Complete in one large octavo volume.

WHARTON'S PRECEDENTS OF*' INDICTMENTS AND PLEAS.

a Voln. Svo. THIRD AND BEVMED EDITION. tlB.OO.
PRECEDENTS OF INDICTMENTS AND PLEAS, adapted to the use both of the Courts of the United
States and those of the several States; together with Notes on Criminal Pleading and Practice, embrac
ing the English and American authorities generally. By Francis Wharton, LL.D. 2 vols. 8vo.
***Wharton's Criminal Law. 3 vols., and Wharton's Precedents, 2 vols., comprise, the former the Science,
and the latter tho Practice of Criminal Law of the State and Federal Courts of the United States. Together,
they form a complete body of the American Law on the subject. Although entirely independent of each
other, they are intended to be used jointly, and may bo considered as one work.
From the Hon. A. V. Parsons, in an Opinion delivered in the Philadelphia Quarter Sessions.
I have examined it with considerable attention, and in my opinion the Precedents are selected with great
ability ; and every pleader will find them, generally, and perhaps
haps without exception, safe to follow. * * *
There Is a brevity and clearness in most of the Forms, which * think cannot fail to commend the book to
every lawyer and Judge; and, if these are followed, our
ids will be relieved of much unnecessary
verbiage.
From the Philadelphia Age.
This is unquestionably the bBt Form Book extant in the Department of tli Administration of Criminal
Law. It is, also, by its copious, running commentary, one of the most valuabli ! books in vNotnc.
practicenf with
which
tl.n Il'..i.,n
the lawyer can provide himself. It is adapted to the Federal Courts, and to each of the States
the
nionta
and embraces every felony and misdemeanor known to the Common Law and Statutes. It is of
as complete
work of ii - kind as is to be found in law literature.
From the Chicago Leual News.
The reputation of Mr. Whartou, as a writer upon Criminal Law, ha* been firmly established with the
American bar for many years, and in this branch of jurisprudence he is the Chitty of America. His works
are purely American. Ills Forms are short anil to the point, and while they contain all the necessary ayerments.they are entirely free from the useless repetitions so often found in English writers upon criminal
law. These two volumes are a library in themselves to any criminal lawyer.
III.

Wharton's Conflict of Laws.

One Volume, 8vo. $7.50,
A TREATISE ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, OR PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. With Notices
of Anglo-American, Roman, German and French Jurisprudence. By Francis Wharton, LL.D. Svo.
JAMES COCKCROFT & CO.,
From the Chicauo Legal News.
To the lawyer in general practice few books will be found more useful than Wharton on the Conflict of
Laws.
It
is
a
library
in
itself.
It
states
the relations which exist between the citizen and his government ;
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
the rule which must govern when the laws of one State or nation conflict with those of another ; the effect to
be given to foreign judgments and decrees ,- the capacity to hold and transmit real and personal estate: the
effect to be given to the foreign probate of wills ; the rights of foreign executors, administrators and guar
dians ; the law of marriage, divorce and domicil, us well as many other subjects equally important.
499 Wabash Avenue,
From Mr. Justice Strom;, of the Supreme Court of the United States.
I am greatly indebted to you for a copy of " Wharton on the Conflict of Laws," which I have read with
more
than
satisfaction.
The science of Private International Law has made remarkable advances in late
CHICAGO.
years,
and ofis becoming
vast consequent
that it should
be more
thoroughly
understood than
by most
members
the legal ofprofession.
Mr. Wharton's
book has
rendered
a large acquaintance
withit itis not
only
possible, but easy. It is very thorough and accurate, and far in advance of anything we have upon this sub
ject, on either side of the water. A noble contribution to sound legal learning.
USSe TREES ! iSSSF PLANTS !
IV.
flower occno I
GARDEN OCtUO I
Hilliard
on
the
Law of Contracts.
Apple and Crab, 100 2 ;to 4 ft., St ; 4 to 6 ft., Si.
Pear, stand., extra, 1 year, Bartlett, etc., 3 to 4 .ft.,
, SVO. 815.00.
Two Voln
per doz., $2.M>.
LAW OF CONTRACTS. By Francis Hilliard, author of the 'Law of Torts," "The Law of
Meed*. Peach, bush., S2; Apple Osago, new, bufth., THEInjunctions."
etc. 2 vols. Svo.
(12.
From the Chicauo Legal News.
^
Potatoes, Early; Row. WhitePeach Blow, per
We
predict
that
these volumes will receive a warmer welcome from the profession than ever accompanied
bush, ??.
f the valuable works of Mr. Hilliard, and advise all our readers who are in active practice to add
Needling*. 1000 Soft Maplo, $1 ; Ash, S3 ; Elm, $2. any
themother
to their librari
From the Philadelphia Legal Intelligencer,
Illustrated Catalogue 100 page*, and Price Liat, 10c.
A winner ut the table of contents will show that the author has not omitted to discuss any of the multifa
15-27
F. K. PHCENIX. Bloomington, 111.
rious titles embraced within this very comprehensive title of the law. The vast field of inquiry suggested by
the title, "Contract" is thoroughly explored.
From the Pittsburgh Legal Journal.
LEGAL NEWS PRM& DEPARTMENT
Mr. aud
Hilliard
has present
long beenwork
known
professionan asamount
an able,ofindustrious
and painstaking
lawyer and
author,
in the
he tohasthedisplayed
research, subtlety
of discrimination,
and
familiarity with the progress of the decisions which fully sustain his previously well-earned reputation.
From the Louisville Conricr-Journal.
The author's work on Torts is firmly established in the good opinion of the profession, aud will surely
Briefs & Abstracts. materially
the sale ofthethe
present work
which
i theWe
result
his comprehensive
on profession,
the former
subject, andassist
is. therefore,
complement
of that
work.
veryof heartily
commend studies
it to the
believing that it deserves, and will receive, the same appreciation and use given to the work on Torts.
From
Cincinnati
Gazette.
The attention of Attorney* i* called to our superior
Mr. Hilliard has the merit of illustrating
verythefully
whatever
he undertakes to explain. His present
work is no exception to its predecessors. A prominent feature is the presentation in the text of the points of
acilities for printing BRIEFS and ABSTRACTS.
important decisions. The student is thus relieved of much of the labor of tracing out marginal references
to their sources. A largo part of these decisions are recent ones, so that apart from its own merits, Mr.
Our prices are :
Hilliard'* work is, in a sense, supplementary to other authorities on the same subject.
BRIEFS.
per page,
- 81.33
FromandFrederick
Brightly,
I have looked through the work
am muchCpleased
withEsq.
the arrangement of the subject, and the
ABSTRACT*.
...
1.75 thorough
manner in which the learned author has treated it. We have many books on tho subject of con
Orders left either at the onV of the Leoal News, tracts, out nevertheless this is a valuable addition to tho lawyer's library. One great advantage which it
possesses over others is that it gives the results of the very latest cases on one of the most Important topics
1 13 W. Madison St., or at the Printing Office, 13 North of
the law. That it will have the extensive circulation to which it is justly entitled, I sincerely hope.
. Jefferson St., will be promptly executed.
CHARLES DRIESSLEIH,
S.H O R T - H A X D WRITER,
And U. S. Commissioner.
Wate-n Vnlcm Telegraph Opce, 551 Wabath Ave

KAY & BROTHER'S Publications for sale by E. B. Myers,

Callaghan & Co., Cockckoft & Co., Chicago, 111., and by the Trade,
generally throughout, the country.

FRANK J. CRAWFORD,
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AT-LA W.
No. 32s Wabcuh Avenue, Chicago.
28
GEORGE 0. FRT,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
34 Clinton Sired, Rofjin 5, Chicago.
44*
JAMES B. BRADWELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 113 West Madison Street, Ctikago.
Special Attention Given to Probate Matters.
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
ESTATES SETTLED.
"Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die,
and not live."2 Kiniw xx. 1.
8. A. GOODWIN'.
E. C. LARNED.
H. S. TOWLt.
GOODWIN, LARNED & TOWLE,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
No. 376 Wabath Avenue. Chicago.
12
BATES A HOBCIES,
Attorneys at Law, 13 W. Madison St.
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.
26*
ROGERS & ROGERS,
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS,
St Paul, Minn
46*
J. H. BATTEN,
STATIONER,
1S5 LA SALLE STREET.
Law Stationery and Legal Blanks.
19.30
CALLAGHAN & Co.
SUCCESSORS TO
CALLAGHAN & COCKCROFT,
Respectfully call the attention of the profession to
.their large stock of

LAWB
Embracing the REPORTS of all the leading
Courts in this Country and England.
We have a very full assortment of
New Text Booh and Digests,
and an unusually full line of
RARE AND VALUABLE WORKS,
out of print, which we are offering, at lowest current
prices.
We would also call attention to our superior facili
ties for importing, being in monthly receipt of
CONSIGNMENTS FROM LONDON
direct, which we are selling at unusually low figures.
A large collection of Second-hand TextBooks, Diffeals and Reports kept constantly qq
hand.
Catalogues sent promptly upon application.

CALLAGHAN & CO.,

525 Wabash Ave.,
CHICAGO, ILL.
15-27
Scale of Advertising Rates.
3 w.| 4w. 3 ra. 6m. iL.
Space. 1 w.
1 sq ji.ob n.75 SZTjO Si25 ~ S8.00 J15.S0 $30.00
2.00 3.50 4.75 6.00 15.75 30.00 59.00
2.80 5.00 6.50' 8.00 23.00 44.00 87.00
1
i col.... 4.68 8.75 12.87 15.00 37.50| 73.75 137.50
Xool.... 8.75 14.37 21.50 27.50 7'.'.50 1S5.90 262.")
1 col 15.00 27.50 38.75! 52.50 13.->.00i 262.50- 437.50
Ten lines of Agate make a Fqnare.
Advortinementt must be paid for in advaneo.
and when not so paid. 50 per cent, will bo added
Legal Notices not Included in the above.
Printed at the Chicauo Legal News Press, IS
North Jefferson street, Chiongo.

Qhicago

Jegal

"Mews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 24.

SHbe Courts.
Through the kindness of J. A. Sleeper,
of the law firm of Sleeper & Wiiiton, of
this city, we have received the following
opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
Decemisee Tekm, 1871.Opinion Filed
February IS), 1872.
The Chicago & Northwestern Railway Compa
ny. Plaintia' in Error, v. Henry K. Wiiiton,
Administrator of the Estate of Mary F. Whiton,
deceased.
.
In Error to the Circuit Court of Vic United Stales for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
1. Although a corporation, being an artificial
body created by legislative power, is not a citizen,
within several provisions ot the Constitution ; yet
where rights ol action are to be enforced by or
against a corporation it will be considered us a
citizen of the .Stats where It was created, within
the clause extending the judicial power of the
United States to controversies between citizens of
diffetenl States.
2. Where a corporation is created by the laws
of a Slaty, it is, in suits brought in a federal court
in that State, to be considered as a citizen of such
State, whatever its status or citizenship may be
elsewhere by the legislation of other States.
3. A statute of Wisconsin provides that " when
ever the death of a person shall be caused by a
wrongful act, neglect, or default, aud the act, neg
lect, or default is such as would (if dentil had not
ensued) have entitled the party injured to main
tain an action and recover damage in respect
thereof, then, and in every such case, the person
who, or the corporation which, w ould have been
liable, if death had not ensued, shall be liable to
an action for damages, notwithstanding the death
of the person injured ; provided, that such action
shall Ite ftroug/tt for a death caused in this Slate, and
in zona court eM<iUislte<l. by the Orjnstittttion and lau>
of the same;" Held, that the proviso requiring the
action to be brought in a court of the State does
not prevent a non-resident plaintiff from remov
ing the action, under the act ol Congress of Marc'
-2d, 1*67, to a federal court and mauita'ning ,
there.
.
1
4. Whenever a general rule as to property or
personal rights, or injuries to either, is established
by State legislation, its enforcement by a federal
court in a case between proper parties is a matter
of course, and the jurisdiction of the court In
such case is not subject to State limitation.
5. The act of March 2d, 1S67. amending the act
of July 27th, 186<3, '* for the removal of causes in
certain cases from State courts," by which amend
atory act it is provided that in suits then pending,
or which might be subsequently brought in a
State court, " in which there is a controversy be
tween the citizen of a State in which the suit is
brought and a citizen of another State, and the
matter in dispute exceeds the sum of five hundred
dollars, exclusive of costs," the suit may be re
moved to a federal court upon petition of the non
resident party, whether plaintiff or defendant, at
any time before final hearing or trial, upon mak
ing aud filing in the State court "an affidavit
stating that he has reason to and does believe that,
from prejudice or local influence, he will not be
able to obtain justice in such State court," is con
stitutional and valid.
6. The judicial power of the United States ex
tending by the Constitution to controversies be
tween citizens of different States, as well as to
ea^e1- arising under the Constitution, treaties, and
laws of the United States, the manner and condi
tions upon which that power shall be exercised,
except (us the original or appellate character of
the jurisdiction is specially designated in the Con
stitution, are mere matters of legislative discre
tion.
7. It is not error for a court to refuse to give an
extended series of instructions, though some of
them may be correct in the propositions of law
which they present, if the law arising upon the evi
dence is given by the court with such fullness as to
guide correctly the jury in its findings; nor is a
judgment to beset aside because the charge of the
conn may be open to some verbal criticisms in
particulars considered apart by themselves, which
could not when taken with the rest of the charge
have misled a jury of ordinary intelligence.
Mr. Justice Field delivered the opin
ion of the court.
The track of the railway of the Chicago
and Northwestern Railroad Company
crosses Academy street, in the city of
Janesville, in the State of Wisconsin.
In December, 1864, the wife of the plain
tiff, while attempting to pass over the
track, was struck by a locomotive of the
company moving on the railway and
killed. The present action is brought to
recover damages sustained by the plain
tiff from this death of his "wife. It is
founded on a statuteof Wisconsin, which
provides that " whenever the death of a
person shall be caused by a wrongful act,
neglect, or default, and the act, neglect
or default is such as would (if death had
not ensued) have entitled the party in
jure'! t maintain an action and recover
damage in respect thereof, then, and in
every such case, the person who, or the

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, MARCH 23, 1872.

corporation which would have been lia
ble, if death had not ensued, shall be
liable to an action for damages, notwith
standing the death of the person injured :
provided, that such action shall be
brought for a death caused in this State,
and, in some court established by the
constitution and laws of the same."
The statute also provides that "every
such action shall be brought by and in
the name of the personal representative
of such deceased person, and the amount
recovered shall belong and be paid over
to the husband or widow of sucri deceas
ed person, if such relative survive him
or her," and that "the jury may give such
damages, not exceeding five thousand
dollars, as they shall deem fair and just,
in reference to the pecuniary injury re
sulting from such death, to the relatives
of the deceased."
The plaintiff took out letters of admin
istration upon the estate of his wife in
Wisconsin, and, as such administrator,
brought the present action in one of the
circuit courts of that State.
Whilst the cause was pending there,
and after issue joined, Congress passed
the act of March 2d, 1807, (li U. S. Stat
utes, 558,) amending the act of July 27,
1866, " for the removal of causes in cer
tain cases from State Courts." By this
amendatory act it is provided that in
suits then pending, or which might be
subsequently brought in a State court,
" in which there is a contrive- - be
tween the citizen of a Sta. iN. ; "S> ch
the suit is brought and a &>' d8?1.^ nother State, and the matter inPJ ite
exceeds the sum five hundred''"' ^'.rs,
exclusive of costs, such citizen of' Moth
er State, whether he be plaintiff1 or de
fendant, if he will make and file in such
state court an affidavit stating that he
has reason to and does believe that, from
prejudice or local influence, he will not
be able to obtain justice in Such state
court, may, at any time before the final
hearing or trial of the suit, file a petition
in such state court," and have the suit
removed to a federal court.
Under this act the plaintiff, in Sep
tember, 1808, petitioned the state court
for the removal of the action to the cir
cuit court of the United States for the
District of Wisconsin, stating in his pe
tition, that he was at the time, and had
been for three previous years, a resident
and citizen of the State of Illinois ; that
the defendant was a corporation organ
ized under the laws of Wisconsin, and
that the matter in dispute exceeded the
sum of five hundred dollars, exclusive of
costs. The plaintiff also offered with his
petition good and sufficient surety, as re
quired by the act of Congress, for enter
ing in the circuit court at its next session,
copies of all process, pleadings, deposi
tions, testimony, and other proceedings
in the action, and for doing such other
appropriate acts as, by the laws of the
United States, are required for the re
moval of a suit into the United States
court. Accompanying this petition was
the affidavit of the plaintiff that he had
reason to believe, and did believe,
"that from prejudice and also from local
influence," he would not be able to ob
tain justice in the state court.
The petition was resisted upon affida
vits that the defendant was a corpora
tion created and existing under the laws
of the States of Illinois, Wisconsin and
Michigan ; that its line of railway was
located and operated, in part, in each of
these States, and was thus located and
operated at the commencement of the
action ; that its entire line of railway
was managed and controlled by the de
fendant as a single corporation"; that all
its powers and franchises were exercised
and its affairs managed and controlled
by one board of directors and officers ;
that its principal office and place of bus
iness was at the city of Chicago, in the
State of Illinois, and that there was no
office for the control or management of
the general business and affairs of the
corporation in Wisconsin .
The local State court granted the peti

tion, and ordered the removal of the ac

tion to the Federal court, but directed a
stay of proceedings upon its order to en
able the defendant to appeal from it to
the Supreme Court of the State, and pro
vided that, in case such appeal should be
taken, all proceedings should be stayed
until its determination.
The appeal was taken and the order of
removal was reversed by the Supreme
Court. The reversal, as appears from the
opinion of the court, was placed on the
ground that the plaintiff', having the
right originally to pursue his remedy
either in a Federal or State court, had
made his election of the State court and
had thus waived the right to demand the
judgment of the Federal court upon the
matter in controversy.
The plaintiff, however, did not regard
the stay of proceedings or delay his ac
tion until the disposition of the appeal,
but procured copies of the papers in the
cause from the State court and filed them
in the Circuit Court of the United States.
The latter court thereupon took jurisdic
tion of the case, and a new declaration
was filed by the plaintiff.
In the meantime the defendant, upon
affidavit of the stay upon the order of
removal made by the State court and of
the appeal from such order, moved the
Circuit Court that the cause be dismissed
from its calendar and the pleadings and
proceedings be stricken from its files.
But this motion the court denied, and
thereupon the defendant filed a plea in
abatement, setting forth an objection to
the jurisdiction of the Federal court,
founded upon the proviso to the statute
of Wisconsin requiring the action for
daitA j'os resulting from the death of a
fiarty to bo brought in some court estabished by the Constitution and laws of
that State. A demurrer to this plea be
ing sustained, the defendant filed a plea
of the general issue. Subsequently, upon
the reversal of the order of removal by
the Supreme Court of the State, the de
fendant moved the Circuit Court to re
mand the cause to the State court, but
the Circuit Court refused to relinquish
its jurisdiction, and the motion was de
nied.
Upon the trial which followed, the
plaintiff obtained a verdict and judg
ment, and the defendant brings the case
here on writ of error. Exceptions were
taken in the progress of the trial to the
rulings of the court in the admission of
evidence ; also to its refusal to give nu
merous instructions which were prayed
by the defendant, and also to the charge
given, but the principal ground advanced
by counsel for a reversal of the judg
ment is the alleged want of jurisdiction
of the action by the Circuit Court of the
United States, raised by the proceedings
previous to the trial, which we have de
tailed.
The jurisdiction of the action by the
Federal court is denied on three grounds :
the character of the parties as supposed
citizens of the same State ; the limitation
to the State court of the remedy given
by the statute of Wisconsin ; and the
alleged invalidity of the act of Congress
of March 2, 1867, under which the re
moval from the State court was made.
First ; as to the character of the par
ties. The plaintiff is a citizen of the
State of Illinois, and the defendant is a
corporation created under the laws of
Wisconsin. Although a corporation, be
ing an artificial body created by legisla
tive power is not a citizen within several
provisions of the Constitution ; yet it
has been held, and that must now be re
garded as settled law, that, where rights
of action are to be enforced, it will be
considered as a citizen of the State where
it was created, within the clause extend
ing the judicial power of the United
States to controversies between citizens
of different States (Paul v. Virginia, 8
Wallace, 177.) The defendant, therefore,
must be regarded for the purposes of this
action as a citizen of Wisconsin. But it
is said, and here the objection to the
jurisdiction arises, that the defendant is

Whole No. 182.

also a corporation under the laws of Illi
nois, and, therefore, is also a citizen of
the same State with the plaintiff. The
answer to this position is obvious. In
Wisconsin the laws of Illinois have no
operation. The defendant is a corpora
tion, and as such, a citizen of Wisconsin
by the laws of that State. It is not there
a corporation or a citizen of any other
State. Being there sued, it can only be
brought into court as a citizen of that
State, whatever its status or citizenship
may be elsewhere. Nor is there any
thing against this view, but, on the con
trary, much to support it, in the case of
The Oiiioand Mississippi Railroad Com
pany v. Wheeler (1 Black, 286). In that
case the declaration averred that the
plaintiffs were a corporatfon created by
the laws of the States of Indiana and
Ohio, and that the defendant was a citi
zen of Indiana, and the court, after re
ferring to previous decisions, said that it
must be regarded as settled that a suit by
or against a corporation in its corporate
name is a suit by or against citizens of the
State which created it, and therefore
that case must be treated as a suit in
which c itizens of Ohio and Indiana w ere
joined as plaintiffs against a citizen of
the latter State, and of course could not
be maintained in a court of the United
States where jurisdiction of the case de
pended upon the citizenship of the par
ties. The court also observed that
though a corporation by the name and
style of the plaintiffs in that case ap
peared to have been chartered by the
States of Ohio and Indiana, clothed w ith
the same capacities and powers, and in
tended to accomplish the same objects,
and was spoken of i;i the laws of the
States as one corporate body, exercising
the same powers and fulfilling the same
duties in both States, yet it had no legal
existence in either State except by the
law of that State; that neither State
could confer on it a corporate existence
in the other nor add to or diminish the
powers to be there exercised, and that
though composed of and representing
under the corporate name the same nat
ural persons, its legal entity, which ex
isted by force of law, could have no ex
istence beyond the territory of the State
or sovereignty which brought it into life
aud endowed it with its faculties and
powers.
The correctness of this view is also
confirmed by the recent decision of this
court in the case of The Railroad Com
pany v. Harris, (12 Wallace, 65.) In
that case a Maryland railroad corpora
tion was empowered by the Legislature
of Virginia to construct its road through
that State, and by an act of Congress to
extend a lateral road into the District of
Columbia. By the act of Virginia the
company was granted the same rights
and privileges in that State which it
possessed in Maryland, and it was made
subject to similar pains, penalties, and
obligations. By the act of Congress the
company was authorized to exercise in
the District of Columbia the same pow
ers, rights, and privileges in the exten
sion and const rnction of the road, as in
the construction and extension of any
railroad in Maryland, and was granted
the same rights, benefits, and immunities
in the use of the road which were pro
vided in its charter, except the right to
construct from its road another lateral
road. And this court held that these
acts did not create a new corporation
either in Virginia or the District of
Columbia, but only enabled the Mary
land corporation to exercise its faculties
in that State and District. They did not
alter the citizenship of the corporation
in Maryland, but only enlarged the
sphere of its operations and made it sub
ject to suit in Virginia and in the Dis
trict. The corporation, said the court,
" cannot migrate, but may exercise its
authority in a foreign territory upon
such conditions as may be prescribed by
the law of the place. One of these con
ditions inay be that it shall consent to
be sued there. If it do business there it

182
will be presumed to have assented, and
will be bound accordingly. For the
purposes of federal jurisdiction it is refarded as if it were a citizen of the
tate where it was created, and no aver
ment or proof as to citizenship of its
members elsewhere will be permitted."
Second ; as to the limitation to the
State court of the remedy given by the
statute of Wisconsin. That statute, after
declaring a liability by a person or a cor
poration to an action for damages when
death ensues from a wrongful act, negleet, or default of such person or corpo
ration, contains a proviso " that such ac
tion shall be brought for a death caused
in this State, and in some court estab
lished by the constitution and laws of
the same." This proviso is considered
by the counsel of the defendant as in
the nature of a condition, upon a com
pliance with which the remedy given by
the statute can only be enforced.
It is undoubtedly true that the right of
action exists only in virtue of the stat
ute, and only in cases where the death
was caused within the State. The liabil
ity of the party, whether a natural or an
artificial person, extends only to cases
where, from certain causes, death en
sues within the limits of the State. But
when death does thus ensue from any of
those causes the relatives of the deceased
named in the statute can maintain an
action for damages. The liability with
in the conditions specified extends to
all parties through whose wrongful acts,
neglect, or default death ensues, and the
right of action for damages occasioned
thereby is possessed by all persons with
in the description designated. In all
cases, where a general right is thus con
ferred, it can be enforced in any federal
court within the State having jurisdic
tion of the parties. It cannot be with
drawn from the cognizance of such fed
eral court by any provision of State leg
islation that it shall only be enforced in
a State court. The statutes of nearly
every State provide for the institution of
numerous suite, such as for partition,
foreclosure, and the recovery of real
property in particular courts and in the
counties where the land is situated, yet
it never has been pretended that limita
tions of this character could affect, in
any respect, the jurisdiction of the fed
eral court over such suits where the citi
zenship of one of the parties was other
wise sufficient. Whenever a general
rule as to property or personal rights, or
injuries to either, is established by State
legislation, its enforcement by a federal
court in a case between proper parties is
a matter of course, and the jurisdiction
of the court, in such case, is not subject
to State limitation.
This doctrine has been asserted in
several cases by this court. In Suydam
V Brodnax, (14 Peters, 67) an act of the
Legislature of Alabama provided that
the estate of a deceased person, declared
to be insolvent, should be distributed by
the executors or administrators accord
ing to the provisions of the act, and that
no suit or action should be commenced
or sustained against any executor or ad
ministrator after the estate had been de
clared to be insolvent, except in certain
cases ; but this court held, in a case not
thus excepted, that the insolvency of the
estate, judicially declared under the act,
was not sufficient in law to abate a suit
instituted in the circuit court of the
United States by a citizen of another
State against the representatives of a cit
izen of Alabama. "The eleventh sec
tion of the act to establish the judicial
courts of the United States," said the
court, " carries out the constitutional right
of a citizen of one State to sue a citizen of
another State in the circuit court of the
United States, and gives to the circuit
court 'original cognizance concurrent
with the courts of the several States of
all suits of a civil nature at common law
and in equity,' etc., etc. It was certainly
intended to give to suitors, having a
right to sue in the circuit court, remedies
co-extensive with these rights. These
remedies would not be so if any proceed
ings under an act of a State Legislature
to which a plaintiff was not a party, ex
empting a person of such State from suit,
could be pleaded to abate a suit in the
Circuit Court."
In the Union Bank of Tennessee v.
Jolly's Administrators (18 Howard, 506)
this court declared that the law of a State
" limiting the remedies of its citizens in
its own courts cannot be applied to pre
vent the citizens of other States from su
ing in the courts of the United States in

Chicago
that State for the recoverv of any prop
erty or money there to which they may
be legally or equitably entitled."" The
same doctrine was affirmed in Hyde v.
Stone, (20 Howard, 170,) and in Pavne v.
Hook, (7 Wallace, 118.)
Third: as to the alleged invalidity ofthe
act of March 2, 1867, under which the
removal from the State court was made.
The counsel of thedefendant, whilst con
fining his special objection to this act,
questions the soundness of the reason
ing of Mr. Justice Story, by which any
legislation for the removal of causes
from a State court to a Federal court is
maintained. We may doubt, with coun
sel, whether such removal before issue
or trial can properly be called an exer
cise of appellate jurisdiction. It may,
we think, more properly be regarded as
an indirect mode by which the Federal
court acquires original jurisdiction of
the causes, (Dennistoun v. Draper, 5
Blatch. Cir. Ct., 340.) But it is not ma
terial whether the reasoning of the dis
tinguished jurist in this particular is cor
rect or otherwise. The validity of such
legislation has been uniformly recogniz
ed by this court since the passage of the
judiciary act of 1789.
The judicial power of the United
States extends by the Constitution to
controversies between citizens of differ
ent States as well as to cases arising
under the Constitution, treaties, and
laws of the United States, and the man
ner and conditions upon which that pow
er shall be exercised, except as the orig
inal or appellate character of the juris
diction is specially designated in the
Constitution, are mere matters of Legis
lative discretion. In some cases from
their character the judicial power is nec
essarily exclusive of all State Authority ;
in other cases it may be made so at the
option of Congress or it may be exercis
ed concurrently with that of the States.
Such was the opinion of Mr. Justice
Story as expressed in Martin v. Hunter's
Lessee, (1 Wheaton 334,) and this con
clusion was adopted and approved by
this court in the recent case of The Mo
ses Taylor. (4 Wallace, 429, decided at
the December term, 1866.) The legisla
tion of Congress has proceeded upon the
correctness of this position in the distri
bution of jurisdiction to the FeVleral
courts. The judiciary act of 1789, as
observed in the case of The Moses Tay
lor, declares: " that in some cases from
their commencement such jurisdiction
shall be exclusive ; in other cases it
determines at what stage of pro
cedure such jusisdiction shall attach
and how long and how far concur
rent jurisdiction of the State courts
shall be permitted. Thus, cases in
which the United States are parties,
civil causes of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction, and cases against consuls
and vice-consuls, except for certain of
fenses, are placed from their commence
ment exclusively under the cognizance
of the Federal courts. On the other
hand, some cases in which an alien or a
citizen of another State is made a party
may be brought either in a Federal or a
State court, at the option of the plaintiff,
and if brought in the State court may be
prosecuted until the appearance of the
defendant, and then at his option may be
suffered to remain there or may be trans
ferred to the jurisdiction of the Federal
courts. Other cases not included under
these heads, but involving questions un
der the Constitution, laws, treaties, or
authority of the United States, are only
drawn within the control of the Federal
courts upon appeal or writ of error after
final judgment. By subsequent legisla
tion of Congress, and particularly by the
legislation of the last four years, many
of the cases which by the judiciary act
could only come under the cognizance of
the Federal courts after final judgment
in the State courts, may be withdrawn
from the concurrent jurisdiction of the
latter courts at earlier stages, upon the
application of the defendant. The con
stitutionality of these provisions cannot
be seriously questioned, and is of fre
quent recognition by both State and Fed
eral courts."
When the jurisdiction of the Federal
court depended upon the citizenship of
the parties, the case could not be with
drawn from the State courts after suit
commenced until the passage of the act
of 1867, except upon the application of
the defendant. The provision of the
Constitution extending the judicial
power of the United States to controver
sies between citizens of different States

Legal

News.

had its existence in the impression, that

State attachments and State prejudices
might affect injuriously the regular ad
ministration of justice in the State courts.
The protection intended against these
influences to non-residents of a State was
originally supposed to have been suf
ficiently secured by giving to the plain
tiff in the first) instance an election of
courts before suit brought ; and where
the suit was commenced in a State court
a like election to the defendant after
wards. The time at which the non-resi
dent party should be allowed thus to
make his election was evidently a mere
matter of legislative discretion, a simple
question of expediency. If Congress
has subsequently become satisfied, that
where a plaintiff discovers, after suit
brought in a State court, that the preju
dice and local influence, against which
the Constitution intended to guard, are
such as are likely to prevent him from
obtaining justice; he ought to be permit
ted to remove his case into a national
court, it is not perceived that any consti
tutional objection exists to its authoriz
ing the removal, and, of course, to pre
scribing the conditions upon which the
removal shall be allowed.
It follows, from the views we have ex
pressed, that the objection to the juris
diction of this action by the Circuit
Court, upon the grounds advanced by
the defendant, cannot be maintained.
It only remains to say a few words
upon the refusal of the court to give the
instructions prayed by the defendant,
and upon its ruling in the admission of
certain evidence, and its charge to the
jury.
The facte of the case are very few, and
with respect to most of them there was
little conflict of evidence. The deceased
came to her death, as already stated, in
December, 18(>4, from injuries received
from a locomotive of the defendant
whilst she was endeavoring to cross its
railway track in Academy street, in
Janesville, Wisconsin. One Mrs. Wood
ward, :j,I a Mr. Rice, were standing togethei
h her just previous to the accidenc^(jon the cross-walk on the
nortlrcny side of the street, waiting for
a freight train of the Milwaukee and
Prairie du Chien Railway, then in mo
tion, to pass eastwards, so that they
might proceed down the street and over
the railway tracks. At that point in the
street there were four parallel railway
tracks lying near each other. Two of
thesethose on the northerly sidebe
longed to the Milwaukee and Prairie du
Chien Railway Company ; and the other
two belonged to the defendant, the Chi
cago and Northwestern Railway Compa
ny. The weather was at the time ex
tremely cold, and a strong wind was
blowing up the tracks from the south
west, and snow was falling. As soon as
the freight train had passed, Rice crossed
the tracks moving at a brisk rate. In
crossing he states that he took a look at
the tracks and that he neither saw nor
heard any engine on the tracks of the
defendant. Almost immediately after
getting across, and before he had gone
many steps, he heard a scream, and on
turning around saw that the women
Mrs. Whiton and Mrs. Woodwardhad
been knocked down by a locomotive of
the defendant. This locomotive was at
the time backing down in a westerly di
rectionopposite to that taken by the
freight train which had just passedthe
tender coming first, then the engine
drawing a single freight car. The per
sons in this locomotive did not appear
to be aware of the injuries they had oc
casioned, and the locomotive continued
on its course until their attention was
called to the disaster by the efforts of
Rice, when it was stopped. No person
saw- the locomotive strike the deceased,
or noticed her conduct after Rice left
her and started to cross the tracks. The
injuries which both of the women re
ceived resulted in their death. Mrs.
Woodward died soon afterwards and
Mrs. Whiton after lingering some weeks.
There was much conflict of evidence
upon the point whether the bell was
rung on the locomotive as it backed
down the track and approached Acade
my street, so as to give warning to per
sons who might be on that street wish
ing to cross, and was kept ringing until
the locomotive and tender crossed the
street. Rice testified that he did not
hear any bell, or signal from this train,
but the bell of the freight train which
had passed was ringing.
Upon these facts the court gave to the

jury a clear and full charge upon the du

ties and responsibilities of the railroad
company in crossing the street of the
city, with its engines and trains, and up
on the care, prudence and caution which
it was incumbent upon the deceased to
exercise in crossing the tracks ; and as
to the damages which the jury were au
thorized to find, in case they were sat
isfied that the employees of the company
had been guilty of negligence, and that
such negligence had caused the death of
the deceased.
The counsel of the plaintiff' had re
quested three special instructions to the
jury, and the counsel of the defendant
had requested nineteen special iustructions. The court, however, declined to
give any of them except as they were
embraced in its general charge. Some
of the instructions prayed by the de
fendant presented the law respecting the
liability of the company correctly, and
some of them were based upon an as
sumed condition of things which the
evidence did not warrant. But it is not
error for a court to refuse to give an ex
tended series ofinstructions, even though
some of them may be correct in the
propositions of law which they present,
if the law arising upon the evidence is
given by the court with such fullness as
to guide correctly the jury in its findings,
as was the case here ; nor is a judgment
to be set aside because the charge of the
court may be open to some verbal crit
icisms, in particulars considered apart
by themselves, which could not when
taken with the rest of the charge have
misled a jury of ordinary intelligence.
The propriety of the rulings of the court
in this case is fully vindicated in its
opinion on the motion for a new trial.
The evidence of the condition of the
deceased,that she was enciente, at the
time of the accident,could not materi
ally have affected the jury in the estima
tion of the damages, after the clear and
explicit charge of the court, as to the
character of the damages which only
they were authorized to consider.
The other evidence in the case, to the
admission of which objection was taken,
was not material, and could not have in
fluenced the result.
Judgment affirmed.
We are under obligations to Woodbury
M. Taylor, Clerk of the Supreme Court,
at Ottawa, for the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed October 16, 1871.
George Dannavan et al. v. Basil Green. Collector
of Tuxes.
Appall from LaSalk.
TAXATION POWER OF COUNTIES, CITIES.
AND TOWNS TO LEVY TAX IX AID OF
RAILROADSPOWEIl OF STATE AUDITORSUBSCRIPTION BY COUNTIES, ETC.. TO
STOCKELECTIONREGISTRY LAW.
1. The Registry Law ok 1865 Construed.
That at a township election to determine whether
a town shall issue bonds tor stock in a railroad
company, a registry is not required.
2. Failure to keep Registry. Effect of.That
if the law required the registry to be kept at such
election, the court is not prepared to hold that a
failure of the proper officers to make the registry,
or the board of election to require each voter to
make the required affidavit, would render the
election void, or be grounds for vacating the
office of those then elected, or for holding bonds
thus voted and issued, and in the hands of inno
cent holders, void.
3. Meaning of Majority of Voters Defined,
The clause "that if a majority of the voters
shall be for subscription, then the county, city,
town, or township shall cause the subscription to
be made and the bonds issued," etc., as used in the
act of 1857, refers to a majority of the votes cast at
such election, and not to a majority of the legal
voters residing in such town.
4. Power to Levy Tax under Constitution of
1848.The power of the Auditor to levy u tax un
der the Constitution of 1818 discussed."
5. Power of tii e Legislature.The court holds
that there is a broad distinction between the first
and second clauses of section 5 of article 9 of said
Constitution ; that the first only authorizes the
legislature to confer power on the corporation
mentioned, to collect taxes for corporate purposes
and to create a corporate debt; while the last
clause fully empowers the legislature to cause
taxes to be levied to pay the debts of such bodies,
and in the exercise of that power they have re
quired the auditor to levy the tax necessary to pay
such indebtedness.
6. Taxation in Aid of Railroads.The power
of a county, city, town, or township, to levy a tax
in aid of a railroad, or to pay bonds given for rail
road stock, fully discussed by the court.Ed. Le
gal News.
Opinion of the court by Walker, J.
This was a bill in chancery filed by a
number of tax-pavers, in the LaSalle
Circuit Court, against the collector of
Dayton township in that county, to re
strain the collection of a portion of the
taxes extended against them on the
collector's warrant. The bill alleges
that the tax was levied under an order
from the State auditor on the countv

Chicago
clerk to raise sv f .1 Vto Pay the interest
on $12,000 of \>0>*us.issued by the town
ship for stock, V\ the Ottawa, Oswego
and Fox River "V alley Railway Compa
ny, which had \>^\\ registered in the
auditor's office. The bill alleges that the
bonds were illegally issued by the town
authorities, inasmuch as there was no
registry of the voters prior to the elec
tion, and that a majority of the voters
residing in the township did not vote in
favor of issuing the same, that the bonds
were not legally registered, and that the
levy was largely in excess of the amount
required to pay the interest due upon
these bonds. That the township officers
alone have the power to levy such a tax ;
and it was extended on the collector's
warrant as a part of the State tax.
On the 18th of February, 1857, the
General Assembly adopted an act au
thorizing certain cities, counties, incor
porated towns and townships to sub
scribe to the stock of certain railroads.
The first section is as follows :
Section 1. Be it enacted by the people of the
State of Illinois, represented in the General As
sembly, that any city, county, incorporated town,
or any township now or hereafter organized un
der the township organization laws, which may
be situated on or near the route of the Ottawa,
Oswego and Fox River Railroad, or of the Chi
cago, Amboy and Upper Mississippi Railroad, or
of the Joliet and Mcndota division of the Joliet
and Terre Haute Railroad, as the same may have
heretofore, or may hereafter be surveyed and lo
cated, may become subscribers to the stock of any
such road, and may issue bonds for the amount of
such stock so subscribed with coupons for interest
thereon attached, under such limitations and re
strictions, and on such conditions as they may
choose, and the directors of said company may
approve the proposition for said subscription,
having been first submitted to the inhabitants of
such city. town, county, or township and ap
proved by them. And upon application of any
fifty voters of any city, county, incorporated town
or township us aforesaid, specifying the amount
to be snbscribed, and the conditions of said sub
scription, it shall be the duty of the clerk of such
citv, town, county or township immediately to
call an election, in the same manner that other
elections for said city, county, town or township
are called, for the purpose of determining wheth
er said city, county, township or town will sub
scribe to the stock of said road: and if a majority
of said votes shall be " for subscription." then the
County Court or Board of Supervisors having ju
risdiction over county matters in said county, or
the corporate authorities of said city or town, or
the supervisors and town clerk of such township
so voting shall cause said subscription to be made,
and upon its acceptance by the directors of said
company shall cause bonds to be issued in con
formity with said vote, which bonds shall in no
case bear a higher rate of interest than 10 per
cent, per annum, and shall not be of less denomi
nation than one thousand dollars, and shall be
accepted by said company at their par value.
Section four declares that :
It shall be the duty of the proper authorities of
any city, incorporated town, county or township
Issuing bonds as aforesaid, to make all necessary
arrangements, and provide for the prompt pay
ment of all interest and other liabilities accruing
thereon, and to levy such taxes as may be neces
sary therefor, as other taxes are levied by them.
The election was held on the 17th day
of April, 3 80!), at which the vote for sub
scription was taken, and a majority of
those voting were in favor of the propo
sition. We have been referred to no law
which repeals the act of 1857, and the
election must have been held under its
provisions. It being in force, and the
election being held under it, we must
look to its requirements to determine
whether the election is legal and the
bonds properly issued.
In the case of The People ex. rel. v.
Dutcher, at the present term, it was held
that under the law of I860 a registry was
not required in a township election of
this character. That unless otherwise
expressed, the presumption is that it was
intended, when power is given to hold
an election in a township, that it shall
be held in the same manner as other
town elections ; and as no registry of the
voters is required, but is excepted for
town meetings at which town officersare
elected, that the registry law does not
apply to an election of this character.
That case is decisive of this question.
But if it was not, we are not prepared to
hold that a failure on the part of the
proper officers to make the registry, or
the board of election to require each
voter to make the required affidavit,
would render the election void, or be
grounds for vacating the office of those
then elected, or for nolding bonds thus
voted and issued and in the hands of in
nocent holders, void. The legislature
has not so declared, even if that body
possesses such power. It imposes a
heavy penalty on any officer who shall
wilflully violate any of the provisions of
the law, but does not attempt to declare
the election void.
It is next insisted that a'majority of all
the voters residing in the township did
not vote in favor of issuing those bonds.
The act of 1857, we have seen, provides
for calling the election, and dec lares that

Legal

if a majority of the voters shall be for

subscription, then the county, city, town
or township shall cause the subscription
to be made and the bonds to be issued.
This provision evidently refers to the
majority of the votes cast at that elec
tion, and not to the majority of the legal
voters residing in the township. If such
had been the intention, other and very
different language would have been em
ployed. We are clearly of the opinion
that a fair, and the only reasonable con
struction that can be given to this act,
is that a majority of the votes cast at the
election is sufficient. This election
seems, so far as the bill discloses, to have
been called in the mode required, by the
proper authority, and to have resulted
in favor of subscription.
It is also urged that the amount of tax
levied by the auditor is excessive, as it
will produce an amount largely above
the interest which fell due on the 1st of
July, 1870. The auditor's certificate
states that $1.15 on each $100 of valua
tion of the taxable property of the town
ship will be required to pay the interest
becoming due on the 1st of July, 1870,
on bonds issued by the township of
Dayton and registered in the auditor's
office. There is no allegation that these
$12,000 of bonds issued by the township
are all that are registered by the auditor.
For aught that appears, there may be
other bonds of the township in an
amount requiring all of this fund to pay
interest then falling due, registered in
the auditor's office. That officer does
not say that the tax is levied to meet the
interest on these bonds, but to pay in
terest on registered bonds. We cannot
presume that there are no other bonds
so registered; and the bill fails to allege
there are not others. This objection is
not well taken.
It is next urged that the auditor, under
the Constitution of 1848, could not be
empowered to levy this tax, but that it
devolved alone on the township author
ities. The act of the Kith of April, 1869
(Session Laws, 318, sec. 4), confers power
upon the auditor, and it is made his duty
to ascertain the amount of interest that
will accrue upon the registered bonds of
any county, township, etc., and transmit
a certificate stating the estimated percentum required to meet such interest,
and that percentum shall thereupon be
deemed added to and a part of the per
centum which may be levied for pur
poses of State revenue, and shall be so
treated by the clerk, etc., in making such
estimates and books for the collection of
taxes, and which shall be collected with
the State revenue. It is contended that
this provision is violative of See. 5, Art.
9, of the Constitution of 1848. The first
clause of that section declares that the
corporate authorities of counties, town
ships, etc., may be vested with power to
assess and collect taxes for corporate
purposes. But the second clause is
broader and more comprehensive. It
declares that " the General Assembly
shall require that all of the property
within the limits of municipal corpora
tions, belonging to individuals, shall be
taxed for the payment of debts con
tracted under the authority of law.''
It will be observed that the first clause
of this section only authorizes the Gen
eral Assembly to confer power upon such
corporations to levy a tax for corporate
purposes. This has been held a limita
tion, as the power of the General As
sembly to levy a tax or create a debt
upon municipal corporations or to au
thorize others to do so. That thev might
confer the power, but it was only with
the citizens or the corporate authorities
to determine whether they would incur
the debt or levy the taxes for cor
porate purposes. The People ex. rel. v.
The Mayor of Chicago, 51 111., 17 ; Harward v. Levee and Drainage Co., Ib., 4S,
and other subsequent cases.
But it will be observed that the second
clause of this section is imperative upon
the Legislature, in requiring it to cause
taxes to be levied upon the property
within the corporation to pay any in
debtedness lawfully incurred by such
body. This is an express authority con
ferred upon the General Assembly to
cause to be levied a tax to pay such in
debtedness.
It is more : it makes it the duty of that
body to cause such taxes to be collected.
It gives them no option in the matter.
Ivor does it limit their power as to the
instrumentalities that shall be employed.
It does not require the levy for such pur
pose to be made through the corporate

News.

authorities, but leaves the Legislature

free to select the agents who shall im
pose and collect the tax.
Hence it is seen, that there is a broad
and palpable distinction between the
first and second clauses of this section,
the first only authorizing the Legislature
to confer power on such corporations to
collect taxes for corporate purposes and
to create a corporate debt, whilst the
last clause fully empowers the Legisla
ture to cause taxes to be levied to pay
the debts of such bodies. And in the
exercise of that power they have re
quired the auditor to levy the tax neces
sary to pay such indebtedness. These
bonds having been legally issued, the
auditor had power under this law to
make the levy of the tax in controversy.
It is next urged that the bonds were
registered without authority of law.
The seventh section of the act of 1869
(Laws, p. 316) declares that it shall not
be lawful to register any bonds under
the provisions of that act, or to receive
any of the benefits or advantages to be
derived therefrom until after the rail
road in aid of the construction of which
the debt was incurred shall have been
completed near to, or in such county,
township, city or town, and cars shall
have run thereon ; and none of the ben
efits, advantages or provisions of the act
shall apply to any debt unless the sub
scription or donation creating such debt
was firstsubmittedto an election of the le
gal voters of the county, township, city or
town under the provisions of the laws of
this State, and a majority of the legal
voters living in the county, township,
city or town were in favor of such aid,
subscription or donation.
The bill in this case alleges, and the
demurrer admits, that the railroad to
which this subscription was made had
not been completed near to or in the
township, and cars had not been run
thereon. And that at the election which
voted this subscription a majority of all
the legal voters living in the township
had not voted in favor of the proposi
tion, but whilst there was a majority of
the votes cast at the election, that there
were many less than a majority of all the
legal voters living in the township.
A majority of the court hold that the
language of this act is imperative, and
when it appears that these requirements
of the statute are wanting, the auditor
has no power to make the assessment,
and that when the non-compliance with
the statute appears, the court should
grant relief. That the requirements of
the statute are peremptory, and that the
acts it has prescribed are conditions
precedent to the action of the auditor in
estimating and certifying the tax to the
county clerk. And that a non-conform
ity with these requirements of the stat
ute having been alleged in the bill, the
court below erred in overruling the de
murrer and dismissing the bill.
It is also urged that this tax was levied
and extended as State revenue, and was
for that reason violation of Sec. 38, Art. 3
of the Constitution of 1848, which pro
hibits the State from giving its credit to
or in aid of any individual or association
or corporation.
This act does not, in [terms, declare
this a State tax. The auditor's certifi
cate shows its purpose to be entirely a
local tax and for municipal purposes, be
ing for the payment of interest on town
ship indebtedness. The tax is levied on
the property exclusively in the town
ship, and no portion of tne tax is taken
from the State revenue, general or
special, to aid the railway company or to
pay the debts of the township. AVe fail
to see that this tax, thus levied and ap
plied, can be, in the remotest degree, re
garded as giving the credit of the State
in aid of this or any other road, indi
vidual or corporation, either directly or
indirectly.
It is but collecting a special tax levied
on the property situated in a single
township to pay the interest on a debt
created by the township. The fact that
it was levied by the auditor, extended on
the collector's warrant by the county
clerk in the column with the levy for
State revenue, was mere matter of form,
and in no wise changed its nature or
purposes, and is, under the law, when
collected, required to be kept separate
from the State revenue, and applied to a
local purpose.
It is the substance, and not the mere
form or name, that change things. But
this tax is not even called State revenue,
and we have seen that the General As

183
sembly has power to employ other agen
cies than the town officers to levy such
taxes.
I am unable to concur in the construc
tion given to the seventh section of this
act of 1869. The last clause of that sec
tion authorizes such bonds to be regis
tered when the affidavit therein specified
shall be filed. I think when that affida
vit is filed, the registration may be made,
and the tax levied and collected under
that act until the registration shall be
arrested by an appropriate proceeding to
which the holders of the bonds thus
registered are parties.
There is nothing appearing from which
it can be inferred that an affidavit was
not filed, and I think we should presume
it had been, until the contrary is shown.
For the error indicated, the decree of
the court is reversed and the cause re
manded.
Through the kindness of Allen C.
Story, of the law firm of Story & King
of this city, who has been engaged pro
fessionally in New Orleans during the
past winter, we have received the follow
ing opinion :
U. S. CIRCUIT COURT E. D. OF
LOUISIANA.
Opinion Filed March 14, 1872.
Braxton Bragg v. Desire H. Lop.io, et al.
CONFISCATION PROCEEDINGSEFFECT OK
PROCLAMATION OF AMNESTY AND PAR
DON ON PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY CON
DEMNED.
1. Irregularities IN Confiscation Proceed
ings.That irregularities in confiscation proceed
ings, mere errors of law, cannot be taken advan
tage of in a collateral proceeding : that no error
can be regarded that does not go to the extent of
showing want ofjurisdiction in the court which
rendered the judgment condemning the prop
erty.
2. Rules in Construing Confiscation Stat
utes.In reviewing judicial proceedings of in
ferior courts, in the enforcement of the confisca
tion statutes, courts are to be governed by the
reasonable and sound rules applicable to analagous cases in the courts and not by a system of
procedure so narrow as to amount to a nullifica
tion of the statute.
3. Jurisdiction of. Court.That in this case
there is not only a preliminary seizure which the
Supreme court in Tyler v. Defrees held to be suffi
cient to give the court jurisdiction, but a subse
quent seizure made after the filing of the libel by
order of the court and the return of the officer
showing the seizure, and beyond doubt tile court
acquired jurisdiction.
4. Authority ok Deputy Clerk.The court
discusses the authority of the deputy clerk of the
District court of the United States at'New Orleans
lo sign writs in his own name.
5. Recovery in Ejectment.That in this ac
tion the plaintiff recovers, on the strcngh of his
own title, and if it is held that the defendant took
no title by the confiscation proceedings, that does
not help the plaintiffs case, for if the court had
jurisdiction his title was divested and vested in
the United States by the decree, where the title
still remains.
6. Effect of Proclamation of Amnesty and
Pardon on Property Confiscated.That the
plaintiff was not, under the proclamation of am
nesty and pardon, issued by the President on J uly
4, 1808, restored to his rights in the property in
controversy in this case.Ed. Legal News.
The opinion of the court was delivered
by Woods, J.
This cause is submitted to the" court
on the questions of law and fact, the
parties having waived the intervention
of a jury.
The plaintiff brings his action to es
tablish his title to and secure possession
of a certain plantation situated in the
parish of Lafourche, in the State of
Louisiana, known as the Greenwood
plantation, of which he avers he is seized
as of an estate in fee simple, and where
of, for many years prior to the 3d of
January, 1866, he was in possession. He
alleges that on the day last named the
defendants wrongfully and forciblyejected him from said plantation and
took possession of the same, which they
still hold.
The defendants, by way of defense,
set up title in themselves, claiming un
der a sale made by the United States
Marshal on the 3d of January, 1866, by
virtue of a writ of venditioni exponas, is
sued from the District Court of the
United States for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, in the suit of the United
States v. the Greenwood Plantation, the
property of Braxton Bragg. This was a
proceeding to confiscate said plantation
as enemies' property, commenced and
concluded under the act of Congress,
approved July 17, 1862, entitled "an act
to suppress insurrection, to punish trea
son and rebellion, to seize and confiscate
the property of rebels, and for other
purposes."
It is admitted that prior to the 3d of
January, 1866, Bragg was seized and in
possession of the lands sued for, and that
he is entitled to recover unless his title

1 84
has been divested by said proceedings
and sale.
It is well settled that irregularities in
the confiscation proceedings, mere errors
of law, cannot be taken advantage of in
this collateral proceeding. No error can
be regarded here that does not go to the
extent of showing want of jurisdiction
in the court whic h rendered the judg
ment condemning the property. Cooper
v. Reynolds, 10 Wal., 308; Tyler v. Defrees, 11 Wal., 344. But plaintiff' avers
that the proceedings were so defective
that the court acquired no jurisdiction
over the property, and that therefore the
decree of condemnation, the Marshal's
sale and deed are absolutely void. The
defendants claim that the court did ac
quire jurisdiction, and having jurisdic
tion the proceedings are valid until re
versed, and that the sale and deed of the
Marshal convey title. This presents one
of the questions for our determination.
" When we are called upon to sit in
review on the judicial proceedings of
the inferior courts, in the enforcement
of the confiscation statutes, we are to be
governed by the reasonable and sound
rules applicable to analagous cases in the
courts, and not by a system of procedure
so captious, so narrow, so difficult to un
derstand or to execute, as to amount to a
nullification of the statute." Tvler v.
Defrees, 11 Wall., 345.
The record in this case shows that on
Sept. 11, 1805, the property in question
was seized by the U. S. Marshal under
written authority of the District Attor
ney, as forfeited to the United States,
and that said property was within the
jurisdiction of the court. That on the
12th of September, 1805, a libel was tiled
reciting said seizure, and praying the
condemnation of the property, and that
on the same day a writ of seizure was
issued to the Marshal, directing him to
seize and take in possession the property
aforesaid, which was returned Oct. 2,
1805, with the indorsement that he had
seized the property in the hands of
Thomas W. Conway, Assistant Commis
sioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, and
served notice of said seizure personally
on said Conway, etc.
The record, in our opinion, amply
shows a seizure, sufficient to give the
court jurisdiction. In the case of Tyler
v. Defrees, 11 Wallace, 348, the only
seizure was the one made by the Marshal
on the order of the District Attorney,
preliminary to the filing of the libel,
The record shows no other. Yet in that
case it was held that the court acquired
jurisdiction. The court says : " The
proceeding inaugurated by the District
Attorney is designed to bring the prop
erty into court. It can have no other
purpose or end unless released by his
order. The District Attorney and
Marshal are both officers of the court,
and for that reason are selected to insti
tute the proceedings by which the power
of the. court is called into exercise.
When, therefore, the property is in the
course of this proceeding seized by the
Marshal, and when with the filing of the
libel, all that has been done is brought
before the court and it adopts and rec
ognizes their seizure, the property is held
by him subject to the order of the court,
and is under its control and no second
seizure by the same officer can be neces
sary."
So in Cooper v.^Reynolds, 19 Wallace,
309, the court, speaking of the various
modes of acquiring jurisdiction, said:
"While the general rule in regard to
jurisdiction in rem requires the actual
seizure and possession of the res by the
officer of the court, such jurisdiction may
be acquired by acts of equivalent im
port and which stand for and represent
the dominion of the court over the thing
and in effect subject it to the control of
the court. Among this latter class is the
levy of a writ of attachment or seizure
of real estate, which being incapable of
removal and being within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court, is for all prac
tical purposes brought under the juris
diction of the court by the officer's levy
of the writ and return of that fact."
In this case we have not only a pre
liminary seizure, which the Supreme
court, in Tyler v. Defrees, held to be suf
ficient to give the court jurisdiction, but
a subsequent seizure made after the fil
ing of the libel, by order of court,
and the return of the'officer showing the
seizure.
Beyond doubt, therefore, the court ac
quired jurisdiction.
The plaintiff has pointed out what he

Chicago
conceives to be numerous irregularities
and errors of law in the subsequent pro
ceedings, but the fact that the court had
jurisdiction being established they do
not render void the decree of the court.
It is binding until reversed in a direct
proceeding, and cannot be impeac hed
collaterally.
Exception is taken to the writ of ven
ditioni under which the Marshal made
the sale to the defendants, and it is
claimed that this writ is void and con
ferred no authority on the Marshal, and
that his proceedings and sale under it
are void and conveyed no title.
An inspection of the writ shows that
it is in the name of the President of the
UnitedStates; that it bears title of the
Judge and is under the seal of the court.
It is, however, signed by W. S. Benedict,
deputy clerk, and not by the clerk him
self. This fact, it is claimed, avoids the
writ.
By the act of March 3, 1821 (3 Stat, at
Large, 043), the Clerk of the District
Court of the United States for the Dis
trict of Louisiana is authorized " to ap
point a deputy, to aid him in the dis
charge of the duties of his office, for
whose acts the clerk shall in all respects
be liable." We think it clear that the
deputy appointed by virtue of this art
may do any act which the clerk is au
thorized to do. Among other acts, he
may sign process in his own name. A
narrower construction of the statute
would, under it, be vain and useless.
Without the aid of this statute, the Clerk
may and must perform a large part of
his duties by other hands. Provided
they aredone under his authority and by
his direction, they are valid. But there
are certain acts which must be done by
the Clerk in his own name. To enable
them to he done by deputies was the
purpose of the statute. The Clerk is
made responsible for these acts of his
deputies, in his official bond, by the ex
press words of the law.
But, granting that the writ of vendi-exponas was void, and the sale under it
void, the only result is that the record
shows the title still to be in the United
States by the decree of confiscation.
In actions of ejectment the plaintiff
recovers on the strength of his own title.
The defendant may successfully defend
by showing title out of the plaintiff. So,
if we hold that the defendant took no
title by the confiscation proceedings, that
does not help the plaintiff's case, for, if
the court had jurisdiction, his title was
divested and vested in the UnitedStates
by the decree of November 23, 1805,
where the title still remains.
But, the plaintiff further insists that,
under the proclamation of amnesty and
pardon issued by the President on July
4, 1808, he was restored to his rights of
property, and as the sale under the pro
ceedings for confiscation did not take
place until after the date of said procla
mation, such sale wasvoid and conveyed
no title. We do not think the effect
claimed for the proclamation byplaintiff
can be attributed to it, but the obvious
answer to this claim is, that the property
was condemned and the title divested
out of plaintiff and vested in the United
States by the decree of the court, on the
23d of November, 1805, long before the
date of proclamation, and the proclama
tion expressly excepts from its effect any
" property of which any person may have
been legally divested under the laws of
the United States." Having already
held that by the proceedings for confis
cation the plaintiff was legally divested
of his property, until the decree of the
court shall be reversed by a direct pro
ceeding in error, we are of the opinion
that the plaintiff can take no benefit from
the proclamation in this case.
The court, therefore, finds for the de
fendants upon the issues of fact, and or
ders that judgment be entered accord
ingly.
Allen C. Story, for plaintiff; C. Roselius & Alfred Phillips, and Belcher
& Beattie, for defendants.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
December Term, 1871.
Lucy H. Carroll, Administrator of George W.
Carroll, deceased, Appellant, v. The United
States.
Appeal from the Court of Claims.
CONFISCATION.
The deceased intestate during his life gave aid
to the rebellion, and died with a large amount of
cotton in his possession unaffected by any pro
ceeding of confiscation : held, that upon the ap
pointment of his widow as administratrix, the
title vested in her unforfeited; that the statute

Legal

News.

does not make it the duty of the court to inquire

whether the intestate, who had been the owner,
gave aid und comfort to the rebellion, but whether
such aid or comfort was given by the actual owner
at tlie time of capture.En. Lkual News.
Mr. Chief Justice Chase delivered the
opinion of the court.
It appears from the findings of fact by
the Court of Claims that George W. Car
roll, residing in Arkansas, during the
first years of the late civil war, raised
and was the owner of certain cotton.
He died in September, 1803. During his
life he had given aid to the rebellion.
The cotton, upon his death, came into
the possession of the claimant as admin
istratrix, and was in her possession at
the time it was captured by the army of
the United States. She offered evidence
to establish her own loyalty, and that
she never gave aid or comfort to the re
bellion, which seems to have been re
jected by the court. The estate is insol
vent. The creditors are numerous, and
there is no proof in respect to their lovalty.
The Court of Claims decided as a con
clusion of law from these facts that the
claimant's rights as administratrix de
pended upon proof of the loyalty of the
decedent, and, it being shown that he
voluntarily gave aid and comfort to the
rebellion, dismissed the petition.
We think that the Court of Claims
erred. The statute of March 12, 1803,
makes] the right to recover depend on
proof of ownership of the abandoned or
captured property ,ofright to the proceeds,
and of the fact that the owner gave no
aid or comfort to the rebellion. It is
plain to us that the ownership to be
proved was that which existed a* the
time of capture or abandonment, and
that the right to the proceeds was that
which existed at the time of the petition
filed in the Court of Claims. These
titles, in their nature, capable of separa
tion, co-existed in the petitioner. True,
her ownership was not absolute, nor was
her right to the proceeds absolute. She
could claim only in a representative
capacityfirst, in right of the intestate,
and, secondly, as trustee for creditors
and distributees. At the time of the
death of the intestate the cotton was
in his possession, unaffected by any pro
ceeding in confiscation. After his death,
and upon appointment of his widow as
administratrix, the title vested in her
unforfeited. It was a title upon which
she could maintain trespass or trover.
(Redfield on Wills, 114, 110 ; 1 Williams
on Kx'rs and Adm'rs, 590 ; 2 Brevard
Rep., 313 ; 23 Pick. Rep., 129.) And it
was the only title to the property sub
sisting at the time of the capture and
sale and payment of the proceeds into
the treasury. The statute does not make
it the dutv of the court to inquire
whether the intestate who^had been the
owner gave aid and comfort to the re
bellion, but whether such aid or comfort
was given by the actual owner at the
time of the capture. This owner, with
in the sense of the statute, was the ad
ministratrix. It would be much more
reasonable to institute such inquiries in
respect to the creditors and distributees
than in respect to the intestate. But
such an investigation might be endless
and could not, we think, have been con
templated by the Legislature.
Ave think, therefore, that the Court of
Claims erred in not admitting the proof
offered by the petitioner, and for this
cause the decree must be reversed.
L1V ILLINOIS REPORTS.
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman
L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following
head-notes to cases to appear in the 54th
volume of Illinois Reports :
MARRIED WOMEN.
1. Of a power of sale in a mortgagebar
ring equity of redemption by such sale. It
is competent for a married woman to
join her husband in the execution of a
mortgage upon land owned by him,
which shall confer upon the mortgagee
and his assigns the power to make sale
of the premises, in case of default in pay
ment, without a decree for that purpose,
so that a sale under such power shall op
erate to bar the equity of redemption,
not only of the husband but also of the
wife, in case she survives her husband.
(Opinion by Scott, J.)Strotherv. Law,
p. 413.
MORTGAGE.
2. Construction thereof, as to the interest
which sliall pass thereby. The habendum
clause ofa mortgage containinga power of

sale in the mortgagee passed "all the right

title, interest, claim demand and equity',
of the mortgagors in the premises ; this
was held to embrace all possible interest
the mortgagors could have, including
their equity of redemption, so that a sale
under the power would operate to cut
off their right to redeem.lb.
POWER OF SALE.
3. In a mortgagewhether revoked by the
death of the mortgagor. Where a mort
gage confers upon the mortgagee and his
assigns the power to make sale of the
premises in case of default in payment,
and to convey to the purchaser, that is a
power coupled with an interest in the
estate, and to be executed in the name
of the grantee, not of the grantor, and is
irrevocable, remaining unaffected by the
death of the mortgagor prior to its being
exercised.lb.
4. Execution of the power by an assignee.
When a mortgage gives to the mortga
gee or his assigns power to sell in case of
default in payment, an assignment of the
note secured by the mortgage will vest
the power of sale in the assignee.lb.
5. Designation of place of giving notice
Construction thereof.A mortgage contain
ing a power of sale, required the notice
of the sale to be published " in a news
paper printed in the Chicago Times." In
a proceeding attacking the sale, it was
proven the notice was published in the
Chicago Times, a newspaper published in
the city of Chicago, and that there was
but one newspaper of that name pub
lished in that city. The words " The
Chicago Times" were inserted in the
printed blank in the mortgage usually
left to be filled with the name of the
place where the newspaper was pub
lished : Held, the requirement should
be construed to mean that the notice
should be published in the Chicago
Times, a newspaper published in Chicago.
Ib.
0. Of sales upon credit.Where a mort
gage, which confers the power of sale
upon the mortgagee, requires such sale to
be made for cash, such requirement must
be complied with, and the sale cannot
properly be made upon credit.Ib.
7. Though the mortgagee may, at the
sale, give a credit upon that portion of
the proceeds which will be coining to
him, without violating the terms of the
mortgage in that regard.Ib.
8. But the mere delay of a few days in
closing the transaction, by the making of
the deed and payment of the money,
such delay not being unreasonable under
the circumstances, will not be regarded
as the giving of a credit to the purchaser.
Ib.
OFFICIAL.
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,
Passed at the Second Session of the FortySecond Congress.
[General natureNo. 4.]
AN ACT to change the times for holding circuit
ami district court'; of the United States for the
western district of Virginia.
He it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That, in
stead of the times now fixed by law, the
circuit and district courts of the United
States for the western district of Virginia
shall hereafter be held as follows : At
Danville, on the Tuesday after the fourth
Monday of February and August; at
Lynchburg, on the Tuesday after the
third Monday of March and September ;
at Harrisonburg, on the Tuesday after
the second Monday of April and" Octo
ber ; and at Abingdon, on the Tuesday
after the fourth Monday of May and
October. And all recognizances, indict
ments, or other proceedings, civil or
criminal, now pending in either of said
courts, shall be entered and have day in
court, and be heard and tried according
to the times of holding said court as
herein provided.
Approved, February 1, 1872.
[General natureNo. 5.]
AN ACT for the apportionment of Representa
tives to Congress among the several Suites ac
cording to the ninth census.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer
ica in Congress assembled, That from and
after the third day of March, eighteen
hundred and seventy-three, the House
of Representatives shall be composed of
two hundred and eighty-three members,
to be apportioned among the several
States in accordance with the provisions
of this act, that is to say : To the State of
Maine, five; to the State of New Hamp
shire, two ; to the State of Vermont, two ;

Chicago

Legal

News.

ing post-roads be established in the State and forty-eight ; February third, eightto the State of Massachusetts, eleven
[General natureNo. (5.1
hundred and fiftv-three ; June third,
authorize the payment of duplicate of Vermont, viz :
to the State Rfr0lle Island, two ; to the; AX ACT tochecks
of disbursing officers.
From the station on the Portland and eighteeen hundred and fifty-eight; Ju
State of Connecticut, four; to the State
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
railroad, in Greensboro', ly fourteenth and seventeenth, eighteen
of New York, thirty -two ; to the State of Representatives of the United States of Amer Ogdensburgh
via Greensboro', East Craftsbury, and hundred and sixty-two ; June thirtieth,
New Jersey , seven ; to the State of Penn ica in Congress assembled, That in place of Craftsbury,
eighteen hundred and sixty-four ; June
to North Craftsbury.
sylvania, twenty-six ; to the State of original checks, when lost, stolen, or de
Also, from the station on the same rail sixth and July twenty-fifth, eighteen
Delaware, one; to the State of Mary stroyed, disbursing ollicers and agents of road
at south Hardwiek, to North Crafts hundred and sixty-six; July twentyland, six ; to the State of Virginia, nine ; the United States are hereby authorized,
seventh, eighteen hundred and sixtyto the State of North Carolina, eight ; to after the expiration of six months from bury.
eight: June seventeenth and July eighth
Approved, February 12, 1872.
the State of South Carolina, five ; to the the date of such checks, and within
and eleventh, eighteen hundred and
.State of Georgia, nine ; to the State of three years from such date, to issue du
seventy ; and February fourteenth, eight
natureNo. 11.]
Alahama, seven ; to the State of Missis plicate checks, and the treasurer, assist AX ACT[General
for the relief of Alexander Smith and een hundred and seventy -on", and all
sippi, six ; to the State of Louisiana, Ave ; ant treasurers, and designated deposita
Halcyon Skinner.
provided by law, thirty
to the State of Ohio, twanty ; to the ries of the United States are directed to
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of other pensions
dollars.
State of Kentucky, ten ; to the State of pay such checks, drawn in pursuance of Representatives of the United States of million
For navy pensions to invalids, wid
Tennessee, nine ; to the State of Indiana, law by such officers or agents, upon no America in Congress assembled, That ows,
dependent relatives, and pen
twelve ; to the State of Illinois, nine tice and proof of the loss of the original the Commisioner of Patents be, and sionsand
to sailors of the war of eighteen
teen ; to the State of Missouri, thirteen ; check or checks, under such regulations he is hereby, directed to grant a re hundred
and twelve, and for furnishing
to the State of Arkansas, four ; to the in regard to their issue and payment, hearing of the application of Alex artificial limbs
or apparatus for resec
State of Michigan, nine ; to the State of and upon the execution of such bonds, ander Smith and Halcyon Skinner, tion, with transportation
or commuta
Florida, one ; to the State of Texas, six ; with sureties, to indemnify the United for the extension of letters-patentgrant- tion therefor, compensation
to pension
to the State of Iowa, nine ; to the State States, as the Secretary of the Treasury ed to them on the fourth day of Novem agents, expenses of agencies, and
fees for
of Wisconsin, eight ; to the State of Cali shall prescribe : Provided, That this act ber, eighteen hundred and fifty-six, for preparing vouchers and administering
fornia, four ; to the State of Minnesota, shall not apply to any cheek exceeding improvement in power-looms ; and he oaths, as provided by the acts of April
three ; to the State of Oregon, one ; to in amount the sum of one thousand dol is hereby authorized to revive and ex twenty-third, eighteen hundred ; Febru
the State of Kansas, three; to the State lars.
tend the said letters-patent for the fur
twentieth, eighteen hundred and
of West Virginia, three ; to the State of Sec. 2. That in case the disbursing offi ther term of seven years from and after ary
; August eleventh, eighteen
Nevada, one ; to the State of Nebraska, cer or agent by whom such lost, de the fourth day of November, eighteen forty-seven
hundred and forty-eight; July fourteenth
one : Provided, That if, after such appor stroyed, or stolen original check was is hundred and seventy, notwithstanding and
seventeeth, eighteen hundred and
tionment shall have been made, any new sued, he dead, or no longer in the ser the original term for which letters-pat sixty-two
; June thirtieth, eighteen hun
State shall be admitted into the Union, vice of the United States, it shall be the ent was granted has expired, and the dred and sixty-four;
June sixth and Ju
the Representative or Representatives duty of the proper accounting officer said patentees had patented the said in ly twenty-fifth, eighteen
hundred and
of such new State shall be additional to under such regulations as the Secretary vention in foreign countries, and such sixty-six ; March second, eighteen
hun
the number of two hundred and eighty- of the Treasury shall prescribe, to state foreign patents had expired before the dred and sixty-seven ; July twentyfourth
day
of
November,
eighteen
hun
three herein limited.
account in favor of the owner of such
eighteen hundred and sixtySec. 2. That in each State entitled un an
and seventy, if in his judgment the seventh,
original check for the amount thereof, dred
eight ; June seventeenth and July eighth
der this law to more than one Repre and
said
patentees
were
the
original
and
first
such amount to the ac inventors of the invention described in and eleventh, eighteen hundred and
sentative, the number to which said counttoofcharge
and all other pensions provided
such officer or agent.
States may be entitled in the Fortythe said letters-patent, and the invention seventy,
Approved, February 2,1872.
by law, four hundred and eighty thou
third, ami each subsequent Congress,
is useful, and the patentees have failed, sand
dollars: Provided, That the appro
shall be elected by districts composed of
without neglect or fault on their part, to priation
aforesaid for navy pensions,
NatureNo. 7.]
contiguous territory, and containing as AN ACT[General
obtain
from
the
use
and
sale
of
the
said
to admit certain machinery imported
the other expenditures under that
nearly as practicable an equal number of
from foreign countries free of duty.
invention a reasonable remuneration for and
Jie it enacted by tlie Senate and House of the time, ingenuity, labor and expense head, shall be paid, from the income of
inhabitants, and equal in number to the
the navy pension fund, so far as the
number of Representatives to which Representatives of the United States of Amer bestowed upon the same and the intro same
may be sufficient for that purpose.
said State* may be entitled in Congress, ica in Congress assembled, That the Calca duction thereof into use. And the said
Approved, February 20, 1872.
no one distiict electing more than one sieu Sulphur and Mining Company of letters-patent, when so revived and ex
Representative: Provided, That in the New Orleans be, and is hereby, per- tended, shall have the same effect inlaw
natureNo. 14.]
election of Representatives to the Forty- mittted to import, free of duty, under as if it had been originally granted for the AX ACT[General
to amend an act entitled " An act to
third Congress in any State which by such rules and regulations as the Secre term of twenty-one years: Provided, That provide a national currency secured by pledge
of United States bonds, and to provide for the
this law is given an increased number of tary of the Treasury shall prescribe, cer all persons who at the time of the pass
circulation and redemption thereof." approved
Representatives, the additional Repre tain machinerv and accompanying im age of this act had constructed, or caused June
third, eighteen hundred and sixty-lour.
sentative or Representatives allowed to plements for the purpose of, and to be to be constructed, or used looms on the
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
such State may be elected by the State used only in, making a series of exper plan of the said invention, shall be at Representatives of the United States ofAmer
nt large, and the other Representatives iments in mining for sulphur in the par liberty, during such extended term, to ica in Congress assembled, That section
to which the-State is entitled by the dis ish of Calcasieu, in the State of Louisi- use and vend to others to use said looms thirty-one of said act be amended by
tricts as now prescribed by law in said ana : Provided, That the value of such so constructed or used.
striking out the word " Leavenworth"
State, unless the legislature of said State importation shall not exceed the sum of
Aproved, February 20, 1872.
when it occurs in said section.
shall otherwise provide before the time seventy-five thousand dollars, and that
Approved, March 1, 1872.
fixed by law for the election of Repre said machinery and implements ho im
[Gf.neral natureNo. 12.1
ACT making appropriations to supply a defi
ported within one year from and after AXciency
sentatives therein.
[General natureNo. 15.]
in the appropriations for salaries and
extending the time for the completion
Sec. 3. That the Tuesday next after the the passage of this act.
contingent expenses of the Post Office Depart AXof ACT
the Green Bay and Sturgeon Bay and l,ake
Approved, February 2,1872.
first Monday in November, in the year
ment for the current liscal year.
Michigan
ship canal, in the State of Wisconsin.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House, of
eighteen hundred and seventy-six, is
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
hereby fixed and established as the day,
Representatives
of
the
United
Slates
of
Amer
[General NatureNo. 8.]
of the United States of Amer
in each of the States and Territories of AX ACT to establish certain post-routes in the ica in Congress assembled, That the follow Representatives
in Congress assembled, That the time
State of Iowa.
the United States, for the election of
ing sums are hereby appropriated, out of ica
Be it enacted by tfie Senate and House of any money in the treasury not otherwise for the completion of the Green Bay
Representatives and Delegates to the
and Sturgeon Bay and Lake Michigan
Forty -fifth Congress; and the Tuesday Representatives of the United States of Amer appropriated, to supply the deficiency in ship
canal be, and the same is hereby,
next after the first Monday in November, ica in Congress assembled, That the follow the appropriations for the service of the extended
to the tenth day of April,
in every second year thereafter, is here ing be, and the same are hereby, estab Post Office Department for the present anno Domini
eighteen hundred and sev
by fixed and established as the day for lished as post-routes in the State of fiscal year, viz. :
For salaries, eleven thousand four enty-four.
the election, in each of said States and Iowa :
Approved, March 1, 1872.
From Franklin, in Winnesheik coun hundred and eighty-three dollars and
Territories, of Representatives and Dele
gates to the Congress commencing on ty, State of Iowa, to Washington Prairie, twenty-five cents.
[General natureNo. if!.]
For contingentexpenses, twelve thous
the fourth day of March next there in the same county ; also,
ACT to set apart a certain tract of land lying
From Watikon, in Allamakee county, and two hundred and sixty-eight dollars AXnear
after.
the
head-waters of the Yellowstone river
Sec. 4. That if, upon trial, there shall State of Iowa, via Rud's, Dorchester, and twenty-six cents.
as a publie park.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Approved, February 20, 1872.
be a failure to elect a Representative or Wilmington, to Caledonia, in the State
Representatives of the United States of A merDelegate in Congress in any State, Dis of Minnesota.
Approved, February 2, 1872.
ica in Congress assembled. That the tract
[General natureNo. 13.]
trict, or Territory, upon the day hereby
AN ACT making appropriations for the pay of land in the Territories of Montana
fixed and established for such election,
ment
of
Invalid
ana
other
pensions
of
the
Uni
or if, after any such election, a vacancy
ted States for the year ending June thirty, eigh and Wyoming, lying near the head
[General natureNo. 9.]
waters of the Yellowstone river, and de
shall occur in any such State, District, or AX ACT to exempt the iron steam ice-boats con
teen hundred and seventy-three.
by the city of Philadelphia from the in
Be it enacted by tlie Senate and House of scribed as follows, to wit, commencing
Territory, from death, resignation, or structed
spection
required
by
the
act
of
February
twentyotherwise, an election shall be held to eighth, eighteen hundred and seventy-one, en Representatives of the United States of at the junction of Gardiner's river with
fill any vacancy caused by such failure, titled "'An act to provide for the better security America in Congress assembled, That the the Yellowstone river, and runuing east
board of vessels propelled in whole or following sums be, and the same are to the meridian passing ten miles to the
resignation, death, or otherwise, at such of life on
by steam, and lor other pur]x>ses."
appropriated, out of any money eastward of the most eastern point of
time as is or may be provided by law for inBepart
it
enacted
by the Senate and House of hereby,
in the treasury not otherwise appropria Yellowstone lake ; thence south along
filling vacancies in the State or Territory Representatives of
the
United
Stales
of
A
nierted, for the payment of pensions for the said meridian to the parallel of latitude
in which the same may occur.
ca in Congress assembled, That the iron year
ending the thirtieth of June, eight passing ten miles south of the most
Sec. 5. That no State shall be hereafter steam
ice-boats,
constructed
by
the
city
southern point of Yellowstone lake ;
admitted to the Union without having of Philadelphia for the purpose of keep een hundred and seventy-three, viz :
For army pensions to invalids, wid thence west along said parallel to the
the necessary population to entitle it to ing open the navigation of the rivers
at least one Representative according to Delaware and Schuylkill during the win ows, and dependent relatives, revolution meridian passing fifteen miles west of
the ratio of representation fixed by this ter months, be, and they are hereby, ex ary pensions, and pensions to soldiers of the most western point of Madison lake ;
the war of eighteen hundred and twelve, thence north along said meridian to the
bill.
from the inspection required by the and
Sec. 6. That should any State, after the empt
for furnishing artificial limbs or ap latitude of the junction of the Yellow
act
approved
twenty-eighth
of
February,
passage of this act, deny or abridge the eighteen hundred and seventy-one, en paratus for resection, with transportation, stone and Gardiner's rivers; thence east
right of any of the male inhabitants of titled " An act to provide for the better or commutation therefor ; also, for com to the place of beginning, is hereby re
such State, being twenty-one years of
to pension agents, and the ex served and withdrawn from settlement,
of life on board of vessels pro pensation
ago, and citizens of the United States, to security
penses of the several agencies, and for occupancy, or sale under the laws of the
pelled
in
whole
or
in
part
by
steam,
and
vote at any election named in the for other purposes : " Provided, that this fees for preparing vouchers and admin United States, and dedicated and set
amendments to the Constitution, article act
oaths, as provided for by the acts apart as a public park or pleasuringexpire at the end of six months istering
fourteen, section two, except for partici fromshall
of April twenty-fourth, eighteen hundred ground for the benefit and enjoyment of
and
after
its
passage.
pation in the rebellion or other crime,
and sixteen ; July fourth, eighteen hun the people ; and all persons who shall
Approved, February 6, 1872.
dred and thirty-six ; May thirteenth, locate or settle upon or occupy the same,
the number of Representatives appor
tioned in this act to such State shall be
eighteen hundred and forty-six ; Febru oranypart thereof, except as hereinaf
[General
natureNo
10.]
reduced in the proportion which the AX ACT establishing certain post-roads in Ver ary twentieth, eighteen hundred and ter provided, shall be considered tres
number of such male citizens shall have
forty-seven ; February second, eighteen passers and removed therefrom.
mont.
Sec. 2. That said public park shall be
to the whole number of male citizens
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of hundred and forty-eight ; July twentytwenty-one years of age in such State.
Representatives of the United States of Amer first, eighteen hundred and forty-eight ; under the exclusive control of the SecApproved, February 2, 1872.
Continued on page 188].
ica in Congress assembled, That the folio w- July twenty-ninth, eighteen hundred

Chicago

i 86

Chicago Legal News.

ILei Utmt't.
CHICAGO, MARCH 23, 1872.
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
The Chicago Legal News Co.,
AT 116 MADISON STREET.
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
Terms :
rwo Dollars per annum, in advance. Single cop
ies Ten Cents.
THE LEGAL NEWS OFFICE la mt 119
(Tnt Msdlsoa Street. Tbe Printing
Ealabliihmrat la at 13 N. JeOcraan BU
Owing to the press of advertisements
upon our columns, we are again com
pelled to issue twelve instead of eight
pages. We are under obligations to the
members of the bar and the law book
publishers who have so liberally patron
ized our advertising columns. As a
medium to reach those who make, buy,
sell and read law books, the Legal News
has no superior. Over two hundred
thousand dollars' worth of law books
have been sold to the lawyers of Chicago
since the fire. They are, as fast as their
finances will permit, replacingtheirlibraries. It is impossible to estimate the
amount of law books that will be sold in
this city during the coming year.
We call attention to the following
. cases reported at length in this issue :
United States CourtsRemoval op
CausesCitizenship ok Parties.The
opinion of the Supreme Court of the
United States, delivered by Field, J.
This case fully illustrates the increased
power and jurisdiction of the Federal
Courts. The plaintiff below, a resident
of this city, as administrator, brought
suit in one of the Circuit Courts of Wis
consin, and filed his petition and bond
in said court for the removal of the cause
into the Federal Court. The Circuit
Court granted the petition and ordered
the removal of the cause, but directed a
stay of proceedings upon its order, to
enable the defendant to appeal from it
to the Supremo Court of the State, and
provided that in case such appeal should
be taken, all proceedings should be
stayed until its termination. The ap
peal was taken and the order of removal
was reversed by the Supreme Court. The
plaintiff disregarded the stay of proceed
ings and the appeal, obtained copies of
the papers in the cause in the State
Court and filed them in the Circuit Court
of the United States, which court took
jurisdiction, and notwithstanding the
objection of the defendant and its plea
to the jurisdiction of the court, rendered
judgment in favor of the plaintiff. This
action of the U. S. Circuit Court is fully
sustained by the Supreme Court. It is
also held that the proviso in the statute
of Wisconsin requiring the action to be
brought in a court of the State, does not
prevent a non-resident plaintiff from
removing the action, under the act of
March, 2, 1867, to a Federal Court and
maintaining it there. There are also
several interesting questions decided in
regard to the right to sue a railroad com
pany in the Federal Courts, where it
runs through and has offices in different
States.
The Confiscation Acts.The opinion
of the United States Circuit Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, by
Woods, J., construing several sections of
the confiscation statutes, giving the rules

Legal

for the construction of confiscation pro

ceedings, and stating the effect of the
Proclamation of Amnesty and pardon
on property confiscated. The plaintiff
in this case is General Bragg which is a
sufficient guarantee that it was well con
tested.
Subscription in Aid ok Railroads.
The opinion of the Supreme [Court of
Illinois, delivered by Walker, J., dis
cussing the power of the Legislature to
pass acts, under the Constitution of 1848,
to authorize counties, cities, and towns
to subscribe for stock in railroad com
panies, and levy a tax for the payment
of bonds issued for such stock. The
court holds that at an election for the
the purpose of determining whether
county, etc.,will take stock,, etc., the names
of the voters need not be registered, as
at a general election.
Right op Stockholders to Vote.
The opinion of the Circuit Court of this
county, delivered by Williams, J., con
struing the statute of this State providing
for the incorporation of manufacturing
and other companies, and holding that
the by-laws of the Evening Mail Compa
ny, of this city, are in many respects in
conflict with the statute, and not binding
upon the stockholders. That sharehold
ers not having signed the by-laws, and
not having paid up their stock, could,
under the statute, vote at an election
of directors of the company. The
learned judge, after discussing at some
length the allegations in the bill, dis
solved the injunction.
Act of BankruptcyCommercial Pa
per.The opinion of the L'nited States
District Court for the district of Indiana,
by Gresham, J., defining what constitutes
an act of bankruptcy and fraudulent
preference, and holding that a person
who is neither a merchant or trader
when he gives his note, but at the time
such note becomes due is engaged in
business, and fails to meet it within four
teen days after it is due, that he is within
the meaning of clause '.), sec. 39, of the
Bankrupt Law.
The U. S. Laws.We call attention to
the laws of the United States recently
passed which are printed in this issue.
They are of importance not only to the
profession, but to the general public.
These laws are published under the au
thority of Congress, The Legal News
having been selected as one of the offi
cial organs for that purpose.
The Chicago Law Institute.The Ex
ecutive Committee of this valuable and
undying Institution request all the mem
bers of the profession in the city, wheth
er members of the Institute or not, to
meet them at the Rooms of the Institute
on next Saturday afternoon at 2 o'clock.
We hope all the attorneys in the city
on that day, whether they belong to our
bar or not, will attend this meeting, and
hear a report from the Executive Com
mittee of the condition of the Institute,
and what has been done for it at home
and abroad.
LIBERTY OF PURSUIT TRIUMPH
ANT IN ILLINOIS.
The following bill, introduced in the
Senate by Senator Early, came up in
the House on Thursday for final action,
and was lost for want of receiving a con
stitutional majority, although it received
a large majority of the members present.
Mr. Haines, of Lake, at once moved a
reconsideration of the vote. Thomas J.
Turner came to the rescue, and made a
short, able and eloquent speech in favor

News.

of the bill, after which it received the

required number of votes. On yester
day it was taken to Governor Palmer,
received his approval, and is now a law
of the land, and will go into effect on
the first of July :
A Bill for an act to secure to all persons
freedom in the selection of an occupa
tion, profession, or employment.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the People of
the State of Illinois, represented in the Gen
eral Assembly, That no person shall be
precluded or debarred from any occupa
tion, profession or employment (except
military) on account of sex: Provided,
that this act shall not be construed to af
fect the eligibility of any person to an
elective office.
\ 2. All laws inconsistent with this act
are hereby repealed.
\ 3. Nothing in this act shall be con
strued as requiring any female to work
on streets or roads, or serve on juries.
" THE LEGAL WORLD MOVES."
The Washinglrm Chronicle of recent
date, under the above heading, says :
In the court in General Term, on the
second instant, the first female lawyer
ever admitted to practice in the District
courts was admitted on motion of Hon.
A. G. Riddle. Charlotte E. Rays, color
ed,
who isLTniversity,
referred to,
a graduate
of
Howard
andispassed
through
a very satisfactory course of study.
It is reported that an application will
be made in the court on Saturday of this
week for the admission of Mrs. Belva A.
Lockwood.
There was also admitted on the 2d
inst., on motion of Mr. Riddle, Eugene
R. Belcher, Edwin Belcher, C. H. Gard
ner, M. M. Holland, Geo. W. Mitchell,
J. M. Murphy, James C. Napier, John F.
Quarles, and O. S. B. Wall, colored grad
uates of Howard University.
Hon. J. J. Wright, a graduate of How
ard University, subsequently Assistant
Attorney General of Missouri, and at
present associated with Hon. A. K.
Browne, was also admitted to practice
on the 2d inst. on motion of Mr. Browne.
Mr. Wright has won high repute in his
profession, and is a valuable addition to
the Washington bar.
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY.
Schoff et al. v. H. R. Hobart et al.
In Chancer!/.
THE EVENING MAIL COMPANY ITS BY
LAWS construedthe right of its
SHAREHOLDERS TO VOTE DEFINEDTHE
GENERAL STATUTE IN REFERENCE TO
CORPORATIONS CONSTRUED.
1. Right of Shareholder to Vote.That the
6th section of the statute under which this corpo
ration was organized provides that each stock
holder shall be entitled to one vote for each share
of stock held by him, and under this provision
eacli stockholder is entitled to vote, whether he
has paid up his stock or not. and any by-law pre
venting this is in conflict with the statute.
2. Signing the By-Laws.That a stockholder
cannot be prevented from voting because he did
not sign the by-laws, as there is no provision in the
statute which compels him to sign the by-laws in
order to vote.
3. Provision not to BecomeBah..That the pro
vision in the by-laws that no shareholder shall in
dorse or go bail, etc., is in conflict with the statute.
4. The equities of the bill being denied by the
answer, the court dissolves the injunction.Ed.
Legal News.
Opinion of the court by Williams, J.
There are a great number of griev
ances alleged in this bill, the remedies
for most of which would certainly be bv
a writ of quo warranto. Admit that all
the misconduct had occurred in refer
ence to this election of directors, which,
it is claimed by the bill, made the elec
tion fraudulent and illegal, it could be
remedied by that writ. This remark
applies, probably, to at least two thirds
of the allegations which are contained
in this very extended bill.
It may be true that there are certain
allegations in this bill which would give
a court of equity jurisdiction. If there
are any allegations which would give a
court of equity jurisdiction, they are the
allegations in regard to the sale of this
stock to Willard ; and the course which
it was alleged in the bill was about to be
taken by the present directors in refer
ence to the injury to the stock of the
complainants.
I think those really are all the allega
tions which, in any event, could give a
court of equity jurisdiction in this case.
Everything else would be met and rem
edied by the writ of quo warranto.
In regard to this Willard stock, it is said
that Willard had no right to vote upon

it for the reason that the amount provi

ded by the by-laws was not paid up, and
that Willard' had never signed the by
laws.
That raises the question whether there
was an obligation on the part of any
shareholder to sign these bv-laws.
I shall not go through all tliese by-laws.
There are many of them, and they con
tain many provisions. I shall refer toonly one or two, which, it seems to me,
are material in the case. At the close of
section four of article four there is this,
provision :
"They (that is, the directors) may de
clare dividends, fix the rate of compen
sation for all employees, prescribe rules
for the government of even' department
of the company's business, make assess
ments on the capital stock, pro rata, not
to exceed twenty-five dollars per share,
in addition the first instalment of fifty
per cent, which is to be paid in cash
forthwith or before repaesentation, and
no expense shall be incurred requiring
an assessment."
The question then arises, whether it
was necessary that the stock should be
paid up to the extent of fifty per cent, in
order to entitle the party to vole ; for
that I understood to be the purport of
this section. It cannot be denied by any
one who has at all investigated the law
upon this subject, that a by-law which is
repugnant to the charter is void. And
if this by-law is not in accordance with
the charter under which this corporation
is acting, then it is not binding upon
the parties in interest.
The sixth section of the act in regard
to manufacturing, mining and chemical
corporations, under which this corpora
tion was organized, provides that each
stockholder shall be entitled to one vote
for each share of stock held by him, and
those persons receiving the greatest
number of votes shall be directors. This
is a section relating to the annual elec
tion of directors; and it is to the annual
election of directors, or to the election of
directors, that the allegations in this bilL
are pointed.
The statute prescribes, therefore, that
each stockholder shall be entitled to one
vote ; and I understand that in the ab
sence of any direct provisions of the
statute, he "is entitled to that vote
whether he has paid up his stock or not.
Such certainly is the law as has been re
peatedly decided by our American
courts; and I see no reason why it
should not be held to be the law govern
ing this case. There is no provision in
the statute which indicates that it must
all be paid up stock in order to permit
the stockholder to vote ; if he is a holder
of the stock and complies with the pro
visions of the statute, that is enough.
The question, then, is whether at this
time Willard was a holder of the stock;,
if so, he was entitled to vote.
But it is said that he was bound in any
event to sign the by-laws. He could not
be prevented from voting because hedid not sign the by-laws, because there
was no provision in the statute which
compelled him to sign the by-laws in
order to vote. The mere holding of
stock makes him entitled to his vote ;
and that answers the objection that he
had not signed the by-laws, and there
fore could not vote.
But there is another provision of the
by-laws which recites that "no stock
holders of this company shall indorse
any note or become bail for any one to
an amount exceeding twenty per cent,
of his shares of stack, without having
first procured the assent of the board of
directors.
That provision in the by-laws it was
noi necessary that any one should sign ;
is was interpolating something that the
statute certainly had never for a moment
contemplated. The directors in this
case had no right to determine what
these stockholders should do outside of
the corporation ; they might sign as
many notes as they pleased..
And these bv-laws were a whole. Sup
pose they had been presented to each
one of the stockholders, and they re
quested to sign, and they had seen that
provision and said, " In consequence of
that provision I refuse to sign." No
court would hold that it was an improper
refusal on their part; the by-laws had
interpolated into them< provisions which
were repugnant to the charter in this
case, and which the charter never pro
vided for, and there was no obligation
on the part of any stockholder to sign
such by-laws. His right to vote was just

Chicago
as perfect whether \c S1gned them or
not ; and he had a right to refuse to sign
them.
But this allegation that the by-laws
existed at the time of the holding of this
election for directors, and had been pre
sented to the defendants in this case, is
denied by the answer. The answer al
leges that these by-laws were not in ex
istence, and were not presented to the
parties at the time. So that even sup
posing the law to be different from what
I suppose, the matter of fact is denied
by the answer, and that denial negatives
the allegations in the bill in that regard.
Mr. Willardhadthe right to vote at this
election, provided he was a holder of
stock. Now, was he a holder of stock ?
It is alleged in the bill that he was not a
holder of stock in a legal sense, because
the stock was held in escrow (that is vir
tually the allegations of the bill) by Mr.
Hobart, and had never been delivered to
Mr. Willard. Thatalso isdenied by the
answer. The answer alleges that this
stock was delivered to Mr. Wellard, and
was held by Mr. Willard in his own
right at the time when this election was
had.
The only remaining point that is nec
essary for me to consider is the allega
tion of the bill that these new directors
were going on to assess illegally and im
properly, the stock of the complainants
in this case. Supposing they were? I
imagine there might be a remedy out
side of chancery.
But, perhaps, it may be said that a
proper and more complete remedy in a
case of that kind, would be by the in
terposition of a court of chancery. Here
again, however, the allegation isdenied;
the answer sets up that nothing of the
kind is contemplated, and I must receive,
for the purposes of this motion, the an
swers as true on this point.
In short, it may be said in regard to
almost every allegation of this bill, that
there is a complete remedy at law for
the alleged wrongs which have been
done the complainants, if any have been
done ; and that as to these allegations
which were made in reference to the
Willard stock, and this further allegation
of what the new directors are designing
or threatening to do, which are the only
allegations that would lead a court of
equity to entertain jurisdiction, these
allegations are all denied by the answer.
The affidavits in this case are filed
about as plentifully, perhaps, on oneside
as upon the other ; and the equities of
the case must be decided writh reference
to the bill and the answer, Pounstone's
affidavit would not, certainly, after what
has transpired in my presence, have very
great influence upon me in this decision.
For any influence it could exert on me,
it would, perhaps, be just as well if his
affidavit was not upon the record here at
all.
Deciding this case upon the bill and
answer, and the affidavit, it seems to me
that the only equity of this bill is fully
denied by the answer, and that the de
fendants are entitled to a dissolution of
the injunction ; and I shall therefore en
ter such an order.
Tiios. S. M. McClelland and Hon.
W. C. Goudy, for defendants.
E. W. Evans and H. L. & F. S. Os
borne for complainants.
Through the courtesy of J. D. Howland, clerk at Indianapolis, we have re
ceived the following opinion :
U. S. DISTRICT COURT, D. OF IN
DIANA.
In re William Carter, a Bankrupt.
ACT OF BANKRUPTCYFRAUDULENT PREF
ERENCEFAILURE TO PAY COMMERCIAL
PAPER.
1. Fraudulent
Preference.The
what
constitutes a fraudulent
preference,question,
consid
ered.
2. Commercial Paper Defined.The court
states what is commercial paper within the mean
ing of the Bankrupt Law.
3. Payment not Resumed in Fourteen Days.
The bankrupt, at the time the note was executed,
was not in business, and was neither a merchant,
trader or manufacturer ; but at the time the note
fell due he was engaged in buying wheat and
manufacturing and selling flour. It was therefore
claimed that the note was not commercial paper
within the meaning of clause 9, sec. 39 of the
Bankrupt Law, because when executed the bank
rupt did not belong to the class designated in that
clause ; but the court held that when a man en
ters the commercial community, as a merchant,
banker, or otherwise, he assumes all the responsi
bilities which attach to his calling, one of which
is the obligation to take care of all his commer
cial paper, whether made before or after he com
menced business, and whether given by him as
the result of his particular business or as the re
sult of some transaction not directly within the
scope of that business.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the court bv Gresham, J.
This is a petition filed by the Hy

Legal

draulic Woolen Mill Company of Colum

bus, Indiana, for adjudication of bank
ruptcy against William Carter of the
same place. Three distinct acts of bank
ruptcy are charged.
First, that Carter sold and delivered
to David Aiken personal property of the
value of $000, and received a credit for
that amount upon a debt due from him
to Aiken, he, Carter, being at the time
insolvent, and intending by the pay
ment to give Aiken a preference.
Second, that Carter being insolvent,
and intending to give Francis J. Crump
an unlawful preference, transferred to
him, in payment of a debt, the promis
sory note of Harvey Daily for $1000.
third, that Carter, being a merchant
trader and manufacturer, suspended pay
ment of his commercial paper, and has
not resumed payment within a period
of fourteen days the said paper being
Carter's promissory note for $7000, made
at Columbus, Indiana, on the 17th June,
1870, payable in 180 days to the order of
the Hydraulic Woolen Mill Company,
at the bank of McEwen cc Sons, in the
said city of Columbus.
I think the testimony shows that at
the time, of the sale and delivery of the
personal property to Aiken, and that of
the transfer of the Daily note to Crump,
Carter was insolvent ; but it is not so
clear that in those acts he intended pre
ferences in favor of Aiken and Crump.
The question is embarrassing, and I shall
not undertake to dispose of it. It censes
to be important, inasmuch as Carter
must be adjudged a bankrupt on the
third ground specified in the petition.
Promissory notes payable to order, or
bearer, in a bank in this State, are, by
the statutes of Indiana, placed upon the
footing of inland bills of exchange.
The note described in the third ground
of bankruptcy in the petition, and put
in evidence, is therefore Carter's com
mercial paper. At the time the note
was executed he was not in business ;
he was neither merchant, trader, nor
manufacturer; but at the time the note
fell due, and the obligation to redeem
his promise to pay matured, he was the
owner of a large flouring mill and en
gaged in buying wheat, and in manufac
turing and selling flour. The precise
question thus presented has never been
passed upon by the courts, and is one of
great importance to the commercial com
munity.
It is argued with much force and ear
nestness, by counsel for the respondent,
that the note is not commercial paper
within the meaning of clause 9, sec. 39
of the Bankrupt Act, because when exe
cuted Carter did not belong to any of the
classes designated in that clause, and did
not, therefore, pledge himself to com
mercial promptness in its payment. I
am referred to these cases: In re Nickodemus, 3 B. R., 00 ; In re McDermott
Patent Bolt Man. Co., Id., 33 ; Davis v.
Armstrong, Id., 7 ; James v. Carpenter, 4
Id., 139, and In re Servenstein, 2 Id., 99,
in support of the position that the stat
ute, in naming commercial paper, means
paper given by a merchant, trader, man
ufacturer, etc., in the direct course of his
business. The authorities upon this
point are not uniform, and I am there
fore left free to follow those which seem
best supported by reason. The language
of the statute is" Who being a banker,
broker, merchant, trader, etc., has stopped
or suspended and has not resumed pay
ment of his commercial paper within a
period of fourteen days. The phrase
"commercial paper," as here employed,
was intended, it seems to me, to embrace
all paper which by usage or statute, is
brought within the custom of merchants.
I think with Judge Lowell, In re Chan
dler, 4 B. R., 66, that in saying that any
person belonging to one of certain desig
nated classes should be deemed a bank
rupt if he failed to pay his commercial
paper, Congress simply referred to a
well-known and conclusive test of in
solvency. The language of the act above
quoted is a legislative declaration of in
solvency, applied to the particular class
named on account of its relation to the
commercial world.
In the case of Davis v. Armstrong,
above cited, | Judge Hall held that the
statute extended to no one, who, at the
time he made his note, was a merchant,
but had gone out of business before it
became payable. Such a construction,
however, would not warrant the con
clusion that one who is within the
letter is not also within the meaning of
the act. To embrace the first class, the

News.

statute must be so extended as to include

persons not within its language ; while to
exclude the second class, is to adopt a
construction which saves those who are
expressly within its terms. If the con
struction for which the respondent's
counsel contend, is the true one, it be
comes necessary to inquire into the ori
gin of the debt or promise in whose
proof it is offered ; and a merchant,
trader, or manufacturer may suspend the
payment of all his commercial paper,
except such as he has executed in con
nection with his particular trade or busi
ness, and yet maintain his standing for
solvency in the commercial world. The
dishonor of the paper of a merchant,
trader or manufacturer, given when not
engaged in busine&s, or, if he were in
business, given in some transaction not
immediately connected with his busi
ness, is not less damaging to his commer
cial reputation than such dishonor of com
mercial paper given when in business, or
made in the regular course of that busi
ness. One affords no better test of in
solvency than the other.
When a man enters the commercial
community as a merchant, trader, banker
or otherwise, he assumes all the respon
sibilities which attach to his calling.
One of these is the obligation to take
care of all his commercial paper, whether
made before or after he commenced busi
ness ; and whether given by him as a
result of his particular business, or as the
result of some transaction not directly
within the scope of that business. The
respondent is adjudged bankrupt, and
the proper decree will be entered.
McDonald, Burteo & McDonald, for
the petitioning creditors.
Pakkeh, Harrison & Hines, for the
respondent.
RECENT WISCONSIN CASES.
Head-notes to cases heard by the Su
preme Court, at its June term, 1871.
PROPERTY OF RAILROADPERCENTAGE IN
LIEU OF TAXES.
1. Under the laws of this State which
require railway companies to pay a per
centage upon their annual income in lieu
of taxes imposed in the usual manner,
the rule that statutes exempting property
from taxation must receive the strictest
construction, does not fully apply to the
provision that the track, right of wray,
etc., " and all other property necessarily
used in operating any railroad in this
State," and belonging to any such com
pany, shall be exempt from taxation.
(Opinion by Dixon, C. J.)Milwaukee
and St. Paul Railway Co. v. Supervisors of
Crawford County.
PROPERTY EXEMPT PROM EITHER.
2. In many cases the maintenance of
inns and boarding-houses by railway
companies at their stations, for the use
of persons arriving and departing upon
their trains, seems to be necessary for
the safety and convenience of the pub
lic ; and property employed exclusively
for that purpose might be held exempt
under the statute. So intimated in a
case where proof was made of the neces
sity and utility of such railroad inn,
and of the fact that the property was not
leased, but was managed by a tenant at
sufferance of the company, to promote
its interests as a carrier of passengers.
Ib.
3. But it appearing that the inn here
in question is kept for the accommoda
tion of all persons applying to become
guests, and not merely for that of persons
arriving and departing on the company's
trains, the property is held liable to tax
ation.Pb.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
PROCEEDINGS OF.
Monday, March 18.
On motion of Mr. Causten Browne, Samuel J.
Glassey, Esq., of New York, was admitted to prac
tice as an attorney and counselor of this court.
No. 96. The Great Western Insurance Company,
plaintiff in error, v. William Thwing. In error to
the Circuit court of the United States for the Dis
trict of Massachusetts. Mr. Justice Bradley deliv
ered the opinion of the court, reversing the judg
ment of the said Circuit court, with costs, and
remanding the cause, with directions to award a
venire facia* de. novo. Dissenting, Mr. Justice Clif
ford, Mr. Justice Swayne and Mr. Chief Justice
Chase.
No. 113. Edward J. Gay and William Agar, ap
pellants, v. The United States. Appeal from the
Circuit court of the United States for the District
of Louisiana. Mr. Justice Miller delivered the

187
opinion of the court. nllirming the decree of the
said Circuit court in this cause.
No. KM. The United States, plaintiffs in error, v.
100 barrels of Distilled Spirits, etc.. John Hender
son, claimant. In error to the Circuit court of the
United States for the District of Missouri. Mr.
Justice Clifford delivered the opinion of the court,
reversing the judgment of the said Circuit court,
and remanding the cause, with instructions torender judgment for the United States. Dissenting
Mr. Justices Field and Miller.
No. 305. Edmund J. Davis, Governor, etc,, et al.,
appellants, v. John A. C. Gray, Receiver, etc. Or
dered for re-argument on printed briefs, to be filed
by the first day ol October next, on pointspecifled.
No. 133. Benoni E. Gardner, appellant, v. TheGoodyear Dental Rubber Company et al. The ar
gument of this cause was commenced by Mr. John
A. Foster, of counsel for the appellant, and con
tinued by Mr. Causten Browne for the appellees.
Tuesday, March 19.
No. 133. Benoni E. Gardner, appellant, v. The
Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company. The argu
ment of this case was continued by Mr. Causten.
Browne and Mr. B. R. Curtis, ofcounsel for the ap
pellees, and concluded by Mr. Orvillc Horwltx for
the appellant.
No. 578. The United States, plaintiffs, v. James
W. Avery et at. The argument of the motion to
dismiss tills cause for want ofjurisdiction was com
menced by Mr. Assistant Attorney General Hill in
support of the same, and continued by Mr. Henry
Stanbery in opposition thereto.
Wednesday, March 20.
On motion of Mr. Attorney General Williams,
Daniel E. Parks, Esq., of New York, was admitted
to practice as an attorney and counselor of this
court.
No. 578. The United States, plaintiffs, v. James
William Avery et al. The argument of the motion
to dismiss this cause for the want of jurisdiction
was continued by Mr. Henry Stanbery and Mr.
Reverdy Johnson in opposition thereto, and con
cluded by Mr. Attorney General Williams in favor
of the motion.
No. 134. William H. Barnes et al., plaintiffs in
error, v. The Philadelphia and Reading Railroad
Company; No. 135. William H. Barnes, et al.,
plaintiffs in error, v. The Lehigh Valley R. R. Co;
No. 136. Wm. H. Barnes, et al., plaintiffs in error, v.
The Lake Superior and Mississippi R. R. Co. ; No.
137. Wm. H. Barnes et al., plaintiffs in error, v.
The Philadelphia and Reading R. R. Co. ; No. 138.
Wm. H. Barnes, et al., plaintiffs in error, v. The
Harrisburgh, Portsmouth, Mt. Joy and Lancaster
R. R. Co. ; No. 139. Wm. H. Barnes, et. al., plain
tiffs in error, v. The Philadelphia and Trenton R.
R. Co. The argument of these causes was com
menced by Mr. Solicitor General Bristow, of coun
sel for the plaintiffs in error, and continued by
Mr. James E. Gowen for the defendants in error.
We are under obligations to Senator
Etisall, Mr. Sullivan, of the House,
and Hon. H. B.Hurd, of the Committee,
of Revision, for valuable documents.
BUSINESS NOTICES.
The law firm of J. C. & J. J. Knicker
bocker will remove to Bryan Block
about the first of May.
Jones's Forms.We will send this
volume to any address free of extra cost
upon recipt of the price, $7.50. We con
sider this a good form book.
New Law Books.Kay & Brother, of
Philadelphia, have just published Kerr
on Receivers, and have now in press a
Digest of the Statutes and Decisions on
Divorce and Alimony in the United'
States, by Wm. Hardcastle Browne, as
will be seen from their advertisement
on the 190th page of this issue.
Job Printing.We hope our readers
will not forget that we are doing all kinds
of book and job printing, with neatness
and dispatch.
To the Bar of Chicago.The Execu
tive Committee of the Chicago Law In
stitute would respectfully invite all the
members of the Institute and all mem
bers of the Chicago bar, with all other
gentlemen of the profession who may
then be in the city, to meet them at the
rooms of the Institute, in the new City
Hall, corner of La Salle and Adams.;
streets, on Saturday, March 30, 1872, at %
o'clock p. m. A report of the present
condition of the Institute will be pre
sented, and other matters of importance
considered. All are most cordially in
vited to attend.
By order of the Committee.
Elliott Anthony, PresidentCnARLEs M. Sturges, Secretary.

Chicago
OFFICIAL.
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,
Pasted at Hie Second Session of the FortySecond Congress.
Continued from page 185.
retary of the Interior, whose duty it
shall be, as soon as practicable, to make
and publish such rules and regulations
as he may deem necessary or proper for
the care and management of the same.
Such regulations shall provide for the
preservation, from injury or spoliation,
of all timber, mineral deposits, natural
curiosities, or wonders within said park,
and their retention in their natural con
dition. The Secretary may, in his dis
cretion, grant leases for building pur
poses for terms not exceeding ten years,
of small parcels of ground, at such
places in said park as shall require the
erection of buddings for the accommo
dation of visitors ; all of the proceeds of
said leases, and all other revenues that
may be derived from any source con
nected with said park, to be expended
under his direction in the management
of the same, and the construction of
roads and bridle-paths therein. He
shall provide against the wanton de
struction of the fish and game found
within said park, and against their cap
ture or destruction for the purpose of
merchandise or profit. He shall also
cause all persons trespassing upon the
same after the passage of this act to be
removed therefrom, and generally shall
be authorized to take all such measures
as shall be necessary or proper to fully
carry out the objects and purposes of
this act.
Approved, March 1, 1872.
[General natureNo. 17.]
AN ACT to constitute Shreveport, in the Slate of
Louisiana, a port ot delivery.
Be it enacted by the Senate aud House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer
ica in Congress assembled, That Shreve
port, in the State of Louisiana, shall be,
and is hereby, constituted a port of de
livery, within the collection district of
New Orleans ; and there shall be ap
pointed a deputy collector of customs,
to reside at said port, who shall receive
a salary to be determined by the secre
tary of the treasury, not exceeding fif
teen hundred dollars per annum.
Approved, March 1, 1872.
[General natureNo. 18.]
AN ACT to authorize the construction of a bridge
across the Missouri river, at or near St. Joseph,
Missouri.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatices of the United States of'Amer
ica
in Congress
it shall
be
lawful
for ' Theassembled,
St. JosephThat
Bridge
Build
ing Company," a corporation organized
for that purpose under the general cor
poration laws of the State of Missouri, to
construct a bridge across the Missouri
river at or near Saint Joseph, Missouri,
and to lay on and over said bridge rail
way tracks for the more perfect connec
tion of any and all railways that are now
or which may hereafter be constructed
to the Missouri river at or near Saint
Joseph, or to the river on the opposite
side of the same, near Saint Joseph ; and
build, erect, and lay on and over said
bridge ways for wagons, vehicles of all
kinds, and for the transit of animals,
and to provide ways for foot-passengers,
and to keep up, maintain, and operate
said bridge for the purposes aforesaid ;
and that when said bridge is construct
ed, all trains of all railroads terminating
at said river, and on the opposte side
thereof, at or near Saint Joseph, Mis
souri, shall bo allowed to cross said
bridge for reasonable compensation, to
be made to the owners of the same, un
der the limitations and conditions here
after named. The owners of said bridge
may also charge and receive reasonable
compensation or tolls for the transit over
the said bridge of all wagons, carriages,
vehicles, animals, and foot-passengers.
Sec. 2. That any bridge built under
the provisions of this act may, at the
option of person or persons, or corpora
tion building the same, be built as a
drawbridge, with a pivot or other form
of draw, or with unbroken or continuous
spans: Provided, That if the same shall
be made of unbroken continuous spans,
it shall not be of less elevation in any
case than fifty feet above extreme high
water mark, as understood at the point of
location, to the bottom chord of the
bridge, nor shall the spans of said bridge
be less than three hundred and fifty feet
in length, and the piers of said bridge
shall be parallel with the current of the

Legal

News.

river, and the main span shall be over not intended for sale, shall be admitted lies," be, and the same is hereby, re
the main channel of the river and not free of duty, under such rules and regu pealed.
less than three hundred feet in length : lations as the Secretary of the Treasury
Approved, March 5, 1872.
And provided also, That if a bridge shall shall prescribe : Provided, That bonds
bo built under this act as a drawbridge, shall be given for the payment to the
[General natureNo. 24.]
the same shall be constructed as a pivot United States of such duties as are now AN ACT to amend section thirty-live of an act
drawbridge, with a draw over the main imposed by law upon any and all of such entitled "An act to reduce internal taxes, and
for other purposes."
channel of the river at an accessible and articles as shall not be re-exported with
Be it enacted by the Senate, and House of
navigable point, and with spans of not in six months after such importation.
Representatives of tlie United Stales ofAmer
less than one hundred and sixtv feet in
Approved, March 5, 1872.
ica in Congress assembled, That the priv
length in the clear on each side of the
ileges of the act entitled " An act to re
central or pivot pier of the draw, and
[General natureNo. 20.]
internal taxes, and for other pur
the next adjoining spans to the draw AN ACT transferring certain powers and duties to duce
the Department ol Justice, and providing a seal poses," approved July fourteen, eighteen
shall not be less than two hundred and therefor.
hundred and seventy, be, and are here
fifty feet ; and said spans shall not bo less
Be il enacted by the Senate and House of by, extended to the "port of Toledo, in
than thirty feet above low-water mark, Representatives
of the United States of the State of Ohio.
and not less than ten feet above extreme America in Congress
assembled, That all
Approved, March 3, 1872.
high-water mark, measuring to the bot and singular the powers
conferred and
tom chord of the bridge, and the piers duties enjoined by existing
laws upon CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES
of said bridge shall be parallel with the the Secretary of the Interior relating
OF AMEltICA AND THE UNITED STATES OF
of the Duration of the
current of the river: And provided also, the imprisonment or discharge of conto MEXICOExtension
Joint Commission for Settlement of Claims.
That said draw shall bo opened prompt victed offenders against the laws of the Signed
April 19. 1871; Ratified December 15.
ly, upon reasonable signal, for the pass United States, or to the reform school 1871; Exchanged February' 8, 1872; Proclaimed
8, 1872.
age of boats whose construction shall and
jail in the District of Columbia, be, ByFebruary'
the President of the United States
not be such as to admit of their passage and the
same
are
hereby,
transferred
to
of America,
ainder the permanent spans of said the Department of Justice.
a proclamation.
bridge, except when trains are passing
Sec.
2.
That
the
seal
heretofore
pro
Whereas
a
convention between the
over the same, but in no ease shall un vided for the office of the Attorney-Gen
necessary delay occur in opening the eral shall be the seal of the Department United States of America and the United
said draw during or after the passage of of Justice, with such change in the de States of Mexico was concluded and
trains: And provided further, That the vice as the President of the United States signed by their respective plenipotentia
at the city of Mexico, on the nine
corporation building said bridge may, if shall
approve, and all books, papers, doc ries,
teenth
day of April, in the year of our
not unauthorized by the provisions of uments,
records in said Department Lord one
thousand eight hundred and
its charter of incorporation, enter upon of Justiceand
be copied and certified seventy-one, for extending the time lim
the banks of said river, either above or under seal may
the same manner as those ited by the convention between the two
below the point of the location of said in the Statein Department,
and with the countries of the 4th of July, 1868, for the
bridge, for a distance of seven miles, same force and effect.
termination of the proceedings of the
and erect and maintain breakwaters or
Approved, March 5, 1S72.
joint commission provided for by the
use such other means as may be neces
latter instrument ; which convention, be
sary to make a channel for said river,
NatureNo. 21.]
ing in the English and Spanish lan
and confine the flow of the water to a AN ACT[General
suplementary to the act entitled "An act guages, is word for word as follows :
permanent channel, and to do whatever to prevent
the extermination of fur-bearing an
Whereas a convention was concluded
imals in Alaska."
may be necessary to accomplish said ob
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of on the 4th day of July, 1868, between
ject, but shall not impede or obstruct the
the
United States of America and the
navigation of the said river ; and all Rejtresentatives of the United States of Amer
plans for such works or erections upon ica in Congress assembled, That the Sec United States of Mexico, for the settle
the banks of the river shall first be sub retary of the Treasury be, and he is here ment of outstanding claims that have
mitted to the Secretary of War for his by, authorized to appoint one agent and originated since the signing of the t reaty
three assistant agents, who shall be of Guadalupe Hidalgo, on the 2d of Feb
approval.
Sec. 3. That any bridge built under charged with the management of the ruary, 1848, by a mixed commission lim
this act, and according to its limitations, seal fisheries in Alaska, and the perform ited to endure for two years and six
shall be a lawful structure, and shall be ance of such other duties as may be as months from the day of the first meet
recognized and known as a post-route, signed to tliem by the Secretary of the ing of the commissioners ; and whereas
upon which, also, no higher charge shall Treasury ; and the said agent shall re doubts have arisen as to the practicabil
be made for the transmission over the ceive the sum often dollars each day, one ity of the business of the said commis
same of the mails, the troops, and the assistant agent the sum of eight dollars sion being concluded within the period
munitions of war of the United States each day, and two assistant agents the assigned :
The President of the United States of
than the rate per mile paid for their sum of six dollars each day while so em
transportation over the railroads or pub ployed ; and they shall also be allowed America and the President of the United
lic highways leading to the said bridge. their necessary traveling expenses in States of Mexico are desirous that the
Sec. 4. That in case of any litigation going to and returning from Alaska, for time originally fixed for the duration of
arising from any obstruction, or alleged which expenses vouchers shall be pre the said commission should be extended,
obstruction, to the free navigation of the sented to the proper accounting officers and to this end have named plenipoten
Missouri river, at or near the crossing of the treasury, and such expenses shall tiaries to agree upon the best mode of
of said bridge, and caused or alleged to not exceed in the aggregate six hundred effecting this object, that is to say : The
be caused thereby, the cause shall be dollars each in any one year: Provided, President of the United States of Amer
commenced and tried in the district That such agents shall never be inter ica, Thomas H. Nelson, accredited as
courts of either judicial districts of Mis ested, directly or indirectly, in any lease Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
souri or Kansas in which the said bridge of the right to take seals, nor in any pro Plenipotentiary of the United States of
or any portion of such obstruction ceeds nor profits thereof, neither as America to the Mexican Republic ; and
the President of the United States of
touches ; and the right to alter or amend owner, agent, partner, or otherwise.
this act so as to prevent or remove all
Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Mexico, Manuel Azpiroz, Chief Clerk
material obstructions to the navigation Treasury be, and he is hereby, author and in charge of the Ministry of Foreign
of said river by the construction of said ized to erect a dwelling house upon each Relations of the United States of Mexico :
bridge is hereby expressly reserved, and of the islands of St. Paul and St. George, who, after having presented their re
all such alterations, when required by for the use of said agents, the cost of spective powers, and finding them suf
law, shall be madeatthe expense of said both not to exceed six thousand dollars. ficient and in due form, have agreed
bridge company; and the plan on which
Sec. 3. That the said agents be, and upon the following articles :
Article I.
such bridge is intended to be built, and they are hereby, empowered to adminis
The high contracting parties agree
shall be built, shall be first submitted to ter oaths in all cases relating to the ser
that
the
term
assigned
in the convention
and approved by the Secretary of War. vice of the United States, and to take tes
Sec. "). That the Saint Joseph Bridge timony in Alaska for the use of the gov of the 4th of July, 1868, above referred
Building Company, after the passage of ernment in any matter concerning the to, for the duration of the said commis
sion, shall be extended for a time not
this act, shall not have the right to as public revenues.
exceeding one year from the day when
sign the charter which said company
Approved, March 5, 1872.
the functions of the said commission
now holds by assignment from the Saint
would terminate according to the con
Joseph and Denver City Railroad Com
[General natureNo. 22.]
ACT amending the act approved July twenty- vention referred to, or for a shorter time
pany, and which was granted to said last- ANseventh,
hundred and sixty-eight, en if it should be deemed sufficient by the
named company by virtue of an act of titled " Aneighteen
act relating to pensions."
commissioners, or the umpire, in case of
Congress, approved July fourteenth,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House, of their
disagreement.
eighteen hundred and seventy, to any Representatives of the United States of Amer
It is agreed that nothing contained in
other company, person, or persons; nor ica in Congress assembled, That the second
shall said bridge building company be section of the act of Congress approved this article shall in any wise alter or ex
permitted, under the said charter so ob July twentv-seventh, eighteen hundred tend the time originally fixed in the
tained as aforesaid, from the Saint Jo and sixty-eight, entitled " An act relat said convention for the presentation of
seph and Denver City Railroad Compa ing to pensions," be amended by insert claims to the mixed commission.
Article II.
ny, to construct any other bridge than ing after the word 'commission," in
The present convention shall be rati
the one now being constructed at Saint said section, the words " or was at some
fied,
and
the
ratifications shall be ex
Joseph, Missouri.
naval station."
changed
at
Washington,
as soon as pos
Approved, March 5, 1872.
Approved, March 5, 1S72.
sible.
In witness whereof the above-men
[General natureNo. 10.]
natureNo. 23.]
tioned plenipoteutiaries.have signed the
AN ACT to provide for the admission of paintings, AN ACT[General
to
repeal
the
paragraphs
of
Schedule
C
statuary, and photographs for exhibition free of of the internal revenue nets imposing taxes on same and affixed their respective seals.
duly.
canned meats, fish, and certain other articles.
Done in the city of Mexico the 10th
Be, it enacted by the Senate and House of Beit enacted by the Senate and House of
of April, in the year one thousand
Representatives of the United States of Amer Representatives of the United States of Amer day
eight
seventy-one.
ica in Congress assembled, That all paint ica in Congress assembled, That from and [seal.]hundred andThomas
II. Nelson,
ings, statuary, and photographic pictures after the passage of this act so much of [seal.]
Manuel
Azpiroz.
imported into the United States for exhi Schedule C of tne internal revenue acts
And
whereas
the
said
convention
bition by any association duly authorized as imposes a tax on any "can, bottle, or been duly ratified on both parts, and has
the
underthelawsof the United States orany other single package containing meats, respective ratifications of the same have
State for the promotion and encourage fish, shell-fish, fruits, vegetables, sauces, been exchanged :
ment of science, art, or industry, and sirups, prepared mustard, jams, or jel
Now, therefore, be it known that I,

Chicago
Ulysses 8. Gravt, 17,^U\nt of tlie
United States of. Ame*>Y' "ave caused
the said convention to be made public,
to the end that the same, and every
clause and article thereof, may be ob
served and fulfilled with good faith by
the United States and the citizens there
of.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto
set my hand, and caused the seal of the
United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this
eighth day of February, in the year of
our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and seventy-two, and of the In[seai .J dependence of the United Stales
of America the ninety-sixth.
U. 8. Grant.
By the President:
Hamilton Fish,
Secretary of State.
CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMKKICA AND SWED
EN AND NORWAY,Naturalization.Signed
May .Hi, 1869; Ratified December 17. 1870; Exchangi'd June 14, 1S71 ; Proclaimed January 12,
1872.
By the President of the United States
op America,
a proclamation.
Whereas a convention and protocol
between the United States of America
and His Majesty the King of Sweden
and Norway were concluded and signed
by their respective Plenipotentiaries, at
the city of Stockholm, on the twentysixth day of May, 18(ilJ, which conven
tion and protocol as amended by the
Senate of the United States, and being
in the English and Swedish languages,
are word for word as follows :
The President of the United States of
America and His Majesty the King of
Sweden and Norway, led by the wish to
regulate the citizenship of t hose persons
who emigrate from the United States of
America to Sweden and Norway and
their dependencies and territories, and
from Sweden and Norway to the United
States of America, have resolved to treat
on this subject, and have for that purpose
appointed Plenipotentiaries to conclude
a convention, that is to say : The Pres
ident of the United States of America,
Joseph J. Bartlett, Minister Resident ;
and His Majesty the King of Sweden
and Norway, Count Charles Wachtmeister, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs ;
who have agreed to and signed the fol
lowing articles :
Art. I.
Citizens of the United States of Amer
ica who have resided in Sweden or Nor
way for a continuous period of at leat
five years, and during such residence
have become and are lawfully recogniz
ed as citizens of Sweden or Norway,
shall be held by the government of the
United States to be Swedish or Norwe
gian citizens, and shall be treated as
such.
Reciprocally, citizens of Sweden or
Norway who have resided in the United
States of America for a continuous peri
od of at least five years, and during such
residence have become naturalized cit
izens of the United States, shall be held
by the government of Sweden and Nor
way to be American citizens, and shall
be treated as such.
The declaration of an intention to be
come a citizen of the one or the other
country has not for either party the
effect of citizenship legally acquired.
Art. II.
A recognized citizen of the one party,
on returning to the territory of the other,
remains liable to trial and punishment
for an action punishable by the laws of
his original country and committed be
fore his emigration, but not for the em
igration itself, saving always the limita
tion established by the laws of his orig
inal country and any other remission of
liability to punishment.
Art. III.
If a citizen of the one party, who has
become a recognized citizen of the other
party, takes up his abode once more in
his original country and applies to be
restored to his former citizenship, the
government of the last-named country is
authorized to receive him again as a cit
izen, on such conditions as the said gov
ernment may think proper.
Art. iv.
The convention for the mutual de
livery of criminals, fugitives from jus
tice, in certain cases, concluded between
the United States on the one pari, and
Sweden and Norway on the other part,
the 21st March, 1860, remains in force
without change.

Legal

Art. v.
The present convention shall go into
effect immediately on the exchange of
ratifications, and shall continue in force
for ten years. If neither party shall
have given the other six months' pre
vious notice of its intention then to ter
minate the same, it shall further remain
in force until the end of twelve months
after either of the contracting parties
shall have given notice to the other of
such intention.
Art. vi.
The present convention shall be rati
fied by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate of the
United States, and by his Majesty the
King of Sweden and Norway; and the
ratifications shall be exchanged at
Stockholm within twenty-four months
from the date hereof.
In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries
have signed and sealed this convention.
Stockholm, May 2ti, 1809.
[seal.]
Joseph J. Bartlett,
[seal.]
C. Wachtmeister.
PROTOCOL.
DONE AT STOCKHOLM, MAY 26, 1860.
The undersigned met to-day to sign
the convention agreed upon in conform
ity with their respective full powers, re
lating to the citizenship of those persons
who emigrate from the United States of
America to Sweden and Norway, and
from Sweden and Norway to the United
States of America; on which occasion
the following observations, more exactly
defining and explaining the contents of
this convention, were entered in the
following protocol :
I. Relating to the first article of the
convention.
It is understood that if a citizen of
the United States of America has been
discharged from his American citizen
ship, or, on the other side, if a Swede or
a Norwegian has been discharged from
his Swedish or Norwegian citizenship,
in the manner legally prescribed by the
government of his original country, and
then in the other country in a rightful
ami perfectly valid manner acquires
citizenship, then an additional five years'
residence shall no longer be required ;
but a person who has in that manner
been recognized as a citizen of the other
country shall, from the moment thereof,
be held and treated as a Swedish or
Norwegian citizen, and, reciprocally, as
a citizen of the United States.
II. Relating to the second article of
the convention.
If a former Swede or Norwegian, who
under the first article is to be held as an
adopted citizen of the United States of
America, has emigrated after he has at
tained the age when he becomes liable
to military service, and returns again to
his original country, it is agreed that he
remains liable to trial and punishment
for an action punishable by the laws of
his original country and committed be
fore his emigration, but not for the act
of emigration itself, unless thereby have
been committed any punishable action
against Sweden or Norway, or against a
Swedish or Norwegian citizen, such as
non-fulfillment of military service, or
desertion from the military force or from
a ship, saving always the limitation es
tablished by the laws of the original
country, and any other remission of lia
bility to punishment ; and that he can
be held to fulfill, according to the laws,
his military service, or the remaining
part thereof.
III. Relating to the third article of
the convention.
It is further agreed that if a Swede
or Norwegian, who has become a natu
ralized citizen of the United States, re
news his residence in Sweden or Norway
without the intent to return to America,
he shall be held by the Government of
the United States to have renounced his
American citizenship.
The intent not to return to America
may be held to exist when the person
so naturalized resides more than two
years in Sweden or Norway.
[seal.]
Joseph J. Bartlett.
[seal.]
C. Wachtmeister.
And whereas the said convention and
protocol as amended have been duly rat
ified on both parts, and the respective
ratifications of the same were exchanged
at Stockholm on the fourteenth day of
June, in the year one thousand eight
hundred and seventy-one, by C. C. An
drews, Minister Resident of the United
States, and Count C.Wachtmeister, Min
ister of State for Foreign Affairs of His

News.

Majesty the King of Sweden and Nor

way ;
And whereas the Senate, by their res
olution of the eighth instant (two-thirds
of the Senators present concurring), did
advise and consent to the said exchange,
notwithstanding said exchange was de
layed beyond the time appointed there
for, and resolved that the said exchange
may be regarded as valid as if it had
taken place within the time mentioned
in the resolution of the Senate on the
subject, of the 9th of December, 1870:
Now, therefore, be it known that I,
Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United
States of America, have caused the said
convention and protocol to be made pub
lic, to the end that the same, and every
clause and article thereof, may be ob
served and fulfilled with good faith by
the United States and the citizens
thereof.
In witness whereof I have hereunto
set my hand and caused the seal of the
United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this
twelfth day of January, in the
year of our Lord one thousand
[seal.] eight hundred and seventytwo, and of the Independence
of the United S'ates of Amer
ica the ninety-sixth.
U. S. Grant.
By the President :
Hamilton Fish,
Secretary of State.
HIGH & TRUMAN,
Atturittw. 1"'J Wabarh Avenue.
CIHANCERY NotflCE.-Stateof Illinois, County of
' LV.uk. ss. Superior court of Cook county. April
Term, A. 1). Is72. Etniua Fiatamni v. Anglo l'iatearoui.In
Chancery.
AlliUavit above
of thenamed,
non-residence
of Angelo
defendant
having been
tiled in Kiataroui,
the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice in hereby given to the paid Angela Kiataroni,
that
filedside
her thereof,
hill of complainttheincomplainant
said court, onheretofore
the chancery
and
that u summon;* thereupon issued out of said court
again.-t said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of April next, U*7-l, as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Angclu Fiataroni, shall
personally
be and
appear
beforeof said
Superior
Cook county^
on the
tirst day
a term
thereof,court
to beof
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of
, 1872, and bill
plead,
answer orthedemur
lo the
saidApril
complainant's
ofcomplaint,
same, and
the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will tie
taken as confessed, and a decree entered agaiust you
according to the praver of said bill.
JAC0BS0N. Clerk.
Hinn k Trcmas. AUGUSTUS
Comp'ts sol'rs.
24-27
S. M. DAVIS,
Attorney, .'*) Wert Randolph Street.
PUBLICATION
IN ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois.NOTICK
Cook county,
bs. Circuit court
of Cook county. May Term, A.D. 1872. Andrew Pear
son v. J. U. Jackson.
Is hereby givenissued
to theoutsaidof .1. 11. Jack
sonPublic
that anotice
writ ofattachment
the office of
the clerk ol the Circuit court of Cook county, dated
the tirst day of February, A, D. 187'-', at the suit of the
said Andrew Pearson and against the estate of
J. K. Jackson for the sum of live hundreii;dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook county, which
said
writtherefore,
has beenunless
returned
Now,
you,executed.
the said J. R. Jackson
shall personally be and appear before the said Cir
cuit
court
of
Cook
county,
on
before atthethe
tirstcourt
day
of the next term thereof, to boorholden
house, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of
Slay. A. D. 1872, give special bail and plead to the said
plaintiffs
bo entered
you,
and inaction,
favor judgment
of the saidwill
Andrew
Pearsonagainst
and so
much of the property attached as may be sufficient lo
satisfy the said judgment and costs' will be sold to
satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
^5^M. DAVts^AtPy.
24-27_
OMAR BUSHNELL,
GC. Wert Randolph Street.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-Statc of Illinois, County of
^ Cook, ss. Superior Court or Cook County, To
April
Term, A. P.,Chancery.
1872. Harmon Maring v, Sarah
Jane Maring.In
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of Sarah!Jane
defendant above named, having been
tiled in theMuring,
office of
the
clerk
of
said
Superior
court
of
Cook
is hereby given to the said Sarah Janecounty,
Marine,notice
that
the complainant heretofore tiled his bill of complaint
iu said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
a summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the tirst Monday ot April
next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Sarah Jane Maring, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook
on the intirstsaiddaycounty,
of a term
thereof,
to be
holdencounty,
at Chicago,
on the
first Mon
day of April, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and tho
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JAC0BS0N. Clerk.
Omar Bi.'shnem., Compl'Cs Sol'r.
24-27
GEORGE 8COVILLE,
l Clinton Street.
CHANCERY NOTiCE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county, April
term, A.D. 1872. George W. Lay, Jr. and John R.
Brown v. Mueller,
Frederick
Mahem.
Christoph
LeonMartens,
Strauss, Wilhelm
Philip Schwab
and
The unknown heirs-at-law of Louis Frederick August
Koester.In
Chancery.
Affidavit that the names of the heirs-at-law of Louis
Frederick August Koester, named among tho defend
ants above, are unknown to said complainant*,
having
been filed
in county,
the officenotice
of theis clerk
said
Circuit court
of Cook
herebyofgiven
to the said The unknown heirs-at-law of Louis Fred
erick August Koester that the complainant* hereto
fore
filed their
bill of complaint
said court,
on the
chancery
side thereof,
and that a insummons
thereupon
issued out of said court against said defendant, re
turnable on the third Monday of April next, (1872,) as
is Now,
by lawunless
required.
you, the Baid The unknown heirsat-law of Louis Frederick August Koester shall
rersonally bo and appear before said Circuit court of
ook county,
on thein first
of a on
termthethereof,
to be
holden
at Chicago,
said day
county,
third Mon
day of April, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to tho
said
complainants1
of complaint,
the stated,
same, and
matters
and things bill
therein
charged and
willthe
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
George Scoville, CouiprtsSol'r.
24-27

189
HOWE & RUSSELL,
AtUtriltm, 47.) WitlMiKli Avenue.
rpRUSTEE's SALE Whereas, George Si hniitt and
J. Theresiu Sclmiilt. his wile, and George Anton
Bender, unmarried,
delivered
the un
dersigned,
as trustee,executed
a deed ofandtrust
of thelopremises
hereinafter mentioned, dated the twenty -first day ol
Jauuai > . A. 1). INi*. and recorded in the Recorder's
office of Cook county. State ot Illinois, in hook 421 of
deeds,
on page
whichofsaid
deed ofpromissory
trust was given
to secure
the payment
a certain
note,
bearing
date
the
21st
day
of
January,
11. IHxS,Anton
exe
cuted by the said George Schmitt and A.
George
Bender, and payable to the order of themselves, three
yearn
the dale
thereof,
the principal
of
three after
thousand
dollars,
w ith for
interest
after due sum
at the
rate of leu per centum per annum, and also six other
certain promissory notes of the same date, each paya
ble to theBender,
order ofrespectively,
the .aid George
Schmitt
Gcorgo
Anton
in six.
twelve,andeighteen,
twenty-four, thirty and thiriy-six months after the
date thereof, each for the sum of one hundred and fifty
dollars, beiim the u nut of semi-annual interest in
stallment
the note
first above
at the rate on
of ten
per centum
perdescribed,
annum, allcomputed
payable
at the office of Greetibaum and foreman, Chicago, Illi
nois.
And, whereas, default has been made in the rayment
ol thetogether
said tirst-iueiitiuiied
notethereon
of threesince
thousand
dol
lars,
with lb.' interest
tlio loth
day
of
June.
A.
ll.
1871,
ami
the
same
are
unpaid
;
and.
whereas, it is provided in said deed of trust that in
case default be inaoe in the payment of said notes or
ofany then,
part thereof,
according
any
eitherand
of them
to theor tenor
effect orthereof,
on application
of
the legal holder of said notes, it shall he lawful lor the
said
trustee,
bis
heirs,
or
successors
iu
trust,
after
pub
lishing a notice of sale In a newspaper printed in the
city ol Chieai:o twenty days before the day of Bale, to
sell said premises, and all the right, title and equity of
redemption of the said George Schmitt and Tneresia
Schmitt
and George Anton
Bender, their
heirs,
tors, administrators
and assigns,
therein,
at execu
public
auction, at the north door of the court house, m tho
city of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, to the highest
bidder for cash : lo make, execute and deliver to the
purchaser or purchasers a deed or deed of the promises,
so sold ; and, whereas, application has been made to
me, the undersigned, by the legal holder of said firstmentioned
threepaid),
thousand
tthe six
other notes note
havini;ofbeen
to sell dollars
the premises
in
said deed of trust mentioned, for the purposes therein
specified; now, therefore, by virtue of the power
and authority in me vested by said deed of trust,
I, the uudersigned. as trustee, will sell at 111
o'clock
a.north
m., door
on thoof16th
April. A. D.in 1872,
at
the day
old ofofcourt
citythe
of Chicago,
in the county
Cook,house,
and State tho
of
Illinois, at pulilic auciion. for the highest and best
price the same will U iug in cash, the premises in said
deed of trust, described, lowit: The east half of tho
south half of lot fifteen (15), in block two (2). in Shef
field's addition to Chicago, in the county of Cook, and
State
of Illinois,thereunto
togetherbelonging
with all or
andin singular
hereditaments
any wise the
ap
pertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remain
der and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof,
and all the . state, right, title, interest, dower, right of
dower, equity of redemption, property, possession,
claim and demand whatsoever, as well in law as in
equity, of the said George Schmitt, Theresia Schmitt
and
Anton Bender,
theirpart
heirsthereof.
and assigns, in
and George
to said premises
and every
GERHARD FOREMAN, Trustee.
Howe A RrssELL, Attorneys.
24-27
I'STATE
OF
MICHAEL
FELTKN
[alias)
FILi TEN, deceased. Notice is hereby given to all per
sons having claims and demands against tho estate of
Michael Felten [alias , Filten, deceased, to presentthe
same for adjudication and settlement at a regular
term of the County court of Cook county, to be hold
en at the court house in tho city of Chicago, on the
first Monday of May, A. I). 1872, being the sixth day
thereof. HUBERT KEIPINGER, Administrator.
Chicago, March 18, A. D. 1872,
Theo. ScitlXTZ, Att'y.
24-29
B.
C.
COOK,
Attorney. litis Wabash Avenue.
CIHANCERY NOTICE.-Stato of Illinois, County of
J Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. April
Term,
1S72. F.Gardner
Chupin A.and
Jane L.
J.
Gore v. A.I).
Benjamin
Stafford,S. Samuel
Sargent.
C. Paine Freer, John .Marshall and Elizabeth Mar
shall.In
Affidavit chancery.
of the non-residence of Benjamin F. Staf
ford,
Samuel
A. Sar;.'ent,
John
Marshall
andbeen
Elizabeth
hied
Marshall,
defendants
above
named,
having
in the office of the clerk of said Superior court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the Baid
Benjamin F. Stafford. Samuel A. Sargent, John Mar
shall and Elizabeth Marshall, that the complainants
heretofore filed their bill of complaint iu said court,
on the chancery side thereof, and that a summons
thereupon issued out of said court against said de
fendants, returnable on the first Monday of April next
(1872,)
is by law
Now, asunless
you,required.
tlie said Benjamin F. Stafford,
Samuel
A.
Sargent,
JohnbeMarshall
and Elizabeth
shall, shall personally
and appear
before saidMar
Su
perior court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
thereof, to beholden at Chicago, in said county, on
tlie first Monday ofApril. 1S72. and plead, answer or de
mur to the said complainants' bill of complaint, the
same, and the matters and things therein charged and
stated, will
taken as toconfossed,
andofa said
decree
agaiust
youbeaccording
the prayer
bill.entered
AUGUSTUS JAC'OBSON, Clerk.
B. C. Cook, Compl'Cs Sol'r.
24-27
TRUSTEE'S SALE.Whereas. James E. Cassidy and
L'assidy,
his wife,March
by theirS, 187(1,
trustindeed,
datedMargaret
March 7.E.1S70.
nnd recorded
the
Recorder's office of Cook county, Illinois, in book 521
of deeds, paire 430 conveyed to the undersigned, Frank
R. Chandler, trustee, the following real estate in the
city
county of
Cook,
and inState
of
ofthirty
Co ' (3fi),
l!il of' Chicago
Illinois,
to wit:iuLotthe numbered
Ellis'
east addition to Chicago, situated on Langley street, in
the eastof part
said Ellis'
addition,promissory
to secure the
ment
said ofJames
E. Cassidy's
note,payof
even
date
with
said
trust
deed,
payable
to
the
order
of
the
Sullivant
live years
for the
sum ofSavings
sixteenInstitution.
thousand dollars,
withafterdate,
interest
at nine per cent, per annum, payable semi-annually,
both principal
payable
New
Hampshire,
in and
whichinterest
said trust
deedatCIareraont,
it was provided,
that in case default should bo made in the payment of
either the principal or interest of said note, ou the day
on which thesamo or either of them should become due
and payable, then all and each ot the moneys secured by
said
trust due
deedand
should,
uponandsuch
im
mediately
payable,
also,default,
that in become
case of Bucb
default, said trustee might sell and dispose of said real
estate, at public auction, at the north door of the court
house, iu the city of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, or
on said premises, as might be specified in the notice of
such sale, for the highest and best price the same
would
in cash, at least
notice
havingbring
been previously
giventwenty
of tho days'
time public
and place
of
Biich sale, by advertisement in one of the newspapers
at that time published in said city of Chicago, and
make, execute and deliver to the purchaser or pur
chasers
at suchfor
sale,
and sufficient
or deeds
of conveyance
thegood
premises
sold: and.deed
whereas,
de
fault has been made in the payment of all the interest
accruing
on
said
note
since
the
first
day
of
July,
1871,
and the holder of the same has requested the under
signed to make sale of said real estate to pay said note
and accrued interest ; now, notice is hereby given that
on Saturday,
thein sixth
day of April,
1872.
at tliepremises
hour of
eleven
o'clock
theproceed
forenoon,
andsaid
upon
aforesaid,
1 shall
to sell
realtheestate,
and
all tlieJames
right,E.title,
benefit
equity E.
of Cassidy
redemption
said
Cassidy
andand
Margaret
thereof
in,
public
to the highest bidder for cash, to
payatsaid
noteauction,
and interest.
Dated March 15.FRANK
1872. R. CHANDLER, Trustee.
23-26

190

Chicago

Legal

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
KAY & BROTHER.
Philadelphia,
HAVE JL'ST PUBLISHED
KERR

ON

RECEIVERS,

ORE TOL11IE, 8vo. 81.50,

A Treatise on the Law and Practice as to Receivers
appointed by the Court of Chancers*.
BY WILLIAM WILLIAMSON KERR,
Of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law.
With Notes and References to American
Authorities,
By Geo. TUCKER HISP1IAM, Esq.
Of the Philadelphia Bar.

IN" PRESS,
A DIGEST OF THE STATUTES AND DECISIONS
ON
DIVORCE

AND

ALIMONY

IN THE UNITED STATES,

WM. HARDCASTLE BROWNE, Esq.,
Of the Philadelphia Bur,
ONE VOLUME, S vo.

KAY & BROTHER,

Law Publishers, Booksellers and Importers,
17 and 10 Sfbutll Sixth Street.
Philadelphia.
ESTATE OF JOSEPH BROWN, DECEASED.Notice is hereby
all porsons
havingclaiins
or demands
againstgiven
the toestate
of Joseph
Brown,
deceased, and they are hereby requested to attind a
terra of the County court of the county of Cook, and
State of Illinois, to be held at the court house, in said
county, on the tirstjMontiav iu the month of May next
after the date hereof, and then and there present such
claims
for theS.purpose
of Administrator.
having the same
adjusted.or demands
WILLIAM
BKOWN,
Dated Chicago, Feb. 13, 1872.
J. H. Knowlton, Att'y19-24

LEGAL NEWS PRINTING DEPARTMENT

Briefs

& Abstracts.

The attention of Attorneys is called to our superior

acuities for printing BRIEFS and ABSTRACTS.
Our prices are:
81.85
ABSTRACTS,
1.73
Orders left either at the office of the Legal News,
115 W. Madison St., or at the Printing Office, 13 North
Jefferson St., will be promptly executed.

ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL

COURTS,
IN REGARD TO THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICES
IN THE LEGAL NEWS.
The following order was entered in
the United States District Court for the
Northern Dietrict of Illinois, on the 28th
of July last:
Ordered, that hereafter notices of
sales or other proceedings in bankruptcy
and admiralty cases pending in this
court may be published in the Chicago
Legal News with the same effect as if
published in either of the other papers
designated by the rules and orders of
this court for the publication of notices."
A similar order was also entered in
the Circuit Court in regard to notices in
that court.

ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney, IS East Harrism Street.
IN States
THE forDISTRICT
COURT
THE UNITED
the Northern
DistrictOFof Illinois.
In the
matter of Sands Ale Brewing Company, bankrupt.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to an order this
day entered in said court, I, the undersigned assignee
of the estate of said bankrupt, will sell at public auction
for
the highest
and (is)
best East
bidders,
at the street,
front
doorcash
ot tonumber
eighteen
Harrison
in the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State of
Illinois, in said district, on Saturday, the thirteenth
day of April, A. D. 1*72, commencing at ten o'clock in
the forenoon of said day, and continuing until all
the property hereinafter described shall be sold, all the
following described real estate and property, all being
in thesaid city
of Cbicagot
county
Cook, andcorner
State
of
Illinois,
to wit:
Beginning
at theofsouthwest
of lot eight (8) of John S. Vogt's subdivision of the
south
one-third
of outof lot
(20)quarter
of the ofCanal
Trustees'
subdivision
the twenty
southwest
frac
tional section three (3), in township thirty-nine (3y),
north
of
range
fourteen
(14),
east
of
third
principal
meridian; thence running north along the west line of
said lot eight (8), and along said last-mimed line pro
duced to the north line ot that part of out lot twenty
1 20), conveyed
PeterJanuary
Kantenbuger
to Peter
Goebel
by deed,bydated
2, 18.52.and
andwife
recorded
in
the recorder's office of Cook county, Illinois, February
4, 1So2, in book 45 of deeds, at page 31 1 ; thence running
east
along tosaidPeter
northGoebel
line oftosaid
as aforesaid
conveyed
the lotwestso line
of Pine
street, as the same was extended by the common coun
cil of ttic city of Chicago ; thence running along the
west line of Pine street to the north line of Pearson
street, and thence west along the north line of Pearson
street to the place of beginningsaid property having
a frontage of one hundred and sixty-seven (167) feet on
Pearson street, by a frontage of one hundred and seven
(1117) feet on Pine street, and being the property con
veyed to said Sands Ale Brewing Company by John F.
Stafford and wife and Richard McClevey (widower) by
deed dated the 26th day of January, A.D. 186,, which
deed was duly recorded in the Recorder's office of Cook
county
on atthepage
15thWi,
daytogether
of March.
in book aforesaid,
277 of deeds,
withA.D.
also1864,
the
boiler
aud
engine,
and
the
brick,
iron
and
other
debris
ofdestroyed buildings and machinery on said premises.
Also a certain leasehold estate in premises known and
described as lot fourteen (14), in tho Assessors' division
of block two (2) and lot ten (10), in the south one-third
and north two-thirds of block twenty (20), iu Canal
Trustees' subdivision of section three (3). township
thirty-nine (:iy), north of range fourteen (14), east of
third principal meridian, being the property went of
Pine street, leased to the said Sands Ale Brewing Com
pany by Albert Smeeds, by lease dated September first,
A. D. 1868said lease runs twenty-one (21) years from
said -Hh September, unci is subject to a revaluation
every five years, and said leasehold will be sold subject
to all arrearages of rents and taxes.aud all of said
premises are to be sold free and discharged of all liens
and incumbrances (taxes for 1871 excepted), according
to the provisions of said order. Also lots two (2), three
(3) and four (1). in John S. Vogt's subdivision of tho
south
of block subdivision
or out lot number
(2D), inone-third
the Canal(^i)Trustees'
of the twenty
south
west quarter of fractional section three (:t). township
thirty-nine (3tf), north range fourteen (H), east of
third
principal
Also
the east onedivision
hundred
[100]north
feet
oftwo-thirds
lot meridian.
five [;">],nfinsaid
the block,
Assessors'
the
or out lot twentyof
[20] of tho Canal Trustees' subdivision of fractional
section three [3], in township aud range aforesaid.
Also, all that part of lot seven [7], in the sui . Assessors'
division
of said;
north bounded
two-thirdsandof dese
blockibed
or out
twenty [2tiJ
aforesaid,
as follot
lows, that is to say : commencing at the northeast cor
ner of said lot seven [7], and ruuning thence south on
the east line of said lot seven [7] thirty-five and 66-10n
[35 36-11)0] feet, more or less, to the south line of said
lot
on saidone
southhundred
line ninety
[90Jseven
feet, [7J,
moreandorthence
less, towest
a point
and
ninety-six [loo] feet east of the west line of said lot
seven
[7
],
being
the
east
line
ot
Green
Bay
street,
now
called Rush street; thence northwesterly on a line
parallel with said west lino of said lot seven j7] thirtyseven
and line
7-10 of
(37 said
7-10]lot,feet,
more[7],orone
less,hundred
to a pointand
in
the north
seven
ninety-six
[l'J6]thence
feet east
seven
[7 1, aud
castofonsaid
the west
north line
line of
of said
said lot
lot
seven [7J to the place of beginning, being a portion of
the property conveyed to said Sands Ale Brewing
Company by William Lill, by deed dated the 1st day of
July,
A. D. 1868. [<>]
Also,
of the
west eighty-five
feettheof east
lot fiveforty
[ill of[401thefeet
Assessors'
division
of
the
north
two-thirds
of
block
twenty
[20]
of the Canal Trustees' subdivision of the southwest
quarter of fractional section three [3], township thir
ty-nine [39], north range fourteen [14], east of the
third principal meridian. Also, that part of said
block or out lot twenty [20] of the Canal Trustees'
subdivision of the southwest quarter of fractional sec
tion three, township and range aforesaid, described as
follows: commencing one hundred and ninety-six
[190] feet
east of aGreen
point on
east line
of Rush
street
[formerly
Baythostreet],
seventy-five
and
i-i
[75%]
feet
in
a
southerly
direction
from
the northwest corner of said block, running
thence southerly on a line parallel with the
west line of said block, thirty-seven and 7-10 [37 7-loJ,
feet
eastsubdivision
to tho westof the
linesouth
of lotone-third
two [2] of
John thence
S. Vogt's
of
out lot twenty [20J of the south-west quarter of frac
tional
section
three
\:\
\
aforesaid,
if
said
west
line
were
firoduced aud extended norththence north on Baid
[no so produced to a point due west of the placo of
beginning, thence east to the place of beginning. Also
a certain leasehold estate in lots numbered twelve and
thirteen [12 and 13] of tho assessor's division of block
number twenty [2o] in Canal trustees subdivision of
section three [3] aforesaidbeing tho properly [east of
Pine street] leased to said Sands Ale Brewing Com
pany
by Albert
Smeeds
lease datedyears
September
1st,
A.
D. 1868
; said lease
runs"bytwenty-one
from said
date, aud is subject to a re-valuation every five years
and said leasehold will be Bold subject to all arrear
ages for rents and taxesand tho iron, brick and other
debris upon said premises will be sold together with
said leaseall of said property being in the city of
Chicago, county of Cook, and State of Illinois. And
all of said property will bo sold [except as aforesaid]
free and discharged ofall encumbrances, by order ofsaid
court; and also by order ofsaid court the said lots two
[2],
three
[3] one-third
and four [1]
of John
of the
south
of said
out S,lotVogt's
twentysubdivision
[20], and
the said parts of lots five [il] and seven [71 in the said
assessors1 division of the said north two-thirds of said
lot twenty [20] with all brick, iron and other debris
thereon, will be offered for sale together in one body,
and they will
be soandsold.
And further
regarding
said sale
said property
may beparticulars
obtained
on application to the
undersigned.
ROBERT E. JENKINS.
Assignee nf Sands Ale Brewing Co.. a Bankrupt.
Chicago, March y, 1872.
2l-:7^
22-26
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.Northern District of Illi
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the
4thThe
dayundersigned
of March, A.hereby
D. 1*72.
gives notice of hi si appoint
ment
as
assignee
of
A. Stale
Shufeldt,
Jr., of Chi
cago, in the county ofGeorge
Cook, aud
of Illinois,
who
has been adjudged a bankrupt, upon his own petition,
by the District court of the United States in and for
said District.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
23-25
Ass'gnee.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the Ilth
dayTheofundersigned
March, A. D.hereby
1872. gives notice of his appoint
ment as assignee of
Jacob Engel, of Chicago, in the
county
and State
who hasbybeen
adjudgedof aCook,
bankrupt,
uponofhisIllinois,
own petition,
the
District court of tho United States, in and for said
District.
ROBERT E. JENKINS.
23-25
A^ignee.

News.

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
of Illinois.
the Stales,
matter for
of tho
Eli Northern
N. Small, District
a bankrupt.
Notice Inis
hereby given that the undersigned will on Saturday,
the 6th of April, 1872, at 10 o'clock, a. h., at No. :i8*t
Wabash Avenue, iu the city of Chicago, sell at public
auction to the highest bidder for cash, any and all inferest which the said bankrupt may have m the estate
of his mother, Evelina Small, deceased.
24-26
S. S. MERRILL. Assignee.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the I6th
dayTheof undersigned
September, A.hereby
D. 1871.gives notice of his appoint
ment as assignee of William Weitzell, of Chicago, in
the county of Cook, and State of Illinois, who has
been adjudged a bankrupt, upon his own petition, by
the
District court of the United States in and for said
District.
23-25
ROBERT E. JENKINS. Assignee.
TAISTRICT
COURT
OF THE
U. S.matter
FOR ofTHE
-L' trtct of Massachusetts.
Iu the
TheDISIn
dependent Insurance Company, bankrupt.In Bank
ruptcy.
A warrant In bankruptcy has been issued by said
court
against
the estateofofthoThecounty
Independent
Insurance
Company
of Boston,
of Suffolk,
of the
State
of
Massachusetts,
iu
said
district,
adjudged
bankrupt upou the petition of its creditors; and thea
payment
of any todebts,
the delivery
erty,
belonging
said and
bankrupt,
to it, orof toanyitsprop
use,
and the transfer of any property by it, are forbidden
by
law.
A
meeting
of
the
creditors
of
said
bankrupt,
to prove their debts, and choose one or more assignees
of
estate,
will be held
at adistrict,
court ofon bankruptcy,
be its
holden
at Boston,
in said
the 8th day toof
April, A. D. 1872, at 12 o'clock m., at the United States
court
house,
before Samuel
B. Noyes,
Registers
in Bankruptcy
of said
court. Esq., one of tho
ROLAND
G. USHER,
23^^^Tj^^IjirB2uiL^L^^
PAYNE & HAWHE,
Attorney*, 45 Hubbard Court.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. May
termt A. D. 1872. Samantha M. Williard v. Putnam
S. Williard.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Putnam S. Williard,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to tho said Putnam S. Williard
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a sumnionstheroupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the third Mon
day of February (1872,) as is by law required, and also
an alias Bummons returnable, on the third Monday of
May.
A. D. 1872.
Now,unless
you,the said Putnam S.Williard,shall per
sonally bo aud appear before said Circuit court of Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
at Chicago, in said county, on the third Monday of
May, 1872, and bill
plead,
answer or the
demur
to the
complainant's
of complaint,
same,
and said
the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the praver of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
Payne A Hawhe. Coimd't's Sol'rs.
22-2.1
TURNER,
BRAWLEY
&
TURNER,
Attoniet/s, cor. Canal arid Madison Streets.
PUBLICATION NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county
of Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county.
March term, A. D. 1872. William Stevens v. Edwin
Holman.Attachment.
Public notice is hereby given to the said Edwin Hol
manthethatclerk
a writof oftheattachment
issued ofoutCook
of thecounty,
office
of
Superior court
dated
the
first
day
of
March,
A.
D.
1872,
at
the
suit
the said William Stevens, and against the estate of
of
the
Edwin 11ol
11 an, and
for theeighty
sum cents,
of fourdirected
hundred
andsaid
eighty-one
dollars
to
the sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Edwin Holman,
shall personally be aud appear before the said Superior
court of Cook county, on or beforo the first day of tho
term thereof, to bo holden at the court house, in
the
Chicago,
of March,
A. D.city
W2,ofgive
specialonbailthoandfirst
pleadMonday
to the said
plain
tiffs action, judgment will be entered against you, and
in favor of the said William Stevens.andso much of t he
property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy the
said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the
samo.
AUGUSTUS
Clerk JACOBSON.
Superior Court.
TVRNER, BRAWLEY A TURNER, Pl't'fTs Att'y*. 23-26p
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of
county.Eicken
May
term,Cook.
A. D.ss.1872.Circuit
Georgecourt
Tolleofv. Cook
Frederick
berg, Mathilda Eickenberg, William Moerecke, Maria
Turney, George W. Schuabel, Zebulon M. Hall, Henry'
Hanson and Alexander Thomson.In Chancery.
Affidavit
non-residence
Frederick
Eicken
berg.
one ofofthethedefeudants
aboveofnamed,
and that
said
Maria Turney, upon due inquiry, cannot be found in
said State, having been filed In the office of the clerk of
said Circuit court of Cook county, notice is hereby
given to the said Frederick Eickenberg and Maria
Turney that the complainant heretofore filed his bill
of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of
said court against said defendants, returnable on the
third
Maytnenext
as is by
law required.
Now,Monday
unless of
you,
said(1872),
Frederick
Eickenberg
and
Maria Turney, shall personally be and appear before
said Circuit court of Cook county, on the first day of
aonterm
to beholden
at Chicago,
said county,
the thereof,
third Monday
of May,
1872, andinplead,
answer
or demur to the said complainant's bill of complaint,
the same, and the matters and things therein charged
and stated,
willyou
be taken
as confessed,
and a of
decree
entered
against
according
to the prayer
said
bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses. Cotnpl't's. Sol'rs. 22-25
JOHN H. PECK,
Attorney, Room 2, 33 West Randolph street.
pHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
Illinois,
CountyMayof
*J Cook, ss. Circuit court ofofCook
county.
term, A. D. 1872. Margaret Graff v. William Graff.
In Chancery.
Affidavit
of the
non-residence
William
fendant
above
named,
having beenof filed
in thoGraff,
officedeof
thecler
k
of
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
noticei
hereby giveu to tho said William Graff that the com 1
plainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint in said
court, on the
chancery
and thatsaid
a summons
thereupon
issued
out ofside
saidthereof,
court against
defend
ant, returnable on the third Monday of May next,
(1872.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said William Graff, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Circuit court ol
Cook
on thein firBt
day of aonterm
thereof,
to be
holdencounty,
at Chicago,
said county,
thethird
Monday
of May, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint.the same, and tho
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to tho prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
John H. Peck. Compl'ts' Sol'r.
23-26
E"STATE OF~GUNDER OLESON, DECEASED^
is hereby
all persons
havingOlcson.
claims
and Notice
demands
againstgiven
the toestate
of Gunda
deceased, toat present
the term
same offortheadjudication
settlement
a regular
County courtamiof
Cook county, to be holden at the courthouse, in the
city
of Chicago,
first Monday of May, A.D.
Ib72, being
the rahondaytho
thereof.
Chicago, February 19. A.D. 1872.
CHARLES
James MichIE,
Att'y.GLADDING, Administrator.
21-20

O0UDY & CHANDLER,

Attorneys, Central- Union Block.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, County of Cook, ss. In the
Superior court of Cook county. Henry S. Pitkin
v. To
ElizaEliza
Pitkin.In
Pitkin, Chancery.
defendant in the above entitled
causo:
notice, that
the sth day
of April,
1872, at Take
nine o'clock
in theonforenoon
of said
dav, A.
or D.
as
soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, the under
signed will Biie out of the office of the clerk of the
Superior
court, of the orcounty
of Cook
aforesaid,
deuimus protcstatum,
commission,
under
the seata
of said court, and directed to J. F. Roberts, Esq.. of the
city of New York, in the county ot New York, and
State of New York, at his office, No. 57 Broadway
street, orand
to any
justice
of the peace
county
Statejudge
last orabove
mentioned,
to takeof the
the
depositions of Rev. S. H. Woston, Charles C. Prentiss,
Samuel F. Prentiss, T. S. Mercer and William Ken
nedy, upon the interrogatories filed in the office of the
clerk 01 said Superior court, to bo read in evidence on
the
partentitled
of the cause
said complainant
of the
above
now pendingoninthe
thehearing
Baid Superior
court on the chancery sine thereof; when and where
yousaid
cancommission
appear and iffilesocross-interrogatories,
and join
in
you wish.
Dated this 9th day of March. A. D. 1872.
GOUDY A CHANDLER,
22-25
Solicitors for said Complainant.
BONNEY, FAY & GRIGGS,
1 ttomcys.
PUBLICATION
IN ss.
ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois,NOTICE
Cook county,
Circuit court of
Cook county. March term, A. D. 1872. Joseph E. Bates
v. Tho Anchor Life Insurance Company.
Public notice Is hereby given to the said The Anchor
Life Insurance Company that a writ of attach
ment issued out of the office of the clerk of the Circuit
Court of Cook county, dated the 26th day of February,
A. D. 1872, at the suit of the Baid Joseph E. Bates, ana
against the estate of The Anchor Life Insurance Com
pany, for the sum of four hundred and twenty-one
and 13-100
dollars,
sheriff executed.
of Cook
county,
which
said directed
writ has to
beenthoreturned
Now,Insurance
therefore,Company,
unless you,
said The Anchor
Lifo
Hhallthopersonally
be and
appear
beforethethefirst
saiddayCircuit
Cook
county,
on
or before
of theCourt
next of
term
thereof,
to
be holden at the Court House, in tho city of Chicago,
on
the
third
Monday
of
March,
A.D.
1872,
give
special
bail and plead to the said plaintiff's action, judgment
will be entered against you, and in favor of the said
Joseph E. Bates, and so much of the property attached
as may bo sufficient to satisfy the saidjudgment and
costs will be sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Bonney. Fay A Griggs, Attorneys.
22-25
ESTATE
OF
CONRAD
KUIILMANN,
DECEASED
Notice Is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands againBt the estate of Conrad Kuhlmann,
deceased,
forCounty
adjudication
andfcettlement attoa present
regular the
termsame
ot the
court of
Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1372,
being tho sixth day thereof.
CAROLINE
Executrix.
Chicago, March
2. A.D. KUHLMANN,
1872.
Clowry A Bahmm, Attorneys for Estate.
23-28
ESTATE OF JOHN MEYER, DECEASED.-Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demands
against
the for
estate
of John Meyer,
de
ceased,
to present
the same
adjudication
and settle
ment at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, toonbethe
holden
the courtof house,
in the
city beof
Chicago,
first atMonday
May, A.
D. 1872,
ing tho sixth day thereof.
ANNA MEYER.
ALBERT MEYER, and
ROBERT MEYER,
Executors.
Worth, Cook county, March II, A. D. 1S72.
23-28p
/CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
of Cook
county.
April
term,Cook,
A. D.ss.1872.Superior
Prankcourt
Kezlik
v. Mary
Kezlik.In
Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Mary Kezlik, de
fendant above named, having been filed in the office
of tho clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Mary Kezlik that
the complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
eaid defendant, returnable on the first Monday of April
next,
by law
Now,(1872.)
unlessas i6yon,
the required.
said Mary Kezlik. shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior court ot
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of April. 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
bill oftherein
complaint,
the and
same,Btated,
and
the matters
and things
charged
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clork.
Clowry A Barmm, CompPt's Sol'rs.
23-26
EWING & LEONARD,
Attorneys. 487 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
Notice is hereby
givenGEMMELL,
to all personsDECEASED.having claims
and demands against tho estate of John Gemmell, deceasod, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago,
on the
first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
ing the sixth
day thereof.
MARGARET N. GEMMELL,
21-26
___
Administratrix.
TESTATE OF WILLIAM CLOWRY, DECEASED..Ei Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against tho estate of William
Clowry, decease*!, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April,
A.D. 1872, being tho first day thereof.
ANN CLOWRY,
Administratrix, and
MARTIN BRENNAN,
Chicago^Feb. 6. 1S72. Administrator of said Estate.
19-24
M.
A.
RORKE
&
SON,
is, Room 57, Central Union Block.
TESTATE OF ' ELIZA ' TURNER, DECEASED.
*-*
Notice
is
hereby
given
all persons
having
claims
and demands against
thetoestate
of Eliza
Turner,
de
ceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
and
set
tlement at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago,
first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, being
the
sixth on
daythe
thereof.
THOMAS
TURNER. Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 29. A. D.A. 1872.
21-26
M. A. Rorke A Son. Attorneys.
F. A. HOFFMAN, Jr.,
Attorney, Room 5. Una's Block.
INSTATE
OF
Deceased.
J Notiro is THEODORE
hereby givenE. toJOHNSON,
all persons
having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
Theodore
E.
Johnson, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to bo holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of May, A. D. 1872. being the sixth day thereof.
BERTHA
JOHNSON,
Administratrix.
Chicago, March
lti. A. D.
1872.
V. A. Hoffman, Attorney.
23-23
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
And U. S. Commissioner.
Western Union Tctegraph Office, 554 Wabash Ave

Chicago

ESTATE OF WATSOS ?UanAIlD\ DECEASED.Notlce U hereby given *u ve?ona ha^ng claims

and demands against theciM* 01 \\ atsou Goward, de
ceased, to present the same tor adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, being
the sixth dayGUSTAVUS
thereof.
Administrator.
Chicago, March f>, A. D.GOWARD,
1S72.
J. C & J.J. Knickerbocker, Att*ys for Adm'r. 22-27
MASTER'S SALE.-State of Illinois, Cook county.
In Chancery. Evan Davis v. Emiiie Wirth and
Charles
mortgage.
PublicWirth.
notice isForeclosure
hereby givenofthat
in pursuance of a
decree entered by said court in the above entitled
cause on the 2Sth day of February, A. D. 1872, I, John
Woodbridge, master in chancery ^f said Cook county,
will, on Wednesday, the tenth day of April, A. D. 172,
at
the cast
hourdoor
of tenof o'clock
forenoon of said day,
at the
the eastinwithe
ng of
the old court house,
in the city of Chicago, in said Cook county, expose for
-ale
at
public
auction,
and
sell
to
the
bidder
for cash, all the following described landhighest
and real
es
tate, situate in the city of Chicago, in Cook county, in
the tstate of Illinois, described as follows, to wit : Lot
fourteen (14), in Waughop's subdivision of block
twenty-seven (27), in the Canal Trustees' subdivision
of
seven (7).(14),
in township
thirty-nine
north
of section
range fourteen
east of the
third (3d)(3y),
principal
meridian.
JolIN WOODBRIDGE,
Mauler in Chancery of Cook County.
29, 1872.
J.Chicago,
C. & J. Feb.
J. Knickerbocker.
ComplVs Sol'rs. 21-24
E"STATE OF ^MARY ~AN: "CAVANAUGU, DEceased.Notice is hereby given to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate ofe
Marj' Ann Cavanaugh, deceased, to present the sam
for adjudication ana settlement at a regular term of
the County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court house, in the city of Chicago on the first Monday
of
May, A.D.
1872, being
1872.day thereof.
Chicago,
February
19, A.theD. Gth
21-25
JOHN CORBETT. Administrator.
G. A. FOLLANSBEE,
Attorney, 181 La Salle Street.
A
DMINISTRATOR'S
SALE
REAL
J\. By virtue of nn order
and OF
decree
oftheESTATE.
County
Court of Cook county, Illinois, made on the petition
of
the
undersigned
administrator
of
the
estate
of
Fred
erick Biermann, deceased, for leave to sell the real
es
tate of said deceased, at the February term, a. n. 1872,
of
said
court,
to
wit.
on
the
20th
day
of
February,
a.
!S72, I shall on Thursday, the 18th day of April, a. d.,
1872, between the hours of 1" o'clock a. ni. and 5 o'clock
p. m. ofsaid day, sell at public sale on the premise?,
the following described real estate, situated in the
town of Leyden, county of Cook, and State of Illinois,
to wit :
Being a part of the northwest quarter of section
three (3), congressional township forty (40). north
range twelve (12), east of the third principal meridian,
dist
and west
bounded
follows: commencing
at a postquar
ant
of theassouth-east
corner of the aforesaid
ter eection seventeen (17) chains and fifty-six (.Mi) finks
to centre! of road aud north nine and on e-half(9!>a)
degrees
east with(71centre
twelvefrom
(12) thence
chains
and seventy-one
) links,of said
and road
running
north
nine
and
one-half
(*J'a)
degrees
east
with
centre
of said road nine (ii) chains and sixty-two (l>2) links
to
the
centre
of
Des
Plains
River,
thence
south
thirtyfour (34) degrees east six (6) chains, thence south fiftyfive (35) degrees east with centre of said river four (4)
chains and forty-one (41) links, thence south thirtyseven and one-half(37*2) degrees west three (.1) chains
and!
ninety
links,westthence
north and
eighty
and
one-half
(8nla)(90)degrees
six {fi) chains
fifty-five
(55) links to the place of beginning, containing i 70-100
acres more or less (variation 5, 30' E,) on the follow
ing terms, to wit :
Onewith
thousand
dollars
in bIx
ofthe
sale,
interest
at the
ratemonths
of 6 perfrom
cent,theperdayannum,
to
so
secured
by
the
promissory
note
of
the
purchaser,
with mortgage upon the premises sold, and the bal
ance cash in nana on the day of sale.
HEINRICH BIERMANN,
Administrator
of the estatedeceased.
of
Frederick Biermann,
G. A. F01.1.AN8BEE. Attorney.
20-25
ESTATE OF SETH SHELDON. Jr., DECEASED.to allofSeth
personsSheldon,
havingjunior,
claims
and Notiee
demandsis hereby
againstgiven
the estate
deceased, to present the eamef or adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to he holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D., 1872, be
ing the first day theroof.
L. MARTHA SHELDON,
GEORGE W. SMITH,
Administrators.
Chicago, Feb. 14. A. D. 1872.
19 24
JAMES FRAKE,
Attorney. 115 Went Madison St.
ESTATE
ROBERT
DECEASED.
Notice isOFhereby
given SHEPPARD,
to all persons having
claims
and demands against the estate of Robert Sheppard,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
tor
adjudication
and
set
tlement at a regular term of the County court ofCook
county, to lie holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
SAMANTHA SHKPPARD and
ROBERT D. SHKPPARD,
Executors.
Chicago, Feb. A. D. 1872.
19-21
J. V. LeMOYNE,
A ttorney.
ESTATE
MICHAEL
Notice isOFhereby
gi ven toHANLON,
all personsDECEASED.having claims
and
demands
againstthethesame
estate
of Michael Hanlon,
deceased,
to present
for adjudication
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
ing the oth dav thereof.
HANNAH HANLON, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D. 1871
21-26a
BENT & BLACK,
Attorney*. 710 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE
ELMA
Notice isOF
hereby
given HOWELL,
to all personsDECEASED.having claims
and demands against the estate of Elnia Howell, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular rerrn of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
ing the sixth day thereof.
ANNIE E. HOWELL, Executrix.
Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D. 1-72.
21-26a
SN0WHO0K & GRAY,
Attorneys. 35 West Monroe Street.
ESTATE
PATRICK
NoticejisOFhereby
given toMcALPIN,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Patrick McAlpin,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, being
the sixth day thereof.
MICHAEL SCANLON, Executor.
Chicago, Feb. 27. A. D. 1872.
21-26a
ESTATE OF MICHAEL URWrANGER. Deceased.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands
againstthethesame
estateforofadjudication
Michael Urwanger,
deceased,
to present
and set
tlement, at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, being
the first day thereof.
URWANGER, Executrix.
Chicago, Feb. 15,ANNA
A. D. ]f*72.
19-24a

Legal

TENNEY, McCLELLAN & TENNEY,

Attorneys.
MORTGAGE SALE.Whereon, Aaron H. Crosby
and
Adeline,
his
wife,
of Centralia,
county
of Marion, and State of Illinois,
did, on inthethethirtieth
day of June, A. D, 1871, execute and deliver to me
their certain mortgage, which said mortgage was re
corded in the recorders ufflce of said Marion county,
in
of Illinois,
on the 8thpageday194,ofofJuly,
A. D.
1871,theinState
volume
H of Mortgages,
the prem
ises hereinafter described, to secure the payment of
one certain
note day
madeof June,
by the1.S71,
saidforA. the
H,
Crosby,
dateapromissory
on the thirtieth
sum of one hundred and ninety-seven ;V-iou dollars,
with
interest
the rate
per cent,
per annum,
payable
to theatorder
of 0.often
B. Farweil
five months
after
the date thereof; and whereas it is provided in said j
mortgage
that
in
cose
of
default
in
the
payment
of
the
said note or any part thereof, according to the tenor
and effect thereof, the said C. B. Farweil, his legal rep
resentatives or attorney, after having advertised such
sale
in a newspaper
published
in Chicago,
Cooktwenty
county,days
Illinois,
may sell the
said premises,
or
any part thereof, ant all right and equity of redemp
tion of the said Aaron H. Crosby and Adeline, his
wife, their heirs or assigns therein, at public vendue,
to the highest bidder, for cash, at the court house, in
said Cook county ; and whereas default bus been made
in the paymeut of said note and interest, now, there
fore, by virtue of the powerin me vested by said mort
gage, I, the undersigned mortgagee, will sell at 10
o'clock u. m., on Wednesday, the 6th day of March,
A.D.
at public
tho court-house
door,
in said1872,
Chicago,
Cookvendue,
county,at Illinois,
to the highest
bidder, for cash, the premises in said mortgage deHcribed, to wit: Lots three (3) and four (4), in block
one (1), in the town of Centralia, county of Marion,
State of Illinois, together with all and singular, the
tenements
and hereditaments,
privileges
appurte
nances thereunto
belonging, and
all theand
right,
title,
benefit and equity of redemption of the said Aaron II.
Crosby and Adeline, his wife, in and to the said prem
ises.
CHARLES B. FARWELL.
Tenney, McClellan & Tenney,
Att'ys for Mortgagee.
19-21
The above sale is adjourned till April 1, 1^72, at the
same time and place.
C. B. FARWELL, Mortgagee.
Tenney, MoCi.ei.lax & Tekkkt, Att'ys.
22-25
A. H. DALT0N,
Attorney, Thornton.
ESTATE
DECEASED.
NoticeOFIs ELIZABETH
hereby given BERGER.
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Elizabeth
Berger, deceased, to present the Bame for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house,
inA. D.
the1S72,
citybeing
of Chicago,
on the
first Monday of May,
the nth day
thereof.
JOHN BKRGER, Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 28, A. D. 1872.
21-26
ROSENTHAL, FENCE & MOSES,
Attorneys, 350 Wabash Avenue.
STATE OF CATHERINE WE1S1IAAR, DEE ceased.Notice is hereby given to all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Catherine
Weishaar,
deceased, atto present
the term
same offortheadjudica
tion
and settlement
a regular
County
bolde*
the courtof house,
court
of
Cook
couuty,
to
be
in the city of Chicago, on the first atMonday
April,
A. D. 1872, being the first day fhereof.
ANN
CRIMIN,
Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE OF GUSTAV DASSLER, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims
demands
against the
thesame
estateforofadjudica
Gustav
Dossier, and
deceased,
to present
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
In the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of April,
A.D. 1872, being the first day thereof.
AUGUSTA
Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb.
12, A.D. DASSLER,
1872.
19-24
ESTATE OF HENRY A. BOHLE, DECEASED.Notice is against
hereby given
to allofpersons
claims
and demands
the estate
Henryhaving
A. Bohle,
de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, toonbe the
holden
the courtofhouse,
Chicago,
firstat Monday
April,in A.the D.city1872,of
being the first day thereof.
HENRY BOHLE, Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 12,_A. D. 1872.
W4
ESTATE
OF
RUDOLPH
KEMMLER,
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Rudolph
Keinmler, deceased, to present the Bame for ad
judication and settlement at a regular term of the
County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court
Chicago,
on day
the thereof.
first Mon
day ofhouse,
April,inA.the
D. city
1H72, of
being
the first
FREDERICK KEMMLER, Executor.
Chicago^Feb. 12, A. 1^ 1872.
19-24
ESTATE
OF
WILLIAM
LAISTER.
DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of William Laister,
deceased,
for County
adjudication
setcourt and
of Cook
tlemeutattoa present
regular the
termsame
of the
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago,
on the
Monday of April, A. P. 1872, be
ing
the first
day first
thereof.
ROBERT C. WRIGHT and
JAMES W. COCHRAN,
Executors.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
ESTATE
OF
JOHANN
KRUEGER.
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given toull persons having claims
and demands
againstthethesame
estate
of Johann Krueger,
deceased,
to present
for adjudication
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicngo,
on the
first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing tho first
day thereof.
SOPHIA KRUEGER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1*72.
19-24
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
W.
HUFMEYER.
DECEASED.
is hereby
to all ofpersons
claims
and Notice
demands
againstgiven
the estate
John having
Wr. Hufmeyer,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication gjid set
tlement at a regular term of the County court ui Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of April, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
LOL ISA HUFMEYER, Administratrix.
Chicago, Feb. 12, A. D. 1872.
19-24
THEO. SCHINTZ,
Attorney, Central Union Black.
TESTATE
OF
FREDERICK
Notice is hereby
given to allI1EIIM.
personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against tho estate of Frederick Behm,
deceased,attoa present
for County
adjudication
set
tlement
regular the
termsame
of tho
court and
of Cook
holden
at
the
court
house,
in
the
city
county,
to
be
Chicago, on the flr^t Monday of May A. D. IS72, beingof
the sixth dav thereof.
CHRISTIAN BEHM, Executor.
Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D. 1872.
21-26a
Tueo. Schintz, Attorney.
F. A. RIDDLE,
Attorney, 25 West Madison Street.
TESTATE OF ANDREW NELSON, DECEASED.JCj Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Andrew Nelson, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, being
the sixth day thereof.
WILLIAM M. LOUGIILIN, Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 2\ A. D. 1*72.
21-26a

News.

WILSON,
PERRY
& STURGES,
Attornn/y.
-}7i> Wabash
Ave.
PUBLICATION
-\uTlCE
IN ATTACHMENT.
State
of
Illinois.
Cook
County,
ss.
Superior
court
of Cook county. To March Term, A. D..
1872. Jacob
Bierbaucr v. William W. Wheeler.
Public that
noticea writ
is hereby
criven to theissued
said William
W.
Wheeler
ot attachment
out of the
office
of
the
clerk
of
the
Superior
court
of
Cook
county,
dated the second dav of Fe.inary, A. I>. 1872, at the suit
of the said Jacob Bicr'.iaiier, and against the estate of
William W. Wheeler, for the sum of five hundred and
thirty-one dollars and forty-three cents, directed to the
sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been re
turned
Now, executed.
therefore unless you, the said William W.
Wheeler shall personally be and appear before the
said Superior court of Cook county, on or before
the first day of the next term thereof, to b* holden
at th court house, in the city of Chicago, on tho first
Monday of March, A. D., 1872, give special boil and
plead to the said plaintiffs action, judgment will be
entered against you, and in favor <>t the said Jacob
Bierbaner, and so much of the property attached as
may
be sold
sufficient
to satisfy
the said judgment aud costs
will bo
to satisfy
the same.
AUGUSTUS JAC0BS0N, Clerk.
Wilson. Perry & Stuihiks, Attorneys.
21-24
EDWIN GREENE.
Attorney, 4i> HuMtard ( ourt.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, 88. Superior court of Cook county. To
Maivh term. A. D. 1*72. Jane W. Sunders v. John M.
Sunder?*.In
Affidavit ofChancery.
the non-residence of John M. San
ders, defendant above named, having been filed In the
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook coun
ty, notice is hereby given to the said John M. San
ders that tho complainant heretofore tiled her bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
agaiust said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of March next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now. unless you, the said John M. Sanders, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court
of
county,at on
the first
day county,
of a term
of, toCook
be holden
Chicago,
in said
on thethere
first
Monday of March, i>72. and plead, answer or demur
to the said complaiuunt's bill of conipluint, the same,
and tho matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBS0N, Clerk.
Edwin Gbeenk, Conipl't's Sol'r.
21-24
MAYB0RN & BROWN,
Attorneys. Geneva, IU.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois, county of Cook, ss. Circuit
court
of v.Cook
county.
April term, A. D. Is72. Albert
\. West
Samuel
T. Morgan,
Public uotice is hereby given to the said Samuel T.
1.1organ, that a writ of atttachment Issued out of
the office of the clerk of the Circuit court of Cook
county, dated the 20th day of January, A. D. 1S72,
at the suit of the Albert A. West and against
the estate ol said Samuel T. Morgan, for the sum of
seventeen
the sheriff
Cook count)hundred
, which dollars,
said writdirected
has beentoreturned
execuof
ted.
Now, therefore, unless you. the said Samuel T.
Morgan, shall personally be and appear before the
said
courtterm
of Cook
county,
or before
first
day ofCircuit
the next
thereof,
to beonholden
at thetheCourt
House, iu tho city of Chicago, on the third Monday ol
April. A. D. 1S72. give special ball and plead to the Baid
plaintiff's action, judgment will be entered against
you, and in favor of the said Albert A. West, and so
much
mayheboid
be sufficient
satisfyofthethesaidproperty
judgmentattached
and costsaswill
to satisfyto
the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Mayhork A Brown', Att'ys.
21-24p
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
\J Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. To the
March term, A. D. 1872. Louisa A. Wells, complainant,
v. James
G. Bluut,
Nancy 0.
Blunt, John
Myers
and
William
M. Ilalsted,
executors
of the K.estate
of
William M. nalstcd, deceased, William Crawford,
George F. Foster. Newton Chapin, Daniel L. Wells,
John T. Noble, Francis B. Little, Carlisle Mason,
George Mason and John Mohr, defendants.In Chan
cery.
Affidavit that James G. Blunt, Nancy C. Blunt, and
John
andM.
William
M. deceased,
Halsted.executore
estateK.ofMyers
William
Halsted,
four of theofthe
de
fendants abovo named, in the above entitled cause, and
each of them, reside out of the State of Illinois, so
that process cannot be served on them, having been
filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit court of
Cook county, uotice is hereby given to the said James
G. Blunt, Nancy C. Blunt, and John K. Myers and Wil
liam M. Halsted, executors of the estate of William M.
Halsted, doceased, that the complainant heretofore,
and
the 2*th dayin said
of February,
1*72, filed side
her
bill on
of complaint
court, on A.theD. chancery
thereof, ana that a summons thereupon issued out of
said court against all said defendants named in the
title of said
suit as next
aforesaid,
on the
third
Monday
of March
(1j*72),returnable
as Is by law
required,
and that said suit is now pending in said court, on the
chancery side thereof.
Now, unless you, tho said James G. Blunt, Nancy C.
Blunt, and
John
K. Myers
and William
M. Halsted.
ex
ecutors
of the
estate
of William
M. Halsted,
deceased,
shall personally be and appear before said Circuit court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof,
to bo holden at Chicago, in paid county, on the third
Monday
of March, and
1*72, plead,
that being
of said summons,
answertheorreturn
demurday
to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
tho
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
slated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
21-24
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
BROWN & RICEERT3,
Attorneys, Room '2, 116 West Madison Street.
pnANCERY
Illinois,
countySlayof
\J Cook. ss. NOTICE.-State
Superior court ofofCook
county.
term. A. D. 1S72. Anna Russell v. Josiah N. Russell.
InAffidavit
Chancery.of the non-residence of Josiah N. Russell,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of theis Clerk
court
of Cook
county,that
no
tice
herebyofsaid
givenSuperior
to the said
Josiah
N. Russell
the complainant heretofore tiled her bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, ana that
a summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said
defendant,
the first Monday of
May next
(1872), asreturnable
is by lay on
required.
Now, unless you, the said Josiah N. Russell, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior Court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of May, 1S72, and plead, answer or demur to the said
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters
things therein
willyou
be
taken asandconfessed,
and a charged
decree entand
eredstated,
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JAC0BS0N, Clerk.
Brows & Rickt.rts, CompVs Sol'rs.
21-24
TESTATE
OF JAMES
FERGUSON.Aj the undersigned
was, onN. the
2"ith day of Whereas,
January,
IS72, by the Hon. County court within and for the
county of Cook, and State of Illinois, appointed execu
tor of the estate ofJames N. Ferguson, deceased; and,
whereas, I am unable to further administer upon said
estate by reason of absence, this is to notify all whom
it may concern, that I shall present my resignation of
said trust at the next session of said County court, to
be holden at Chicago, in said Cook county, on the first
Monday of April next, at 10 o'clock
in theF. forenoon.
JAMES
HALEY.
Chicago, Feb. 27, 1672.
21-24

191
G00KINS & ROBERTS,
Attorney*, 46 East Uarrisun Street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. March
term, A. D. 1872. James H. Fisk v. Carter Smith.
Emanuel Points, Minnesota Ewing, Mary L. Schutler
and
Schutler, her husband, Laviuia Ann Bond,
Charles D, Bond, Catharine E. Kearna, Eli Kearns,
William A. Ewing, in his own right and as executor of
George W. Ewing, deceased, George W. Ewing. Mary
Sturges,
Susan E.Uuggins,
HowardSturges,
Huggine,
David B.
Hood, William
Hood, Louisa
Charlotte
F.
ThruBton, Dickinson I*. Thruston, Lavinia A. Holladay, Jesse llolladay. James M. Marshall, Caroline E.
Sweetzer, Madison Sweet/.er, Clara E. Root, Lewis B.
Root. Clara E. Green. Knima Kumler and Charles
Kumler.In
Affidavit of Chancery.
the non-r^si m- of all the above-named
defendants, excepting Carter JSmith. Emanuel Points,
James M. Marshall and William A. Ewing, 1 ing
been tiled in the offico of the Clerk of said Circuit court
olresident
Cook defendants
county, notice
given to theheretofore
said non
thatis hereby
the complainant
filed his bill of complaint in said court, on the chancery
side thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out
of said court against said defendants, returnable on
the third Monday of March next (i72,) as is by law
required.
Now, unless you, the said Minnesota Ewing, Mary
L. Schutler and
Schutler, her husband, Laviuia
Ann Bond, Charles D. Bond. Catharine E. Kearns, Eli
Reams.
George
W.
Ewing,
Mary B.Sturges,
Huggins, Howard Hugglns. David
Hood, Susan
William
E.
Hood, Louisa Sturges, Charlotte F. Thruston. Dickin
son P. Thruston, Lavinia A. Holladay, Jesse Holladay,
Caroline E. Sweetzer, Madison Sweetzer, Clara E.
Root, Lewis B. Root, Clara E. Green, Emma Kumler
and Charles Kumler, shall personally be and appear
before said Circuit court of Cook county, on the first
day of a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said
county, on the third Monday of March, 1S72, and plead,
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill o
complaint,
the and
same,stated,
;>nd will
the bematters
things
taken asandconfessed,
therein charged
and a decree" entered against you according to the
prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Gookiks & RoiiEBTS.Compl't'B Sol'rs.
21-25
CLOWRY & BARMM,
Attorneys, 3 North Canal Street.
ESTATE OF JOHN FARRELL. DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having clalmi
and demands against the estate of John Farrell, de
ceased, to present the Bame for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court honse. in the city of
Chicago, on tho first Monday of May, A. D. 1872,
being the sixth dav thereof.
MICHAEL BRENNAN, Administrator.
Chicago, February 23, A. D. W2.
1-2B
ESTATE
OF
C.
LOUIS
KURTZ,
DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having cbtimi
and demands against the estate of C. Louis Kurtz,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication ana
settlement
regular
of court
the County
of
Cook county,at toa be
holdenterm
at the
house,court
in tho
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A.D.
1S72, being the sixth dav thereof.
MARGAJtETHA
Chicago. February
23, A.D. 1S72.KURTZ, Executrix.
21-26
Clowry & Baumm, Attorneys.
ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER FLYNN. Deceased.Notice is hereby given to all personB having claims
and demands against the estate of Christopher
Flynn, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D.
1S72. being the sixth day thereof.
BRIDGET AtfN FLYNN, Administratrix.
Chicago, February 23, ,A. D. 1872.
21-26
Clowry &JJarmm, Vttoineys.
_
ESTATE
OF
TERESA
BATTO,
DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Teresa
Batto, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city
of Chicago,
on day
the thereof.
first Monday of May, A. D.
1872, being
the sixth
JOSEPH
SEGALLE, Executor.
Chicago, February 23. A.D. 1872.
21-26
Clowry & Barmm, Attorneys.
ESTATE OF HANNAH HOLDSWORTH, Dkceased.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Hannah Holdsworth,
deceased, to present the same tor adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city
of Chicago,
on day
the thereof.
first Monday of May, A. D.
1872, being
the sixth
JAMES WILLIAM HOLDSWORTH,
Administrator.
Chicago, February 23. A. D. 1^72.
Clowry & Babmm, Attorneys.
_ 21-36
JAMES SPRINGER,
Attorney, 66U Wabash Avenue.
CHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
Illinois,
of Cook, ss.Superior
court ofofCook
county.Couuty
May
term, A. D. 1872. Leroy J. Needham v. Mary J. Needham.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Mary J. Needhain,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the Clerk of said Superior Court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Mary ,1. Needham
that the complainant heretofure filed his bill of com
court, on
the chancery
plaint
and thatin asaidsummons
thereupon
issued side
out thereof,
of said
court
against
said
defendant,
returnable
on tho first
Monday of May next (
as is by law required.
Now, unless you, tho said Mary J. Needham, shall
personally
be on
andthe
appear
before
saidterm
Superior
court
of
Cook countyt
first day
r-f the
thereof,
to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of May, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the
things therein
charged
and against
stated,
will matters
be taken and
as confessed,
and a decree
entered
you according to the prayer of said bill,
AUGt'STI'S JACOBS0N, Clerk.
James Spriwgku. Compl't's Sol'r.
21-24
JESSE O. NORTON,
Attorney.
NOTICE FOR PCBLICATION.-This is to give no
tice,
that
on
the
of March,
1872,ofa
warrant in bankruptcy 2dwasday
issued
against A.D.
the estate
Arthur Scholia. John N. Yonnu and William P. Wright,
doing business in the county of Cook, and State of Illi
nois, who have been adjudged bankrupts on their own
petition,
the payment
of anytodebts
the delivto
ery of anythat
property
belonging
such and
bankrupts,
them or for their use, and trie transfer of any property
by
them are
by law ; that
a meeting
the
creditors
of forbidden
the said bankrupts
to prove
their of
debts,
and to choose one or more assignees of their estate,
will
be held
at a courtin of
to be atholden
the city
of Chicago,
saidbankruptcy,
county of Cook,
the ofin
fice of und before Homer N. Hibbard, Esq.. register, on
the ninth day of April A. D, l>72, at ten o'clock a. m.
V. S.B.H.CAMPBELL,
Marshal. Messenger.
By A. B. COTES, Deputy.
Jesse O. Norton. Attorney.
23-23
ESTATE
FRANK
DECEASED.
Notice isOF
hereby
given REICHARDS.
to all persons having
claims
and demands against the estate of Frank Reichards
deceased, to present the same for adjudication und set
tlement toat be
a regular
the County
Cook
county,
holden term
at thoofcourt
house, court
in theofcity
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
May,
A.D.
1872,
being the sixth day thereof.
Chicago, February'
A.D. 1872. Administrator.
2u-2?ift
JOHANN21.REICHARDS,

Chicago

192

NOW READY.

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
CHAS. M. HARRIS,
8. E. cor. Clark find Adam?.
ARTIN A. O'BREXNAN. LL.D.,
KO Stati; street.
M
MILLER, WILLIAMSON130A W^Rando\phjtroet.
MILLER,
SPRINGFIELD ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
HERXIION & OKEXDORF,
Office west side square. 27*
JACKSONVILLE (ILIO ATTORNEYS.
T7"ETCIIAM, I. J.
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
PEPPER. WILSON A MARTIN,
Room 2 Hank Building.

'.!

MORRIS ILL.) ATTORNEYS.

JANFORD, E. Spec ial attention given to CollecJ tion? and Real Estatc.
E
52*

NEW

DILLON
onMUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

FELKER fie MARX,

Attorneys.
pIIANCERY NOTICE. -State of Illinois. County
V7
of
Cook,
ss.
Circuit
of Cook county.
April
term, A. D. 1ST2. Johncourt
Hirschsteiner
v. Babetta
Hirschstetner.In
Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-rrsidence of Babetta Hirsch
steiner, defendant above named, having been filed in
the office of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook
county, notice is hereby given to the said Babetta
Hirschsteinor
thatiuthesaid
complainant
filedside
hit
lull
of complaint
court, on heretofore
the chancery
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of
said
against
said defendant,
returnable
on the
thirdcourt
Monday
of March
instant (lft72),
as is by law'required.
Now, unless
you,appear
the saidbefore
BabettaBaid
Hirschsteiner,
personally
be and
Circuit courtshallof
Cook county, on the flint day of a term thereof, to be
holdeu at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day
of April.
1S72, and plead,
or demur
to
the said
complainant's
bill of answer
complaint,
tho same,
and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will bo taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Felker & Marx, Compl't's Sol'rs.
22-25
PUBLIC
NOTICE
13
HEREBY
GIVEN
TO
ALL
concerned, that the undersigned, guardian of Ed
ward P. Towne, minor, will make application to the
Circuit court of Cook county. State of Illinois, at the
April term thereof, A. I). 1*72, to be holden at the court
house, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of
April. A. I>. 1.S72. for an order, enabling said guardian
to sell and convey all tho right, title and interest of
said
the following
described
sit
uatedminor,
in thein State
of Illinois,
to wit : real
One estate,
undivided
on-J-half (S) of east one-half ( 1 ,;) of W. '., of lot No.
three (3), in block fifty-seven (.'i7) of original town of
Chicago.
Also, an undivided one-sixth Cl-i>) of undivided fourfifths (4-5) of west ten (lo) acres of N. E. Kt of N. W.
>4 of section twenty-throe (23), T. 38, R. M.
four-fifths
ofAlso,
E. Xanofundivided
N. W. %.one-sixth
of N. W, (1-fi)
U ofofsection
23, T.( !-.*>)
3s,
R.An11. undivided 2-3 of lot (.block 19, Assessors' division
of
sec.education
22, town 3D,of
N. the
R. 1northwest
1, E. :kl P. fractional
M., for thequarter
supportofand
the said minor, or to invest in other real estate, as the
court
23-25may direct. ELIZA II. TOWNB, Guardian.

JONES' FORMS & PROCEDURE

The Forms and Modi' of Procedure in tho various
Courts in the State of Illinois, and which, with little
variation,
will apply
thoseuseof the
neighboring
States
and Territories.
Forto the
of Judges
of Probate,
Clerk.-* of Courts, Sheriffs, Coroners. County Commis
sioners, Justices of the Peace. Lawyers, Constables,
Notaries Public, etc.. with a variety of precedents in
conveyancing.
Jamer Jones.
Esq,
Second edition,By revised
and enlarged,
by Joski'H
Wright.
IT CONTAINS
Forms of Writs and Proceedings in tho Supreme
Court, Circuit Court, County Court, and the United
States
District
and Circuit
Courts.
in Chancery
such as Notices,
Summons,Orders
Bills
ofForms
Complaint,
Writs Practice,
of Injunction,
and Decrees, with u complete record suggesting the
various proceedings in u cause, from filing a Bill to
perfecting
In ActionsAppeal.
and other proceedings at law, with com
plete records in Assumpsit, Case, Attachment, Eject
ment,
etc.used by Justices of the Peace in Criminal ami
Forms
Civil
by and
Notaries
Public,Inand
of
Courtsmatters,
in entries
proceedings
casesbyat Clerks
Law and
in Chancery, from their commencement to final Cer
tificate
Transcript
of Record.
Formsofused
by Sheriffs
and Coroners in holding in
quests.
;d in Naturalization, in Arbitration and
Font
Award.
Of Affidavits, in Attachment and other cases at Law
andForms
iti E'luity.
used in Appeals from, and Certiorari to Jus
tices'
Courts,
Forms
ov Plkadino: Declarations, Pleas. Demur
rers, Replications, Bills for Foreclosurefor Divorce
in Dowerfor Specific Performance, etc., with An
swers, Replications, Decrees, Orders, and the Process
thereon
Forms inofEquity,
Notes,
Bills Bills
of Exchange,
of Cred
it. Bonds, Bills
of Sale.
of Lading.Letters
Releases,
Cer
tificates of Stock. Proxies, Mortgages, Judgment
Notes,
Agreement*,
etc.
Forms used in Conveyancing: In Depositionsin
structions for taking and certifying the same, de bene
e$seAnandAppendix
otherwise.containing tho RULES OF PRAC
TICE OF THE COURTS, as Amended and Revised to
DANIEL GOODWIN, Jr.,
theAnpresent
Attorney* 19 Xixon's Building.
Octavotime.
Volume. Too pp. Hound in Lain Sheep.
HIS is lo certify tluit the undersigned have formed
Price, $7.51). Sent free to any address on receipt of the
a limitedinpartnership,
articles
of co-of
price.
rtnership
the office ofand
thehave
clerkfiled
of the
county
E. B. -1ITF.RS. Ptibllfttier.
State of Illinois, agreeably to the statute in such
23-21
No. 3V3 Wabash Avenue. caseok.made
provided,
saidnewspaper
clerk has designated
the ChicagoandLeoal
Newsand
OH the
in which
notice of such partnership slmll he published; now,
therefore,
notice
is
hereby
given
that
the
terms
of said
AD YEUT1SEMENT.
copartnership
follows:
1st. The
The business
nameareofastosaid
is B. M.by Oliver.
2d.
he firm
conducted
said firm is that
f packing pork and vending meat, fresh and cured, at
South
Ilalsted
street.is Chicago.
STEVENS & HAYNES 'o.3d.593The
general
partner
Richard
: the
iccial partner
is the
Allerton
Packing M.
Co.,Oliver
a corpora
tion duly existing under tin* laws of the State ot Illi
nois,
1th.allTheof Chicago.
amount of capital stock which the said
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
iecial partner, tile Allerton Packing Co.. has contribled to said copartnership is the sum of twelve thouAMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS, and
.Hh.dollars.
The said copartnership is to commence on the
first day ofMarch, A. D. 1-72, and terminate at the will
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
of either party, evidenced by notice in writing served
" ti days before said termination.
LONDON.
RICHARD
M. OLIVER.
22-27
Till.'
ALLBRTON
PACKING CO.

We have In press, and will shortly Issue, a

TREATISE ON THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS, with full reference to En
glish and American cases, by the Honorable
JOHN F. DILLON, United States Circuit
Judge.
ThiB work Is designed to meet a want long
felt by the members of the profession.
Judge Dillon has devoted several years to Works in all Classes of Literature
the most careful preparation of the text and
SUPPLIED TO OB DEB.
notes ; and this fact, together with his high
CALLAGHAN & Co.
reputation as a jurist, guarantee the excel Catalogues and Estiinates Furnished, and
Orders Promptly Filled.
BUCCT-S.SORS TO
lence of the work.
The Trustee* and Officers or Public Li
braries may rely upon the most
Complete in one large octavo volume.
carefnl attention to their
CALLAGHAN & COCKCROFT,
Commission*.
By importing DIRECT from England a consider Respectfully call the attention of the profession to
itheir largo stock of
able saving is effected, cxpGiaUy in the Customs duty,
JAMES COCKCROFT & CO., from
which Public In
InstUutionsIn the United States are
exempt.
LAW BOOKSELLERS,
SUNDRY mistakes have been made by our Foreign
and Colonial Correspondents in addressing their let
ters, we beg to notify that the members of our Arm arc
Hknry
G. Istevess
and Valentino
Robert W.
Hatnes,
the son
499 Wabash Avenue,
and
stepson
ot the late
S'eveus,
the eminent
Law Publisher. Since our father's death we have con Embracing the REPORTS of all the leading
tinued to carry on the business of Law PubllMliern,
Booksellers and Exporters, at the above ad
Courts in this Country and England.
CHICAGO.
dress.
During his recent visits to the United States and
13-21
Canada, Robert W. Hatnes secured many Friends We have a very full assortment of
and Correspondents ; we are thus enabled to give ref
erences of the highest character in most of the princi
palWeAmerican
have nocities.
connection whatever with any other
THE CHICAGO
house of business, ami to prevent delay and miscar New Text Bocis and Digests,
riage, our Correspondents abroad are respectfully re
quested to plainly address their letters to us as fol
and an unusually full line of
E WS lows :
EGA L
STEVENS
&
HAYNES,
COMPANY,
RARE AND VALUABLE WORKS,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
LONDON,
P11I3NTING OFFICE,
ENGLAND, out of print, which we are offering, at lowest current
prices.
15 North Jefferson Street ;
Extract from " Report of J rues ROSENTHAL, Esq.,
Librarian
to
the
President
and
Members
of
We would also call attention to our superior facili
Business Office, 115 West Madison Street,
the Chicago Law Institute." Xwember, 187(1.
" To our collection of English Reports a valuable ties for importing, being in monthly receipt of
addition has been made by the importation of a
full and well preserved set of the House of Lords
Particular attention given to all kinds of
CONSIGNMENTS FKOM LONDON
Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58
LKGA
PRINTING : volumes.
" English books were imported directly free
INCLUDING
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the direct, which we are selling at unusually low figures.
firm of Stevens and Hayxes In London, whose
A large collection of Kecond'hand Textdiligence, promptness, and care in filling our or
Attorneys' Abstracts,
Hooks, I>lre.n and Beporla kept constantly on
ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
Briefs and Dockets,
hand.
Bonks, Pamphlets and Reports.
FRUIT TDCCC I GARDEN Dl AKJTC
Catalogues sent promptly upun application.
SHADE
I
nttO
I
HEDGE
f
LAN
I
O
Orders for this description of work will he execut
ed promptly in the neatest style of the art.
flower ecrrjc l
GARDEN OCCUd
Decrees, Orders,
Apple and Crab, WO 2 to I ft., Si ; 4 to 6 ft., $5
Pear, stand., extra, 1 year, Bartlett, etc., 3 to 4 'XI.
Mortgages, Deeds, Leases,
per doz., $2.-10.
CALLAGHAN & CO.,
Ckecks, Notes, Drafts, Bonds,
Meeda. Peach, hush., 82; Apple Osage, new, bush,
Cards, Labels, Letter Headings,
12.Pot&toea, Early) Rose, WhiteEPeach Blow, per
525 Wabash Ave.,
Bills of Lading, Bill Heads,
bush, $2.
Insurance Policies, Circulars,
Seedlings, 1000 Soft Maple, Si; Ash, $.1; Elm, $2.
Receipts, Hand-bills, etc., etc.. Illustrated Catalogue 104) pages, and Price List, 10c.
CHICAGO, ILL.
IS-ZI
T. K. P1ICENIX, Bloomington, 111.
Printed upon the shortest notice.

ATTORNEYS.
FRANK J. CRAWFORD,
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AT-LAW,
No. 323 Wabank Avenue, Chicago.
GEORGE C. FRY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
34 Clinton Street, Rofrm 5, Chicago.
JAMES B. BRADWELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 113 West Madison Street, Chicago.
Special Attention Given to Probate Matters.
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
ESTATES SETTLED.
"Set Chine house iti order; for thou shalt die,
and not live."t! Kings xx. 1.
S. A. GOODWIN.
E. C. LARXEP.
H. 3. TOWLE.
GOODWIN, LARNED & TOWLE,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
No. 37G Wabash Avenue, Odcago.
VI
BATE!) A KODt.IX
Attorneys at Law, 13 W. Madison St.
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lakb, Utah.
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.
26'
ROGERS & ROGERS,
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS,
It.*
Paul. Minn
CHICAGO A TTOIiNEYS.
Barker & Waite, 46 East Harrison.
Bates * Hodges, 113 Went Madison street.
Bcattie, C. J., 46 South Canal.
BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street.
Bonney, Fay A Griggs, 120 West Washington street.
Beutley, Bennett, Ullman & Ives. 376 Wabash ave.
Brouse, 0. R-, 1(*> Wabash avenue.
Carmichaol, D. L 815 Prairie avenue.
Chase, I\ L., .W) Wabash avenue.
Clarkson & Van Schaack, 45* Wabash avenue.
Deane tt Cahill, room 7, hind's Block.
Dent i Black, 710 Wabash avenue.
Eldridge 4 Tourtalotte, *>1 Wabash avenue.
Swing & Leonard, 4S7 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. W., lis West Madison street.
Felker, Win. S., 92 Besplaines street.
Goodwin, D., jr., n. e. corner Monroe and La Salle.
Goudy * Chandler, Union Central Block.
Graham, Geo. T., 00 South Canal.
Herbert * Quick, 61 Union Central Building, and 52S
State street.
Hqyne, Phil. A.. Congress Hall, between Michigan
and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne, Morton & Hoyne, 207 Michigan avenue.
Hitchcock, Dupee A Evarts, corner Wells and Mon
roe streets.
Howe A Russell, 175 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, 0. P.. 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E., IS East Harrison street.
Knickerbocker, J. C. * J. J., 163 West Washington
Leary. D. James, 95 West Madison.
Magrudcr, B. D., isl West Madison.
McClelland, Thos. S., 15 South Canal, room 6.
Moore 4 Caulfleld, 51 Central Union Block.
Monroe, Bisbee 4 Gibbs, 523 Wabash avenue.
Norton, Jessio O., 3S6 Wrabash avenue.
Nissen & Barnum, 120 W. Randolph, and 376 State.
Otis. E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Perkins, N. C, 479 Wabash av., cor. Eldridge court.
Reynolds, W. C, 170 West Washington st.
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 South Canal.
Rorko, M. A. A Sou, Room 57, Central Union Block.
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, 32.S Wabash avenue.
Sawin A Wells, 7'.' West Madison St.
Scammon, McCagg A Fuller. 3t> Wabash avenue.
Scoville, Geo., 30 South Clinton.
Small A Ingalls, 4S1 Wabash Ave.
Smith, Upton A Waterman, 135 West Monroe street.
Tenny, McClollan ATeuuy, J5 Wabash avenue.
Thomas, Sidney, 304 South State street.
Waughop, J. W., 401 Wabnsh avenue.
Williams A Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
Walker, Dexter A Smith, 502 Wabash avenue.
Wilson. Perry A Sturges, 47'J Wabash avenue.
J. II. BATTEX.
STATIONER,
185 LA SALLE STHEET.
Stationery and Legal Blanks.
Scale of Advertising Bates.
Space, i lw. 2 w.j S_w.| 4w.
I aq IILfil^Sl^^XoOiiSi&f SS.OO; $15.50;
2 sq.. 2.00
si. 5.i X)
4/.S
14.37
]4 eol..
1 col.. lo.OO 27.V1
Ten
lines nf Agatemust
make
Fquare.
Advertisements
be apaid
inr in advance,
and when not so paid, ofl per ceuL will be added
Legal Notices not included in the above.
"Printed at Ui"c7ch1caoo~Legal News Pee*, 13
North Jefferson street, Chicago.

Qhicago

Jegal

^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S71, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 25.

Eit Courts.
Our thanks are due the law firm of
Dent & Black, of this city, for a copy of
the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed Jan. 22, 1872.
margaret if. donoghie v. the city of chicago.
App&U Jroin Cook.
DOWERALLOWANCE IN LIEU OFWHEN
CANNOT BE CHANGED.
1. That when a widow has petitioned to recover
dower, and by reason of the indivisibility of the
Firoperty an allowance has been made to her in
ieu of dower, the sum so fixed becomes conclu
sive, and cannot be changed by a court of equity,
although the property may subsequently become
greatly enhanced or depreciated in value.Ed.
Legal News.
Opinion of the Court by Scott, J.
The question involved in this case, is
whether, when a widow has petitioned
to recover dower, and by reason of the
indivisibility of the property an allow
ance has been made to her in lieu of dow
er, the sum so fixed becomes conclusive
and cannot be changed by a court of
equity, although the property may sub
sequently become greatly enhanced or
depreciated in value.
The facts alleged in the bill and admit
ted by the demurrer are briefly these :
On the 3d day of October, 1800, the
appellant filed her petition in the Cir
cuit court of Cook county, for dower in
certain premises against Joseph X. Bar
ker and the City of Chicago, and upon
the hearing she was found to be entitled
to dower, and thereupon commissioners
were appointed by the court to assign
dower under the statute, who, at a sub
sequent term of the court, reported that
the premises could not be divided nor
dower assigned without manifest injury
to the rights of the parties interested
therein. Upon the confirmation of the
report, a jury was called and assessed
the yearly value of the dower in the
premises at the sum of seventy-five dol
lars per annum, and the court decreed
the pavmentof that sum and a like sum
annually in lieu of dower, during the
natural life of the doweress.
Since the rendition of the decree in
the former proceedings, the property
has greatly risen in value, so that the
sum of seventy-five dollars per annum is
frossly inadequate as an allowance for
ower therein, the premises being
worth the sum of thirty thousand dol
lars, without any improvements, and
would readily rent unimproved, for a term
of years, for at least fifteen hundred dol
lars, and that sum is the present fair
rental value.
Our statute follows the common law
and declares that "a widow shall be en
dowed of the third part of all the land
whereof her husband was seized of an
estate of inheritance, at any time during
the marriage, unless the same shall have
been released in legal form." It is also
provided that wherever it is practical to
do so, that the dower shall " be set off
and allotted to the widow by metes and
bounds, according to quality and quan
tity."
In view of this fact that some estates
could not be divided without great det
riment to the rights of the parties inter
ested, in case of a division, giving to the
widow a portion too small for profitable
use, the legislature, to make provision
whereby the widow should receive the
benefit of her right and the estate should
not be rendered valuless by ail unwise
division, enacted the 28th section of the
chapter on dower, in which it is provi
ded that when " the land or other estate
is not susceptible of a division without
great injury thereto, a jury shall be im
paneled to inquire of the yearly value
of the widow's dower therein, and shall
assess the same accordingly, and the
court shall thereupon render a judgment
that there be paid to such widow, as an
allowance in lieu of dower, on a day
therein named, the sum so assessed as

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, MARCH 30, 1872.

the yearly value of her dower, and the the law provided she should have in
like sum 6n the same day in every year "lieu of dower," and there being no fraud
thereafter during her natural life." The or mistake charged in the proceedings,
policy of the common law was, doubt there is no ground for equitable relief,
less, that the dower should be assigned and the decree of the Circuit court is af
by metes and bounds" one-third of the firmed.
Decree affirmed.
estate itself. Much trouble arose out of
Dent & Black for appellant.
the difficulty, in some estates, of making
M. F. Tuley for appellee.
an equitable division of the property,
so that the same could be enjoyed by
the doweress and the heir.
Our thanks are due the law firm of
Obviously, to avoid the practical diffi Jackson & Potter, of Jefferson, Iowa,
culties in the way of assigning dower by
" metes and bounds" in certain estates for the following opinion :
too limited in extent to be profitably
SUPREME COURT OF IOWA.
divided, the Btatute above referred tb
Opinion Filed Feb. 21, 1872.
was enacted.
v. H. ShTPMAM,
The power of the legislature to make C. Teylek et al., appellants,
Appellee.
such a provision for the maintenance of
Appeal/rom Green Circuit Court.
the widow in lieu of dower at common AMENDMENTSPLACE OF CONTRACTKALE
law, cannot be questioned ; indeed the OF LIQUORS IN ILLINOIS, WITH INTENT TO
VIOLATE THE IOWA STATUTE.
right of dower might be abolished bv leg
1. Amendments.The court construes the Iowa
islative power if deemed expedient, statutes,
and states when amendments may be
and other more beneficent provision made in the
and with whatMADE.That
effect.
1. CONTRACTpleadings,
BY LETTERWHERE
made.
where
an
order
or
offer
is
made
by
letter,
it does
The effect of the statute is where lands
constitute a contract until it is accepted and
are found to be indivisible, and the not
the letter containing the acceptance, placed in the
yearly value of the dower is assessed in mail, then the order or offer is complete and the
made where it is accepted, and not
the mode prescribed, that such assess contracttheis offer
was, fer it was where the offer was
ment, by force of the statute, stands in where
aeeepted that the two minds meet.
3. Sale or Liquor in Violation of the Law for
lieu of dower, and the heir or the owner the
of IntemperanceThat if the
of the fee will take the estate discharged agentsSuppression
the liquors to the de. dai t in Jeffer
from dower, but instead thereof, bur son, andsold
forwarded to his principals a statement
dened with a certain annuity, during of such sale for them to hll by forwarding the
liquors, then it was an 1......
and if the
the natural life of the widow.
had no license in Io . Uien they can
Such is the plain meaning of the law, plaintiffs
not recover, but if the agent simply took an order
and if it works hardship in certain cases, from defendant upon his principals in Rock Island,
which they might rill or refuse at their oponlji the power that enacted it can afford 111.,
lion, it was a Kock Island contract and the plain
the remedy.
tiffs can recovef, unless it is shown that they sold
It is not in the power of a court of the liquors with intent to enable the defendant to
vftl&te the provisions of the act for the suppresequity to relieve against the force of a sjy|ii
of intemperance.Ed. Legal News.
statute, the meaning of which is not
||&kActji>n upon two promissory notes for
doubtful.
In the case under consideration, the SloU.lw kach and payable, one in thirty,
yearly value of the dower was fixed by the and one in forty days, with ten per cent,
decree of the court some ten years ago, interest made by the defendant to the
and the aid of a court of equity is now plaintiff, and dated Jefferson, (Greene
invoked to relieve against the effect of County) March 23d, 1870.
The defendant for answer averred that
that decree, on the ground that since the
former proceedings were had, by reason the notes were made and delivered at
of the enhanced rental value of the Jefferson, Iowa, and the only considera
premises, the yearly value of the dower tion therefor was intoxicating liquors sold
as then fixed by the court, is grossly in by plaintiffs to defendant in Iowa, in vio
lation of and with intent to enable de
adequate.
It is not perceived how a court of eq fendant to violate the act for the suppres
uity will obtain jurisdiction to afford the sion of intemperance, and the defendant
also set up a counter claim for S444.08
relief sought.
The grounds of equitable jurisdiction for money paid for intoxicating liquors
are usually fraud, accident or mistake. sold by plaintifl'sto defendant in violation
None of these elements are to be found of law, and with the intent to enable de
in the case under consideration. It is fendant to violate the law for the sup
not pretended that the decree was not pression of intemperance, etc. The
fairly pronounced, or that the value of plaintiffs for replication, denied that they
the dower was not then fairly assessed. sold to defendant any intoxicating liq
Had the assessment been unfairly ob uors in Iowa, and aver that all sales were
tained, or for an inadequate amount, the made in Illinois pursuant to the law of that
widow would at that time have been State, and without any intent on the part
permitted to contest it, and would have of plaintiffs to violate or evade any law of
been entitled to have a reassessment. Iowa. There was a trial before a jury
Not having done so, we will presume which resulted in a verdict and judgment
that the assessment was fairly obtained, for defendant for costs. The plaintiffs'
appealed and the further facts are stated
and for the proper amount.
It is not doubtful that at common law, in the body of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court by Cole, J:
if the sheriff was guilty of fraud in mak
I. After the evidence was all taken and
ing the assignment of dower, equity
would relieve either party and order a the counsel for plaintiff was making the
readmeasurement of dower. To this closing argument, the defendant was per
effect are the cases, Hoby v Hobv, 1 Yes., mitted to file an amendment to his an
218 ; Sneyd v Sneyd.l Atk., p. 442. It is swer, wherein he averred that the sale of
believed that no case can be found liquors, for which the notes sued on were
where a court of equity ordered a reas given, was made in|Rock Island, Illinois,
signment of dower unless where the bill and were sold with the intent on the part
charged fraud or mistake. Relief has of plaintiffs to enable defendant to vio
been granted where the title to the lands late the act for the suppression of intem
assigned to the widow or heirs had failed perance, and permitted defendant to
after assignment, and a reassignment or withdraw his counter claim. The plain
dered, as in the case of the Singleton tiffs objected to the filing of said amend
ment because it was too late, and it set
heirs, 5 Dana, 87.
We have not been referred to a single up a different defense from the answer,
case that holds the contrary doctrine. it worked surprise and was not verified.
The questions involved in the case of The overruling of these objections is the
Gove v Cuther, 23 111., 034, cited by coun first error assigned.
sel, are not analagous to the one we are
The right to amend any pleading or
considering, and the reasoning of the proceeding, is very liberally provided
court will not be considered as controll for under our Code, (see Rev. Sec. 2977).
But it is left largely to the discretion of
ing the decision of this case.
In this instance it was found that the the Court, to be exercised in furtherance
appellant could not have dower assigned of justice.
As applied to the above objections in
to ner by " metes and bounds," and by
the decision of the court she got all that their order, the action provides that the

Whole No. 183.

Court " may allow a pleading to be filed
after the time limited." The court there
fore, in its discussion, hold that the
amendment was not too late. The sec
tion also provides that an amendment
may be made so as to conform the plead
ings to the facts proved, when it does
not change substantially the claim or
defense.
The only difference between the
amendment and the answer is, that the
former avers the sale to have been in
Illinois and the latter in Iowa, but both
alike aver that the sale was made by
plaintiff with the intent to enable de
fendant to violate the act for the sup
pression of intemperance. The defense
was grounded upon the fact that the
notes were given for intoxicating liquors
sold by plaintiffs to defendant in viola
tion of the act. This was the substance
of the defense. The time, place and
manner of the sale were the incidents.
There was no abuse of discretion in al
lowing the amendment, since it did not
change substantially the defense.
If the amendment worked surprise,
this should have been shown aliunde for
it was not manifest upon the pleading
itself. When shown it might entitle the
plaintiff to a continuance of the case at
the cost of the defendant, if asked for.
(Rev. Sec, 2979.) But this as not
done. As to the objection that the
amendment was not verified as the pre
vious pleadings had been, it is sufficient
to say that the code provides that the
court may permit the amendment with
out being verified. Rev. Sec. 2980 ; see,
also, Sec. 2910. There was, therefore,
no error in allowing the amendment.
II. The defense was grounded upon
Rev. Sec. 1571: F * * * " all sales,
transfers, conveyances, moi igages, liens,
attachments, pledges, and securities of
every kind, which either in whole or in
part," which shall have been made for or
on account of intoxicating liquors sold
in violation of this act, shall be utterly
null and void against all persons in all
cases, and no right of any kind shall be
maintained in any court m this State for
intoxicating liquors or the value thereof,
sold in any other State or county, con
trary to the law of said State or county,
or with intent to enable any person to
violate any provisions of this act." * *
The testimony in the case tended to
show that the plaintiffs were wholesale
liquor dealers, in Rock Island, Illinois,
and employed an agent to travel for
them, and gave to him general author
ity to procure orders for liquors on their
house, and that most or all the liquors
purchased by defendant of the plaintiffs
were ordered at Jefferson, Iowa, through
this agent, and shipped on board cars at
Rock Island, Illinois, to the defendant
at Jefferson, Iowa, he paying freight and
charges and taking the risk of leakage,
etc.
There was no conflict in the evidence
as to whether plaintiffs knew that de
fendant i ntended to sell the liquors in
violation of law.
The evidence does not disclose with
any definiteness whether the agent had
authority to make a sale of the liquors
or only to take an order for them to be
filled or not, at the option of the prin
cipals, nor does it appear directly which
course was pursued in this case.
On motion of the defendant's counsel,
the court instructed the jury as follows :
" If the jury find, from the evidence, that
the plaintiffs or their agent took the or
der or orders for the liquors sued for in
this case in this State, then the contract
was made in this State," and the court
refused to give the following instruc
tions, asked bv plaintiff: "The jury
are instructed that if they believe, from
the evidence, that the order or orders,
some or all of them on the plaintiff,
were procured by their agent for pro
curing orders in the State of Iowa, and
that said orders were given by the de
fendant on the plaintiffs, who were doing
business at Rock Island in Illinois, sub
ject to their approval or disapproval,

i94
then no sale would take place until the
orders were accepted or approved by
them in Rock Island, and the place of
contract would not be by such order de
termined to be in Iowa ; that the mere
giving of an order does not fix the place
of contract."
The giving of the first above and the
refusal to give the latter, were duly ex
cepted to and are now assigned for
error.
We are of the opinion that the court
did err, both in giving the one and re
fusing the other. It is well settled that
to constitute a contract, requires both
the making and the accepting of a prop
osition, that is, there must be a concur
rence of two minds upon the same thing.
Where an order or offer is made by let
ter it does not constitute a contract until
it is acepted and the letter containing
the acceptance placed in the mail, the
contract as specified in the order or oiler
is complete, and it is very plain upon
principle, that the contract is made
where it is accepted, and not where the
offer was made, for it is there that the two
minds meet upon the same thing and
the contract is consummated. This has
been so adjudicated. Mclntire v. Parks,
3 Met,, 207 ; Whisten v. Stodder, 8 Mart.,
(La.) 85; see, also, 2 Par. on Conts., 586.
Hence, if the agent only " took the or
ders for the liquors sued for in this
State," but did not contract the sale of
them here, it was not a contract made
in this State. To take an order for liq
uors is quite another ; the former is a
proposition, while the latter is the consumation of a contract so much as to the
instruction given.
The instruction refused states exactly
the legal proposition we have undertak
en to illustrate. That is to say, if the
order for liquors made in Iowa, was sub
ject to the approval or disapproval of
the plaintiffs, they did not become
bound by the order, as a contract, until
they approved or accepted it, and if they
made the approval or acceptance at Hock
Island, then upon the principle above
stated, it was a Hock Island contract. In
the language of the instruction itself,
" the mere giving of an order does not
fix the place of contract."
It is proper to remark that the court
gave the counterpart of the refused in
struction above set forth. The instruc
tion given was : " If the jury find that
an agent of plaintiffs came here and
offered to sell intoxicating liquors to the
defendant, and the defendant agreed to
take them, and the price was agreed
upon, and the terms of freight, and that
defendant had no license to deal in such
liquors from the proper court of the
State, the jury will find for the defend
ant." This having been given, rendered
the giving of the above neeessary in
order to present to the jury the law as
applicable to the alternative of fact
properly deducible from the evidence.
From what has already been said it is
evident that the third instruction asked
by plaintiffs, should also have been
given. The plaintiffs also asked an in
struction, being the second of their
series, to the effect that the mere knowl
edge that a party to whom intoxicating
liquors were sold, was intending to re
sell the same in the State of Iowa, con
trary to law, is not enough to avoid
or vitiate the contract, but there must
also be proof that they sold them with
the intent to enable the defendant to
violate the act, etc. This was refused,
and we think rightly so. We do not
hold, however, that the mere knowledge
would necessarily vitiate or avoid the
contract, but it is a fact from which the
jury might infer the intent, especially
when the other circumstances attending
the manner of acquiring that knowledge
was taken into consideration. The
other instructions were rightly given.
The question as to the effect of a sale
with intent to enable another to violate
a law of this State, is to be determined
under our statute.
The pivotal question in the case is as
to where the contract was made. If the
agent sold the liquors to the defendant
in Jefferson, and forwarded to his prin
cipals a statement of such sale for them
to fill by forwarding the liquors speci
fied, then it was an Iowa contract, and
if the plaintiffs had no license to sell
such liquors here, then they cannot re
cover.
If the agent simply took an order from
defendant upon his principals in Rock
Island, which they might fill or refuse
at their option, it was a Rock Island con

tract and the plaintiffs can recover, un

less it is shown that they sold the liq
uors with intent to enable the defendant
to violate the provisions of the act for
the suppression of intemperance.
Reversed.
Jackson & Potter, for appellants.
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY.
Opinion filed March 23, 1872.
Chaui.es Jerome v. Charles Bicelow.
In ChanceryCONTRACT NOT TO FOLLOW PROFESSION'
WITHIN' WHAT LIMITS REASONABLE
WHEN' VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY.
1. What Limits Unreasonable When Con
tract Void.The contract being between two
physicians that one of them would not practice
anywhere in the State of Illinois or in the North
west for ten years upon a certain consideration,
the court held that the contract was an unreason
able restraint upon the defendant, against public
policy, and void.
2. That a contract not to follow a profession or
trade, in order to be valid, must be reasonable as
to time find place, and not work as a total re
straint.
2. What Limits Unreasonable.The court re
views the English and American authorities, and
holds that a contract which includes the whole
State of Illinois is unreasonable as to extent, and
therefore void.Ed. Legal News.
The opinion of the court was deliv
ered by Williams, C. J.
Complainant and defendant both pro
fess to he physicians in the city of Chi
cago. Prior "to May, 1870, the defendant
had been practicing as a physician, and
more particularly as a specialist, and had
secured in this and other States a consid
erable professional business. On the
10th of May, 1870, complainant and de
fendant entered into an agreement by
which the defendant stipulated, upon
the consideration of forty thousand dol
lars, to be paid by complainant in semi
annual payments of two thousand dol
lars each for ten veal's, to license and
permit the complainant to enter in and
take possession of his office in Chicago,
and the goods and chattels therein, and
to carry on the business in the special
department, in which defendant was
then engaged, in the name and under
the patronage of the defendant from the
5th day of July, 1870, for the period of
ten vears thereafter, and that until the
expiration of said ten years "defendant
would not, in his own name or other
wise, prosecute his profession in its gen
eral branches, nor in the specialty in
which he had been engaged, in the city
of Chicago, nor within a radius of live
hundred miles thereof.
By a supplemental agreement, Bigelow
is to take one-half of the net profits of
the business, instead of the payments
agreed to be made by the original con
tract.
The defendant, after the fire, having
resumed the practice of said specialty in
the city of Chicago, the complainant, on
the 18th of October last, filed his bill in
this court setting up the contract above
referred to, alleging that he had per
formed his part of it, and had paid de
fendant under it several thousands of
dollars, and praying that defendant
might be restrained from engaging in
and practicing the profession of medi
cine in the State of Illinois or anywhere
in the Northwest for the remainder of the
unexpired term of ten years.
The most important question raised
upon the argument of this case is as to
the validity of the contract so entered
into on the 10th day of May, 1870, the
defendant insisting that the contract is
void for the reason that it is in restraint
of trade, and therefore against public
policy.
The decisions upon this question run
through a period of more than four hun
dred and fift}- years. The first reported
case was A. D. 1415, in the reign of
Henry V., when English jurisprudence
was in its infancy, and when judicial
manners were so rude that an English
judge accompanied the delivery of his
opinion with threats and blasphemy.
The rule of law as then stated, and long
thereaft er maintained, has been modified
by the advancing civilization of the ages,
and the manners of the forum still
more.
The law, as it now exists, may be thus
stated : that the legal presumption is
against every contract in restraint of
trade, whether that restraint be general
or partial ; that every contract for a gen
eral restraint of trade is absolutely void ;
that while the presumption is against a
contract in partial restraint of trade,
such presumption is capable of being re
butted, and such contracts are often held
valid, provided they are reasonable and
upon adequate consideration.

The following are some of the more

important American decisions which
sustain the foregoing statement of the
law :
8th Mass., 226, Pierce v. Fuller; 9th
Mass., 530, Perkins et al. v. Lyman ; 1
Pick., 450, Stearns v. Bauett; <> Indiana,
202, Beard v. Dennis; 7 Blackford, 340,
Bowser v. Bliss ; 3d Pick, 101, Palmer v.
Stebbins ; 7 Cowen, 308, Nobles v. Bates ;
19 Pick, 52, Alger v. Thatcher; 10 New
York 10 Selden) 244, Dunlop v. Gregory ;
21 Wend., 157, Chappel v. Brock way;
13th Allen, 372, Taylor v. Blanchard.j
Thus far, there is no difficulty in de
termining what is the law, for not only
is it so declared by the American courts,
but the uniform current of English de
cisions for more than one hundred and
fifty years, since the leading case of
Mitchell v. Reynolds, 1 Peere Williams,
181, is in the same direction.
But what shall be regarded as a gen
eral and what a partial restraint of
trade, and what partial restraints shall
be held valid and what void, are ques
tions not so easily determined. The
vital question in reference to partial re
straints of trade is whether they are
reasonable or unreasonable. If, in the
opinion of the court, the restraint has
been greater than the protection of the
party who seeks the benefit of the re
striction requires, such restriction has
been held unreasonable, and the con
tract void. Under the law as thus de
clared each case of partial restraint
must be decided with reference to its
own particular circumstances, and the
reasonableness or unreasonableness
of the restriction being a question for
the court, it is not strange that differ
ent decisions have been made in cases
where the facts were substantially the
same. The principle controlling the
ca6es is well settled, the only difficulty
is in its application.
Almost all the cases which I have had
the opportunity of examining, whether
English or American, are those in which
the restriction has been confined to less
territory than the kingdom or the State.
Is a restriction co-extensive with the
kingdom of Great Britain one which by
their courts would be regarded as gen
eral or total?
In the case of Homer v. Ashford, (3
Bingham, 320), Chief Justice Best, in
delivering the opinion of the court, said :
" Any deed by which a person binds
himself not to employ his talents, his
industry or his capital in any useful un
dertaking in the kingdom would be void,"
the words, " the kingdom " being itali
cized.
Similar expressions are used in other
English cases, but in none of them, ex
cept in the case in 3d Beavan, was the
precise point before the court, for in
none of them, to which my attention
has been called, with the above excep
tion, was the restriction co-extensive
with the territory of England.
In the case last referred to Lord Langdale, Master of the Rolls, held that an
agreement on the part of certain at
torneys not to practice in Great Britain
for the period of twenty years, without
the consent of the attorney to whom
they had sold their business, was not
an unreasonable restriction, and that the
contract was valid. 3 Beavan, 383,
Whittaker v. Howe. This case, per
haps, goes farther than anv English case,
and the correctness of it has been ques
tioned by a learned English Annotator,
1st Smith's Lead Cases, part II., page
049. The English decisions appear to
have assumed that a restraint co-exten
sive with the kingdom of Great Britain
would have been void, and many of the
expressions of the judges in their opin
ions are to this effect, but generally they
are mere dicta.
What shall be a general or total re
striction of trade in America, whether
it shall be a restriction co-extensive with
the particular State in which the con
tract is made or with the boundaries of
the United States, has not often been
raised in our courts.
In the the case of Chappel v. Brockway, 21 Wend., 157, Judge Bronson said,
" Contracts which go to the total re
straint of trade, as that a man will not
pursue his occupation or carry on busi
ness anywhere in the State are void."
In Van Master v. Babcock, 23 Barbour,
636, the court say : " It is of no conse
quence to the public where a man car
ries on his trade or occupation within
the State, provided he is not prohibited
from doing so at all."

Paige, Justice, in delivering the opin

ion of flie court of appeals in Dunlop v.
Gregory, 10 New York, 244, said : " Con
tracts .... which goto the total restraint
of trade, such as obligate a man not to pur
sue his occupation or exercise his trade
anywhere in the State, are void." In
none of the above cases, however, was
the alleged restraint co-extensive with
the State jurisdiction.
In the case of Lawrence v. Kidder,
10 Barbour, 042, the restriction was for
all the territory of the State of New
York west of the city of Albany, and
while in argument the counsel for the
plaintiffs admitted that a restraint
throughout the kingdom was a general
restraint, he urged that that rule as
applied to this country should include
the territory of the Federal government,
not a State only. Judge Sheldon, de
livering the opinion of the court, held
that the contract of restraint had rela
tion to the particular State and not to
the United States as a consolidated gov
ernment.
In the case of Taylor v. Blanehard, 13
Allen, 370, the restriction extended to
the whole commonwealth of Massachu
setts. In this case also the point was
made by counsel that the restriction, in
order to be general or total, must extend
throughout the United States, but the
Supreme court of Massachusetts held
that in the consideration of the extent
of the restriction the State was only to
be regarded.
I have found no American case which
holds that a contract in restraint of
trade which is co-extensive with State
jurisdiction is valid, while there are twodecisions and many dicta which sustain,
the opposite view.
The only English case which holds
that a restriction extending throughout
Great Britain is valid, is the one in
3d Beavan, above referred to.
It is because the law protects all
branches of trade and business from
monopoly that it has held general con
tracts in restraint of trade void, and
each State is better fitted to protect the
rights of its citizens in this regard than,
the general government.
It Is a matter pertaining to the muni
cipal laws of each State, and each State
in the Union is independent of every
other as to these laws. It is for the
interest of each State to protect and en
courage trade, commerce and business
within its own particular jurisdiction.
Reason, as well as the weight of author
ity, is in favor of the view, that for the
purpose of determining whether or not
a restraint is general, reference is to be
had to the boundaries of the State, and
not of the United States.
The restriction in the case at bar pre
vented the defendant from practicing
his profession generally, or in the spe
cialty in whichhe had been engaged, in
Chicago, or within a radius of five hun
dred miles from this city, which by a
further provision of the contract was to
be construed " to include all the western
and northwestern States and territories.""
The defendant was thus excluded from,
practice not only in the State of his
residence, but also throughout adjoining
States and territories, containing an
aggregate population of several mil
lions. And he was not only restrained
from practicing the particular specialty
to which the contract more immediately
refers, but every branch of his pro
fession.
Under no decision, English or Ameri
can, which I have examined, has such a
contract been held valid. It is unreason
able, for it was far more of a restriction
than was: necessary to protect the inter
ests of the complainant. It is true that
it appears by the pleadings and evidence
that under the name of " Charles Big
elow " the defendant was doing a large
business as a specialist in Chicago, and
also b)' a correspondence conducted with
parties scattered all over the United
States. Yet it can hardly be contended
that in order to protect the interests of
the complainant as a specialist in Chi
cago, it was necessary that the defendant
should refrain from entering into a gen
eral practice as a physician in Minnesota,
Kansas, and Colorado, and the yet more
remote portions of the West and North
west.
The contract is therefore void, because
it is an unreasonable restraint.
It becomes unnecessary to examine
the other questions raised and argued
upon the hearing, as this one must be
decisive of the case. Inasmuch as the

Chicago

Legal

Sec. 2. That the President is hereby

authorized to appoint, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, a reg
ister and receiver for said land district,
who shall be required to reside at the
site of the land office for said district,
who shall be subject to the same laws
OFFICIAL.
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, and reponsibilities, and whose compen
Pawed at the Second Session of the Forty- sation, respectively, shall be the same as
that now allowed by law to other landSecond Congress.
officers in said State.
[General natureXo. 2.5.]
Approved, March 12, 1S71'.
AN ACT for the reliefof George W. Morse.
. Be it enacted by the Senate aud Home of
[General natureXo. 28.]
Representatives of the United States ofAmerACT authorizing tho President of the Tutted
ca, in Congress assembled, That the Com ANStates
to re-establish the Monroe land district
missioner of Patents be, and he hereby in the State of lxmisiana.
Be
it
enacted by the Senate and House of
is, authorized to entertain aud exercise
jurisdiction over petitions of George W. Representatives of the United States of Amer
Morse for the extension of two letters- ica in Congress assembled, That the Presi
patent granted to him on the twenty- dent of the United States be, and he is
eighth day of October, eighteen hun hereby authorized, if in his judgment
dred and fifty-six, for a further term of the public interests would be subserved
seven years from the day on which such thereby, to re-establish the Monroe land
extensions may be granted, and to hear district in the State of Louisiana, with
the testimony of the applicant and de the same boundaries that existed before
termine upon the said petitions in the the consolidation of said land dis
same manner and with the same effect trict with the land district at Xew Or
as if the original terms of said patents, leans.
Approved, March 10, 1872.
or of any foreign patents covering the
same inventions, had not expired, and
[General nature>o. 20.]
to grant or refuse such extensions upon
ACT to restore the records of the t'nited States
the same principals, otherwise, that gov ANcourts
in the northern district of Illinois.
ern his decisions upon such applications
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
when made under the law of July Representatives of the United States of Amer
eighth, eighteen hundred and seventy : ica in Congress assembled, That in pro
Provided, That no person shall be held ceeding to restore the records of the cir
liable for the infringement of said pat cuit and district courts of the northern
ents, if extended, for making use of said district of Illinois, destroyed by fire on
inventions since the expiration of the the ninth of October, eighteen hundred
original terms of said patents, and prior and seventy-one. under the act of March
to the date of their extension : And pro third, eighteen hundred and seventyvided further, That any person, Arm, or one, entitled, " An act relating to records
corporation now engaged in the man of the courts of the United States," the
ufacture of lire-arms, and using said in notice required by said act may be
vention, shall be entitled to use the ma served upon any non-resident of said
chinery made or constructed by them district anywhere within the jurisdic
for manufacturing the same since the tion of the United States, or in any for
expiration of the original terms of said eign country, the proof of the service of
patents, without liability during the term such notice, if made in a foreign coun
of said extension.
try, to be certified by a minister or coun
Approved, March 11,1872.
sel of the United States in such country,
under his official seal.
[General XatcreXo. 2G.]
Sec. 2. That a certified copy of the of
AN ACT to create an additional land district in ficial return of the district attorney,
the State of Nevada.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of clerk of the circuit or district court, or
Representatives ofllie United States of Amer the marshal of the northern district of
Illinois, made in pursuance of law, and
ica in Congress assembled, That all that on
file in the Department of Justice, re
portion of the State of Xevada, embraced
in the following described limits, to wit, lating to any cause in either of said
courts to which the United States was a
commencing at the corner common to party,
the record of which was destroyed
townships twenty-four and twenty-five
in said fire, may be filed in the court to
north, range forty-four and forty-five which
it appertains, and shall have the
east, Mount Diable base and meridian ;
thence running due east to the eastern same force and effect as if it were an or
return made to said court ; and in
boundary line of the State of Xevada; iginal
.case in which the names of the [jarthence north on said eastern boundary any
of said State to the north boundary of ties, and the date, and amount of the
or decree shall appear from
said State ; thence west on said north judgment
boundary of said State to the eastern such returns, it shall be lawful for the
boundary of the Carson land district; court in which they are filed to issue the
necessary process to enforce such decree
thence south along said eastern boun or
judgment in the same manner as if
dary of the Carson land district to the
place of beginning, shall constitute a the original record was before said
separate land district, to be called the court.
Sec. 3. That it shall be the duty of the
Elko land district, the office of which
shall be located at Elko, in Elko county, district attorney for the northern district
Illinois to take such steps as may be
State of Xevada ; which location may be of
changed by the President of the United necessary to restore the records and "files
the circuit and district courts of said
States from time to time as the public of
district which were destroyed by fire on
interest may require.
of October, eighteen hundred
Sec. 2. That the President shall ap the ninth
seventy one, and in which the
point, by and with the advice and con and
sent of the Senate, or in the recess of the United States is interested, so far as the
Senate, a register and a receiver of pub judges of said courts, respectively, shall
it essential to the interests of the
lic moneys for said district, and stud offi deem
cers shall reside in the place where said United States that said records and liles
land office is located, and shall have the be restored ; and the judgesof said courts,
respectively, are authorized to direct
same powers and receive the same emol such
steps to be taken as, in their opin
uments as the same officers now receive ion, shall
be deemed advisable to restore
in the other land districts in said State. the judgment
dockets and indices of said
Approved, March 12, 1872.
courts and, for that purpose, may direct the
performance, by the clerks of said courts,
[General natureXo. 27.]
AN ACT to create an additional laud district in and by the United States attorney for
said district, ofany duty incident thereto,
the State of Minnesota.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of and said clerks and said district attor
Representatives of the United States of Amer- ney shall be allowed such compensation
ca in Congress assembled, That the Pres and disbursements for services rendered
ident of the United States be, and he is under this section (in cases where no
hereby, authorized to establish an ad compensation is now provided by law
ditional land district in the State of Min for such services) as may be allowed by
nesota, embracing all that part of the the attorney general, and certified to be
present Alexandria land district which just and reasonable by the judge of the
lies north of township number one hun court in which said services are rendered,
dred and thirty-six north, and west of and the amount so allowed shall be paid
range nmnber thirty-five west of the fifth out of the judiciary fund : Provided how
principal meridian, and to fix from time ever, That the sum allowed the clerks of
to time the boundaries thereof, which dis said courts shall not exceed the sum of
trict shall be named after the place at twelve thousand dollars, and the entire
which the office shall first be established ; compensation of the United States attor
and the President shall have power to ney for such services shall not exceed
fix from time to time the location of the the sum of six thousand dollars.
office for such district.
Approved, March 18, 1872.
contract is void at I*1') the complainant
is not entitled to iui>' relief in equitv.
The bill will be dismissed for want of
quity at complainant's costs.

i95

News.

[General natureXo 30.]

AN ACT to amend section thirty-five of an act
emitted "An act to reduce internal taxes, and
for other purposes."
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer
ica in Congress assembled, That the priv
ileges of an act entitled "An act to re
duce internal taxes, and for other pur
poses," approved July fourteenth, eight
een hundred and seventy, be, and are
hereby, extended to the port of Pitts
burgh, in the State of Pennsylvania, with
the same effect as if it had been inserted
in the thirty-fifth section of said act.
Approved, March LS, 1872.
[General XatureXo. 31.]
AN ACT authorizing the survey and marking of
the boundary between the territory of the tinted
States and the possessions of Grout Britain, from
the Lake of the Woods to the summit of the
Kocky Mountains.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer
ica 111 Congress assembled, That the Pres
ident of tho United States, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, be,
anil he is hereby, authorized to co-op
erate with the government of Great
Britain in the appointment of a joint
commission, in accordance with the
plans and estimates of Brigadier General
A. A. Humphreys, Chief of Engineers,
submitted November twenty -third,
eighteen hundred and seventy, for de
termining the boundary line between
the United States and the British pos
sessions, between the Lake of the Woods
and the Rooky Mountains: Provided,
however, That engineers in the regular
service of the United States shall be em
ployed exclusively as engineers in the
performance of the duties contemplated
by this act, without any additional sal
ary, and the Secretary of War is hereby
directed to make the necessary details
of engineers for that purpose.
Sec\ 2. That fifty thousand dollars, or
so much thereof as may be required, be,
and the same is hereby, appropriated out
of any money in the treasury not other
wise appropriated, to carry into effect the
object of said joint commission.
Approved, March 10,1872.

CHICA GO A TTORNE YS.

rSurkiM- A Waite, 46 East llnrrion.
Hates A Hodges, 113 West Madison street.
Beattle, C. J., 43 South Canal.
HKADWELL, J. B., 11.-. West Madison street.
Bonney, Kay A Griggs, 12(1 West Washington street.
Heutlcy, Bennett, UUman A Ives. :;76 Wabash ave.
Brouse, O. R.t 400 Wabash avenue.
Carmichael, D. L 815 Prairie avenue.
Chase, F. L., 3S6 Wabash avenue.
Clarkson A Van Schaack, 4M Wabash avenue.
Peano A Cahill, room 7, Liud's Block.
Dent A Black, 740 Wabash avenue.
Eldridge A Tourtalotte, 401 Wabash avenue.
Ewing A Leonard, 437 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. W., lis West Madison street
Felker, Win. 8.. 92 Desplalncs street.
Goodwin, D., jr., n. e. corner Monroe and La Salle.
Goudy A Chandler. Union Central Block.
Graham, Geo. T., rto South Canal.
Herbert A Quick, 61 Union Central Building, and 529
State street.
Hoyne. Phil. A., Congress Hull, between Michigan
and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne. Horton A Jloyne, 267 Michigan avenue.
Hitchcock, Dupee A Evarts, corner Wells aud Mon
roe streets.
Howe A Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, 0. P., 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E., l.s East Harrison street.
Knickerbocker, J. C. A J. J., 161! West Washington
Leary. D. James, 95 West Madison.
Macnider, B. D., Isl West Madison.
McClelland, Thos. S., 45 South Canal, room 6.
Moore A'Caulfield, 54 Central Union Block.
Monroe, Bisbee A Gibbs, 523 Wabash aveuue.
Norton. Jessie O., 3*6 Wabash avenue.
Kissen A Barnuni. 120 W. Randolph, and 376 State.
Otis. K. A., 481 Wabash aveuue.
Perkins, N. C 479 Wabash av., cor. Eldridge court.
Reynolds, W. C, 170 West Washington st.
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 South Cutial.
Rorke, M. A. A Son, Room 57, Central Union Blook.
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, ,12ft Wabash avenue.
Sawin A Wells, 79 West Madison St.
Scammon, McCagg A Fuller, 339 Wabash avenue.
Scovillc, Geo., 30 South Clinton.
Small A Ingalls, 1M Wabash Ave.
Smith, Upton A Waterman, 135 West Monroe sti oet.
Tenny, McClellan A Teuuy, 4:>4 Wabash avenue.
Thomas, Sidney, 364 South State street.
Waugbop, J. W., 401 Wabash avenue.
Williams A Thompson, 534 Wabash avenue.
Walker, Dexter A Smith, 562 Wabash avenue.
Wilson, Perry A Sturges, 47y Wnbash avenue.

JAMES B. BRADWTELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Xo. 113 West Madison Street, Chicago.
Special Attention Given to Probate Matters.
XXXIV. INDIANA REPORTS.
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
Our thanks are due James B. Black
ESTATES SETTLED.
"Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die,
Reporter of the Supreme Court of Indi
ana, for advance sheets of the 34th vol and not live."2 Kin'i.s xx. 1.
ume of his Reports, from which we take
S. W. RAWSON,
the following head-notes :
Attorney. 33 II'. Kaiidvlph Street.
iMHANCERY NOTICE.Slate of Illinois/County of
of Cookv. county.
May
HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Term.Cook,
A. D.s.1*72.Superior
Annie court
A. Hoffman
William Hoff
Chancery.
W\fe's separate property. "Where a man man.In
Affidavit of the non-residence of William Hoffman,
invests his wife's money in land, and, defendant above named, having been flle'l ill the office
the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
without her knowledge or consent, takes of
notice is hereby given to the said William Hoffman
the deed therefor in his own name, and that the complainant heretofore tiled her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, aud
afterwards sells such land, she is entitled that
a summons thereupon issued out of said court
said defendant,
on the first Monday
to the entire sum received therefor. against
May next,
(1S72.) as isreturnable
by law required.
(Opinion by Worden, J.)Dayton v. Fish ofNow,
unless you, the said William Hoffman, shall
personally be and appear beforo said Superior court of
er, Administrator, p. 350.
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
at Chicago, in said county, on the lirst Monday
EstoppelDecedents' Estates. Where a boldeu
of May,
IK72, and bill
plead,
answer orthesame.
demur and
to the
man dies seized of land purchased in said
complainant's
of complaint,
the
matters and tilings therein charged and stated, will be
part with his own money and in part Uiken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you
with money belonging to his wife, the according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
deed being taken 111 his name without S. W. Rawson, Compl't's
Sol'r. JACOBSON, Clerk.
25-28p
her knowledge or consent, she is entitled
to recover from his estate the amount of plIANCKRT NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
of Cookv.county.
April
her money so invested ; and in the pros Term.Cook,
A. D.sb.1872.Superior
Edwincourt
Kneeland
Fidelia Kueeecution of such claim against said estate lund.in
Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-rcsidenco of Fidelia Kneeland,
she will not be estopped by the facts that defendant
above named, having been hied in the office
she attended a sale, made by the admin of
the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
is hereby given to the said Fidelia Kneeland
istrator of said estate under an order of notice
tiledside
his thereof,
bill of com
the proper court, of two-thirds of said that
plaintthein complainant
said court, onheretofore
the chancery
and
u summons thereupon issued out of said court
land, and did not make any objection to that
against said defendants, returnable on the first Mousuch sale, but herself bid thereat, and of April next, (lft72.) as is by law reuuired.
Now, unless you, the said lidelia Kneeland,
that in an action by the purchaser at such shall
personally be and appear before said Supe
sale against her for partition of said rior court of Cook county, on the first dny of a term
thereof,
to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
land, she set up her claim to an interest on the tlrst
Monday of April. IS,?, anil plead, answer
in said land beyond her one-third there or demur to the said complainant's bill of complaint,
same, and the mailers and tilings therein charged
of as widow, because of its purchase with the
and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree
her money in part, and her claim to such entered against you according to the praver of said
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
equitable interest was disallowed, and bill.
S. W. Rawson, Compl't's Sol'r.
25-28p
partition was awarded without regard
thereto.lb.
C1HANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
J Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook county. April
REPLEVIN.
Term.and
A. P.
LucyIteed.In
M. Buckley.
Jr., v. City of Chi
cago
Wi1872.
liam K.
Chancery.
Affidavitabove
of thenamed,
non-residence
of
K. Reed,
Justice of the PeaceBond. In an ac defendant
having beenWilliam
filed in tho
office
tion of replevin commenced before a of the clerk of said Superior
court of Cook county,
is herely given to the said William K. Reed
justice of the peace, if the bond filed by notice
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
the plaintiff be for a sum less than dou- that
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, aud
a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
ble the value of the goods as stated in that
said defendant,
the first Mon
the verified complaint, the justice has no against
day of April
next, (18721,returnable
as is by lawonrequired.
Now, uuless you. the said William K. Reed, shall per
jurisdiction of the action ; and on appeal sonally
be and appear before said Superior Court of
to the court of common pleas such defect Cook county,
on theinfirst
of a onterm
to be
at Chicago,
saidday
county,
the thereof,
first Monday
of the bond constitutes good ground for holdeu
of
April,
W2,
and
plead,
anBwer
or
demur
to
the
a motion by the defendant to dismiss the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will
action, or to arrest the judgment.(Opin the
he taken as confessed, aud a decree entered againt
ion by Buskirk, J.)Deardorff v.Ulmer, you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
p. 353.
Snowhook A Geav, Compl't's Sol'rs.
25-23

196

Chicago

Legal

Chicago Legal New s. the district judge for decision, even

though no proof whatever be offered
tending to invalidate the debt so proved.
ILei tTmrit.
6 N. B. R., 202.
Statute op Limitations.The Su
CHICAGO, MARCH 30, 1872.
preme Court of South Carolina, Reade
and Boyden, JJ., dissenting, in SimonPUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
ton
v. Clark, held that a promissory note
The Chicago Legal Jsews Co.,
barred by the statute of limitations is
AT 115 MADISON STREET.
not revived by an offer to payjiu Con
federate currency. 5 Am. L. T., 39.
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
Restoration of Lost or Destroyed
Terms:
Pwo Dollars per annum, in advance. Singlecop- Records.In this issue we print the law
ies Ten Cents.
of the United States recently passed for
THE LEGAL MEWS OFFICE la at 115 the purpose of aiding in the restoration
Weat 31adlon street. Tbe Printing of the lost records and papers of the
Establishment la at 13 X. JeOeraon St.
Federal courts in this district. Also the
general law of this State providing for
We call attention to the following the restoration of the records of the
opinions reported at length in this issue : State courts which have been lost or de
Dower Allowance in Lieu of stroyed. This law was in force from and
Cannot be changed.The opinion of the after the 19th of the present month.
Supreme Court of this State, by Scott,
BY THE GOV
J., holding where a widow has petitionel BILLS APPROVED
ERNOR.
for dower, and by reason of the indivisi
This list is continued from page 175,
bility of the land an allowance has been and includes all bills signed by the Gov
made to her in lieu of dower, the sum ernor up to last Tuesday.
so fixed, in the absence of fraud, mis
SENATE.
take or accident, cannot be changed by 100, An act relating to mills and millers.
144.
An
act
in
regard
to wills.
a court of equity, although the land may 146. An act in regard to
the practice in actions of
have increased or decreased in value. ejectment.
165. An act regarding contracts.
The question decided in this case is one 260. Concerning Canada thistles.
275. To secure to all persons freedom in the se
upon which the profession have not lection
of an occupation or profession.
285. In relation to bridges across rivers on tho
agreed, and this is the first case in our borders
of the Stale.
State directly upon the question.
290. To provide means to pay the expense of
renting and furnishing suitable accommodations
Sale of Liquor under the Iowa for tlic Illinois Charitable Eye and Ear Infirmary.
338. To provide for the restoration of court rec
Statute.The opinion of the Supreme ords
whicu have been destroyed.
To make an appropriation to pay the debts
Court of Iowa, delivered by Cole, J., of341.
the Stato Reform School.
construing the act of that State passed 355. To amend an act entitled an act to incorpo
and govern fire and marine and inland insur
for the purpose of suppressing intem rate
ance companies doing business in the State of Illi
nois.
perance.
388. To secure uniform and reliable statistics
the defendant and criminal classes,
Contract not to Follow a Profes concerning
and their treatment in State and county institu
sion.The opinion of the Circuit Court tions.
891. To allow convicts in the penitentiary a'
of this county, delivered by Williams, credit
in diminution of their sentence, and for
their
being restored to citizenship upon certain
C. J., holding where a physician sold conditions.
out his practice, and contracted not to 399. To exempt homesteads from forced sale and
provide for setting off the same, and to exempt
follow his profession in the State of Ill to
certain personal property from attachment and
on execution, and from distress for rent.
inois or the Northwest, that this was an sale
401. An act in regard to judgments and decrees,
unreasonable limitation, contrary to and the manner ot enforcing the same by execu
and to provide for the redemption of real
public policy and void. The courts all tion,
estate sold under execution or decree.
402.
provide for holding court 27th circuit.
agree that such a contract is valid if 410. To
An act to provide for the collection of rev
and for the sale of real estate for non-pay
reasonable as to time and place, but have enue
ment of taxes or special assessments for State,
not agreed as to what are reasonable county, municipal or other taxes.
act to tix the times of holding court in
limits. The learned Judge, we think, the411.iirstAnjudicial
circuit.
very properly held a contract restraining 418. An act to amend act in relation to lire com
panies.
a party from following his profession 433. An act to make the certificate of the register
or receiver of any land office of the United States
anywhere in this extensive State void.
prima facie evidence.
447. Au act in regard to Attorney-General and
State's Attorneys.
455. An act to enable the Auditor to make a divi
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
of two-thirds of the school funds in properLegacy to Subscribing Witness. dend
lion to the number of persons under 21 yeans of
Bacon, V. C, held, in Anderson v. age in each county.
HOUSE.
Anderson, that a codicil confirming a 152. An act concerning
drovers.
will incorporates the will in its integrity 238. Abolish the office of Assistant AdjutantGeneral.
so as to render valid a legacy to the hus
835. Prevent the destruction of fish.
Regulate practice in chancery.
band of an attesting witness to the will. 341.
483. Providing for the erection, etc., of bridges
by two or more towns.
26 L. T. Rep., N. S. 12.
607. Concerning the appointment, etc , of city of
Mandamus to enforce Ministerial ficers.
612. Consolidate Chicago and State Reform
Duties.The Supreme Court of Pennsyl School.
656. Pay indebtedness of Soldiers' Orphans'
vania, in Commonwealth, ex rel., etc., Home.
v. William M. Bunn, Register of Wills,
the relator having presented such a case RESTORA TION OF CO URTRECORDS.
to the register on requesting a Register's
The following is the law passed by our
Court to be called, as entitled him to Legislature for the restoration of Court
have his request granted, and the regis Records. It was approved by Governor
ter having refused to call a Register's Palmer on the 19th of the present
Court, ordered a peremptory manda month, and took effect immediately :
mus to issue, commanding him to do so,
An Act to provide for the restoration of
and held that although mandamus does
court records which have been lost or
not lie to enforce judicial action, it does
destroyed.
to enforce ministerial duties, even when
Section 1. Be it enacted by the. People of
they are to be performed by judicial the State of Illinois represented in the Gen
eral Assembly, That whenever the record
officers. 4 Leg. Gaz., 81.
of any judgment or decree, or other pro
Bankruptcy Proof of Debt.In re ceeding of any judicial court of this
Clark, et al., Blatchford, J., held when State or any part of the record of any
proceeding shall have been, or
written objections to proof of a debt are judicial
shall hereafter be lost or destroyed, any
filed with the register, and testimony is party or person interested therein may,
taken thereon, it is his duty :if requested on application by petition in writing un
by either party, to certify the same to der oath to such" court, and on showing

News.

to the satisfaction of such court, that the

same has been lost or destroyed without
fault or neglect of the party or person
making such application, obtain an or
der from such court authorizing such de
fect to be supplied by a duly certified
copy of such original record where the
same can be obtained, which certified
copy shall thereafter have the same ef
fect as such original record would have
had in all respects.
Sue. 2. That whenever the loss or de
struction of any such record or part
thereof shall have happened or shall
hereafter happen, and such defect can
not be supplied as provided in the next
preceding section, any party or person
interested therein may make a written
application to the court to which such
record belonged, verified by affidavit or
affidavits, showing the loss or destruc
tion thereof, and that certified copies
thereof cannot be obtained by the party
or person making such application, and
the substance of the record so lost or de
stroyed, and that such loss or destruction
occurred without the fault or neglect of
the party or person making such appli
cation, and that the loss or destruction of
such record, unless supplied, will or may
result in damage to the party or person
making such application, and thereupon
said court shall cause said application to
be entered of record in said court, and
due notice of said application shall be
given as in chancery cases, that said ap
plication will be heard by said court ;
and if, upon such hearing, said court
shall be satisfied that the statements con
tained in said written application are
true, said court shall make an order re
citing what was the substance and effect
of said lost or destroyed record : which
order shall be entered of record in said
court, and have the same effect which
said original record would have had if
the same had not been lost or destroyed,
so far as concerns the party or person
making such application, and the per
sons who shall have been notified as
provided for in this section. The record
in all cases where the proceeding was in
rem. and no personal service was had,
may be supplied upon like notice, as
nearly as may be, as 111 the original pro
ceeding. The court in which the appli
cation is pending may in all cases in
which publication is required, direct by
order or orders to be entered of record,
the form of the notice, and designate
the newspaper or newspapers in which
the same shall be published.
Sec. 3. In case of the destruction by
fire or otherwise of the records, or any
part thereof, of any county court having
probate jurisdiction, the judge of any
snch court may proceed upon his own
motion, or upon application in writing
of any party in interest, to restore the
records, papers, and proceedings of his
court relating to the estate of deceased
persons, including recorded wills and
wills probated or hied for probate in said
court, and for the purpose of restoring
said record, wills, papers, or proceedings,
or any part thereof, may cause citations
to be issued to any and all parties to be
designated by him, and may compel the
attendance in court of any and all wit
nesses whose testimony may be neces
sary to the establishment of any such
record or part thereof, and the produc
tion of any and all written or documen
tary evidence, which may be by him
deemed necessary in determining the
true import and effect of the original
record, will, paper, or other document
belonging to the files of said court, and
may make such orders and decrees estab
lishing said original record, will, paper,
document, or proceeding, or the sub
stance thereof, as to him shall seem just
and proper; and such judge may make
all such rules and regulations governing
the said proceedings for the restoration
of the record, will, paper, document, and
proceeding pertaining to said court, as
in his judgment will best secure the
rights and protect the interests of all
parties concerned.
Sec. 4. That in all causes which have
been removed, or shall hereafter be re
moved, to the Supreme Court of this
State, a duly certified copy of the record
of such cause, remaining in the said
Supreme Court, may be filed in the court
from which said cause was removed, on
motion of any party or person or per
sons claiming to be interested therein ;
and the copy so filed shall have the same
effect as the original record would have
had if the same had not been lost or de
stroyed.

Sec. 5. Whereas, by reason of the re

cent destruction by fire of the records
of the courts of Cook county, a neces
sity exists for this act to take effect im
mediately, therefore this act shall take
effect and be in force from and after its
passage.
Approved, March 19, 1872.
fclccrnt ^utli'cati'oiut.
A Treatise on the Law and Practice
as to Receivers appointed by the
Court of Chancery. By William
Williamson Kerr, of Lincoln's Inn,
Barrister-at-Law. With Notes and
References to American AuthoritiesBy Geo. Tucker Bispham. Philadel
phia : Kay & Brother, 1 7 and 19 South
Sixth street, Law Booksellers, Pub
lishers and Importers. 1872. Sold by
E. B. Myers, Law Booksellers, Chica
goThis is a volume of 288 pages, beauti
fully printed upon heavy tinted paperr
and in mechanical execution it is fault
less.
Mr. Kerr, the author of the text, is
one of the ablest and most popular of
the English writers upon the law rela
ting to courts of equity. Mr. Bispham
says in his preface that the American
authorities have been collected in the
notes to this edition, and arranged with,
the design, not only of illustrating themanner in which the courts of thiscountry have adopted and applied therules of the English Court of Chancery,,
but also of giving a practical view of the
law upon this subject, as it exists and is
administered throughout the United'
States. The notes to the American cases
are full, have been prepared with care,,
and add greatly to the value of the work.
Kerr on Receivers should find a place in
the library of every lawyer engaged in.
chancery practice.
Through the courtesy of the law firm
of Eustace. Bargf. & Dixon, of Dixon,
we have received the following opinion 1
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS..
Opinion Filed January 22, 1872.
George W. Acres v. David George.
Appeal from Lee.
PARTITION FENCES^DUTY TO REPAIRLIA
BILITY FOR CATTLE BREAKING THROUGH.
Opinion Per Curiam.
There was error in sustaining the de
murrer to the amended additional repli
cation.
It shows that plaintiff's cattle were in
defendant's field with the consent of the
latter, and they passed thence upon the
premises of the defendant through a
breach in the partition fence, made by
the cattle of the defendant. The breach
thus made it was his duty to repair.
Under such circumstances the defendant
had no more right to take up and hold
plaintiff's cattle, under the act of 1867,
entitled " Domestic Animals," than he
would have had if the breach in the
fence had been made by the defendant
himself instead of his cattle.
Reversed and remanded.
Eustace, Barge & Dixon for appel
lant.
Jas. K. Edsall for appellee.
[[FROM XXXIV INDIANA.]
CONTRACT.
CustomLandlord and Tenant.A stip
ulation in a lease of land for farming
that the crop when harvested shall be
divided according to the custom prevail
ing among the farmers of the neighbor
hood in which the land is situated, is
valid.(Opinion by Bcskirk, J.)Clem
v. Martin, p. oil.
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
Motion to strike out.The action of the
court in overruling a motion to strike out
a paragraph of a pleading will not be reviewedbyithe Supreme Court, if the ques
tion be not presented by a bill of excep
tions.lb.
Objection to Evidence.An exception to
the admission of evidence over objection
cannot be made available in the Supreme
court, if the bill of exceptions do not
show that a ground of objection was
stated to the court below and what the
ground of objection was.lb.

Chicago
XII VfAlLACE.
Through the kindness of W. H. & O.
H. Morrison, the publishers, we have
received advance sheets of the 12th
Wallace, from which we take the fol
lowing head-notes :
1. Even flagrant fault committed by
one of two vessels approaching each
other from opposite directions does not
excuse the other from adopting every
proper precaution required bythespecial
circumstances of the case to prevent a
collision. The Maria Martin.
2. Damages equally divided in a case
of collision on an application of this
rule.lb.
1. The Circuit Court of the United
States has no jurisdiction under the act
of March 12th, 1863, commonly known
as the Abandoned and Captured Prop
erty Act, where both parties are citizens
of the same State.Mail Company v.
Flanders,}). 130.
2. Although when a court has no jur
isdiction it is in general irregular to
make any order, except to dismiss the
suit, that rule does not apply to the
action of the court in setting aside such
orders as had been made improperly be
fore the want of jurisdiction was dis
covered, and restoring things to the
state in which they were before the im
proper orders were made.lb.
1. A deed procured through fear of
loss of life, produced by the threats of
the grantee, may be avoided for duress.
Baker v. Morton, p. 150.
2. A judgment being but a general
lien and the creditor under it obtaining
no incumbrance but on such estate as
his debtor really had, the equity of such
creditor gives way before the superior
right of an owner in the land who had
conveyed it to the debtor only by duress
and who never parted with possession.
Ib.
3. Brovm v. Pierce, 7 Wallace, 205,
identical with this case in principle and
almost identical with it also in fact and
circumstance, affirmed.Ib.
Although a suit be nominally by a
State as the plaintiff, yet where the real
plaintiffs are individualsas ex. or. in a
quo warranto, where the State is plaintiff
ex relationethe court will not advance,
even by consent of counsel on both
sides, a case under the act of June 30th,
1870Miller el al. v. The State, p. 15'.).
Under the act of Congress of 23d of
February, 1853, granting to widows of
Revolutionary soldiers, who were mar
subsequently
January,
1800,
'ried
a pension
in thetosame
mannerA.T).
as those
who were married before that date," the
widows do not take, like these last, from
the date of the act which gives them a
pension (the act, namely, of 29th July.
1848), but take only from the date of the
said act of 23d February, 1853. The
terms "in the same manner " refer to
the mode in which the pension was to
be obtained, and to the rules, regula
tions, and prescriptions provided by law
for the payment of the same. United
States v. Alexander, p. 177.
STATE TONNAGE TAX CASE.
1. Although taxes levied, as on prop
erty, by a State upon vessels owned by
its citizens, and based on a valuation of
the same, are not prohibited by the Fed
eral Constitution, yet taxes cannot be
imposed on them by the State " at so
much per ton of the registered tonnage."
Such taxes are within the prohibition of
the Constitution, that " no State shall,
without the consent of Congress, lay any
duty of tonnage." Cox\. The Collector;
Trade Company v. Same, p. 204.
2. Nor is tlie case varied by the fact
that the vessels were not only owned by
citizens of the State, but exclusively en
gaged in trade between places within
the State.lb.
Upon a decree in the Circuit court for
a sum less than 82,000, " with interest
from a date named," an appeal lies here
under the statute which gives an appeal
" where the sum in dispute . . . ex
ceeds S2000," provided that the sum for
which the decree is given and the inter
est added to it together exceed 2,000.
The Patapseo, p. 451.
A question relating to the adjustment
of priorities and conflicting interests in
a bankrupt's estate in his assignee's
hands, arising on a motion before the
register, was taken, by means of a case
and question agreed on, into the District
court. The decision of that court was in
turn taken by appeal to the Circuit court,
which reversed the decision. The action

Legal

News.

197

petition and motion for the writ of mandamus in vania, were admitted to practice as attorneys and
this cause. Dissenting, Mr. Chief Justice Chase counselors of this court.
No. 146. Edward Pugh, Appellant, v. The United
and Mr. Justice Clifford.
No. 122. John T. Butler, plaintiff in error, v. Suites. The argument of this cause was com
Francis Watkins et al. In error to the Circuit menced by Mr. T. J. Durant, of counsel for the
Court of the United States for the District of Louis appellant. The court declined to hear further
iana. Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opinion of argument iu this cause.
No. H7. Albert L. Mowry, appellant, v. Asa
the court, reversing the judgment of the said Cir
cuit Court, with costs, and remanding the cause Whitney, and No. 148. Albert L. Mowry, appellant,
with directions to aw ard a venire facias de novo. v. Asa Whitney. Passed.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. No. 93. Paul Sears et al., appellants, v. The No. 149. James B. Murray, plaintiff in error, v.
British Steamer Scotia, etc. Appeal from the Cir Jane S. Dallas. In error to the Supreme Court
PROCEEDINGS OF.
cuit Court of the United States for the Southern of the State of Pennsylvania. Ordered by the
Thursday, March 21.
District of New York. Mr. Justice Strong deliv court that the writ of error in this cause be dis
On motion of Mr. Henry Stunberry. A. G. ered the opinion of the court, affirming the decree missed with costs, per stipulation.
Stanchfleld, Esq., of Massachusetts, was admitted of the said Circuit Court in this cause, with costs. No. 150. The Phrcnlx Insurance Company, plain
to practice as an attorney and counselor of this No. 114. Joel C. slaughter, administrator, appel tiff iu error, v. Vincent Hamilton, et al. Passtd.
court.
lant, v. Julius Gerson. Appeal from the Circuit No. 151. James Bigler, appellant, v. William
On motion of Mr. Solicitor-General Brlstow, Court of the United States for the District of Waller, et al. This cause was argued by Mr. J. K.
Richard Harrington, Esq., of Washington, D. C, Maryland. Mr. Justice Field delivered the opin Hoj'ward, of counsel for the appellant, and by Mr.
was admitted to practice as an attorney and ion of the court, affirming the decree of the said Con. Robinson, for the appellee.
counselor of this court.
Circuit Court in this cause, with costs and interest. No. 152. Mary M. Kearney et al., plaintiffs in
On motion of Mr. Theo. Cuyler, Chapman Bid- No. 108. Peter Conrad, appellant, v. Hiram K. error, v. T. O. .Saulsbury et al. Passed for the
die, Ksq., of Pennsylvania, was admitted to prac Hazlettet al. Appeal from the Circuit Court ol tee present.
tice as an attorney and counselor uf this court.
United States for the District of Missouri. Mr. No. 153. The Eastern Railroad Company, plain
No. 578. The United States, plaintiffs, v. James Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the court, tiff in error, v. George W. Keene et al. In error
Wm. Avery et al. On a certificate of division in affirming the decree of the said Circuit Court in to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Mas
opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court this cause, with costs and interest.
sachusetts. On motion of Mr. B. R. Curtis, or
of the United States for the District of South Caro
dered by the court that the writ of error in this
No.
8.
Original.
The
Commonwealth
of
Ken
lina. Mr. Chief Justice Chose announced the or tucky, petitioner, v. George S. Boutwell, Secretary cause be dismissed, each party paying their own
der and decision of the court, dismissing the cer of the Treasury of the United States. Petition for costs:
tificate of division in this cause.
No. 154. The United States, appellants, v. Am
No. 184. William H. Barnes et al., plaintiffs in mandamus. Mr. Justice Davis delivered theopin- herst H. Wilder. This cause was submitted on
ion
of
the
court,
overruling
the
demurrer
to
an
error, v. The Philadelphia and Reading Railroad
arguments by Mr. Assistant Attorney-Geuswer, and denying the petition and motion for printed
Company.
cral Hill, of counsel for the appellants, and by Mr.
mandamus
in
this
cause.
No. 135. Same v. The Lehigh Valley Railroad No. 589. The Union Mutual Life Insurance Com J. B. Sanborn for the appellee.
Company.
No. 155. The Philadelphia and Reading Railroad
No. 130. Same v. The Lake Superior and Missis pany, plaintiff in error, v. Henry Wilkinson. In Company, plaintiff in error, v. The Common
error
to
the
Circuit
Court
of
the
United
States
for
sippi Railroad Company.
wealth of Pennsylvania. The argument of this
No. 137. Same v. The Philadelphia and Reading the District of Iowa. Mr. Justiee Miller delivered cause was commenced by Mr. R. A. Lamberton, of
the
opinion
of
the
court,
affirming
the
judgment
Railroad Company.
counsel for the plaintiff in error, and continued
No. 138. Same v. The Harrisburg, Portsmouth, of the said Circuit Court in this cause, with costs by Mr. Lewis W. Smith, of counsel for the defend
and
interest.
Mount Joy and Lancaster Railroad Company.
ant in error.
No. 139. Same v. The Philadelphia and Trenton No. 7. Original. Ex parte Alexander McNiel : and
No.
8.
Original.
Ex
parte
Henry
W.
Loud.
Peti
Railroad Company.
bt'tuatg.
The argument of these causes was continued tions for writs of prohibition. Mr. Justice Swayne
by Mr. Chapman Biddle and Mr. Theo. Cuyler, of delivered the opinion of the court, denying the
D. P. WILDER.
counsel for the defendants inerror.and concluded motion and petition for writs of prohibition iu
D. P. Wilder, for sixteen years a mem
by Mr. Attorney-General Williams for the plain these causes.
No. 18. The United States, appellants, v. John ber of the Chicago bar, departed this life
tiffs in error.
No. 140. The Steamer Patapseo, etc., appellant, v. Silvey. Appeal from the Court of Claims. Mr. at his residence in Winnetka on Tues
James Boyce. This tcause was argued by Mr. C. Chief Justice Chase announced the decision of the day last, beloved by all who knew him.
Donohue, of counsel for the appellant, and by Mr. court, affirming the decree of the said Court of
Claims iu this cause by a divided court.
He was a gentleman of education, an
D. McMahon for the appellees.
No. 38. The East Saginaw Salt Manufacturing No. 24. The United States, appellants, v. Thomas able lawyer and an honest man. At a
G.
W.
Crussell.
Appeal
from
the
Court
of
Claims.
Company, plaintiffs In error, v The City of East
meeting of the bar, to pay proper respect
Saginaw. This cause was submitted on printed Mr. Chief Justice Chose delivered the opinion of to his memory, the following resolutions
the
court,
affirming
the
decree
of
the
said
Court
of
arguments by Mr. M. H. Carpenter, of counsel for
the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. B. J. Brown for Claims in this cause. Dissenting. Mr. Justices were passed :
Davis, Miller and Swayne.
the defendants in error.
Whereas, Providence has seen fit to
No. 126. George P. Steinback. plaintiff in error, remove by death, in the midst of an act
Friday, Mareh 22.
v.
The
Relief
Fire
Insurance
Company
of
New
On motion of Mr. R. H. Dana, Jr., W. G. Russell, York. In error to the Circuit Court of the United ive and useful professional career, our
brother, David P. Wilder,
Esq., of Massachusetts, was admitted to practice as States
for the District of Maryland. Mr. Chief
Resolved, That in his death we deplore
an attorney and counselor of this court.
Chase delivered the opinion of the court, the loss of one whose pure character,
On motion of Mr. George W. Paschal, M. W. Ben Justice
the judgment of the said Circuit Court uniform courtesy, and strict fidelity to
jamin, Esq.. of Arkansas, was admitted to practice affirming
in this cause, with costs.
professional duty, and high sense of
as an attorney and counselor of this court.
No. 330. The Kennebec and Portland Railroad honor, and extensive legal attainments,
On motion of Mr. W. T. Otto, William T. Jones, Company,
plaintiffs
in
error,
v.
The
Portland
and
Esq., of Wyoming Territory, was admitted to prac Kennebec Railroad Company etal. In error to the tended to elevate the profession to which
he belonged, and won the general es
tice as an attorney and counselor of this court.
Judicial Court of the State of Maine. teem of its members ; while his broad
No. 610. Augustin I. Ambler, appellant, v. Rod Supreme
Mr. Chief Justice Chase announced the decision of sympathy with liberal culture of every
ney M. Whipple et al. Appeal from the Supreme the
court, denying the motion for writ of certiorari kind, and his conscientious discharge of
Court of the District of Columbia. On motion of in this
cause.
duty in all the relations of life, have se
Mr. George W. Paschal, ordered by the court that No. 355.
Peter Monger, appellant, v. Thomas cured for his memory the sincere regard
the order of the 19th of February be rescinded Shirley. Appeal
from the Circuit Court of the of all who knew him.
and annulled, and that he have leave to file the Unitod States for the
Eastern District of Tennessee.
Resolved, That we tender our sincere
transcript of the record and docket the ease.
Chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion of and respectful sympathy to his afflicted
No. 10. Original. Ex parte T. Jefferson Greer. Mr.
the court, dismissing the appeal in this cause, with familv, trusting that the Infinite wisdom,
The motion for writs of habeas corpus and certio costs.
rari in this cause was argued by Mr. Henry Stan- No. 192. Hibcrnia Armstrong, appellant, v. The whicfi has bereaved them, will manifest
bcry and Mr. Reverdy Johnson In support of the United States. Appeal from the Court of Claims. itself to their hearts as the Infinite love
same, and by Mr. Attorney-General Williams and Mr. Chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion of which doeth all things well.
Mr. Solicitor-General Bristow in opposition there the court, reversing the decree of the said Court
All Men are Created Equal.Many
to.
Claims, and remanding the cause for further men, many mindsmany judges, many
No. 330. The Kennebec and Portland Railroad of
in conformity with the opinion of this judgments. In Illinois, the judges in
Company, plaintiff in error, v. The Portland and proceedings
one Supreme court held that the max
Kennebec Railroad Company et al. The motion court.
No. 10. Original. Exparte T. Jefferson Greer. im of independence, " all men are cre
for writ of certiorari in this cause was argued by Petition
writs of habeas corpus and certiorari. ated equal," does not extend to women,
Mr. A. G. Stanehiield in support of the same, and Mr. Chieffor
Justice Chase announced the decision of and that bv virtue thereof, or of anything
by Mr. Artemas Libbey in opposition thereto.
court, granting writs of habeas corpus and cer else, they have no right of suffrage. In
No. 141. Thomas R. Welch, administrator, etc., the
tiorari, to be issued returnable on Friday, the 8th the same Suite, another Supreme court
appellants, v. Elizabeth J. Barnard. This cause of
April next. Cause set for argument the 12th of decides that this maxim does apply to
was submitted on printed arguments by Messrs.
next.
vagrant children, so that a statute pro
Watkins and Rose, of counsel for the appellants, April
No. 145. The Steamship Java, etc., appellants, v. viding for the rescue of such " little
and by Mr. George Taylor for the appellee.
and Sperm Oil Company. The argu wanderers," and the committal of them
No. 143. F. W. Robinson et al., plaintiffs in error, Judd Linseed
of this cause was continued by Mr. R. H. to a reformatory school is unconstituv. The United States. Tills cause was submitted ment
Dana, Jr., of counsel for the appellees, and con tional,|and a " tyrannical and oppressive"
on printed arguments by E. L. Goold. of counsel cluded
by Mr. W. G. Russel for the appellants.
infringement upon the liberties of the
for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Attorney- The Chief
Justice announced to the bar that the citizen. In effect, therefore, juvenile
General Williams and Mr Solicitor-General Bris court will adjourn
on Thursday next to Monday vagrancy receives judicial sanction, and
tow for the defendants in error.
following, and on Monday, the Cth of May, will the State is powerless to protect and save
No. 145. The Steamship Java, etc.. et al., appel adjourn
to Monday, the 2Sth of October.
destitute minors and orphans! We
lants, v. Judd Linseed and Sperm Oil Company.
thought " Salus populi suprema lex."
Tuesday, March 26.
The argument of this cause was commenced by
Mr. W. G. Russell, of counsel for the appellant.
On motion of Mr. Henry Stanbery, Thomas E. Canada Law Journal.
Hon. Joseph K. Lewis has been- con
Monday, March 25.
Bramlette, Esq., of Kentucky, was admitted to
On motion of Mr. Solicitor-General Bristow, practice as an attorney and counselor of this firmed as Associate Justice of the Su
preme Court of Washington Territory.
John W. Blackburn, Esq., of Illinois, and E. M. court.
Hudson, Esq., of Louisiana, were - admitted to On motion of Mr. E. W. Stoughton, J, K. HayR. Louc-ks, late of the New York bar,
practice as attorneys and counselors of this court ward, Esq., of New York, was admitted to prac now of Chicago, was at the recent term
No. 9. Original. Ex parte John H. Russell. Peti tice as an attorney and counselor of this'court.
of the Supreme Court of this State, on
tion for writ of mandamus. Mr. Justice Bradley On motion of Mr. F. C. Brewster, Lewis Wain motion of Hon. Norman L. Freeman,
delivered the opinion of the court, denying the Smith and R. A. Lamberton, Esqs., of Pennsyl admitted to the Illinois bar.

of the Circuit herein, held to have been

under the 2d section of the Bankrupt Act
and only in the exercise of its superin
tending and revisory jurisdiction, and
hence, on the authority of Morgan v
Thornhill, 11 Wallace, t>5, not capable of
being brought by further appeal here.
Hall v. Allen, Assignee, p. 452.

198

Chicago

Legal

FELKER & MARX,

JOHNES & SUTHERLAND,
Attorney*.
Attorneys, lfirt Wist Monro*: Strut.
.jTHIANCERY NOTICE. - State of Illinois, Conk ClHANCERY NOTICE. State of Illinois, County
1 ol Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. April
County, ss. Superior Court of Cook county. To term,
A. D. 1572. John Hirschsteiner v. Babetta
June
Term, A.Chancery.
D. 1*72. Lylo A. Howell v. Francis E. Hirschsteiner.
Chancery. of Babetta Hirsch
Howell.In
Affidavit of theIn non-residence
Affidavit of the non-residence of Francis E. Howell, steiner,
above named, having been filed in
-defendant above named, having been hied in the office the officedefendant
of the isclerk
of said
Cook
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, county, notice
hereby
givenCircuit
to thecourt
said ofBabetta
noticethejocomplainant
hereby givenheretofore
to the saidtiled
Francis
E. of
Howell
that the complainant heretofore filed hid
that
his bill
com Hirschsteiner
of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
plaint in Bind court, on the chancery side thereof, and bill
a:id that a summons thereupon issued out of
that a summons thereupon issued out of sunt court thereof,
court against said defendant, returnable on the
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday said
third Monday of March instant (1*72), as ih by law^reof June next, (1.872,) as is by law required.
Now, unless you. the said Francis E. Howell, shall quired.
Now, unless you. the said Babetta Hirschsteiner, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of personally
be and
Circuit
courtto boof
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be Cook
on appear
the firstbefore
day ofsaid
a term
thermit,
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Mon holdencounty,
at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day
of
June,
l!72,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
day
of
April,
1572,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
the said complainant's hill ofYomplainf. the same, and the said complainant's hill of complaint, ihe same,to
the
mattern ami things therein chargtd and stutfd, will and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
be taken
as confessed, and a decree entered against you will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
according to the praver of stud hill
prayer
bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk. you accordiug to the
KM
AN ofT. said
GASSETTE.
Clerk.
_J0IINE8 it SUTHERLAND. Compl't's Sol'l'S.
2j-2>p Felkek & Marx,NOCompl't's
Sol'rs.
22-25
"M.~BLANCHARD,
Altnrnni l'jn West Washhu/ton St.
PUBLIC
NOTICE
IS
HEREBY
GIVEN
TO
ALL
HANCERY
NOTICEState
Illinois,
countyTo
of
concerned,
the will
undersigned,
guardian ofto Ed
Cook. ss. Superior
court ofof Cook
county.
P. Towue,that
minor,
make application
the
June Term. A. I). 1&72. Annie E. Hill v. Ives llill. ward
Circuit court of Cook county, State of Illinois, at the
InAffidavit
Chancery.of the non-residence of Ives Hill, de April
term thereof, A. D, 1*72, to be holden at the court
the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of
fendant above named, having been filed in the office house, A.in D.
1*72. for an order, enabling said guardian
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, April,
to
sell
and
all the right, title and interest of
notice is ;hereby given to the said Ives Hill that said minor,convey
in
the following described real estate, sit
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaiut uated in the State
of Illinois, to
undivided
in said court, on the chancory side thereof, and that a ona-hnlf
of east one-half Ca) wit:
of W.One
'i of
lot No.
summons thereupon issued out of said court, against three (.'}), (',)
in
block
fifty-seven
(,">7)
of
original
town of
aid defendant, returnable on the first Monday of Chicago.
June next, (1^72.) as is by law required.
Also,(t-.v>
an of
undivided
Now, unless you, the said Ives Hill, shall per
west tenone-sixth
(Id) acresO-MofofN.undivided
E. A*" of N.fourW.
sonally be and appear before said Superior court of fifths
of section
twenty-three
(23), T.(1-ii)?*,ofR.four-fifths
14.
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be Also,
an
undivided
one-sixth
((-.'>)
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
E. ,'a of N. W. J4 of N. W. U of section 23, T. 35,
of June, Ib72, and plead, answer or demur to the II of
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and R.An14. undivided 2-'>of lot 1. block It), Assessors' division
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
sec.education
22, town ay.of
-will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against of
N. the
R. 1northwest
1, E. 3d P. fractional
M., for thequarter
supportofand
you accurdiug to the prayer of said bill.
the said minor, or to invest in other real estate, as the
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON*,
Clerk.
may direct.
M. Blanchard, Comp'ts Sol'r.
2j-2* court
23-2-)
ELIZA H. TOWNE, Guardian.
WA1TE & CLARK,
DANIEL GOODWIN, Jr.,
Attorn**!/*. -1
Van Itnrcn Street.
19 the
AVjok's
Building,have formed
ESTATE OF MARY BEERS, DECEASED. - fPHIS is toAttorney,
certify that
undersigned
hereby against
given totheall estate
personsofhaving
X a limited partnership, and have filed articles of co
claimsNotice
and isdemands
Mary partnership
the county
the officeagreeably
of the clerk
of statute
Beers, deceased, to present the same for adjudica Cook, State ofIn Illinois,
to the
in suchof
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County case
made and provided, and said clerk has designated
Court
of
Cook
County,
to
be
holden
at
the
Court
the Chicago Legal News as the newspaper in which
House, in the city of Chicago, on tho first Monday of notice
of sucli partnership shall be published; now,
June, A. D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
therefore, notice is hereby given that the terms of said
_
CYRENIUS
BEERS,
Executor.
copartnership
follows:
Chicago, March. A. D. Ic72.
1st. The nameareofassaid
firm is R. M. Oliver.
"Waite &. Clark. Attorneys.
2.">-30a 2d.
The
business
to
be conducted
saidandtirmcured,
is that
of
packing
pork
and
vending
meat, by
fresh
at
BATES & HODGES,
No. 5V3 South Halsted street. Chicago.
Attorney,
W. Madison Street.
3d. Tho general partner is Richard M. Oliver; the
ESTATE OF RICHARD MASON. Sr., DECEASED. special
partner is the Allerton Packing Co., a corpora
is herebyagainst
given tho
to allestate
persons
having tion duly
claimsNotice
and demands
of Richard
all ofexisting
Chicago.under the taws of the Slate of Illi
Mason, Sr., deceased, to present the same for adjudica nois,
4th.
The
amount of capital stock which tho said
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County special partner,
the Allerton Packing Co.. has contrib
court
county, toonbethe
holden
the court
uted t" said copartnership is the sum of twelve thou
theofcityCook
of Chicago,
first atMonday
of house
June, sand
in
dollars.
A. D. 1*72, being the third dav thereof.
5th.dayTheof said
copartnership
is toterminate
commence
on will
the
MILLIARD, Administrator. first
March,
A. D. 1*72, and
at the
Chicago. March L.2.1. P.]72.
of
either
party,
evidenced
by
notice
in
writing
served
Bates <fc Hoppes, Attorneys.
25-30 ten days before said termination.
RICHARD M. OLIVER.
0. R. BROUSET
22-^7
THE ALLERTON PACKING CO.
Attorney, 400 Wabash Avenue.
(TESTATE OF MARY McNl'LTY, DECEASED.EWING & LEONARD,
Hit Notice is hereby given to all persons having
487 Wabash Avenue.
claims and demands against the estate of Mary ESTATE Attorneys.
OF
JOHN GEMMELL, DECEASED.McNulfy. deceased, to present the same for adjudi
is hereby given to all persons having claims
cation and settlement at a regular term of the County and Notice
demands against
the estate
of John Gcmmcll,
de
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court ceased,
the same
for adjudication
and settle
house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of ment attoa present
regular
term
of
the
County
Court
of
Cook
July, A. D. 1572, being the first day thereof.
comity, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
_
Mi NULTY, Executrix. Chicago,
on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1672, be
Chicago, March 30,FANNY
A. D. 1572.
'O. R. Brouse, Attornoy.
25-30 ing the sixth day thereof.
MARGARET N. GEMMELL,
21-26
Administratrix.
MAGRUDER & KERR,
Attorney*, 40 Central Union Block.
M. A. ROREE & SON,
ESTATE OF * LOUIS BELT/. DECEASED. Attorney/}, Room ."", Central Union Block.
Is hereby against
given to theall estate
personsofhaving
ELIZA
rlaimsNotice
and demands
Louis INSTATE
J-J Notice isOF
hereby
given toTURNER.
all persons'DECEASED.having claims
Belt/, deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
demands
against
the estate
of Eliza Turner,
de
and settlement ata regular term of the County Court ceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
set
of
to beon holden
the Court
House,
in tlement at a regular term of the County Courtand
of Cook
theCook
city ofcounty,
Chicago,
tho firstatMonday
of Juno,
A. D.
county, toonbethe
holden
the court
house,A. inD. the
1872, being the third dav thereof.
tii>t at
Monday
of May,
1572,city
beingof
LYNE
S\ D.DAVISON,
Administrator. Chicago,
the sixth dayTHOMAS
thereof. A. TURNER. Administrator.
'Chicago,
March
2:>.
A.
1572.
_MAiiHurEH & Kekr, Attorneys.
25-30 Chicago, Feb. A. D. 1572.
21-26
M. A. Roekf. A Son. Attorneys.
NEWELL PRATT,"
Attorney, U'24 Wabash Avenue.
F. A. HOFFMAN, Jr.,
CHANCERY
of Cook
Illinois,county.
County Toof
Attornai. Room fi, Lind's Block,
Cook, ss. NOTICE.-State
Superior court of
OF
Deceased.
Arpr'rt term. A. D. 1*72. Hattie A. Thornton v. Wil ESTATE
Notice is THEODORE
hereby givenE. toJOHNSON,
nil persons
having
liam R. Thornton.In Chancery.
claims anddeceased,
demandstoagainst
the
estate
of
Theodore
E,
Affidavit of the non-residence of William R. Thorn Johnson.
present the same for adjudication
ton,
defendant
above
named,
having
been
filed
in
the
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook coun and settlement at a regular term of the County court of
to bein holden
at theoncourt
in the
ty, notice is hereby given to the said William R. Thorn Cookofcounty,
Chicago,
said county,
the house,
first Monday
ton that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of city
of
May,
A.
D.
V-72.
being
the
sixth
day
thereof.
complaint
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
BERTHA JOHNSON, Administratrix.
-against
on the first Monday Chicago, March Iti. A. D. 1572.
of Aprilsaid
next,defendant,
0*72.) as returnable
is by law required.
F. A. HormAS, Attorney.
23-28
.Now. unless you, the said William R. Thornton, shall
J. V. LeMOYNE,
personally be and appear before said Superior court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term there
Attorney.
of, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first ESTATE OF MICHAEL HANLON, DECEASED.Monday
of
April.
1572,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
Notice
is
hereby
given
all persons having claims
to the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and demands against the toestate
of Michael Hanlou,
and the matters and things therein charged and stated, deceased,
to
present
the
same
for adjudication and set
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against tlement at a regular term of the
County court of Cook
you according to the praver of said bill.
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
AUGUSTUS
on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1572, be"Nfwell Pratt, ComplVs
Sol'r.JACOBSON, Clerk.
2.1-23 Chicago,
lug the 6th dav thereof.
HANNAH HANLON, Administratrix.
r1UANCEBY~NOTICE.-State
of
Illinois,
County
of
21-2fia
J Cook.
April _ Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D. 1*72.
terni,
A. D. ss.1572.Circuit
John court
Phillipsof Cook
v. Anncontitv.
Phillips.Iu
JESSEAttorney.
0. NORTON,
Chancery.
Affidavit of tho non-residence of Ann Phillips, de
FOR PUBLICATfON.-Thls is to give no
fendant above named, having been filed in the office of NOTICE
tice, inthat
on the 2dwasday
of March,
1572,ofa
the
of said given
Circuitto court
of Cook
county, warrant
bankruptcy
issued
against A.
theDestate
noticeclerk
is hereby
the said
Ann Phillips
Sclndz. John N.Young and William P. Wright,
that the comrhtinant heretofore tiled his bill of Arthur
business in the county of Cook, atid State ot Illi
complaint in said court, on the. chancery side thereof. doing
nois, who have been adjudged bankrupts on their own
*nd that
a summons
thereupon
issued on
outtheof third
said petition,
that the payment of any debts and the deliv
ourt
against
said defendant,
returnable
ery of unv property belonging to such bankrupts, to
Monday of April next (1572), as is by law required.
or for their use, and the transfer of any property
Now, unless you, the said Ann Phillips, shall them
them are forbidden by law; that a meeting of the
personalty
bo andonappear
before
court by
creditor*
of the-onesu idorbankrupts
to provo
their estate,
debts,
of
ivk county,
the first
day said
of a Circuit
term thereof,
and to choose
more assignees
of their
to be hidden at Chicago, in said county, on the third wi'.l
be held
at
a
court
of
bankruptcy,
to
be
holden
Monday of April, 1*72. and plead, answer or demur to the. city
of Chicago, in said county of Cook, at the ofin
tthe
he mutters
said complainant's
of complaint,
same,
and fice of and
before Homer N. Hihb&rd, Esq., register, on
and thingsbilltherein
chargedtheand
stated,
11>72. at ten o'clock a. m.
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against the niuih day of April. A. D. B.
II. CAMPBELL,
you according to the praver of said bill.
U. S. Marshal,
Messenger.
NoRMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
By A. B. COTES, Deputy.
TioNNEY, Fay & Grh;<i*, Compl'l's Sol'rs.
25-2S Jesse O. Norton. Attorney.
23-2.r>
'I7STATE
JFi
NoticeOFis KAT1IARINA
hereby given ROSE.
to all DECEASED.persons hav ESTATE OF ARTHUR G. MORVAN. DECEASED.
is hereby given to all persons having
ing claims and demauds against the estate of Katha- claimsNotice
demands against tho estate of Arthur
im; Hose, deceased, to present the same for ad Morvan,and
deceased,
to prenentterm
tbe same
adjudication
judication and settlement at a regular term of the and settlement
of theforCounty
court
Omntv court of Cook connty, to be holden at the of Cook county,attoa regular
be holden at the court house, in
court
house,
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Mon
day of June, A. D. 1*72, being the third dav thereof.
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D.
day MollVAN.
thereof. Administratrix.
HENRY IMSE, Executor. 1572, being tho sixth
M \RY
Chicago. March 29, A. D. 1-72.
20-30p
R'wkn thai,. Pence S Moses. ComplY* Sol'rs. 2."-30 Chieazo, March 22, A. D. Is72.

News.

G0UDY & CHANDLER,

Attorney/*, Central Union Block.
QTATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
the
O Superior court
or CookCounty
county.of Cook,
Henryss.S. In
Pitkin
v. Eliza Pitkin. In Chancery.
To Eliza
ih-leiidunt
entitled
cause:
TakePitkin,
notice, that
on the in5th the
day above
of April,
A. D.
1572,
at
nine
o'clock
in
the
forenoon
of
said
dav,
or us
soon thereafter ms counsel can be beard, the under
signed will sue out of the office of the clerk of the
Superior court, of the county of Cook aforesaid, a
dcdimus
protestatum,
or commission,
underEsq.,theofse-.il
of
said court,
and directed
to J. F. Roberts,
the
city of New York, in the county ot New York, and
State of New York, at his office, No. 07 Broadway
street, or to any judge or justice of the peace of the
county
and ofState
mentioned,
take the
depositions
Rev. last
S. II.above
Weston,
Charles C.to Prentiss,
Samuel
F.
Prentiss,
T.
S.
Mercer
and
William
nedy, upon the Interrogatories filed in the office ofKen
the
clerk or said Superior court, to be read in evidence on
the
part
of
the
said
complainant
on
the
hearing
of
the
above entitled cause now pending in the said Superior
court
tlie chancery
thereof: when andandwhere
you canonappear
and Hie side
crofw-interrogutoriea,
join
in said commission if so you wish.
Dated this i'tli day of March. A. D. 1872,
GOl'DY A CHANDLER,
22-2"
Solicitors for said Complainant.
S. M. DAVIS,
Attorney, 50 Went Rawtfttph Street.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois. Cook county, ss. Circuit court
of
May Term, A. D. 1S72. Androw Pear
sonCook
v. J.county.
R. Jackson.
Public
notice
is
hereby givenissued
to theoutsaidof ihe
J. R.office
Jackof
son that a writ ofattachment
the clerk of the Circuit court of Cook county, dated
the first
day of Pearson
February,and
A, D.against
Is72, at the
of theof
said
Andrew
the suit
estate
J. R. Jackson for the sum of five hundred^dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook county, which
said writ has been returned executed.
Now,personally
therefore, beuulens
said J.theR. said
Jackson
shall
and you,
appearthebefore
Cir
cuit court of Cook county, on or before the first dav
of the next term thereof, to be holden at the court
house, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday of
May. A. D. action,
1S72, givejudgment
special bail
to the
said
plaintitles
willandbo plead
entered
against
you, and in favor of the said Andrew Pearson and so
much of the property attached as may be sufficient to
satisfy the said judgment and costs will be sold, to
satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
S. M. Davis, Att'y.
24-27
OMAR
BUSHNELL,
60 West Rantioluh Street.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-Staie of Illinois. County of
^ Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook County, To
April
Term, A.D.,Chancery.
1S72. Harmon Maring v, Sarah
Jane Maring.In
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of Sarah
defendant above named, having been
filed'Jane
in theMaring,
office of
the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, notice
is hereby given to the said Sarah Jane Marmg that
the
complainant
filedsidehisthereof,
bill of complaint
in said
court, onheretofore
the chancery
and that
a summons thereupon issued out ofsaid court against
said
defendant,
returnable
on
the
first
Monday
of April
next, (1S72.J as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Sarah Jane Maring. shall
personally
be on
andthe
appear
Superior
court
Cook county,
firwt before
day ofsaid
a term
thereof,
to beof
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
first
Mon
day of April, 1-72, and plead, answer or demur to the
Baid
complainant's
of complaint,
the stated,
same, and
matters
and things bill
therein
charged and
willthe
be
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you
according to tho prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Omah Hushnell, Compl't's Sol'r.
24-27
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
MEYER,
DECEASED.-Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demauds against the estate of John Meyer, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at toa regular
of tho
Cookof
county,
be holdenterm
at the
courtCounty
house,court
in the ofcity
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1^72, be
ing the sixth day ihereof.
ANNA
ALBERTMEYER,
MEYER, and
ROBERT MEYER,
Executors.
Worth, Cook county, March 11, A. D. 1872. 23-2CP
pHANCEIlY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
\J Cook^ss. Superior court of Cook county. April
term, A. D. Ift72. Frank Kezlik v. Mary Kezlik.In
Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Mary Kezlik, de
fendant
above
named,
having
filed in
the office
of
the clerk
of said
Superior
courtbeen
of Cook
county,
no
tice* is hereby given to the said Mary Kezlik that
the complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
In
said court,
on the chancery
andagainst
that a
summons
thereupon
issued outsideofthereof,
said court
said
defendant,
returnable
on
the
first
Monday
of
April
next, (ls72.) as is by law required.
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
Mary
Kezlik,
shall
sonally be atid appear before said Superior courtperof
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
said county,
first Monday
of
April,at Chicago,
l>s72, andinplead,
atiowcronorthedemur
to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to the praver of said bill.
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Cr.owitY A Barmm,AUGUSTUS
Compl't's Sol'rs.
23-26
G. A. FOLLANSBEE,
Attorney, 1SI La Salle Street,
ADMINISTRATOR'S
SALE
REAL
By virtue of an order
and OF
decree
of theESTATE.
County
Court of Cook county, Illinois, made on the petition
of
the
undersigned
administrator
of
the
estate
of
Fred
erick Biermann, deceased, for leave to sell the real
es
tate
ofsaid
deceased,
at
the
February
term,
a.
n.
of said court, to wit, on the 2Mth day of February, A.Ia72,n.
1872, 1 shall on Thursday, the 1-th day of April, A. n,
1S72,
tho hours
10 o'clock
andpremiss,
5 o'clock
p. m.between
of said day.
sell atofpublic
Mile a.m.
on tho
tho following described real estate, situated in the
town of Leyden, county of Cook, and State o f Illinois,
to wit :
Being73),a part
of the northwest
of section
three
congressional
townshipquarter
forty (Hi),
north
range twelve (12>. cast of the third principal meridian,
and
bounded
as
follows:
commencing
at
a
post
dist
ant west of the smith-east corner of the aforesaid quar
ter section seventeen (17) chains and lifty-six < "<">) links
to centre' of road and north nine and on e-lmlf ('.'' .)
degrees
east with(71;
centre
of said
twelvefrom
(12; chains
and seventy-one
link's,
and road
running
thence
north
nine
and
one-half
(y1^)
degrees
east
with
centre
of said road nine (t*) chains and sixty-two ('i2> links
to
the centre of Des PlaiLs River, thence south thirtyfour CM) degrees east six n>) chains, thence south fiftyfive and
degrees
east with
said river
(11
chains
forty-one
(ll> centre
links, ofthence
southfour
thirtyseven and oue-half (37'a) degrees west three (''.) chains
and
ninety
links,westthence
north and
eighty
and
ono-hnlf
N'1 .(w)
) degrees
six (t'O chains
fifty-five
(.Vj) links to the place of beginning, containing 4 7u-lixj
acres more or less (variation ;>, 3)' E,) on the follow
ing(dieterms,
to witdollars
:
thousand
in six months from the day oftho
Bale, with interest at the rate of ti per cent, per annum,
to se secured by the promissory note of the purchaser,
with cash
mortgage
thedav
premises
ance
in handupon
on the
of sale, sold, and the bal
1IE1NRICH
Administrator of BIERMANN,
the estate of .
Frederick Biermann, deceased.
G. A. Follansbeb, Attorney.
2u-r>

HIGH &17'J TRUMAN,

Attorney,
Wabash Avenue.
pHANCERY
NOTIOE.-Stateof
Illinois,
County
v> Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook
county.
Aprilof
Term, A. D. 1S72. Emma Fiataroui v. Anglo Fiatearoni.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Angelo Fiataroni,
defendant
above
havingcourt
been tiled
in thecounty,
office
of the clerk
of named,
said Superior
of Cook
notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
Angelo
Fiataroni,
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of April next, (1^72), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Angelo Fiataroni, shall
personally
be and
appear
Superior
court
of
Cook county,
on the
first before
day of *aid
a term
thereof,
to be
holden
said county,
first Monday
of
Aprilat, Chicago,
1.S72, and inplead,
answeronorthedemur
to the
said complainant's bill ofcomplaint, the same, and the
mattersasand
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
willyou
be
taken
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Hk;h A Thumax, Comp'ts sol'rs.
21-27
BONNEY, FAY & GRIGGS,
A ttomeya.
PUBLICATION
IN ss.
ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois,NOTICE
Cook county,
Circuit court of
Cook
county.
March
term,
A.
D.
1*72.
Joseph E. Bates
v. The Anchor Life Insurance Company.
Public notice is hereby given to the said The Anchor
Life Insurance Company that a writ of attach
ment issued out of the office of the clerk of the Circuit
Court of Cook county, dated the "nth day of February,
A. D. ]->72, at the suit of the said Joseph E. Bates, and
against the estate of The Anchor Life Insurance ( ompany,
for thedollars,
sum ofdirected
four hundred
and twenty-one
and 13-100
to the sheriff'
of Cook
county,
which
said
writ
has
been
returned
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Theexecuted.
Anchor
Life Insurance Company, shall personally be and
appear
before
the
said
Circuit
Court
ot
Cook
county,
on or before tho first day of the next term thereof,
to
be
the CourtofHouse,
the 1^72.
city give
of Chicago,
on hidden
the thirdat Monday
March,inA.O.
special
bail and plead to the said plaintiff's action, judgment
will be entered against you, and in favor of the said
Joseph E. Bates, and so much of the property attached
as may bo sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and
costs will be sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN
T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Bonnky. Fay A Ghigcis.
Attorneys.
22-25
J.Attorney*,
G. & J. J.163KNICKERBOCKER.
W. Waxhinato/i St,
INSTATE
WATSON
J Notice isOFhereby
given toGOWARD,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
end demands against the estate of Watson Goward. de
ceased, to present tho same for adjudication and settle
ment at toa regular
termat the
of the
County
Cook
county,
be holden
Court
House,Court
in theofcity
of
Chicago,
011
the
first
Monday
of
May,
A.
D.
lo72,
being
the sixth dav thereof.
GUSTAVUS
Administrator.
Chicago, March
ii, A. D.GOWARD,
1*72.
J. C J. J. Knickerbocker. AtUys for AdnVr. 22-27
A. H. DALTON,
Attorney. Thornton.
"pSTATE OF ELIZABETH BERGER. DECEASED.
-Ij Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Elizabeth
Berger, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and
settlement
the County
court
of Cook
county,atto aberegulur
holden term
at theofcourt
house.
In
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of May,
A. D. 1S72, being the nth day thereof.
JOHN BERGER, Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 2$, A. D. 1872^_
21-26
THEO. SCHINTZ,
Attorney, Central Union Block.
TESTATE
FREDERICK
J-i
Notice isOFhereby
given to allBEHM,
personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Frederick Behm,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
settlemeut at a regular term of the County court and
of Cook
county,
to
be
holden
at
the
court
house,
in
the
city
of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May A. D. 1672, beiug
the sixth day thereof.
CHRISTIAN BEHM, Executor.
Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D. 1^72.
21-26a
Tueo. Schintz. Attorney.
F. A. RIDDLE,
Attorney, 25 West Madison Street.
ESTATE
OF
ANDREW
Notice is hereby given toNELSON,
all personsDECEASED.having claims
and demauds against the estate of Andrew Nelson, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement toat be
a regular
the County
Cook
county,
holden term
at theofcourt
house, iucourt
the ofcity
of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. Is"2, being
the Hixth day thereof.
WILLIAM M. LOUGHLIN, Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 2.^, A. D. 1872.
21-26a
GEORGE
SCOVILLE,
;Hf Clinton Strtel.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook,
ss.
Circuit
April
term. A.D. 1$72. Georgecourt
W. of
Lay,Cook
Jr. county,
aud John
R.
Brown
v.
Frederick
Martens,
Wilhelm
M11hem,
Christoph
Mueller,
Leon Strauss.
Schwab
and
The unknown
heirs-at-law
of LouisPhilip
Frederick
August
Koester.In Chancery.
Affidavit that the names of the heirs-at-Iaw of Louis
Frederick August Koester, named among the defend
ants above, are unknown to said complainants,
having court
been filed
in county,
the officenotice
of theis clerk
said
Circuit
of Cook
herebyofgiven
to the said The unknown heirs-at-Iaw of Louis Fred
erick August Koester that the complainants hereto
fore filed their bill of complaint injsaid court, on the
chancer)" side thereof, and that a summons thereupon
issued out of said court against said defendant, re
turnable on the third Monday of April next, (ls72.) as
is Now,
by lawunless
required.
you, the said The unknown heirsat-Iaw
of
Frederick
Koestercourt
shall
personally beLouis
and appear
beforeAugust
said Circuit
of
Cook
county,
on
tho
first
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Monbe
day of April, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainants'
of complafnt,
the stated,
same, and
matters
and things bill
therein
charged and
willthe
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to tho praver of said bill.
NoRMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Gkoroe Scovii.le, ComprtsSol'r.
24-27 _
DENT &Wahash
BLACK,
Attornms.ua
Avenue.
ESTATE
ELMA
Notice isOF
hereby
given HOWELL,
to all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of El ma Howell, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement
a regular
tho County
Cook
countv, toat be
holden term
at theofcourt
house, incourt
the ofcity
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
May,
A.
D.
1*72,
be
ing the sixth day thereof.
ANNIE
E.
HOWELL,
Executrix.
^Mcago, Feb. 27, A. 1>. 1-72. _
21-2fia
SNOWHOOK
GRAY,
Attorney*.
:*~> West &Monroe
Street.
FVSTATE
OF
PATRICK
McALPIN.
DECEASED.
j
Noticcjithereby
given
to
all
persons
having
claims
and demands against the estate of Patrick
McAlpin,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
and
set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on tho first Monday of Slay, A. D. 1>72, being
the sixth day thereof.
MICHAEL SCANL0N, Executor.
Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D. 1*72.
2l-26a

Chicago
howe & bA#*3,L^.
rTiRUSTEE'S
SALE.-Whi-heretoSchmittAnton
and
1 Theresm Schmitt.
wit**. ^"''^
*"d George
Bender, unmarried, executed al(1 divt*i ed to the un
dersigned, as trustee, a deed oi trust oi the premise*
hereinafter mentioned, dated the tweut>-hrsl day oi
January, A. D. isi-, mid recorded in the Recorder's
office oi* Cook county. State of Illinois, in hook 421 of
deeds, on page 3.V2, which paid deed of trust was given
to
securedate
the the
payment
hearing
21st dayofofa certain
January,promissory
A. 1>. note,
exe
cuted by the said George Schmitt and George Anton
Bender,
aud
payable
to
the
order
of
themselves,
three
years after the date thereof. f<r the principal sum of
three
dollars, with interest after duo at the
rate oftbou-and
ten per centum per annum, ami also >ix other
certain
promissory
notes
the same
date, and
eachGeorge
paya
ble to the order of the
saidofGeorge
Schrnitt
Anton Bender, res-peetivuly. in six. twelve, eighteen,
twenty-four,
thirtyforaud
thirty-six
the
date thereof, each
the sum
of one months
hundredafter
and fifty
dollar*, being the amount of semi-annual interest in
stallment nil the note fir*! above described, computed
at the rate of ten per centum per annum, all |n>able
at the office of Grcenbaum and Foreman, Chicago, Illi
nois.
whereas,
default hasnote
beenofmade
the puyiuetit
ofAnd,
the said
tirst-nientioned
threeinthousand
dol
lars,
together
with
the
interest
thereon
since
the; and,
lnth
day of June, A. D. 1-7 1, aud the same are unpaid
whereas,
it isbeprovided
deed ofof said
trust notes
that or
in
case default
made in in
the said
payment
any or either id them or of any part thereof, according
to the tenor and effect thereof, then, on application of
the legal holder of said notes, it shall be lawful lor the
said trustee, his heirs, or successors in trust, alter pub
lishing a notice of sale in a newspaper printed in t lie
city ol Chicago twenty days before the day of sale, to
sell
said premises,
the right,
title and
and equity
redemption
of the and
said all
George
Schmitt
Theresiaof
Schmitt
and
George
Anton
Bender,
their
heirs,
tors, administrators and assigns, therein, at execu
public
auction, at the north door of the court house, in the
city of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, to the highest
bidder for ca*h
; to make,a execute
and oldeliver
to the
purchaser
or purchasers
deed or deed
the prenti-os
so sold; and, whereas, application has been made to
me, the undersigned, by the legal holder of said histmentioned
ofbeen
threepaid),
thousand
dollars
(the sixin
other
notesof note
having
the premises
eaid deed
tru>t mentioned,
forto sell
the purposes
therein
specified ; now, therefore, by virtue of the pnw el
and authority in me vested by said deed of trust,
I, the undersigned, as trustee, will sell at 10
o'clock a. m., on the 16th day of April. A. D. 1872,
at
north door
of county
the old ofcourt
in theof
citythe
of Chicago,
in the
Cook,house,
and State
Illinois, at public auction, for the highest and best
price of
thetrust,
same described,
will bring toin wit
cash,: The
the premises
deed
east halfinofsaid
the
south half of lot fifteen (1M. in block two (2). in Shef
field's addition to Chicago, in the county of Cook, and
State of Illinois,thereunto
togetherbelonging
with all orandin singular
hereditaments
any wise the
ap
pertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remain
der and remainders, rents, issues and urofits thereof,
and all the .-state, right, title, interest, dower, right of
dower,
of redemption,
claim andequity
demand
whatsoever, asproperty,
well in possession,
law as in
equity, of the said George Schmitt, Theresia Schmitt
and
George
Anton
Bender,
their
heirs
and
assign.-,
in
and to said premises, and every part thoreot.
GERHARD FOREMAN. Trustee.
Howe k Russell, Attorneys.
24-27
ESTATE
OF
MICHAEL
FELTEN
[alias]
FILTEN, deceased. Notice is hereby given to all per
sons
having
claims
and Filten,
demands
againsttothe
estatetheof
Michael
Felten
'alius
deceased,
present
same for adjudication and settlement at a regular
term of the County court of (,'ook county, to behold
en at the court house in the city of Chicago, on the
first Monday of May, A. D. 1S72, being the sixth day
thereof. HUBERT KEIPINGER, Administrator.
Chicago, March is, A. D. K-72.
Theq. Schintz, Att'y.
24-29
B. C. COOK,
Attorney, 368 Wabash Avenue.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. April
Term,
1S72. F.Gardner
Chapin A.and
Jane L.J.
Gore v. A.D.
Benjamin
Stafford,S. Samuel
Sargent.
C. Paine Freer, John .Marshall and Elizabeth Mar
shall.In
Affidavit chancery.
of the non-residence of Benjamin F. Staf
ford,
Samuel
A. Sargent,
John
Marshall
and been
Elizabeth
Marshall,
defendants
above
named,
having
filed
in the office of the clerk of said Superior court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said
Benjamin F. Stafford, Samuel A. Sargent, John Mar
shall and Elizabeth Marshall, that the complainants
heretofore filed their bill of complaint in said court,
on the chancery side thereof, and that a summons
thereupon issued out of said court against said de
fendants,
on the tirstMonday of April next
(IjiTi'j as isreturnable
by law required.
Now. unless you, the said Benjamin F. Stafford,
Samuel A. Sargent, John Marshall and Elizabeth Mar
shall, shall personally be and appear before said Su
perior court of Cook county( on the first day of a term
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on
the first Monday of A pril, W2. and plead, answer or de
mur
thethe
saidmatters
complainants'
billtherein
of complaint,
the
same,toand
and things
charged and
stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
B. C. Cook, CompPt's Sol'r.
24-27
TRUSTEE'S SALE.-Whereas. James E. Coesidy and
Cassidy,
his wife,March
by theirh, 1870,
trustindeed,
datedMargaret
March 7,E.1870,
and recorded
the
Recorder's office of (.look county, Illinois, in book 321
of deeds, page 430 conveyed to the undersigned, Frank
R. Chandler,
following
real estate
in the
city
of Chicagotrustee,
in thethecounty
ofCook,
and State
of
Illinois, to wit: Lot numbered thirty (VM), in Ellis'
east addition to Chicago, situated on Langley street, in
the eastof part
said Ellis'
addition,promissory
to secure the
payof
ment
said ofJames
E. Cassidy's
note,
even
date withSavings
said trust
deed, payable
to theafterdate,
order of
the Sullivant
Institution,
five years
for the sum of sixteen thousand dollars, with interest
at
nine
per cent,andper
annum,
payable
semi-annually,
both
principal
interest
payable
at Claremont,
New
Hampshire, in which said trust deed it was provided,
that
in
case
default
should
be
made
in
the
payment
of
either the principal or interest of said note, on the day
on which the same or either of them should become due
and payable, then all and each oi the moneys secured by
said trust deed should, upon .Mich default, become im
mediately due and payable, and also, that incase of such
default,atsaid
trustee
mightat sell
saidcourt
real
estate,
public
auction,
the and
northdispose
door ofof the
house, in the city of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, or
on said premises, as might be specified in the notice of
such safe, for the highest and beat price the same
would
bring
in cash, at least
publicplace
notice
having
beenbypreviously
giventwenty
thedays'
of
such sale,
advertisement
inof one
oftime
theand
newspapers
at
that
time
published
in
said
city
of
Chicago,
and
make, execute and deliver to the purchaser or pur
chasers
at suchfor
sale,thegood
and sufficient
or deeds
of conveyance
premises
Fold ; and,deed
whereas,
de
fault
bus
been
made
in
the
payment
of
all
the
interest
accruing on said note since tne first day of July,
1871,
aud theliolder of the same has requested the under
signed to make sale of said real estate to pay said note
and accrued interest: now, notice is hereby given that
on Saturday,
day of April.
1672, atthethepremises
hour of
eleven
o'clockthein sixth
the forenoon,
and upon
aforesaid. I shall proceed to sell said real estate, and
all
right,E.title,
benefit
equity E.
of Cassidy
redemption
saidtheJames
Cassidy
andand
Margaret
thereof
in, at public auction, to the highest bidder fur cash, to
pay said note and interest.
Dated March 15. 1872.
23-26
FRANK R. CHANDLER, Trustee.

Legal

GOOKINS & ROBERTS,

Attorney,*, 10 K<i*t MarrUon Hired.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of
Cook, bb. Circuit court of Cook county. March
term,
A. Points,
D. 1872.Minnesota
James H.Ewing,
Fisk Mary
v. Carter
Smith,
Emanuel
L. Schutler
and
Schutler, her hnshand, Lavinia Ann Bond,
Charles I). Bond, Catharine E. Keurns, Eli Kearns,
William A. Ewing, in his ow n right and as executor of
George
W.SuNan
Ewing,
deceased,
GeorgeMuggins,
W. Ewing,
Mary
Stur^es,
Howard
David
B.
Hood, William
E.lluggins,
Hood. Louisa
St urges, Charlotte
F.
Thruston, Dickinson P. Thruston. Lavinia A. Holla}
day,
Jesse
Holluday.
Jaines
M.
Marshall.
Caroline
Mveetzer. Madison Sweetzer, Clara E. Hoot, Lewis B.K.
Hoot. Clara E. Green, Emma Kumler and Charles
Kuiulor.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-r^sl- m- of all the above-named
defendants,
exceptingand
Carter
'Smith.A.Emanuel
James
M. Marshall
William
Ewing. Points,
. ing
been tiled in the office of the Clerk of said Circuit court
ofresilient
Cook deletidauts
county, notice
is
hereby
given
i
o
the
said
non
that the complainant heretofore
filed ids bill of complaint in said court, on the chancery
side thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out
ot said court against said defendnnis, returnable on
the third Monday of March next (i>7:\) as is by law
required.
Now, unless you, the said Minnesota Ewing, Mary
L. Schutler and
Schutler, her husband, Lavinia
Ann Bond, Charles D. Bond. Catharine E. K earns, Eli
Kgins,
earns.Howard
GeorgeHugyins.
W. Kwing,David
Mary B.Sturges.
HugHood. Susan
"William
K.
flood, LuuUu Stunjct*. Charlotte F. Tbritfton. Dickin
son
P.
Tbruston,
Lavinia
A.
Holladay,
Jesse
Holladav,
Caroline E. Sweetzer, Madison Sweetzer. Clara E.
Root, Lewis B. Boot, Clara K. Green, Emma Kumler
and Charles Kumler, shall personally be and appear
before said Circuit court of Cook county, on the first
day of a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said
county, on the third Monday of March, 1*72, and plead,
answer or demnr
to the
o
complaint,
the same,
nudsaid
thecomplainant's
matters and bill
things
tiiereiu
chargedentered
aud stated,
will you
bo taken
as confessed,
Hilda decree
against
according
to the
prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE. Clerk.
Gookins A- RoBERTS.ComplVs Sol'rs.
21-23
CLOWRY & BARMM,
Attornei/s, :*> Xorth ('anal .'Street,
INSTATE
JOHN
J Notice isOK
hereby
given FARRELL,
to all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of John Farrell, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872,
being the sixth day thereof.
MICH ALL BliENNAN. Administrator.
Chicago, February 23, A. D. 1**72.
21-26
INSTATE OF C. LOUIS KURTZ, DECEASED.
J Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
aud demands
against the
thesame
estateforof adjudication
C. Louis Kurtz,
deceased,
to present
and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be "holden at the court bouse, in the
city
Chicago,
on dav
the thereof.
first Monday of May, A. D.
1872, of
being
the sixth
MAlIG.WtETHA
Chicago. February 23, A.D. 1872.KURTZ, Executrix.
21-26
Ci.owry & Bakmm, Attorneys.
INSTATE
CHRISTOPHER
FLYNN,having
Deceased.j Notice OK
is hereby
given to all persons
claims
aud demands against the estate of Christopher
Flynn, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
aud settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook
county, toonbothe
holden
the courtofhouse,
city
of Chicago,
first atMouday
May, inA. the
D.
1872, being the sixth day thereof.
BRIDGET
ANN
FLYNN,
Administratrix.
Chicago, February 2.t. A. D. 1872.
21-26
_f'lowky & Babmm, Vttorneye^
ESTATE
TERESA
DECEASED.i Notice OF
is hereby
givenBATTO,
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Teresa
Batto. deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook
county, toonbe the
holden
the courtofhouse,
city
of Chicago,
firstatMouday
May, inA. the
D,
lf*72, being the sixth day thereof.
JOSEPH
SEGALLE,
Executor.
Chicago, February 23. A.D. 1872.
21-26
Clowky fe Barmm, Attorneys.
INSTATE
HANNAH
Deceased
j Notice OF
is hereby
given HOLDSWORTH,
to all persons having
claims
and demands against the estate ot Hannah Holusworth,
deceased,
to
present
the
same
tor
adjudication
settlement at a regular term of the County courtandof
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in th
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D.
1872, being the sixth dav thereof.
JAMES WILLIAM HOLDSWORTH,
Administrator.
Chicago,
23, A. D. 1872.
Clowey &February
Barmm. Attorneys.
21-26
Estate^fconrad'euhlmannTtjeceased
Notice is heroby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Conrad Kuhlmann,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication andfsettlement at a regular term oi the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872,
being the Bixth day thereof.
CAROLINE KUHLMANN, Executrix.
Chicago,
2, A.D.
1872. for Estate.
Clowry &March
Bakmm,
Attorneys
23-28
TENNEY, McCLELLAN & TENNEY,
Atlorneijs.
MORTGAGE SALE.-Whereas. Aaron H. Crosby
and Adeline, his wife, of Ccntralia, in the- county
of
of Illinois,
the thirtieth
dayMarion,
of June.andA. State
D, 1871,
executedid,
andondeliver
to me
their certain mortgage, which said mortgage was re
corded in the recorder's office of said Marion county,
in the State of Illinois, on the 8th day of July, A. D.
1871.hereinafter
in volume Hdescribed,
of Mortgages,
page 194,
the premof
ises
to secure
the ofpayment
one certain promissory note made by the said A. H.
Crosby, dated on the thirtieth day of June, 1*71, for the
sum of one hundred and ninety-seven 55-100 dollars,
with
interest
the rate
per cent,
per annum,
payable
to theatorder
of C.ofB.ten
Farwell
five months
after
the date thereof; and whereas it is provided in said
mortgage that in case of default in the payment of the
said
note orthereof,
any part
to the
and effect
the thereof,
saidafter
C. B.according
Farwell,
his
legaltenor
rep
resentatives
or attorney,
having
advertised
such
sale twenty days in a newspaper published in Chicago,
Cook county, Illinois, may sell the said premises, or
any part thereof, an* all right and equity of redemp
tion of the said Aaron H. Crosby and Adeline, his
wife, their heirs or assigns therein, at public vendue,
to the highest bidder, for cash, at the court house, in
said Cook county ; and whereas default has been made
in the payment of said note and interest, now, there
fore, bvI, virtue
of the powermortgagee,
in me vestedwill
by said
gage,
the undersigned
sell mort
at It)
o'clock
a.
m.,
on
Wednesday,
the
i>th
day
of
A. D. 1*72, at public vendue, at the court-houseMarch,
door,
in
said Chicago,
county. Illinois,
the highest
bidder,
for cash, Cook
the premises
in said tomortgage
de
scribed, to wit: Lots three (3) and four (-1), in block
one (1), in the town of Centralia. county of Marion,
State
of Illinois,
together withprivileges
all and singular,
the
tenements
and hereditaments,
and appurte
nances thereunto belonging, and all the right, title,
benefit and equity of redemption of the said Aaron H.
Crosby and Adeline, his wife, in and to the said prem
ises.
CHARLES B. FARWELL.
Tenney, McClellan
& Tenney,
Att'ys for
Mortgagee.
19-21
The above sale is adjourned till April 1, 1872, at the
same time aud place. C. B. FaRWELL. Mortgagee.
Tenney, McClellas* & Tenney, Att'ys.
22-25

News.

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
TN
THE for
DISTRICT
COUKT
OF THE
UNITED*
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
X States,
the Northern
District
of Illinois.
Ia
Attorneyt is East JIamm btrert,
the matter of. Eli S. Small, a bankrupt. Notice is
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED hereby
given
that
the
undersigned
will
on
Saturday,
States for the Northi-i n District of Illinois. In the
riih of April, )>*72, at in o'clock, a.m., at No. ;w
matter of Sands Ale Brewing Company, bankrupt. the
Wabash Avenue, in the city of Chicago, neil at public
Notice
is hereby
thatI. pursuant
loan order
this auction
io the highest bidder for civsh, any and all in
day
entered
in saidgiven
court,
the uudei>igned
assignee
which theEvelina
said bankrupt
may have in the estate
of the estate of said bankrupt, will sell at public auction terest
liis mother.
Small, deceased.
for ca>h to the highest and best bidders, at the front of
24-26
S.
S.
MERRILL.
Assignee^
door
eighteen
(l*) ofEar-t
Harrison
street,of i
in theotcitynumber
of Chicago,
county
Cook,
and State
ASSIGNEE'S
NOTICE.-Northern
District
of Illi
Illinois,
in
said
district,
on
Saturday,
the
thirteenth
I
nois,
ss.
At
Chicago,
in
said
District,
on the
16th.
day of April. A. D. 1-72. commencing at ti-n o'clock in I day of September, A. D. 1S71.
the forenoon of said da>. and continuing until all The undersigned hereby gives notice of his appoint
the propertydescribed
hereinafter
be sold,allallbeing
the ment as assignee of William WeiUell, of Chicago, in
following
r-ul described
estate andshall
property,
county of Cook, and State of Illinois, who has.
in the said city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State the
been adjudged a bankrupt, upon his own petition, by
of Illinois, to wit : Beginning at the southwest corner the
District court of the United States in and lor eaiil
of
lot
eight
(8)
of
John
S.
\
ogt's
subdivision
of
the
south one-third of out lot twenty (2nj of the Canal District.
ROBKRT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
Trustee*' subdivision of the southwest quarter of frac 2:^25
tional
section
three
(3),
in
township
thirty-nine
north of range fourteen (14). fast of third principal
PAYNE & HAWHE,
meridian ; thence running north along the west line of
Attorney*, ii Httbbard Court.
said lot eight (M. ami along said last-named line pro ClHANCERY
Illinois,
CountyMayoi
duced
to the north
lineKantetibugrr
ot that part of
ss. NOTICE.-State
Circuit court ofofConk
county.
(20), conveyed
by Peter
andoutwifelottotwenty
Peter Cook,
A. D. 1*72. Samaniha M. W'illiard v. Putnam
Goebel by deed, dated January 2, |.n'i2. and recorded in S.term,
W'illiard.In Chancery.
the recorder's office of Cook county, Illinois, February Affidavit
of the non-residence of Putnam S. W'illiard,
4,east1852,along
in book
of deeds,
thence
running defendant above
named, having been tiled in the office
said 4.'>nortli
line atof page
said 31-1
lot; so
as aforesaid
of
the
clerk
said Circuit court of Cook county,
conveyed to Peter Goebel to the west line of Pine notice is herebyofgiven
the said Putnam
S. W'illiard:
street, as the same was extended by the common coun that the complainanttoheretofore
filed her
bill of
cil of the city of Chicago; thence running along the complaint in said court, on the chancery
thereof,
west line of Pine street to the north line of Pearson and that a summons thereupon issued out side
of
said
court;
street,
along the northproperty
line of Pearson
said defendant, returnable on the third Mon
street toandthethence
place west
of beginningsaid
having against
day of February (1672,) as is by law required, and alsoaPearson
frontagestreet,
of onebyhundred
and
sixty-seven
(1(17)
feet
on
alias summons returnable on the third Monday of
a frontage of one hundred and seven an
May.
A. D. 1672.
(107) feet
on Pine
and being
the property
Now,unless
you,the said Putnam S.W'illiard.shall per
veyed
to said
Sandsstreet,
Ale Brewing
Company
by JohnconF. sonally
appear before said Circuit court of Cook
Stafford and wife aud Richard McClevy (widower) by county, beonand
the
first day of a term thereof, to be holden
deed dated the 2ith day of January, A.D.
which
in
said
third toMonday
of
deed was duly recorded in the Recorder's office ofCook atMay,Chicago,
ls72,
and
plead,county,
answeronorthedemur
the said
county
aforesaid,
on
the
l"th
day
of
March,
A.D.
l-^,
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
same,
and
the
in book 277 of deeds, at page Ini. together with also the matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
boiler and engine, and the brick, iron mid other debris taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
ot destroyed buildings and machinery on said premises. according to the praver of said bill.
Also a certain leasehold estate in premises known and
T. GAS8ETTE, Clerk.
described as lot fourteen (H), in the Assessors* division Payxf, k Hawiie.NORMAN
Compl't's Sol'rs.
22-25
of
block
two
(2)
and
lot
ten
(in),
in
the
south
one-third
and north two-thirds of block twenty (20), in Canal
TURNER, BRAWLEY & TURNER.
Trustees' subdivision of section three (3). township
Attorne*/*. cor. Canal and Madison Streets*
thirty-nine (:iiO, north of range fourteen (14), ea*t of PUBLICATION
NOTICE.State of Illinois, county
third principal meridian, being the property west of
Cook,A.ss.D. Superior
court Stevens
of Cookv. county.
Pine
street,
leased
to
the
said
Sands
Ale
Brewing
Com
Marchot term,
1S72. William
Edwin.
pany by Albert Srnecds. by lease dated September first. Ilolnian.Attachment.
A. D. In;**said lease runs twenty-one (21) years from Public notice is hereby given to the said Edw in IIolsaid 5th September, and is subject to a revaluation man
of thecounty,
office
a writ oftheattachment
everv five years, and said leasehold will be sold subject of thethatclerk
Superior issued
court ofoutCook
to
all arrearages
allallofliens
said dated the first of
day of March, A. D. 1*72, at the suit of
premises
are to beofsoldrents
treeand
and taxes.and
discharged of
the said William Stevens, and against the estate of
and
for 1>71Also
excepted),
said Edwin Hoinan, for the sum of four hundred
to theincumbrances
provisions ot(taxes
said order.
lots twoaccording
(2), three the
and eighty-one dollars and eighty cents, directed to
(3) and four (1). in John S. Vogt's subdivision of the the
sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been,
south one-third (M of block or out lot number twenty returned
executed.unless you, the said Edwin Holman,
(2d), in the Canal Trustees' subdivision of the south
Now.personally
therefore,
west quarter of fractional section three (3), township shall
be and appear before the eaid Superior
thirty-nine
i.:V.*).
north
range
fourteen
(1-t).
east
of
of
Cook county,
on or before
thecourt
first day
of the
third principal meridian. Also the east one hundred court
term
thereof,
to
lie holden
at the
house,
in
[]00j teet of lot five {5J in the Assessors1 division of
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
March,
the north two-thirds of said block, or out lot twenty the
A.
D.
lf*72,
give
special
bail
and
plead
to
the
said
plain
L20] of the Canal Trustees1 subdivision of fractional
action, judgment will be entered against you. and
section three [3J, in township aud range aforesaid. tiffs
favor of the said William Stevensfandso much of the
Also, all that part ot lot seven [7], in thesai . Assessors' inproperty
attached
may be
to satisfy
the
division of saul^ north two-thirds of block or out lot said judgment
andas costs
willsufficient
be Bold to
satisfy the
twenty [2tr aforesaid, bounded and desc ibed as fol same.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON,
lows,
that
is
to
say
:
commencing
at
the
northeast
cor
Superior
ner of said lot seven [ 7 j, and running thence south on Turner, Brawlfy &, Turner.Clerk
Pl't'ffs
Att'ys.Court.
2.1-2t>p
the east line of said lot seven L" J thirty-five aud W-ltm
[35 .V-inoj feet, more or less, to the south line of said riHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
lot
seven
[7],
and
thence
west
on
said
south
line
ninety
^ Cook,
county.EickenMay
[tW)J feet, more or Ichs, to a point one hundred and Term.
A. D.Be.1872.Circuit
Georgecourt
Tolleofv. Cook
Frederick
ninety-six
[U] feet
east line
of the
west line
of saidnowlot berg. Mathilda
Eickenberg. William Moerecke, Maria
seven
[7 ], being
the east
oi Green
Bay street,
George
W. SchuaVd,
Zebulon Chancerv.
M. Hall, Henry
called Rush street; thence northwesterly on a line Turuey, and
Alexander
Thomson.Jn
purallel with said west line of said* lot seven [T] thirty- Hanson
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of
Frederick
Eicken
seven and 7 -in [37 7-10] feet, moro or less. tt a point in berg.
(tne of the defendants above named, and that
said
the
north
line
of
said
lot
seven
[7],
one
hundred
and
Maria
Turney.
upon
due
inquiry,
cannot
be
found
ninety-six [I'-tfil feet east of suid west line of said lot said State, having been filed in the office of the clerk in
of
seven 17], and thence east, on the north line of said lot said
court
of Cook county,
noticeand
is hereby
seven [7] to the place of beginning, being a portion of givenCircuit
to
the
said
Frederick
Eickenberg
Maria
the property conveyed to said Sands Ale Brewing Turney that the complainant heretofore filed his bill
Company
Lill, by deed
dated the 1st day
complaint in said court, on the chancery side
July,
A. D.by1 William
Also,
of theof of
thereof, aud that a summons thereupon issued out of
west eighty-five
[S5]
feettheof east
lot fiveforty
[5] of[-to]thefeet
Assessors'
said
court
against
saidnext
defendants,
on th
division
of
the
north
two-thirds
of
block
twenty
[20]
Monday
of May
(IS72), as isreturnable
by law required.
of the Canal Trustees' subdivision of the southwest third
Now.
unless
you,
the
said
Frederick
Eickenberg
and
quarter of fractional section three [3], township thir Maria Turney, shall personally be and appear beforety-nine [39], north range fourteen [14], east of the
Circuit court of Cook county, on the first day of
third principal meridian. Also, that part of said said
a term thereof, to beholden at Chicago, in said county,
block or outoflotthetwenty
[20]quarter
of the ofCanal
Trustees'
the third Monday of May, lf-72, and plead, answer
subdivision
southwest
fractional
sec on demur
to the said complainant's bill of complaint,
tion three, township aud range aforesaid, described as or
the
and the matters and things therein charged
follows: commencing one hundred and ninety-six and same,
stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree
[19i>] feet oast of a point on the east line of Bush entered
against you according to the prayer of said
street [formerly Green Bay street]^ seventy-five
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
and W [75?2] feet in a southerly direction from bill.
the northwest corner of said block, running Rosenthal, Pence <fr Moses, Compl't's. Sol'rs. 22-25.
thence southerly on a line parallel with the
JOHN H. PECK,
west thence
line of east
said block,
[37 [2]
7-10]of
Attorney, Room 2. 33 West Randolph street.
feet
to thethirty-seven
westof the
linesouth
ofandlot7-10
two
NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Count/ ofV
JohnS. Yogi's
subdivision
one-third
of pHANCERY
ss. Circuit court of Cook county, May
out lot twenty [20] of the south-west Quarter of frac term,Cook,
A. D. 1S72. Margaret Graff v. William GrafT.
tional
section
three[3] aforesaid,
if said west
line
were
InAffidavit
Chancery.of the non-reuidence of William Graff, de
produced
and
extended
norththence
north
on
said
line so produced to a point due west of the placa of fendant above named, having been filed in the office of
beginning,
thence east
thelot*
place
of beginning.
ofeaid Circuit court of Cook county, noticel
a certain leasehold
estateto in
numbered
twelve Also
and the clerkgiven
to the said William Graff that the com
thirteen [12 and 13] of the assessor's division of block hereby
heretofore filed her bill of complaint in said
number twenty [2n] in Canal trustees subdivision of plainant
on the chaucery side thereof, and that a summons
section three [3] aforesaidbeing the property [east of court,
thereupon issued on
out the
of said
againstof said
Pine street] leosod to said Sands Ale Brewing Com ant,
thirdcourt
Monday
Maydefend
next,
pany
by Albert
Smeeds
lease datedyears
Septeniber
1st, (]*>72.)returnable
as is by law required.
A.
D. 18tW;
said lease
runs'bytwenty-one
from said
Now, unless you, the said W'illiam Graff, shall per
date, and is subject to a re-valuation every five years sonally
be and appear before said Circuit court oi
and said leasehold will be sold subject to all arrear
on the first day of a term thereof, to be
ages for rents and taxe,sand the iron, brick and other Cook county,
at
Chicago,
said county,
third Monday
debris upon said premises will be sold together with holden
of
May,
1S72,
and inplead,
answeron orthedemur
to the
said leaseall of said property being in the city of said complainant's
bill of complaint.the same, and the
Chicago,
county
of
Cook,
aud
State
of
Illinois.
And
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
all of said property will be sold ["except as aforesaid I taken
as confessed, and a decree entered against you
free and discharged ofall encumbrances, by order ofsaid according
to the prayer of said bill.
court;
and[3[alsoandbyfour
order[4]ofofsaid
the said
lots two
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
[21. threo
Johncourt
S. Yogt's
subdivision
John
H.
Peck, Compl'tV Sol'r.
23-2C
of
of [5]
saidand
outseven
lot tw[71
entyin:[20],
and
thethe
saidsouth
partsone-third
of lots five
the said
STATE
OF
GUNDER
OLESON, DECEASED^
assessors' division of the said north two-thirds of said
Notice
is
hereby
given
to
all
persons
having
claims
lot
twentywill
J20]bewith
all for
brick,
and inother
demands against the estate of Gnnda Oleson,
thereon,
offered
sale iron
together
one debris
body, and
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
and they will be so sold. And further particulars settlement
a regular term of the County court ot
regarding said sale and said property may be obtained Cook county,at tobeliolden
at the courthouse, in the
on application to the undersigned.
city
of
Chicago,
on the first Monday of May, A.D.
ROBKRT
K. JENKINS.
being the 6th day thereof.
Assignee of Sands
Ale Brewing
Co. ,a Bankrupt. 1372,
Chicago, February 19, A.D. 1S72.
Chicago, March 9, 1872.
24-27
22-26
CHARLES
James Michie.
Att'y. GLADDING, Administrator.
21-26
ASSIGNFF/S NOTICE.Northern District of Illi ESTATE OF MARY ANN CAVANAUGH, DEnois, as. At Chicago, in said District, on the
ceased.Notice
is herebyagainst
given to
persons
4thThe
dayundersigned
ot March, A.hereby
D. 1872.
claims and demands
thealleptats
ofe
gives notice of his appoint having
Mary Ami Cavanaugh, deceased, to present thesam
ment
as
assignee
of
Oeorgo
A.
Shufeldt,
Jr.,
of
Chi
adjudication and settlement at a regular term of
cago, in the county of Cook, and State of Illinois, who for
the County court of Cook county, to be holden at tho
has the
beenDistrict
adjudgedcourt
a bankrupt,
upon his
owninpetition,
court
thebeing
city oftheChicago
the first Monday
bv
of the United
States
and for of
May,house,
A.D. inIe72,
i>t h dayonthereof.
said District.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
February IP, A. D. 1S72.
23-25
Assignee. Chicago,
"21-25
JOHN CORBETT. Administrator.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi ESTATE OF FRANK REICHARDS. DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
nois, Ps1. At Chicago, in said District, on the 11th
and demands against the estate of Frank Reichards
day of March, A. D. W2.
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
The
undersigned
hereby
gives
notice
of
his
appoint
ment as assignee of Jacob Engel. of Chicago, in the tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county of Cook, and State of Illinois, who nas been county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
adjudged a bankrupt, upon his own petition, by the Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A.D. 1572,
District court of the United States, in and for said being the sixth day thereof.
Chicago, February 21. A.D. 1872.
District.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
JuIIANN REICHARDS, Administrator.
23-25
Assignee. 20-2,'a

200

Chicago

Legal

News.
ATTORNEYS.

KAY & BROTHER.

BISHOP'S

CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE.

Philadelphia,
NEW EDITION.
HAVE JUST PUBLISHED
PLEADING, EVIDENCE, AND PRACTICE IN CRIMINAL CASES.
KERR

ON

RECEIVERS,

By JOEL PRENTISS BISHOP.

ONE VOLIXE. 8vo, 84.30,
Second Edition. Revised and Enlarged. 2 vols. Sro, 815.00.
A Treatise on the Law and Practice as to Receivers
appointed by the Court of Chancery.
While this edition preserves most of what is valuable in the former one, it is improved by adding new
topics.by the citation of the later cases,by new illustrations of former topics,by a rearrangement of its
BY WILLIAM WILLIAMSON KERR,
contents after a better method,by a very considerable enlargement of the index of subjects,and by the
Of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law,
new device of headings, in a peculiar type, to the several sections.
With Notes and References to American
By common consent, Mr. Bishop's Commentaries are accepted as
the most useful Text-Books on the Criminal Law for the Student
Authorities,
or Practicing Lawyer in the United States.
By Geo. TUCKER BISPHAM, Eaq.
Of the Philadelphia Bar.
* It mayauthority
be confidently
said that
are,Pleading.
in the Courts
in Georgia,Federal
*
standard
on Criminal
Lawthese
and treatises
Procedure,
Evidence,
and Practice. By and
theirState,the
intrinsic
merits alone,for they come here unheralded by praise,they have found the place they so well deserve "
Hon. John Erskine, Judge of the United State* District Courts /or the District of Georgia.
"I repeat what I have had occasion to say before, in regard to other volumes of yours, that I find your
IN PRESS,
books of very great practical value, not only for their fullness and their discussion of principles in all cases
where the rules are not arbitrary, but for the very clear method which enables the reader to find everything
it belongs. Not the least element of value in the 'Criminal Procedure' is the distinct treatment of
A DIGEST OF THE STATUTES AND DECISIONS where
what is sometimes so blended with the Law of Crimes as to confound an inexperienced practitioner who Is
seeking
light James
as to matters
of Pleading
and Practice.
Yours is the most desirable treatise I am acquainted
with."Hon.
V. Campbell,
Chief Justice
of Michigan.
ON
"I have examined the second edition of Bishop on ' Criminal Procedure,' and I am fully convinced it is
the best work on the subject either fn England or the United States. Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure
necessarily separate subjects, and, to be perfectly intelligible, must be elucidated in distinct works.
DIVORCE AND ALIMONY are
While
Bishop
has theandcredit
of beinghethehasfirst
to adopt
of treating
in asystematic
method,Mr.alike
complete
exhaustive,
added
otherthis
newplan
features
whichthese
givesubjects
very much
practical
value to his work on Criminal Procedure as to other law books of which he is author. These present every
IN THE UNITED STATES,
topic
discussed
so
as
to
be
very
readily
accessible,a
quality
much
needed
during
the
progress
of
in
court. The whole plan of the work Is such as to command the approval of judges and lawyers. trials
But its
BY
crowning merit is found in the unequaled elucidation of every topic discussed, covering the whole raage of
Criminal Procedure."Horn. Wm, Lawrence, Ohio.
*' The best living text-writer on the jurisprudence of our country."Hon. Charles Sumner, in the U.S.
WM. HARDCASTLE BROWNE, Esq.,
Senate, January 31, 1868.
" He must henceforth be regarded as one of tho first of legal authors in this or any other country,"Hon.
Of the Philadelphia Bar,
C. D. Drake.
" The most philosophical criminal law writer of the age."The Attorney-General in People v. Yystare, 27
Cal., 632.
ONE VOLUME, 8 vo.
" I think I hazard nothing in saying that Bishop is the ablest and most reliable writer who has yet under
taken in America to write on American Criminal Law."Judge It. F. Paine.
" The author is a liberal and progressive thinker in the law. He looks forward rather than buckward in
his search for legal truth. He recognizes his right and duty to think boldly and independently, and not
merely to echo the opinions of the judges. There is a contagious enthusiasm in the spirit lie imparts to legal
subjects."Boston Post.
" This work will be found more complete than any yet compiled on criminal practice: and as this, unlike
KAY Sc BROTHER,
the civil practice, is the same in the courts of all the States, and also In the Federal courts, the work will be
aid to every practicing lawyer in the Lnion."Chicago Republican.
Law Publishers, Booksellers and Importers, an indispensable
"Sincet he
Judge
ceasedoftoour
contribute
to istheJoelliterature
of American
his learned
and valuable
treateses,
mostStory
scientific
law writers
P. Bishop."New
YorkLaw
Commercial
Advertiser.
17 and 19 South Sixth Street,
" The law on which he undertakes to comment is, in general, clearly and fully stated} and is well sup
ported byOnethegreat
cases.merit
Theofcollection
is full
and faithful,
mustresult
have of
required
great timeorder
and
the work ofis authorities
the facility of
reference,
which and
is the
the admirable
24-27
Philadelphia. labor.
and arrangement of the book. Again, the way in which Mr. Bishop has divided his subject is happy, and the
Index
is aBecond
capitalvolume
one. will be of great service to prosecuting officers, because the elements of the various
"The
offenses there treated ofthose facts, in the absence of which, whether in allegation or In proof, the offense
does not existare therein so distinctly stated."American Law Review.
" Mr. Bishop has already established a high reputation as a writer of law books. His Commentaries on
CALLAGHAN & Co. the Law of Divorce, and Commentaries on the Criminal Law, are quoted daily, in alt the courts of the land,
and
always
withLaw
respect
for the learning andwhich
accuracy
of tho
author.equal
He has
now given
the profession a
treatise
oneven
the
of Criminal
appears
to possess
merit
its tohimself
predecessors,or,
perhaps,
greater.
In this, asProcedure,
in his previous legal
works,
Mr. Bishop has
not with
confined
to a mere
successors to
recital and arrangement of authorities, but gives the reader positive doctrines and elucidations. Such books
not only explain what the low is, but do much toward simplifying and correcting its principles."New York
Evening Post.
CALLAGHAN & COCKCROFT,
LITTLE, BROWN & CO., Publishers,
Respectfully call the attention of the profession to
25
110 WASIHJIGTON STREET, BOSTON.
.their large stock of
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
NOW KKADY.
CIIAS. M. HARRIS,
33*
S. E. cor. Clark and Adnms^
MILLER, WILLIAMSON13(1& W.
MILLER.
Randolph street. JONES' FORMS & PROCEDURE
Embracing the BEPOBTS of all the loading
Courts in this Country and England.
We hare a very full assortment of
New Text Booh and

Digests,

SPRINGFIELD (O.L.) ATTORNEYS.

HERNDON & ORENDORF,
Office west side square. '.'7*
JACKS0NVIU^<nj^K^0RNEYfL__
"ETCHAM, I. J.

-and an unusually full line of

RARE AND VALUABLE WORKS,

ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.

>EPPER. WILSON & MARTIN,
Room 2 Bauk Building.

MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.

oat of print, which we are offering.' at lowest current
prices.
SANFORD, E._S; al attention given to Collec52*
Lions and
We would also call attention to our superior facili
ties for importing, being In monthly receipt of
J. II. BATTEN,
CONSIGNMENTS FROM LONDON
STATION E R ,
185 LA SALLE STREET.
19-30
direct, which we are selling at unusually low figures. Law Stationery and Legal BlankB.
A large collection of Second-hand TextHooka, IMffeala and Reports* kept constantly on
SMS. TREES !hedg1n PLANTS!
Catalogues sent promptly npon application.

CALLAGHAN &

CO.,

525 Wabash Ave.,

CHICAGO, ILL.

WS SEEDS !
Apple and Crab, 100 2 to 4 ft.. (M ; i to 6 ft., $5.
Pear, gland., extra, l.year, Bartlett, etc., 3 to 4 .11.,
per doz., 92.50.
leeda. Peach, bush., 82; Apple Osage, new, bush.,
$12.
Potatoes, Early; Rose, WhitePeach Blow, per
bush, $2.
Seedling*. 1000 Soft Maple, $1; Ash, $3; Elm, $2.
Illustrated Catalogue, 100 pages, and Price List, 10c,
15-27
F. K. PHCENIX, Bloomlngton, 111.

The Forms and Mode of Procedure in the various

Courts in the State of Illinois, and which, with little
variation, will apply to those of the neighboring States
and Territories. For the use of Judges of Probate,
Clerks of Courts, Sheriffs. Coroners. County Commis
sioners,
Peace.
Lawyers,
Constables,
NotariesJustices
Public, ofetc.,thewith
a variety
of precedents
in
conveyancing. By James Jones. Esq.
Second edition, revised and enlarged, by Joseph
Weight.
IT CONTAINS
Forms of Writs and Proceedings in the Supreme
Court, Circuit Court, County Court, and tho United
States District and Circuit Courts.
Forms in Chancery Practice, such as Summons, Bills
of
Writsa complete
of Injunction,
Orders
andComplaint,
Decrees, with
record Notices,
suggesting
the
various proceedings in a cause, from filing a Bill to
perfecting Appeal.
In Actions and other proceedings at law, with com
plete records In Assumpsit, Case, Attachment, Eject
ment,
etc.used by Justices of the Peace In Criminal and
Forms
Civil
matters,
by and
Notaries
Public,inand
of
Courts in entries
proceedings
casesbyat Clerks
Law and
In Chancery, from their commencement to final Cer
tificate of Transcript of Record.
Forms used by Sheriffs and Coroners in holding in
quests.
Forms used in Naturalization, in Arbitration and
Award.
Of Affidavits, In Attachment and other cases at Law
andForms
in Equity.
used in Appeals from, and Certiorari to Jus
tices' Courts.
Forms of Pleading: Declarations, Pleas. Demur
rers, Replications, Bills for Foreclosurefor Divorce
in Dowerfor Specific Performance, etc., with An
swers, Replications, Decrees, Orders, and the Process
thereon in Equity.
Notes,
Bills Bills
of Exchange,
of Cred
it,Forms
Bonds,ofBills
of Sale.
of Lading.Letters
Releases,
Cer
tificates
of
Stock.
Proxies,
Mortgages,
Judgment
Notes, Agreements, etc.
Forms used in Conveyancing : In Depositionsin
structions for taking ana certifying the same, de bene
esse and otherwise.
An Appendix containing the RULES OF PRAC
TICE OF THE COURTS, as Amended and Revised to
theAnpresent
Octavotime.
Volume. TOO pp. Bound in Law Sheep.
Price, $7.30. Sent free to any address on receipt of the
price.
E. B. MTKKS, Puhlhiher.
23-20
No. 3U3 Wabash Avenue.

FRANK J. CRAWFORD,
ATTORNEY AND COUN8ELOR-AT-LAW,
No. X2$ Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
23
GEORGE C. FRY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
34 Clinton Street, Room 5, Chicago.
. GOODWIN.
E. C. LARNED.
H. S. TOWUt.
GOODWIN, LARNED & TOWLE,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
No. 376 Wabash Avenue, Cliicago.
12
BATES A HOUSES,
Attorneys at Law, 113 W. Madison St.
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kantas
as*
ROGERS & ROGERS,
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS,
46*
St Paul, Minn
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
8HORT-HAND WRITER,
And U. S. Commissioner.
Western Union Telegraph Ojflce, 554 Wabash Ave

AD YER TISEMENT.

STEVENS & HAYNES

Law Publishers,
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS,
BeU Yard, Temple Bar,
LONDON.
forks in all Classes of Literature
SUPPLIED TO ORDER,
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
Orders Promptly Filled.
The Trustees) and OUlcer* of Public 1*1imy rely upon the most
careful attention tu their
By importing DIRECT from England a consider
able saving is effected, especially in Ute Customs) duty,
from which Public Institutions in Vie United States are
SUNDRY mistakes have been made by our Foreign
and
addressing
ters,Colonial
we beg toCorrespondents
notify that the iu
members
of ourtheir
firm let
are
Henry G. Stevens and Robert W. Haynes, the son
and stepson ol the late Valentine Stevens, the eminent
Law Publisher. Since our father's death we have con
tinued to carry on the business of Law Publishers,
Booksellers and Exporters, at the above ad
dress.
During his recent visits to the United States and
Canada, Robert W. Haynes secured many Friends
and Correspondents ; we are thus enabled to give ref
erences of the highest character in most of the princi
palWeAmerican
have nocities.
connection whatever with any other
house
and to abroad
prevent are
delayrespectfully
and miscar
riage, of
ourbusiness,
Correspondents
re
quested to plainly address their letters to us as fol
lows :
STEVENS & HAYNES,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
LONDON,
ENGLAND.
Extract from " Report of Julius Rosenthal, Esq.,
Librarian to the President and Members of
the Chicago Law Institute." November, 1S70.
" To our collection of English Reports a valuable
addition has been made by the importation of a
full and well preserved set of the House of Lords
Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58
volumes.
" English books were imported directly free of
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the
firm of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose
diligence, promptness, and care in tilling our or
ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
Scale of Advertising Bates.
Space, j 1 w. 2 W. 3 w.i 4w. 3 m. 16 m. i y.
1 sq $L00 SL75 $150 $3725 ~$8!ob ~$i5l>0 ssoTdo
2.00 3.50 4.75 6.00 15.75 30.00 59.00
2 sq
2.80 5.00 6.50j 8.00 23.00 44.00 87.00
4 col.... 4.68
12.87 ! 15.00 37.50 73.75 137.50
21.50 ] 27.50 72.50 135.00 262.50
KooL... 8.75
1 col 15.00 27.50 38.75152.50 135.00 262.50. 437.50
Ten lines of Agate make a Square.
Advertisements must be paid for in advance,
and when not so paid. 50 per cent, will be added
Legal Notices not included in the above.
Printed at the Chicago Legal News Press, 13
North Jefferson street, Chicago.

Qhicago

Jegal

^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress. In the year 1S71, by the Chicago Legal News Company, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 26.

&fje (Courts.
Through the courtesy of Wm. T. Dit
tos, of the Davenport bar, we have re
ceived the following opinion :
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
December Term, 1S71.
F. Bartemeyeb, Sr., Plaintiff In Error, v. The
State of Iowa.
In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa.
WRITS OF ERROR TO STATE COURTS.
That writs of error to the State courts can only
issue when one of the questions mentioned in the
Sath section of the judiciary act was decided by
Ihe court to which the writ was directed, and
when the State court is composed of more than
one Judge, the Chief Justice may sign the citation,
but one of the associate justices cannot.Ed.
Legal News,
Wm. T. Dittoe for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opin
ion of the court.
This case, which is a writ of error to
the Supreme Court of Iowa, is submitted
to us on printed argument. In this class
of cases the court has been in the habit
of examining the record to see if it has
jurisdiction, whether the question is
raised .by counsel or not ; and the case
before us we find ourselves compelled to
dismiss, because there is no proper al
lowance of the writ of error.
Writs of error to the Circuit court,
under the 22d section of the judiciary
act, issue as a matter of course, and can
be obtained from the clerk of the Cir
cuit court, and, when tiled i'i his otitou
by the party, are duly served. But writs
of error to the State courts can only
issue when one of the questions men
tioned in the twenty-fifth section of that
act was decided by the court to which
the writ is directed, and in order that
there may be some security that such a
question was decided in the case, the
statute requires that the citation must be
signed by the Chief Justice, or Judge, or
Chancellor of the court rendering or
passing the judgment or decree com
plained of, or by a justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States. It has been
the settled doctrine of this court that a
writ of error to a State court must be
allowed by one of the judges above men
tioned, or it will be dismissed for want
of jurisdiction, and the case before us
raises the question whether the writ has
been allowed by a judge authorized to
do so.
The Supreme Court of 'Iowa, which
rendered the judgment complained of,
is composed of a chief justice and three
associate justices, and this writ is allowed
by one of the associate justices.
We are of opinion that the act of Con
gress requires that, when there is a court
so composed, the writ can only be al
lowed by the chiefjustice of that court, or
by a justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States. In case of a writ to a
court composed of a single judge or
chancellor, the writ may be allowed by
that judge or chancellor, or by a justice
of the Supreme Court of the United
States.
The result of this construction of the
statute is that the associate justice of the
Supreme Court of Iowa who allowed
the present writ had no authority to do
so, and it is accordingly dismissed.
Mr. Justice Swayne dissenting.
I dissent from the opinion just read.
The objectien was not taken by the
counsel for the defendant in error. The
writ of error was allowed bv an associate
justice of the Supreme Court of the
Statethe court by which the alleged
error was committed. This, I think, was
sufficient. In my judgment the con
struction given to the provision in ques
tion, of the statute, is unwarrantably
narrow. I am authorized to say that the
Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Bradley
concur in this view of the subject.

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, APRIL 6, 1872.

Our thanks are due H. K. Mann, Clerk
of the United States Courts at St. Paul,'
Minn., for the following opiniou :
U. S. DISTRICT COURT, D. OF MINN.
Emu. Munch, Gustave Munch and Adolph
Stierle, v. The Steamer Sucker State.
IN ADMIRALTY LIBEL FOR DAMAGES
CAUSED BY A COLLISIONREPAIRSLOSS
OF SERVICES.
1. Proof ok Ownership.That the ownership
of a boat, at least so far as to make out a prima
facie case, may be proved in the same manner as
of any other chattel.
2. Facts as to the Collision.The court states
the facts relating to the collision, and finds that
the steamer was managed with carelessness and
must pay the damage.
3. The Measure of the Damages.That the
amount paid for repairs is a proper item, and the
owners of the barge arc entitled to recover dama
ges for the loss of her services while she was under
going repairs, and the court allows the highest
rate of interest jHjrmitted in Minnesota during the
time the barpe was undergoing repairs, upon her
value as a measure of damages for her detention.
Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the Court by Nelson, J.
The owners of the barge " Eveline "
filed a libel against the steamer " Sucker
State," her engines, machniery, boat's
tackle, apparel and furniture, claiming
damages for a collision through the fault
of the steamer whereby the barge was se
verely injured and rendered unservicea
ble for a long period.
The barge was lying safely moored at
the levee at the city of Hastings on the
Mississippi river when the collision oc
curred.
The steamer was coming down the riv
er on Sept. 1st, 1870, at mid-day, and ap
proaching the city of Hastings headed
towards the shore, the current being
<apid and the wind blowing fresh and
quartering upon the levee, to effect a
landing a short distance above the place
where the barge was moored.
It is claimed that owing to the gross
negligence and mismanagement of the
steamer, she swung around against the
barge as her bow struck the shore with
great force, and crushed and broke in her
side, so that she rapidly filled with water
and was only prevented from sinking by
dragging her out upon dry land.
The barge was clearly visible by those
in charge of the steamer, and it is alleged
that the collision took place without any
fault ofthe barge or of her owners. Dam
ages to the amount expended in making
necessary repairs are claimed and loss of
services at the rate of five dollars per day
for forty-seven days.
The steamer was arrested pursuant to
the process issued and the claimants ap
peared and entered into a stipulation for
an amount sufficient to cover the dama
ges claimed.
The claimants in their answer put in
issue the ownership of the barge as claim
ed in the libel, and allege that the barge
was old, rotten, leaky and unseaworthy,
and they deny that any repairs were ren
dered necessary or that the libellants lost
the use of her by reason of any act com
mitted by the steamer.
They allege that a landing was effected
at Hastings skillfully and in a seaman
like manner, and that they run alongside
of the barge carefully, and deny that the
steamer swung around with such force
as to crush the barge or injure her as
stated in the libel. They charge that if
any injury happened, it was owing to
the fact that the barge was rotten, old
and leaky and unseaworthy.
The right of libellants to enforce their
claim as owners was raised on the hear
ing.
The respondents objected to any parol
evidence of ownership. An executory
contract entered into in writing before
the collision for the sale of the barge to
two of the libellants was offered, and
also the enrollment with a bill of sale
accompanying it, but the bill of sale was
dated subsequently to the time when the
collision occurred. Parol evidence was
then offered to show that the barge was
really delivered at the date of the execu
tory contract, and that the other libellant purchased an interest in her, and

was part owner at the time of the injury.

This testimony is admissible as also the
further evidence that the bill of sale at
tached to the enrollment was dated by
mistake to conform to the time of en
rollment, instead of a period anterior to
the collision.
The ownership of the boat, at least so
far as to make out a prima facie case,
may be proved in the same manner as
of any other chattel, and the testimony
offered showed, unrebutted, a right in
the libellants to maintain this action.
The witnesses on both sides testify
that the steamer struck the barge in
landing, and the weight of evidence sus
tains the charge in the libel, that it was
with great force and accompanied with
a crushing sound, that indicated a break
ing in of the sides of the barge.
The captain of the steamer appears to
have appreciated the danger of attempt
ing a landing above the barge, and cau
tioned the pilot about hazarding it, who
in obedience to orders, backed her so as
to pass below, but subsequently learning
that freight was to be taken on at a ware
house just above, moved up ahead of the
barge. In doing this the steamer, when
her bow was turned out into the stream,
touched the stern of the barge, swung in
and lapped her. She struck, according
to the testimony of those on shore, with
such force as to attract their attention.
The mail agent says : " She struck
harder than she would have done on
still water," but thinks the injury
resulted from the barge being rotten
and weak. The testimony of those on
si; ire and near the barge, and who went
t< her assistance and relieved her from
ws.ler with the pumps, is decisive upon
the fact of damage done by the collision,
and it is also clear that a" landing could
have been easily made above or below,
without any difficulty, as the levee is
some four hundred feet long. The
barge also proved to have been unsea
worthy. She was built of oak in 1867,
just three years previous, and although
leaking some, was serviceable, and
capable of being used daily.
She was safely moored at a public
landing, and it was incumbent on the
steamer to keep out of her way. By
landing as she did she took all of the
risk of damage. It was dangerous to
swing the steamer against the barge with
the wind blowing fresh upon the shore
and the current running strong, and she
must be held responsible for the loss
sustained. The steamboat having the
power to be moved anc. stopped at pleas
ure, was presumptively managed with
carelessness, and must pay the damage.
I am not so clear upon the extent of
the liability. The amount paid for re
pairs is a proper item of allowance, and
is sustained as claimed.
Upon the claim for loss of service,
there is great difficulty in laying down a
certain and safe rule. The doctrine of
restitutio in integrum must govern in all
cases; but the difficulty is as to the
proper application of the maxim. In
the case of The Narragansett, (1 Bl. C. C.
R., 211,) the court says : " That it is im
possible to fix with exactness the time
indispensable for the repair of the
injured vessel or the value of her services
during the period of her disablement.
These particulars must necessarily rest
in a great degree upon estimates," but
an allowance was made and sustained
by the appellate court, with the remark,
" that such an allowance for loss of ser
vices while the vessel is undergoing re
pairs, seems proper according to the
maritime law. It does not appear in
this case, how the amount was arrived
at.
In the case of The Rhode Island, (2
Bl. C. C. R. 113,) an allowance was made
by the commissioner to whom it was
referred of a per diem compensation for
each day after the collision until after
the damaged vessel was repaired, for an
amount w-hich, according to the evidence,
would have enabled her owners to sup
ply her place with a vessel to perform

Whole No. 184.

her work. No vessel to perform her
work during the interval was hired, and
that was the case here. The court sent
the report of the commissioner back dis
allowed, and ordered six per cent, inter
est per annum upon the value of the
vessel before the damage, to be allowed
during the detention, instead of the for
mer allowance. On appeal the action
was sustained, and the court say : " The
allowance was for a supposed or appar
ent loss incident to the damage done by
the collision in regard to which no set
tled rule can be found; opinion being
conflicting whether anything should be
allowed, and if anything, by what meas
ure the allowance should be determined.
***** -\ve sustain it not because
it was founded uj>on any established
principles, but because no principle
could be found that would justify the
adoption of a higher measure of dama
ges in the case."
In the case of Williamson v. Barrett,
(13 Howard, 101,) which was a case at
common law, and tried before a jury in
the court below, an exception had been
taken to the charge of the court that in
addition to damages for an amount
expended in repairing the boat, the jury
should give damages for the use of her
during the time necessary to make the
repairs and tit her for business. The
court says : " The general rule regula
ting damages in cases of collision is to
allow the injured party an indemnity to
the extent of the loss sustained, * *
* * * * but there is a good deal of
difficulty in stating the grounds upon
which to arrive, in all cases, at the prop
er measure of that indemnity. * * *
* * * The difficulty lies in estimating
the damage sustained by the loss of the
service of the vessel, while she is under
going repairs." The question is discuss
ed at some length, and it is said that
" the market price for the hire of the
vessel which can be determined by the
demand in the market for vessels of the
same description, and the price which
the owner could or might have obtained
for his vessel," is as fair a test as can be
applied to ascertain the damage. This,
no doubt is the ordinary and safe rule,
but as was stated by Mr. Justice Catron
in his dissenting opinion, " the supposi
tion that the amount of damages can
easilv be fixed by proof of what the in
jured boat could nave been hired for
during her detention, will turn out to be a
barren theory on our Western rivers."
The claim for the service of the barge
in this case, is too high, and I am not
satisfied with the testimony offered to
sustain it. Her value is fixed at eight
hundred dollars as the highest figure.
The damage for loss of service claimed, is
nearly equal to one-fourth ofthis sum ; and
that too for only forty-seven days' ser
vice. I do not" think it is sufficientlyclear that her service was equal to such
an amount. She was leaky before the
collision and the oakum was out of the
seams for some distance along her sides.
She stood in need of thorough repair,
although her owner might have used
her in carrying lumber through the sea
son of navigation. There was a loss of
service, however, to the owners, and
they are entitled to compensation.
It seems to me to be a just and fair in
demnity, inasmuch as her owners did
not deem it necessary to hire any boat
in her place to enable them to continue
the business, to allow the highest rate of
interest permitted in this State, during
the time she' was undergoing repairs,
upon her value, as a measure of damages
for detention. This recognizes the barge
as so much capital unemployed and
incapable of producing income on ac
count of the collision. I regard this rule
of damages justifiable on account of the
insufficiency of the testimony to warrant
any other estimate.
The clerk will make the computation
and enter a decree accordingly, with in
terest and costs.
H. J. Horn, Proctor for Libellants.
C. K. Davis, Contra.

202

Chicago

Legal

News.

Through the courtesy of Frank J.

BEFORE JUDGE C. F. MOULTON, AT , tion foreign to that confided to its courtsi of its plain provisions. And this contract,
i Admiralty to co-exist in matters pertain- ] if it could be enforced against these sea Crawkord, of the Chicago bar, we have
MOBILE.February, 1872.
ing to this important branch of its coin- j men, would bind them, at the will of the received the following opinion :
Halieas Corput.
The PEon.r. cx rcl. Ten Saii-ohs, v. C. P. Setxiei.ey. i merce. Were it otherwise, it would re master, to serve on board of this ship with
Master of the American Ship, Mount Washing sult in endless confusion and unprofita out limit as to time. " More portsorplaces
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
ton.
in the United States" would authorize Opinion Filed at Ottawa, Jan. 22, 1872.
ble strife.
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN SEAMEN IN FOREIGN
Then, it results that this contract, or a the master to engage in the coastwise John Stevens and Wife, et al. v, Dawson Hoy,
PORTSAUTHORITY OF MASTER.
Adrsr., etc.
for an indefinite time. I do not
1. Authority of Master.That there is no act part of it, must find a support in some of service
Appealfrom LaSaile Circuit Court.
of Congress authorizing a master of an American the acts of Congress, or else it cannot be suppose that such would be the case, but
vessel, as a matter of right, to contract with sea recognized as a valid and binding obli still, if the contract be a valid one, it CONTRACT OF INDEMNITYLIABILITY OF
men for their discharge in a foreign port. His
ON A RECOGNIZANCE, AND HERE
might be done. Contracts made with SURETY
power to contract with seamen, in general, con gation.
IN OF HIS RIOHT TO PAY THE SAMERE
this
class
of
men
should
not
bear
upon
sidered.
MISSION
OF FORFEITURESTATUTES OF
This being an American vessel, and
2. When Seamen may be Discharged.That
face evidences of craft, hardship or SISTER STATESCOMPETENCY OF PARTIES
seamen may be discharged in a foreign port fur the master thereof needing an addition their
TO
TESTIFY.
their own misconduct, but in ull other cases there to his crew in a foreign port, the 8th sec oppression.
1. Ilt'il. under the facts in this case, that C. was
is a penalty imposed for so doing, and the mildest tion of the act of Congress, of July 20,
and became a trustee, for the purpose
When contracts of this nature are constituted
of the penalties imposed, is the payment of three 1840, made it obligatory upon the mas made,
for which the note and mortgage were given, and
courts construe them in favor of that
months extra pay to each mariner so discharged.
having procured H. to become bail, if it was
3. Void Contract.That it is not within the ter, as he did, to submit a list of the ad
induced by the assignment of the note and mort
power of a master of an American vessel, engaged dition to his crew, with the terms of the the mariner. 2 Sumner, 443.
gage, ho acted within the scope of his powers as
in the merchant service in a foreign country, to new contract and original shipping arti
such trustee, and tile bail became fully invested
J3ut
what
appears
to
me
to
be
an
insu
contract with mariners to serve on a voyage Irom
with the right to insist upon indemnity from the
a foreign port to a home port and back to a port cles, to the American Consul of that port perable objection to the legal validity mortgaged premises, to the extent of the note and
of
this
contract,
is
in
the
right
re
of discharge in a named foreign country.
mortgage, if compelled to pay that sum on the
4. Siuninu Shitpinu Articles.That seamen for his consideration and approval ; and
therein of discharging these mari recognizance.
shipped in a foreign port are not required to sign this section then further provides that served
2. C. being dead, proof that he, in his lifetime,
articles, and this being the law, an American ves " the bond originally given far the return of ners in any port of Europe.
declared that he had assigned the note and mort
sel with a crew shipped in a foreign port, could the men shall embrace each person so
gage to H., corroborated by evidence that H., at
I
have
examined
the
case
of
the
Ada,
not lawfully obtain a clearance Irom a home
solicitation of C. and the wile of the accused,
to which my attention was called by the the
port in the absence ofa new contract.Ed. Leo.vl shipped."
bail under the agreement that the note
counsel of respondent, cited in Davies, became
and mortgage were to be assigned to him as in
News.
The "bond" here alluded to is re p.
demnity,
and that S. afterwards recognized H. as
407,
and
find
that
it
has
no
bearing
Opinion of the court delivered by quired by the 4th section of the act of
he assignee
of these
instruments,to was
held siiiHient
to establish
the assignment
H., even
were
Moulton, J.
July 20, 1870, 1st Statute, 131, and pro upon the facts or law of this case.
The Ada was a foreign ve&sel, belong the testimony of S. and wife to the contrary com
The petitioners, ten in number, made vides that before a clearance shall be
petent.
their application in due form and obtain granted to any vessel bound on a foreign ing to England, the contract was made
That the same right which II.. as such as
ed the writ of habeas corpus, to test the voyage, the master shall enter into bond with foreigners, in a foreign country, and signee, had, has vested in his representative toenthe mortgage to indemnify him for monies
legality of their imprisonmentby Captain and security in the sum of four hundred by the terms of the shipping articles, it force
by him on the forfeiture of the recognizance.
C. P. Sedgeley, master of the American dollars, conditioned for the return of the was provided that the seamen were to paid
4.
Tlic
of the recognizance created a
be finally discharged at a named port in prima jack-forfeiture
ship, Mount Washington.
liability on the part of the coguizors
men to a home port.
for
its
payment,
and
the reversal by the District
England.
Captain Sedgeley appeared in person
There is no act of Congress authoriz
ofthe judgment of the Common Pleas, left
By the courts of this country, constru Court
and by counsel, producing in obedience to ing a master of an American vessel, as a
the judgment ot forfeiture in full force and effect,
a judgment of the District Court, in like force
the mandate of the writ the bodies of the matter of right, to contract with seamen ing the acts of Congress, it is said that and
holding the recognizances to have been legally
the shipping articles must declare ex entered
petitioners ; and in his defense alleged, for their discharge in a foreign port.
into before the probate Judge.
in vindication of his conduct towards the
The liability of the bail was fixed on the en
They may be discharged in a foreign plicitly the ports at which the voyage is
ofjudgment'of forfeiture, unless some release,
petitioners in substance : That he, as law port for their own misconduct, but in all to commence and terminate. 1 Gilpin, 219. try
orwant of original liability on the rec
ful master of this ship, contracted with other cases there is a penalty imposed The term " voyage " is held to be a tech iischarge,
ognizances could be shown on scire Jacias. or in a
the petitioners, in writing, at the port of for so doing, and the mildest of the pen nical phrase, and always importing a suit on the record. None has been suggested to
existed. His liability being fixed, he was
Newport, in a foreign country, to serve alties imposed is the payment of three defininite commencement and end. 1 have
required to incur further expense in litiga
in the capacity of seamen, or mariners, months' extra pay to each mariner so Hall's Law J., 209. There must be a not
tion.
Had the surety paid the forfeiture without
on board of his ship, for specified wages, discharged. Act" of Congress 28th of fixed terminus of the voyage. Ware,
in fact liable, the mortgagors would have
until the ship had made the voyage "from February, 1803, 2d Statute, 203 ; Gilp., 407. In Snow v. Wope, 2 Curtis, 301, the being
the port of Newport to Mobile ; from thence 193 ; Ware, 485 ; or, unless the discharge voyage described was from the port of nity.aped responsibility on the contract of indem
Boston to Valparaiso, and other ports in 7. There is no common law rule vesting a court
to more ports or places in the United States of resulted from inevitable necessity.
discretionary power to remit a forfeiture.
America, and back to any port in Europe;''
And under the act of Congress ISth of the Pacific Ocean, at and from thence with
the 4 Geo., 3 Ch., 10, provides that after
and that the contract was a legal one and August, 1850, section 20, 11th Statute, 02, home, direct, or via ports in the East Although
the recognizance has been forfeited and estreated
Indies
or
Europe,
and
back
to
Boston.
into
the
exchequer,
the barons may discharge any
not yet performed.
a penalty is imposed upon the Consul
on petition whom they think entitled toJudge Curtis held these articles invalid, person
This return was demurred to by the pe who discharges, or suffers to be dis under
favor,
yet
there
being
no proof in the record that
the act of 1840, as not containing the State of Ohio has adopted
that or a similar act,
titioners; 1st. Because the contract was charged, a mariner without the payment a sufficient
description
of
the
voyage.
Hfe
court
will
not
presume
been done.
invalid as not being in conformity with of the extra pay provided for. 4hd See also Allen (Mass.), 449. If the terriis X. It was no defense to thethatsuitit has
the contract
the law and acts of Congress; and 2d. since by act of Congress foreigners may " voyage or voyages" were, as urged by of indemnity, that the mortgagorsonwere
not noBecause the contract was void for uncer be engaged in the merchant service of respondent's counsel, to be construed as tilled of the suit on the recognizances, if in fact
the
liability
of
the
surety
thereon
had
been
fixed.
this country, when so employed they are
tainty.
The testimony ofthe mortgagors was not ad
complied with, when the terminus of the missible
deemed
to
be
mariners
and
seamen
of
under
our
statute,
as
the
assignee
was
The legal questions raised by the de
United States, within the spirit of voyage designated an American port of lead and the proceedings were instituted by his
murrer are novel. The first in order the
discharge,
without
specifying
the
port,
administrator.
They
do
not
come
within
any
ex
laws of Congress. Mathews v. OfBey,
presents a point, so far as I have been 3the
still it could not, I think, be said to be a ception of the statute.Ed. Legal News.
Sumn.,
110.
Hence,
I
am
forced
to
the
able to learn, for the first time presented conviction that it would be repugnant to compliance with these terms, when the
Opinion by Walker, J.
for adjudication in this country. This the policy of this government, it' not in right of selecting the port of discharge
It appears that one Charles Hoy, a
novelty and importance of the subject, direct violation of the letter and spirit embraced the whole of Europe. It is brother
Mrs. Stevens, had been in
to the commercial interests of the coun of its legislation, to permit masters of not enough for the master of this vessel dicted inof the
Pleas court of
try, is my apology for reducing to writing vessels engaged in its commerce, or Con to say that he intends to sail for a cer Wayne county, Common
Ohio, for nine several
my conclusions of the law after bestowing suls of the government, to contract with tain port. That may be true ; yet it forgeries, under in
he was then im
upon the subject more than ordinary con American seamen for their discharge in would not affect the letter of the con prisoned in the which
Wooster jail. And ap
sideration.
tract,
nor
control
courts
in
its
construc
pellants, for the purpose of indemnify
a foreign port.
The chief embarrassment is to be found
Congress, by various enactments, has tion.
ing any person who should become his
in the law arising from the terms of the made provisions for destitute seamen in
Then, by the positive terms of this bail, executed the note and mortgage
contract descriptive of the voyage. Is foreign ports. A fund is provided for contract the master reserves the right of upon which this suit is brought. Levi
it within the legal power of "a master their relief, and methods are devised for discharging these seamen " in any port Cox being the attorney for accused, these
of an American vessel engaged in the their return to their government ; and it of Europe," whether at a port in Portu instruments were made payable to him.
merchant service in a foreign country, would hardly bo>expected that Congress gal or Russia, in Great Britain or Turkey, The bail was fixed by the court at $500
to contract with mariners to serve on a would sanction a practice which would Italy or Norway. Without extending in each of the nine cases. Charles Hoy,
voyage, from a foreign port to a home directly contribute to swell the calls upon these remarks, I will merely add, that an uncle of accused, on the 13th of No
port, and back to a port of discharge in its bounty and add to its cares in this re the legislation of Congress, the adjudi vember, I860, became his bail in all of
a named foreign country ?
gard. Then, as this shipment was not cations of this country, the policy of this the cases and he was released from im
It is admitted that there is no act of made in conformity with the acts of Government in the control and manage prisonment, and on the next day, in
Congress giving sanction to such a con Congress, the contract is made void un ment of its commerce, unite alike with pursuance of a previous arrangement,
tract. And this conclusion suggests the der the 10th section of the act of Con reason, justice, and the dictates of hu the note and mortgage were indorsed
inquiry whether it is competent for a gress of 20th of July, 1840 ; 2 Curt. C. C, manity itself in declaring void this con by Cox, to the bail, to indemnify him
master of an American vessel to make a 101. Ibid, 380-1.
tract. There is another reason equally against any loss he might incur by enter
And 1 am irresistibly brought to the fatal to the pretensions of the respond ing into the several recognizances. On
valid contract with mariners, in the mer
chant service, independent of the laws conclusion that upon the second ground ent. It is this: Seamen shipped in a the 20th of the same month, the accused
of demurrer, the Shipping Articles, so foreign port are not required to sign failing to appear, the recognizances were
and regulations adopted by Congress.
Neither in England or in this country far as they embrace the petitioners, are articles. This being the law, an Ameri forfeited in the court of Common Pleas.
In the year 1865, suits were brought
has it been held that the common law equally void. The act of Congress of can vessel, witli a crew shipped in a
afforded concurrent remedies, with the 1790, section 1, makes it the duty of the foreign port, could not lawfully obtain a by the State of Ohio, in the same court,
Courts of Admiralty, in matters pertain master of a vessel, whether engaged in clearance from a home, port, in the ab on the recognizances, when the bail in
foreign or domestic service, if the ship sence of a new contract. Sprague, 73 ; terposed a defense that the Probate
ing to maritime affairs and contracts.
vessel be of the burthen of fifty tons, 1 Pet, Adm. 223 ; Abbott, 007 and note ; Court had no authority in law to recog
In fact, the Constitution and laws of or
nize persons indicted for crime, and
proceeding on the voyage, to Curtis' Merc. Seamen, 39.
Congress confides and confines this par before
an agreement in writing or in
It is ordered that the petitioners be the accused had not been lawfully im
ticular jurisdiction to the courts of make
print, with each seaman, declaring the each discharged and released from the prisoned, upon which there was an issue,,
Admiralty. Ships or vessels of the voyage
or voyages, term or terms of time.
custody and control of the respondent which on a trial w:as found against the
United States are the creations of the
but on appeal the judgment was
This provision of Congress has often
I will make the further order, inas State,
legislation of Congress, and have been been
brought under review by the courts much
reversed and the cause remanded.
regulated by its laws since the formation of America,
as
it
is
apparent
that
Captain
and I believe has received a Sedgely, in retaining and imprisoning Charles Hoy, the bail, then petitioned one
of this Government. White's Bank v. uniform construction.
The contract them, acted in the utmost good faith of the Supreme Judges for leave to file a
Smith, 7 Wallace, p. 655.
here sought to be enforced provides for believing
in error in the Supreme court,
that he could look to the con petition
And in the case of The Moses Taylor, a voyage from the port of Newport (in
which was refused.
tract
for
his
guide,
and
the
law
for
his
5 Wallace, 411, it was there decided that Wales) to Mobile ; from thence to more ports
To save further expense, Hoy, the
the 9th section of the Judiciary Act or places in the United Slates of America, support, that the costs be equally di bail, settled with the attorneys for the
vided
between
him
and
the
petitioners,
vested exclusive cognizance of admiralty and back to any port in Europe. Now,
State, and paid in satisfaction of his lia
and maritime jurisdiction in the District can it logically be said that this contract for which, if necessary, an execution bility on all of the recognizances, the
may
issue
by
the
Clerk
of
this
court,
re
Courts of the United States, and that is in compliance with the requirements
sum of $2,750 and costs. Charles Hoy,
turnable in ten days.
the law conferring that power was con of the act of Congress?
the uncle in this litigation, incurred, as
W.
W.
D.
Turner,
Esq.,
and
F.
Thomp
stitutional.
it is alleged, expenses for attorney's fees,
Courts, in deciding questions of this
son,
Esq.,
for
relators.
five hundred dollars. He subsequently
And it would be foreign to the policy character, where the language of the con
K. Semmes, Esq., for respondent.
died, and on the 15th day of October,
of this government to suffer a jurisdic- tract is plain, must be guided alone by

Chicago
1807, appellee was appointed adminis
trator of his estate. And to have refun
ded the money thus paid on the judg
ment, on the recognizance and attorney's
fees, appellee tiled this hill to foreclose
the mortgage.
Appellants set tip in their answer that
the note and mortgage were executed
and sent to Uox, that he might procure
a loan of 32,300, from Charles Hoy, de
ceased, but that the money was never
obtained, and that the consideration had
failed. Appellant, Milton Stevens, claims
the mortgaged premises by a deed of
conveyance from the other appellants,
and filed a cross bill to have his rights
established, the answer to which, de
nies that the conveyance was bona fide ;
that it was subsequent in time to the
mortgage and must be held subject to
its provisions. On the trial below,
Stevens and wife testified to the version
they gave of the matter in their answer,
that the note and mortgage were ex
ecuted to procure a loan of money.
Their evidence was not admissible un
der our statute, as the assignee was dead
and the proceedings were instituted by
his administrator. They do not come
within any exception of the statute. The
record shows they testified in their own
behalf as well as for their co-defendant,
against the objection ofappellee's counsel,
and being incompetent it should not
have been received.
If it were excluded the evidence would
be overwhelming that the note and
mortgage were executed to enable Cox
to obtain bail for the accused, by trans
ferring it as an indemnity to whoever
might become bail. But if it were con
sidered in the case, then the evidence
strongly preponderates in favor of the
fact that the instruments executed for
that purpose, and not to procure a loan
of money. To this, Haines, the Justice
of the Peace, who prepared the papers
and took the acknowledgement, and
Delia Sloane, then thewifeof theaccused,
and who had come to this State for the
express purpose of procuring the instru
ments that wit h them her husband might
be enabled to procure bail, both clearly
and unequivocally swear. They were
both present and heard and knew what
was said and done when the instruments
were executed, and Mrs. Sloane was en
trusted with them to be delivered to
Cox in Ohio for the purpose. They are
both disinterested and free from all in
terest and had an equal opportunity to
know all the facts, and their evidence is
entitled to more weight than appellants,
even if theirs was admissible.
Again, John Stevens stated to Flattery
in a conversation with him, when he de
sired the latter to surrender the note
and mortgage, that the recognizances on
which the assignee was bail, were void
and could not be collected. He placed
the demand alone on that ground. He
also admitted to Jeffries that they were
given to indemnify any one who might
become bail. And to Walker he claimed
that if the note and mortgage were given
for indemnity, Charles Hoy was not lia
ble 011 the recognizance, and they should
be given up to him. With such an array
of evidence in the record, we can have
no doubt that the note and mortgage
were executed to be used by Cox in pro
curing bail precisely as he did.
And that he was thus constituted and
became a trustee for the purpose, and
that having procured Charles Hoy to
become bail, if it was induced by the
assignment of the note and mortgage, he
acted within the scope of his powers as
such trustee, and the bail became fully
invested with the right to insist upon
indemnity from the mortgaged premises
to the extent of the note and mortgage, if
he had been compelled to pay that sum
on the recognizance.
But it is urged that there is no evi
dence that the note and mortgage ever,
in fact, were assigned or passed to
Charles Hoy, the bail. Cox is dead, and
we have to look to other evidence for
proof of the fact. Walker swears that
Cox informed him that he had assigned
the note and mortgage to Hoy. It ap
pears Cox was his attorney, and the
papers were found in a desk of his, after
his death, indorsed as they now are.
And Mrs. Sloane swears that Charles Hoy,
at the solicitation of Cox and herself, be
came bail under the agreement that the
note and mortgage were to be assigned
to him as indemnity. This proof is suf
ficient to establish the fact, and his state
ments to Jeffries and Walker show that
John Stevens recognized Charles Hoy as

Legal

News.

the assignee of these instruments. We amount, hut primafacia rendered Stevens

regard the evidence as abundant to liable to refund the money to him, and
show that he was the assignee, and as that liability not having been disproved,
such had the right which lias vested in the court below did not err in rendering
his representation to enforce the mort the decree, and it is affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
gage to indemnify him for monies paid
C. B. Cook, for appellants.
by him on the forfeiture of the recog
Frank J. Crawford, for appellee.
nizance.
It is urged that appellee failed by
the evidence to prove that his intestate
Our thanks are due to Rufus Cope, of
was liable to pay the money to the State
in discharge of the several recognizan the Flora bar, for the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
ces, and hence, appellants cannot be
charged with the amount. The evidence ClIinESTEK V. Sr-RINGF1EI.D & ILL. S. E. K. R. Co.
shows that the recognizances were for PESCRII'TIOX OF PREMISES IX A BOND OR
PEEP.
feited, and if so, that created & prima fa
1. The Words ox Either Side Thekkof Coscia liability for its payment. A judg stri'KD.Hdd
that the clause, "and also seven
ment was subsequently rendered in favor acres of laud in said section, tract, and orchard
to said right of way on either side there
of the recognizor in a suit brought in the adjoining
must be construed to mean a strip 01 land of
Common Pleas court, but on error to the of,''
uniform width, extending along the railway
District court, thejudgment was reversed throngh the entire tract described in the bond
and having three and a hall'ucres on each side of
and the cause remanded.
This left the judgment of forfeiture the right of way.Ed. Legal News.
in full force and effect, and a judgement Opinion of the court by Lawrence, C. J.
of the District court in like force, hold
In May 1800, Kinnaman executed a
ing that the recognizances were legally bond by which he covenanted to pay to
the appellee in consideration of the con
entered into before the probate judge.
The defense interposed was held in struction of its road, depot, and station
sufficient. This then was, prima facia, house in a certain locality, the right of
such a liability as required the recogniz way through a certain tract of land be
ors to pay the forfeiture. Having shown longing to him " and also seven acres of
a prima facia liability 011 behalf of dece land in said section, tract and orchard
dent, it then devolved upon appellants adjoining to said right of way on either
to overcome that presumption by show side thereof." The railway company has
ing that some defense existed that would laid its track and erected its buildings us
have defeated a recovery by the State, required by the bond, and now demands
in the suit then pending. Appellants of the heirs of Kinnaman a conveyance
have not even suggested, much less of the laud.
proved, any defense that could have
It is insisted by them that the bond
been successfully interposed. On ren was delivered by their father to a third
dering the judgment of forfeiture, the person to be held by him until the citi
liability of bail was fixed, unless some zens of the town should raise and pay to
release, discharge, or want of original Kinnaman $350, estimated to be one half
liability on the recognizances could be the value of the land, and that this was
shown on scire facias, or in a suit on the never done. The proof upon this point
record, ami none has been suggested to is not very satisfactory, but even if it
have existed.
were positive it would be immaterial, for
His liability being fixed, he was not it is uot pretended the railway company
required to incur further expense by lit had any knowledge of such condition.
igation. If he paid without being in fact The bond was delivered to it and it acted
liable, although the record showed he in good faith upon its terms and has the
was, appellants could have shown it right to insist upon their performance
and escaped all responsibility, but no without reference to any parol conditions
proof was introduced to show that the or agreements made with other parties
priucipal had paid the judgment of for and of which it was ignorant.
feiture, or that the recognizances were
The only difficulty in the case arises
otherwise discharged before appellees from the uncertainty in the description
decedent compromised and paid them. of the seven acres. Courts, however,
But the proof shows that the principal ^re properlv loth to pronounce an instru
was insolvent.
ment a nullity merely because of the ob
It is objected that the Common Pleas scurity of its terms, and we think the one
court had power to remit a portion of before us is sufficiently certain to be car
the forfeitures ; that Charles Hoy should ried into effect.
have made applicatiou for that purpose.
The word either is sometimes used in
The prosecuting attorney swears that he the sense of one or the other of several
was induced to make the deduction he things, and sometimes in the sense of one
did, on the compromise, as he feared the and the other. Its use in this last sense
court would make such a deduction if is not infrequent. Thus it is common to
asked by Hoy. We are aware of no com say on either hand, on either side, mean
mon law rule that vests the court with ing thereby on each hand or side.
such a power. But the 4th Geo., 3 Ch.,
Again it is common to describe land in
10, provides that after the recognizance conveyances, asa certain number of acres
has been forfeited and estreated into the off a certain side of a particular tract, and
exchequer, the barons may discharge such descriptions are always held good.
any person on petition whom they think They are held to describe a strip of land
entitled to favor. 1 Chit. Crim. Law, of sufficient width to make the requisite
92. But whether the State of Ohio has number of acres and of uniform width
adojited that or any similar act, does not throughout.
appear, and in the absence of proof, we
Applying this rule to the present case,
cannot presume it has.
we are of opinion that the bond was un
Nor does the evidence show that derstood by the parties as requiring a
Charles Hoy was induced to become conveyance of the right of way wherev
bail on any promise that his son would er the company might choose to establish
indemnify him for so doing. It does, their track, and a strip of land of uniform
however, appear that his son loaned him width extending along the railway
some money with which to pay the judg through the entire tract described in the
ments of forfeiture, but that fact can in bond, and having three and a half acres
no wise affect the liability of appellants on each side of the right of way. This
to refund to the estate of Charles Hoy is the only construction which gives cer
the money he paid to become discharged. tainty to the contract.
Nor is it a defense that Stevens was not
It is not claimed by the company that
notified of the suit on the recognizances. the bond calls for a conveyance of seven
Failing to give such notice, appellee was acres on one side of the right of way and
bound to prove a liability on the part of as much upon the other, making a tract
his intestate to pay the money before he of fourteen acres. The company only
could recover. This he did when he asks for a conveyance of seven acres ex
proved the forfeiture. Chitty in his clusive of the right of way, and we have
treatise on Criminal Law, vol. 1, p. 106, no doubt both parties understood the
says the same consequences flow from a bond as meaning that this tract of seven
want of a strict compliance with the acres should lie along the right of way
terms of a recognizance to appear to an equally upon each side, or in the lan
swer a criminal charge, that attach to a guage of the bond on either side.
forfeiture to prosecute or as a witness.
As we understand the decree, and the
And at page 92 he says that by the non plat which we find in the record, the
appearance of the prosecutor or witness company having so constructed its road
under recognizance, it is broken, forfeit that there is only a tract containing nineed, and absolute, and being estreated, the tenths of an acre on the east side of the
party becomes an absolute debtor to the right of way, the court has given the com
crown Tor the penalty named in the rec pany six and one-tenth acres on the west
ognizance. When, therefore, the judg side. We are of opinion such a decree
ment of forfeiture was shown, a prima would not fairly execute the contract.
facia liability was established which not
The company was at liberty so to lo
only authorized the bail to pay the cate its road as to entitle itself to seven

203
acres. It has not chosen to do so, and it
cannot claim an equivalent on ons; side
of the right of way for what it has volun
tarily abandoned on the other.
The decree should have been for the
nine-tenths on the East side, and three
and a half acres on the West side, of uni
form width, extending across the tract
along the right of way.
Reversed and remanded.
DISSENTING OPINION.
Walker, J. and McAllister, J.We
concur in the judgment of reversal, but
hold that the contract is too uncertain in
its provisions to be capable of specific
performance.
XXXIV. INDIANA REPORTS.
Our thanks are due James B. Black,
Reporter of the Supreme Court of Indi
ana, for advance sheets of the 34th vol
ume of his Reports, from which we take
the following head-notes :
promissory note.
Attorney's FeesJoinder of Causes
Parties.Where a promissory note pro
vides for the payment of attorney's fees
if suit be instituted thereon, attorney's
fees may be recovered in an action on
the note, by the person entitled to sue
for the debt ; and the attorney for whom
such fees are claimed need not be made
a party plaintiff, though the fees have
not been paid before tlie institution of
the suit. (Opinion by Downey, J.)
Johnson ct al. v. Crossland et al. p. 334.
prosecuting attorney.
A county is not liable to pay a pros
ecuting attorney for services rendered
by him as prosecuting attorney, at the
request of the county commissioners
made of him as such attorney, in pros
ecuting a suit and obtaining judgment
against a defaulting officer and his sur
eties.(Opinion by Buskirk, J.)Board
of Com. of Jay Co. v. Templar, p. 323.
CONTRACT.
Dependent and Independent Agreements.
Where a covenant or agreement might
be sued upon as independent, but this
has not been done until the party who
might thus sue has become bound on his
part to perform some act under the same
contract, the two acts then become de
pendent, and neither party can sue the
other on the contract without first per
forming or tendering performance on
his ipart.(Opinion by Downey, J.)
Irwin v. Lee, p. 320.
MANDATE.
Parol Evidence.Where a person sub
scribed a certain sum to the capital stock
of a turnpike company, in consideration
of the agreement of the agents of the
company that, if he would so subscribe,
a lifetime pass over the road for himself
and family should be issued to him by
the company ; held, in an action by said
subscriber against the president of said
company for a mandate to compel said
president to issue said pass, that if such
were a case for a mandate, yet the action
would not lie if at the time the suit was
brought the money was due on the sub
scription and payment had not been
made or tendered.
Held, also, that parol evidence of said
agreement to issue a pass was inadmissi
ble.76.
SUPREME COURT.
New TrialSmall excess of damages.
The Supreme court will not reverse a
judgment because of a very small excess
of damages.(Opinion bv Worden, J.)
Hall v. Hall, p. 314.
EVIDENCE.
Declarations of Agent.The declara
tions of an agent are not admissible in
evidence in favor of his principal, either
before or after the death of the agent.
lb.
Admifsionn Contrary declarations.
Where the statements of a party have
been proved, as admissions, and not with
a view to impeach him as a witness, he
will not for that reason be allowed to
prove his own statements at other times,
of an opposite character and in harmony
with his own testimony.lb.
principal and surety.
Mutual Sureties.Where a promissory
note is executed by two persons, the con
sideration going one-half to each of them,
as between themselves each may be
treated as principal for one-half of the
debt and surety of the other for the
other halflb.

204
Chicago Legal News. LEGAL MATTERS JN ILLINOIS
The General Assembly of this State
will
adjourn on Tuesday, after having
Hex "fcJmrit.
been in session a large portion of the
past year and a half.
CHICAGO, APRIL 6, 1872.
The changes made in the laws are far
greater than were ever made at any
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
other session in the history of the State.
The Chicago Legal News Co., Whole chapters of the Revised Statutes
AT 115 MADISON STREET.
of 1845, with the amendments thereto,
have been repealed, and others enacted
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
in their place. In some instances the
new is much better than the old ; but
Terms :
rwo Dollars per annum, in advance. Slnglecop- we are sorry to have to say, that in too
ies Ten t'nts.
many instances the new is not an im
THE LEGAL KEW) OFFICE I* at 115 provement on the old. These chapters,
ffMt MisdUon street. The Printing after they left the Revisers and Judi
EatsblUbmeiit Is mt 18 BT. Jeflenon St.
ciary Committee, were submitted to so
many amendments, that it is impossible
We call attention to the following they should be otherwise than conflict
opinions, reported at length in this ing. We have a new Practice Act,
which contains many questionable pro
issue :
Writ of Error to State Courts. visions. The chapter on Judgments and
The opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court, Executions has been repealed, and an
delivered by Miller, J., holding that other substituted in its place. The chap
under the 26th section of the Judiciary ter on Conveyances, which had been
Act, when a State court of last resort is construed by our courts and was well
composed of more than one judge, the understood by our people, is no more,
chief justice may sign the citation, but and the new one contains many provi
sions which are of questionable utility
one of the associate justices cannot.
and
of difficult construction. The stat
Damages Caused by CollisionRe
pairsLoss of Services.The opinion ute of Wills has been tinkered and is
of the U. S. District Court for the dis more obscure than before. The litiga
trict of Minnesota, by Nelson, J., as to tion for the; next five years, to settle
the proof of ownership and measure of the practice and construe these statutes,
damages in collision cases, and holding will exceed the expectations of any
in the case before the court that the living man. The dockets of our Circuit
proper measure of damages was in ad Courts will be crowded, and the Supreme
dition to the cost of repairs, the interest Court will be so burdened with business
on the value of the vessel during the that it will be unable to dispose of cases
time she was being repaired to compen within any reasonable time.
The present Legislature has been in
sate for the loss of her services.
session more days, held more sessions,
Rights of American Seamen in For worked harder and been troubled less by
eign Ports.The opinion of the Circuit the lobby, than any former one. It has
Court of Mobile, delivered by Moulton, done much that will receive the hearty
J., construing the acts^of Congress re approval of the people. The labor it had
lating to the shipping of seamen and to perform was difficult. The law of our
defining the rights of American seamen State had to be changed to meet the re
in foreign ports, and the power of the quirements of a new and radical Consti
master to discharge them. Some.of the tution.
questions involved in this opinion we
do not remember to have seen decided ADMISSION OF ATTORNEYS FROM
elsewhere. Judge Moulton is one of the
OTHER STATES.
ablest jurists of the South, and his opin
The Supreme Court of Illinois, at the
ion will be read with interest by those last term, made a new rule in relation to
engaged in admiralty practice.
the admission of attorneys coming from
Liability of Surety on a Recogni other States, which is number 86 of
zanceRemission of Forfeiture.The the series. It is as follows :
opinion of the Supreme Court of this
Ordered, That any application for ad
State, delivered by Walker, J., deciding mission to the bar, based upon a license
several interesting questions in regard granted in another State, must be made
to contracts of indemnity, the liability in term time, by motion of some attorney
of a surety on a recognizance, and the of this court, made in open court; and
remission of forfeitures.
no applicant will be admitted upon such
Description, of Land.The opinion license without examination, except it
of the Supreme Court of this State, de appear to the court by affidavit, or other
that in the State in which the li
livered by Lawrence, C. J., holding wise,
cense was issued, a course of study was
where a party covenanted to convey required at least equal to that prescribed
seven acres of land adjoining to the in this State by Rule 85 ; or the appli
right of way of a railroad on either side cant has been engaged in active practice
a period of two years, under such
thereof, that he was bound to convey for
license. ^^^^^^^^^^^
three and one-half acres of land on each
side of the right of way. It is true, as
Missing Numbers of the Legal News.
stated by the learned judge, that the We always see that the News is care
word either is sometimes used in the fully mailed to all our subscribers, and if
sense of one and the other, but we do Uncle Sam fails to do his duty and does
not think any one will contend that this not deliver them properly, we do not
is the common use of the word. We hold ourselves responsible for the error.
think it is very evident that the parties Some of our subscribers write to us to
intended this seven and one-half acres send them missing numberswithout en
should be taken on either side of the closing the money for thejsame. And some
right of way, but not on both ; but are of the members of the bar in our own
not able to satisfy ourselves as to how city even come into the office, and, in a
long or wide the parties intended it gentlemanly way, ask for one or more
should be, and therefore fully agree with numbers, saying, perhaps, some pleasant
Judges Walker and McAllister that the words about the News, and go out with
contract is too uncertain in its provi out handing in their ten cents. Compli
sions to be capable of specific perform ments are well enough in their place,
ance.
but they will not pay the printer.

Accent, publications.
A Digest of the Reported Cases (from
1756 to 1870, inclusive), relating to
Criminal Law, Criminal Information,
and Extradition. Founded on Harri
son's Analytical Digest. By R. A.
Fisher, Esq., of the Middle Temple,
Barrister-at-Law. San Francisco : Sum
ner, Whitney & Co. 1871.
This volume contains 632 pages, and is
a reprint from Mr. Fisher's Common
Law Digest of the titles Criminal Law
and Criminal Information, and will be
found exceedingly useful to all lawyers
who make the practice of criminal law a
specialty, as it states clearly the points
decided by the English courts upon the
law of crimes and punishments, whose
decisions are the foundations upon which
our American Law rests. The editor of
this edition informs us that the later de
cisions from the tenth and eleventh vol
umes of Cox's Criminal Cases have been
added under appropriate heads, and that
each note has been compared with the
original volumes of reports, and the cita
tions corrected and verified.
A Digest of the American, ScoTt-n and
Irish Reports of Like and Accident
Insurance Cases. By John R. Sharpstein, of the San Francisco Bar. San
Francisco : Sumner, Whitney & Co.
1872.
This is a neat volume of 286 pages,
beautifully printed upon good paper.
Sumner, Whitney & Co. have within the
past two years published several law
books that have been fully equal to those
of our best Eastern houses. The law of
life insurance may now be said to be in
its infancy. Twenty years ago, decisions
upon this branch of the law were almost
unknown, and comparatively few of our
people insured their lives, but now we
can hardly find a man in comfortable
circumstances who has not from one to
fifty thousand dollars insurance upon his
life, and, as a consequence, the decisions
upon this branch of the law are not only
increasing in number, but in importance.
Mr. Sharpstein has been thorough in
collecting the cases, and states the points
decided by the courts with clearness and
in the fewest possible words. We hope
to see this little volume before many
years the foundation for a larger work.
The author has made free use of the
principal law periodicals of England and
America, and by so doing has brought
the decisions down one or two years
later than he could otherwise have done.
We notice cases referred to, in the Legal
News, which we published since the fire.
The Medical Jurisprudence of Insan
ity. By J. H. Balfour Browne, Esq.,
of the Middle Temple, Barrister-atLaw. London : J. A. Churchill. San
Francisco : S. W. Whitney & Co. 1871.
This is a well written volume of over
340 pages on mental defects and diseases
in their legal relations. It is illustrated
by references to recent cases and de
cisions, as well as to standard medical
authorities, and sets forth many instances
of mental infirmity and .derangement
which came under the author's personal
observation. To the student or prac
titioner of either law or medicine this
volume will be a valuable aid when
investigating the cause of or law relating
to insanity.
The United States Jurist.The April
number of this valuable quarterly has
just made its appearance, and we are
pleased to be able to say that it is well
edited, contains inja condensed form a
great amount of legal information, and
ought to be liberally patronized by the
profession. Its contents are : 1. A New
Civil Service; 2. Quarterly Table of
Criticized Cases, with editorial notes ;
3. Annual Digest of Federal Decisions ;

4. Quarterly Digest of English Decisions -r

5. Book Notices ; 6. U. S. Supreme
Court Calendar"; 7. Legal Intelligence,
W. H. <fc O. H. Morrison are the publish
ers. James Schouler the editor. Sub
scription price, $3 per annum.
XII. WALLACE.
Through the kindness of W. H. & O,
H. Morrison, the publishers, we have
received advance sheets of the 12th
Wallace, from which we take the fol
lowing head-notes :
insuranceproofs of lossinsanity.
1. After a loss covered by a policy of
insurance, an affidavit by the insured of
the time, amount and circumstances of
the loss, accompanying proof that a loss
had occurred, was made while he was
insane. Held,
(i) That insanity was a sufficient ex
cuse for failure to comply with the con
dition of the policy requiring such an
aflidavit.
(ii) That if the affidavit contained the
necessary information as to the time,
amount and circumstances of the loss, it
was sufficient, though ,the insured was
insane when it was made.Insurance
Companies v. Boykin, p. 433.
2. A policy for 810,000 was signed by
four companies, each of whom agreed to
become liable for one-fourth of the loss
to that extent. Htld,
(i) That one action could be brought
against them all by their consent ; the
declaration charging the separate prom
ises and praying for separate judgment.
(ii) That a verdict finding that the de
fendants did assume in manner and
form as in the declaration alleged, and
assessing the whole damages at 10,000,,
was a good verdict in such action.
(iii) That the judgment rendered in'
such verdict should have been against
each defendant for one-fourth of the
damages, and against them jointly for
the costs, and that a joint judgment
against them all on the whole sum was
erroneous, and should be reversed.
(iv) That this court, instead of award
ing a venire facias de novo, must, under
the 24th section of the Judiciary Act, as
well as by the common law poweis of a
court of error, render the judgment
which the Circuit Court ought to have
rendered on that verdict.lb.
appointment and power of military
governor.
The appointment by Brigadier-Gen
eral Shepley, during the late rebellion,
of W. W. Handlin as judge of the Third
District Court of New Orleans, then oc
cupied by the government troops and.
under a military governor appointed by
the President, was an appointment
purely military, authorized only by thenecessities of military occupation, and
subject to revocation whenever, in the
judgment of the military governor, revo
cation should become necessary or expe
dient.
It was accordingly revocable by Gov
ernor Hahn in his capacity of military
governor (which he was by appointment
of the President), in case the adoption
of the constitution (which some asserted!
was adopted), during the war under mil-itary orders, and the election of Hahn as
governor, did not affect the military oc
cupation ; and in case it did, and being
a civil constitution of the State in full
operation, independent of military con
trol, then the authority derived from the
appointment of Brigadier-General Shep
ley ceased of necessity, and the office
became vacant.Handlin v. Wickliffe, p.
173.
AGREEMENTBOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN
STATES.
Two States made an agreement as to
where the boundary line between them
was, and Congress by statute gave its
assent to the agreement. After this, one
of the States sued a corporation of the
other for taking possession of land and
water which the State suing alleged
were in its territory. The corporation
asserted, in defense, that under the
agreement the land and water were
within the jurisdiction of the other
State ; and the highest tribunal of the
State in which the suit was brought de
cided that it was so.
Held, that this was but an adjudication
upon the meaning of the agreement, and
not one upon the construction of the
statute ; and accordingly that error would .

205
not lie under the 25th section of the Ju cotton and raw silk as reeled from the of cars, must either contain an allegation
diciary Act.People v. Central Railroad, cocoon, or not further advanced than of negligence on the part of those in
tram, thrown, or organzine), when im charge of the train, or aver that the road
p. 455.
FOREIGN ADMINISTRATOR.
ported from places west of the Cape of was not fenced, and must allege that the
The court,admitting that an admin Good Hope, a duty of ten per centum ad train belonged to said company and was
istrator of a decedent appointed in one valorem, in addition to the duties imposed being run over its road.Opinion by
R. Co. v.
State (that of his decedent's residence), on any such article when imported di Buskirk, J.) T. W.
cannot, in the absence of statute, main rectly from the place or places of their Weaver, p. 298.
tain an action in another State, to en growth or production," a duty of ten
force an obligation there, given to his per cent, is chargeable on such goods,
decedent,yet refused to set aside a de etc., when imported from places west of UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
PROCEEDINGS OF.
cree given by it nine terms ago in favor the Cape, though the same goods be
of such an administrator, who, after an freed from duty, when imported from
Wednesday, March 27.
appeal taken and perfected to this court the place of their growth or production, On motion of Hon. L. P. Poland, James W. Car
by his decedent, in a suit by him to en east.Shirges v. The Collector, p. 19.
penter. Esq., of Vermont, was admitted to prac
force an obligation in a State where he DEED ABSOLUTE ON ITS FACE WHEN A MORT tice as an attorney and counselor of th is court.
was not domiciled, had been substituted
On motion of Mr. W. T. Otto, Isaac Van DevanGAGE.
by order of court as appellee in the suit;
A deed, absolute on its face, made tcr, Esq., of Indiana, was admitted to practice as
the decedent dying and the substitution by1.nephews
and nieces, with their moth an attorney and counselor of this court.
having been made in the absence of all er, to an unclea
debt to the uncle from No. R36. Edward Ivinson, Charles Wagner, and
ancillary administration, and without them being at the time of the deed se W S. Bramel, plaintiffs in error, v The Territory
opposition by the debtor or by any one. cured by mortgage on part of the prem of Wyoming. In error to the Supreme Court of
Noonan v. Bradley, Administrator, p. isesheld to be but a mortgage ; this the Territory of Wyoming. On motion of Mr. W.
121.
against a lessee of the grantee, with a T. Otto, ordered by the court that the writ oferror
USURYPURCHASE OF SECURITIES.
right of purchase, who had made large in' this cause be docketed and. dismissed, with
1. If a bond be not usurious by the law expenditures on the land, in apparent costs.
of the place where payable, a plea of expectation of purchase ; in the face, No. 155. The Philadelphia and Reading Rail
usury cannot be sustained in an action too, of some proof that the deed was road Company, plaintiff in error, v. The Common
thereon, unless it alleges that the place meant to make an absolute transfer, with wealth of Pennsylvania; No. 1S6. The Philadel
of payment was inserted as a shift or a view to sale, leaving a trust upon the phia amd Reading Railroad Company, plaintiff in
device to evade the law of the place proceeds of the sale above the amount of error, v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
where the bond was made. The Junc the original mortgage debt. Villa v. Rod The argument of these causes was continued by
Mr. L. W. Smith and F. Carroll Brewster, of coun
tion Railroad Company v. The Bank of riguez, p. 323.
2. A vendee cannot defend as a bona sel for the defendants in error, and concluded by
Ashland, p. 220.
2. Where a plea is erroneously over fide purchaser without notice, against an Mr. J. E. Gowen, of counsel for the plaintiffs in
ruled on demurrer, and issue is joined unrecorded mortgage, where his rights error.
on another plea, under which the same lie in an executory contract; nor where No. 147. Albert 8. Mowry, appellant, v. Asa
defense might lie made, the judgment he has a right to call for no deed but that Whitney. This cause was argued by Mr. A. G.
Thurman, of counsel for the appellant, and sub
will not be disturbed after verdict.lb. of a " quit-claim."Ib.
1. A continuance granted on an appeal mitted on printed arguments by Mr. H. Baldwin,
3. A prohibition against lending mon
ey at a higher rate of interest than the from the Court of Claims, there having Jr., for the appellee.
Thursday, March 28.
law allows will not prevent the purchase been a motion made there by the appel
of securities at any price which the par lant, and vet undisposed of, for a new No. 148. Albert L. Mowry, appellant, v. Asa
trial on the ground of after-acquired Whitney. The argument of this cause was com
ties may agree upon.lb.
4. Whether a negotiation of securities evidence. But the court declares that it menced by Mr. C. B. Collier, of counsel for the ap
is a purchase or a loan, is ordinarily a must not be understood as giving any pellant, and continued by Mr. E. W. Stoughton,
question of fact ; and does not become a sanction to the idea that indefinite post of counsel for the appellees.
Adjourned until Monday morning at 11 o'clock.
question of law until some fact be proven ponement of final hearing and determi
irreconcilable with one or the other nation can be obtained by repeated mo
April 1, 1872.
tions for continuance here. United States On motionMonday,
conclusion.lb.
of
Hon.
L.
Trumbull, O. K. A. Hutch
v.
Crusell,
p.
175.
5. Though the negotiation of one's own
inson,
Esq.,
of
Illinois,
was
admitted to practice
2.
The
court
below,
not
this
court,
bond or note is ordinarily a loan in law,
as
an
attorney
and
counselor
of this court.
must
determine
whether
the
application
yet if a sale thereof be authorized by an
On
motion
ofMr.
James
Hughes,
Charles Dcnby,
for
a
new
trial
is
seasonably
made.Ib.
act of the legislature, it becomes a ques
Esq., of Indiana, was admitted to practice as an
A consignor who had been in the attorney
tion of fact, whether such negotiation
counselor of this court.
habit of drawing bills of exchange on No. 108.and
was a loan or a sale.lb.
So'omou G. Kitchen, plaintiff in error,
his
consignee
with
bills
of
lading
at
6. The requiring or giving of collateral
v. Henry H. Bedford, et al. In error to the Cir
security for the payment of a bond when tached to the drafts drawn (it being part cuit
Court of the United States for the District of
of
the
agreement
between
the
parties
negotiated, is not inconsistent with the
Missouri.
Mr. Justice Bradley deliveaed the opin
that
such
bills
should
always
attend
the
transaction being a sale.lb.
ion of the court, reversing the judgment of the
drafts),
drew
bills
on
him
with
forged
7. The law of Ohio authorizing rail
said Circuit Court, with costs, and remanding the
road companies to sell their own bonds bills of lading so attached to the drafts, cause with directions to award a venire facias de
and
had
the
drafts
with
the
forged
bills
and notes at such prices as they may
novo. Dissenting, Mr. Justice Strong.
deem expedient, is extended by comity of lading so attached discounted in the No. 106. Max Klingler, plaintiff in error, v. The
ordinary
course
of
business
by
a
bank
to the companies of other States author
of Missouri. In error to the Supreme Court
ignorant of the fraud. The consignee, State
ized to transact business in Ohio.lb.
of the State of Missouri. Mr. Justice Bradley de
not
knowing
of
the
forgery
of
the
bills
8. A corporation cannot plead usury
livered the opinion of the court, dismissing the
to a bond payable in New York. Statute of lading, paid the drafts, Held, that writ of error in this cause for the want of juris
there
was
no
recourse
by
the
consignees
law there prevents it.lb.
diction.
9. The courts of the United States will against the bank.Hoffiman & Co. x.Bank No. 131. The Steamboat St. John, Appellant, v.
take judicial notice of the public laws of of Milioaukee.
Abraham E. Hasbrouck. Appeal from the Circuit
1. Though several defendants may be Court of the United States for the Southern district
the several States ; and, in Indiana, of
the private as well as public laws of that affected by a judgment or decree, there of New York. Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the
may be such a separate judgment or de opinion of the court, affirming the decree of the
State.Ib.
cree against one of them that he can ap said Circuit Court in this cause with costs and
INSURANCETWO CAUSES OF LOSS.
peal or bring a writ of error without Interest.
1. When two causes of loss occur, one joining
other defendants.Germain No. S5. John Blyew and George Kennard, plain
at the risk of the assured and the other v. Mason,the
p. 259.
tiffs in error, v. The United States. In error to the
insured against, or one insured against
2. A judgment in personam against one Circuit Court of the United States for the district
by A and the other by B, if the damage defendant
for a sum of money, which at of Kentucky. Mr. Justice Strong delivered the
caused by each peril can be discrimina the same time
establishes the debt as a opinion of the court, reversing the judgment of
ted, it must be borne proportionately. paramount
on real estate as to other the said Circuit Court and remanding the cause,
Insurance Co. v. Transportation Co., p. 194. defendants, lien
be brought to this court with directions to arrest the judgment. Dissent
2. But if the damage caused by each by the partymay
whom the personal
Mr. Justices Bradley and Swayne.
peril cannot be distinguished from that judgment is against
rendered, without joining ing,
No. 124. Samuel Dolton, plaintiff in error v.
caused by the other, the party responsi the others.Hj.
Aaron Cain & Henry Cooms. In error to the Cir
ble for the predominating, efficient
cuit Court of the United States for the southern
cause, or that Which set in operation the
[FROM XXXIV INDIANA.]
district of Illinois. Mr. Justice Davis delivered
other incidentally to it, is liable for the
PLEADING.
the opinion of the court, affirming the judgment
loss.lb.
3. An insurance upon a steamer
Township TrusteeSuit on Official Bond. of the said Circuit Court in this cause with costs.
against fire, " except fire happening by In an action on the official bond of a No. 325. Ambrose H. Sevier, administrator, etc.,
means of any invasion, insurrection, township trustee, on the relation of the plaintiff in error, t. Langdon C. Haskell, adminis
riot, or civil commotion, or of any mili township, to recover a certain amount of trator, etc. In error to the Supreme Court of the
tary or usurped power," is an insurance school money belonging to the township, State of Arkansas. Mr. Justice Swayne delivered
against fire caused by collisions.Ib.
which said trustee had refused to pay the opinion of the court, dismissing the writ of
4. Underwriters against fire are re over to his successor in office, the com error in this cause for the want ofjurisdiction.
sponsible for a loss occasioned by the plaint failed to allege that said trustee, as No. 47. Margaret Jacoway, administrator, plainsinking of a vessel insured when caused such, had received any money which he tiffin error, v. Tilford Denton. In error to the
by fire (though the fire itself be the had not expended according to law, and Supreme Court of Jthe State of Arkansas. Mr.
result of a collision not insured against), which he had in his hands when he Justice Swayne delivered the opinion of the
court, dismissing the writ of error in this cause
if the effect of the collision without the went out of office.
fire would have been only to cause the
Held, that for want of such averment, for the want of jurisdiction.
vessel to settle to her upper deck, and the complaint was bad on demurer. No. 112. John D. Worthy, executor, etc., plain
that be a case in which she might have (Opinion by Buskirk, J.)Morback el al. tiff in error, v. Henry Marston. In error to the
Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. Mr.
v. State, p 308.
been saved.Ib.
Justice Swayne delivered the opinion of the
Under the 6th section of the act of
PLEADING.
March 3, 18C5, which enacts that " there
RailroadInjury to animals.A com court, dismissing the writ of error in this cause
shall be hereafter collected and paid on plaint in an action commenced before a for the want of jurisdiction.
all goods, wares, and merchandise, of the justice of the peace against a railroad No. 84. The steamer Cayuga, etc., appellant, v.
growth or produce of countries east of company, to recover for the killing or The Hoboken Lund and Improvement Company.
the Cape of Good Hope, (except raw injuring of an animal by a passing train Appeal from the Circuit court of the United States
for the eastern district of New York. Mr. Justice

Clifford delivered the opinion of the court, affirm

ing the decree of the said Circuit court in this
cause, Willi costs and interest.
No. 109. John J. Walker et al appellants, v. Wil
liam M. Derby et al. Appeal from the Circuit
court of the United States for the northern dis
trict of Illinois, Mr. Chief Justice Chase an
nounced the decision of the court affirming the
decree of the said Circuit court in this cause, with
costs, by a divided court.
No. 14S. Albert L. Mowry, appellant, v. Asa
Whitney. The argument of this cause was con
tinued by Mr. B. K. Curtis, of counsel for the ap
pellee, and concluded by Mr. A. G. Thurman for
the appellant.
The Chief Justice announced that the'courtwill
devote Wednesday to conference upon cases al
ready submitted cr argued, and will, therefore,
adjourn from Tuesday to Thursday next.
Tuesday, April 2.
No. 157. James S. Easley et el., appellants, v.
John H. Kellom, et al. This cause was argued by
Mr. James Hughes, of counsel .for the appellants,
and by Mr. L. Trumbull for the appellee.
No. 158. Zadok Hook et al., appellants, v. Ann
Payne et al. This cause was argued by Mr. J. B.
Henderson, of counsel for the appellants, and sub
mitted on printed arguments by Messrs. Glover
and 8hcpley for the appellees.
frituacj).
A. W. ENOS.
We regret to have to announce the
death of A. W. Enos on Monday last, for
more than twenty years a member of the
Chicago bar. Mr. ^Enos was well ad
vanced in years, and for some time pre
vious to his death his health was poor.
He was an honest, sober, industrious
member of the profession, and had the
respect of his acquaintances and friends.
Jacob A. CRAM,*<formerly a member
of the law firm of Perkins, Cram & Wa
terman, died suddenly yesterday morn
ing. Mr. Cram had been unwell for sev
eral days, and resorted to hydrate of
chloral to allay excruciating pain, and
it is claimed by his friends took an over
dose, which caused his death.
Laws of Illinois, 1872.There are two
or three different publishing house3 en
gaged in printing the laws passed at the
present session of the General Assembly.
If either of these publishers can succeed
in bringing out his edition one or two
weeks in advance of the others, he will
make some money. The last man in therace is snre to lose. So, gentlemen,,
hurry up your compositors. The session
laws, this year, will make a volume
nearly as large as the Revised Statutes
of 1S45.
Back Volumes of the Legal News.
Will parties having back volumes of the
Legal News, bound or unbound, which
they will dispose of, send us their ad
dress' and the condition^and price of
their volumes ?
The 12th volume of Wallace's U. S.
Supreme Court Reports will make its
appearance about the first of May.
Judge Cole, of Iowa, at the request of
Governor Carpenter, has withdrawn his
resignation for the present.
ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
OURTS,
IN REGARD TO THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICES
IN THE LEGAL NEWS.
The following order was entered in
the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, on the 28th
of July last:
" Ordered, that hereafter notices of
sales or other proceedings in bankruptcy
and admiralty cases pending in this
court may be published in the Chicago
Legal News with the same effect as if
published in either of the other papers
designated by the rules and orders of
this court for the publication of notices."
A similar order was also entered in
the Circuit Court in regard to notices in
that court.

206

Chicago

Legal

J0HNES & SUTHERLAND,

Attorney.
fiHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois. County
\j
of
Cook,
as.Superior
court ofCook county. April
Barker k Walts, 46 But Harrison.
term.Chancery.
A. I>. 1^72. Joseph Kipley v. Catharine Kipley.
In
Bates & Hodges, 131 La LaSnlle street.
Affidavit that the defendant, Catharine Kipley, on
Beattie, 0. J., 45 South Canal.
due
be found
w ithin
BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street.
this inquiry,
State, so cannot
that process
cannotor isbe concealed
served upon
her.
been filed in the office of the Clerk of said Su
Bonney, Fay A Griggs, 1*20 West Washington Btreet. having
perior Court of Cook county, notice is hereby given
Bentley, Bennett, I'llman A Ives. 376 Wabash ave.
to tho said Catharine Kipley, that the complainant
Brouse, 0. 400 Wabash avenue.
heretofore filed his bill of complaint in said court,
on the chancery side thereof, and that a summons
Carniichael, D. L,, 8ii Prairie avenue.
thereupon
issued out of said court agaiiiRt said defend
Chase, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue,
ant,
the first Monday of April next
0*72),returnable
as is by lawonrequired.
Clarkson A Van Schaack, 4.M Wabash avenue.
Now,
unless
you,
the said
Kipley,
shallot
Deane & Cahill, room 7, Lind's Block.
Eorsoually be and appear
beforeCatharine
said Superior
court
Pent A Black, 710 Wabash avenue.
ook county,
on theinfirst
day
of theoni?rm
thereof.to
bo
holden
at
Chicago,
said
county,
the
first
Monday
Eldridge A Tourtalotte. 401 Wabash avenue.
of
April.
l."72,
and
pleud,
answer
or
demur
to
the
Ewing A Leonard, 487 Wabash avenue.
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
Kills, B. W., lis West Madison street.
will
be taken a* confessed, and a decree entered against
Felker, Wm. S., 92 Desplaines street.
praver of said bill.
Goodwin. D., jr., n. e. corner Monroe and La Salle. you according to theAUGUSTUS
JACOIiSON,
J0IINE8 A Si THT.BLAND, Compl't's
Sol'rs. Clerk.
2li-2.lp
Goudy A Chandler, Union Central Block.
Graham, Geo, T., 60 South Canal.
THOMPSON & BISHOP,
Herbert A Quick, 61 Union Central Building, and 529
Attorney*, 17 (bngress Strut.
State street.
| CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
Hoyne,
Phil.
A.,
Congress
Hall,
between
Michigan
Cook,
ss.
Superior Court of Cook county. To
and Wabash avenues.
Hay Term. A. D. 1*72. Gustavns Kutter v. James
Blake,
Elizabeth
D. Blake,
McFee.
Wil
Hoyne, norton A Hoyne, 267 Michigan avenue.
liam C. Holway, Elliott
C. V. Ellen
Blake, Lacy
Isabella
M. Mot
Hitchcock, Dupce A Evarts, corner Wells and Mon ley.
Simeon
11.
Smith,
Ezekiel
S.
Smith,
and
Joseph
E.
Dell aven.In Chancery.
roe streets.
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of
Jame*
Blake,
Eliza
Howe A Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
beth D. Blake Elliott C. V. Blake. Isabella M. MoseIngersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
ley. Simeon 11. Smith, and Ezekiel S. Smith, six of
the defendants above named, having been filed in the
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
office of tho clerk of said Superior court of Cook
Knickerbocker, J. C. A J. J., 16.1 West Washington county,
notice is hereby given to thesaid James Illake,
Leary. D. James, 95 West Madison.
Isablella
M.
Elisabeth
C. V.andBlake.
M.
Moseley,D. Blake,
SimeonElliott
II. Smith
Ezekiel
S. Smith,
Magruder, B. P., 1H1 West Madison.
that
the
complainants
heretofore
tiled
his
amended
bill
McClelland, Thos. S.. 45 South Canal, room 6.
of complaint in said court, on the chancery Fide
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of
Moore A Caulfleld, 54 Central Union Block.
said court against said defendants, returnable on the
Monroe, Bisbec A Gibbs, 523 Wabash avenue.
first
Monday of May next (1872), as is by law re
Norton, Jessie 0., 3S6 Wabash avenue.
quired.
Now, unless you, the said James Blake Elizabeth I>.
Nissen A Barnum, W Fifth avenue.
Blake. Elliott C. V. Blake. Isabella M. Moseley. Sim
Otis. E. A., 441 Wabash avenue.
eon H. Smith and Ezekiel S. Smith, shall personally
Perkins, X. 0., 479 Wabash av cor. Eldridge court. be and appear be lore said Superior court of Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to he holden
Reynolds, W. C, 176 West Washington st.
at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday ofMay,
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 South Canal.
li*72, and plead, answer or demur to the said com
plainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the mutters
Rorke, M. A. A Son, Room 57, Central Uuion Block. and
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
taken
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, 328 Wabash avenue.
as confessed,
and a decree
againstwill
youbeaccord
Sawin A Wells, 79 West Madison St.
ing to the prayer ofsaid bill.
AUGUSTUS
Clerk.
Scammon, JlcCagg A Fuller, 3a9 Wabash avenue.
Thompson A Bishop,
Compl't'sJACOBSON,
Sol'rs.
26-29
Scovllle, Geo., 30 South Clinton.
Small A ingalls, 481 Wabash Ave.
BARBER & LACKNER,
<U Went Lake Sired.
Smith, Upton A Waterman, 135 West Monroe street. ESTATE Attorns)/*.
HENRY
Tenny, McClellan ATenny, 454 Wabash avenue.
Notice isOF
hereby
given toAPPEL,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of Henry Appel,
de
Thomas, Sidney, 79 Dearborn street.
ceased, to present the same for adjudication
and set
Waughop, J. W., 401 Wabashlavenue.
tlement toat be
a regular
Cookof
Williams A Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
county,
holden term
at theofthe
courtCounty
house,Court
in theofcity
Chicago, on tho first Monday of June, A, D. 1872, be
Walker, Dexter A Smith, 562 Wabash avenue.
ing the ;id day thereof.
Wilson, Perry A Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
APPEL, Administratrix.
Chicago, April 4. A.MARE
D. 1872.
Barher Jc Lacknek, Attys.
2*>-3la
JAMES B. BRADWELL
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
G.
GINDELE,
DECEASED.ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of John G.
Xo. 113 West Madison Sired. Chicago.
Gindele,
to present the same for adjudica
Special Attention Given to Probate Hatters. tion and deceased,
settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
In the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June,
ESTATES SETTLED.
A.D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
FRANZ GINDELE, Administrator.
*'
Set
thine
house
in
order
;
for
thou
shalt
die,
Chicago, April -4. 1*72.
26-31a
and not live."'i Kings xx. 1.
Barber & Lackneb, Attys.
WM. T. BUTLER,
Attonuey, 371 State Street
S. W. RAWSON,
ESTATE OF JOHN PFUND DECEASED.-NoAttorney, 3.1 W. Randolph Street.
tice is hereby given to all persons having claims
i^ANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Count/ of and demands
against the estate of John Pfund, de
\j Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook county. May
to present the same for adjudication and set
Term. A.D. K-72. Aunie A. Hoffman v. William Hoff ceased,
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
man.In Chancery.
to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Affidavit of the non-residence of William Hoffman, county,
Chicago, on tho first Monday of July, A. D., 1872, be
defendant above named, having been filed in the office ing
the first day thereof.
of
the
clerk
of
said
Superior
court
of
Cook
county,
B. PFUND, Administratrix.
notice is hereby given to the said William Hoffman Chicago. AprilANNA
2. A. D. 1872.
that the complainant heretofore hied her hill of com
26-:jia
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and Wm. T. Buti.ee, Any.
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
OMAR BUSHNELL,
against
said
defendant,
returnable
on
the
first
Monday
66 Went Randolph Street
of May next, (1872.) as is by law required.
NOTICE.-State of Illinois County of
Now, unlesH
you,appear
the said
William
Hoffman,
shallof CHANCERY
^ Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook County, To
personally
be anil
before
said Superior
court
April Maring.In
Term, A.D.,Chancery.
1872. Harmon Maring v, Sarah
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be Jane
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday Affidavit of the non-residence of Sarah Mane Maring,
of May, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the defendant
above named, having been filed in the office of
aid
complainant's
of complaint,
the stated,
same, and
clerk of suid Superior court of ( 'ook county, notice
matters
and things bill
therein
charged and
willtho
be the
is hereby given to the said Sarah Jane Maring that
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you
the complainant heretofore tiled his bill of complaint
according to the praver of said bill.
said court,
on the chancery
thereof,
that
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk. ainsummons
thereupon
issued outside
ofsaid
courtand
against
S. W. Rawson, Coinpl't's SoPr.
5-28p said defendant,
returnable on the first Monday of April
next, (1872.) as is by law required.
(1HANCERY NOTICE.-State. of Illinois, County of Now, unless you. the said Sarah Jane Maring, shall
J Cook^ss. Superior court of Cook county. April personally be and appear before said Superior court of
on the infirstsaiddaycounty,
of a term
thereof,
to be
Term, A. P. 1*72. Edwin Kneeland v. Fidelia Knee- Cook
hiddencounty,
at Chicago,
on the
first Honland.In
AffidavitChancery.
of the non-residence of Fidelia Kneeland, dav of April, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to tho
defendant above named, having been filed in the office said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
of
the clerk
of said
Superior
of CookKneelana
county, matters and things therein charged and stated, will'be.
notice
hereby
given
to the court
saidfiledFidelia
as confessed,
and ofa decree
that theIscomplainant
heretofore
his bill of com taken
according
to the praver
said bill.entered against you
plaint in said court, on the chancery Hide thereof, and
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court Omar Bushnell, Compl't's Sol'r.
24-27
against said defendantsl returnable on the first Monof April next, (1*72.) as is by law required.
F. A. HOFFMAN. Jr.,
Now, unless you, the said i Idnlia Kneeland,
Room 5, Lino's Block.
shall personally be and appear before said Supe ESTATE Attorney,
OF THEODORE E. JOHNSON. Deceased.
rior
court
of
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
is hereby given to all pe.r>ons having
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, claimsNotice
and demands against the estate of Theodore E.
on the first Monday of April, 1872, and plead, answer Johnson,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication
or demur to the said complainant's bill of complaint, and settlement
at a regular term of the County court of
the
same,
and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
Cook
county,
to be holden
at theoncourt
in the
and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree citv of Chicago,
said county,
tho house,
first Monday
entered against you according to the praver of said of May, A. D 1*72.inbeing
the sixth day thereof.
bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
BERTHA JOHNSON, Administratrix.
S. W. Rawbon, CompPt's Sol'r.
25-2flp Chicago. March
16, A. D. Je72.
F. A. Hoffman, Attorney.
23-28
C1HANCERY \OTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
J. V. LeMOYNE,
J
Cook,
bb.
Superior
court
of
Cook
county.
April
Attorney.
Term, A. D. 1*72. Lucy M. Buckley. Jr.. v. City of Chi
ESTATE OF MICHAEL HANLON. DECEASED.cago and Wi liam K. Reed. In Chancery.
Notice Is hereby given to all persons having claims
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of
William
K.
Reed,
defendant above named, having been filed In the office and demands against the estate of Michael Hanlon,
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
notice is here! y given to the said William K. Reed tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill ofcom- county, to be holden at the court house, in tho city of
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court ing the Oth day thereof.
HANNAH HANLON, Administratrix.
against said defendant, returnable on the first Mon
Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D. 1872.
21-26a
day of April next, (1*72), as Is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said William K. Reed, shall per ESTATE OF ARTHUR G. MORVAN. DECEASED.
sonally be and appear before said Superior Court of
is hereby given to all persons having
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be claimsNotice
demands
against the
the estateforofadjudication
Arthur G.
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday Morvan,and
deceased,
present
of April, 172, and plead, answer or demur to the and
settlement at atoregular
term same
of the County court
Mid complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in
the matters and things therein charged and stated, will
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D.
be taken as confessed, and a decree entered againt the
Is72, being the sixth
day MORVAN.
thereof. Administratrix.
you according to theAUGUSTUS
prayer of said
bill.
MARY
JAC0BS0N, Clerk.
25-30p
Snowhook & Gray, CompPt's SoPrs,
25-28 Chicago, March 22, A. D. 1872.
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.

News.

Attorney. S.oO M.
|IV.</DAVIS,
Randolph Siren,
PUBLICATION
NOTICE
IN ATTACHMENT.
X State of Illinois. Cook county,
ss. Circuit court
of
Cook
county.
May
Term,
A.D.
1*72. Andrew Pear
son v. J. R. Jackson.
is hereby givenissued
to theoutsaidof the
J. R.office
Jackof
sonPublic
that anotice
writ ofattachment
the
clerk
of
the
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
dated
the first day of February, A, D. 1872. at the suit of
the
said Andrew Pearson and against the estate of
J.
R.
Jackson
for
tho
sum
of
five
hundredMollars, directed to the sheriff" of Cook county, which
said writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said J. R. Jackson
shall court
personally
and appear
cuit
of Cookbecounty,
on or before
before thesaid
the first Cir
day
of
the
next
term
thereof,
to
be
holden
at
the courtof
house, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday
May. A.D. 1*72, give special bail and plead to the said
plaintiffs action, judgment will be entered against
you, and in favor of the said Andrew Pearson and so
much of the property attached as may be sutllcient to
satisfy the said judgment mid costs will be hold to
satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
S. M. Davis, Att'y.
24-27
DANIEL GOODWIN, Jr.,
Attorney. 19 Sixuu's Building.
THIS is to certify that the undersigned nave formed
a limited partnership, and have ri led articles of co
partnership
the officeagreeably
of the clerk
of statute
the county
of
Cook.
State ofin Illinois,
to the
in such
case made and provided, and said clerk has designated
the Chicago Leoal News as the newspaper in which
notice of such partnership shall be published; now,
therefore, notice is hereby given that the terms of said
copartnership
follows:
1st. The nameareofassaid
firm Is R. M. Oliver.
2d.
The
business
to
be conducted
saidand
firmcured,
is that
of packing pork and vending
meat, by
fresh
at
No. South ilalwted street. Chicago.
3d.
The
general
partner
is
Richard
M.
Oliver;
the
special partner is the Allerton Packing Co.. u corpora
tion
nois,duly
all ofexisting
Chicago.under the laws of the State ot Illi
4th. The amount of capital stock which the said
special partner, the Allerton Packing Co.. has contrib
uted to said copartnership iB the sum of twelve thou
sand dollars.
Mh.dayTheof said
copartnership
is toterminate
commence
on will
the
first
March,
A. I>. 1872, and
at the
of either party, evidenced by notice in writing served
ten days before said termination.
RICHARD
M. OLIVER.
_22-?7
TIIK
ALLERTON
PACKING Co.
TESTATE OF JOHN MEYER, DECEASED.-NoXj tice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against tho estate of John Meyer, de
ceased,
present the
for adjudication
ment attoa regular
termsame
of the
County courtandofsettle
Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
ing the sixth day thereof.
ANNA MEYER,
ALBERT MEYER. and
ROBERT MEYER.
Executors.
Worth. Cook county, March 11, A. D. 1872.
23-2Sp
CLOWRY & BARMM,
Attorney*, :i Xorth (anal Street.
ESTATE
JOHN
Notice isOF
hereby
givenFARUELL.
to all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of John Farrell, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872,
being the sixth day thereof.
MICHAEL BRENNAN, Administrator.
Chicago, February 23, A. D. W2.
21-26
TESTATE
OF
C.
LOUIS
KURTZ,
DECEASED.I i Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of C. Louis Kurtz,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house. In the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A.D.
1872, being the sixth day thereof.
MAKGAftKTIIA KURTZ, Executrix.
Chicago. February 23, A.D. 1872.
21-26
Clowry & Bahmm, Attorneys.
ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER FLYNN, Deceased.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Christopher
Flynu, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city
Chicago,
on the
first Monday of May, A. D.
1S72, ofbeing
the sixth
day thereof.
BRIDGET
ANN
Chicago, February 2.'t. A. FLYNN,
D. 1872. Administratrix.
21-26
Clowry & Barmm, Vttorneys.
TERESA
DECEASED.
ESTATE
Notice OF
is hereby
givenBOTTO,
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Teresa
Botto, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook
county, toonbe the
holden
the courtofhouse,
city
of Chicago,
firstatMonday
May, inA. the
D.
1872, being the sixth day thereof
JOSEPH SEGALLE, Executor.
Chicago. February 23, A.D. 1872.
21-26
Clowry A Barmm, Attorneys.
ESTATE
OF
HANNAn
HOLDSWORTH,
Deceased.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate ot Hannah Holdsworth,
deceased,
the term
same oftortheadjudication
settlement toatpresent
a regular
County courtandof
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D.
1872, being the sixth day thereof.
JAMES WILLIAM HOLDSWORTH,
Chicago, February 23, A. D. 1872. Administrator.
Clowry & Badmm, Attorneys.
21-36
ESTATE
OF
CONRAD
KUHLMANN,
DECEASED
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demands
againstthethesame
estateforofadjudication
Conrad Kuhlmann,
deceased,
to present
andlscttlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
Cookof
county, to be holden at the court house,court
in theofcity
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
May,
A.
D.
1872,
being the sixth day thereof.
CAROLINE KUHLMANN, Executrix.
Chicago, March 2, A.D. 1872.
Clowry & Bahmm, Attorneys for Estate.
23-28
(CHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of
Illinois,
County
J Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. Aprilof
term, A. D. 1872. Frank Kezlik v. Mary Kezlik.In
Chancerv.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Mary Kezlik, de
fendant
above
named,
having
filed incounty,
the office
of the clerk
ofsaid
Superior
courtbeen
of Cook
no
tice is hereby given to the said Mary Kezlik thai
the complainant heretofore filed hi-* bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of April
next,
is by law
Now,(1872.)
unlessas you,
the required.
said Mary Kezlik, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of April, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, tho same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to tho prayer of raid bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Clowrt & Barmm, Compl't's Sol'rs.
23-26

M. BLANCHARD,
Atlomei/ 12S Wrt Washington St.
ClHANCEKY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county ot
' Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
June Term, A. D. 1872. Annie E. Hill v. Ives Hill.
InAffidavit
Chancery.of tho non-residence of Ives Hill, de
fendant above
named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice Is .hereby given to the said Ives Hill that
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
in said court,
on the chancery
andagainst
that a
summons
thereupon
issued outsideof theroof,
said court
Baid
defendant,
returnable
on
the
first
Monday
of
June next. (1872,) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Ives Hill, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county,
on thein said
first county,
day of aonterm
to be
holden
at Chicago,
the thereof,
first Monday
of June, I^72. and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the be
matters
things therein
charged
andagainst
stated,
will
taken and
as confessed,
and a decree
entered
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
.'-28
M. Blanchard, Comp'ts Sol'r.
~~ WAITERS CLARKj
Attorneys. 21 East Van Burcn Street.
ESTATE
MARYgivenBEERS.
DECEASED.
Notice OF
is hereby
to all persons
having
claims
and demands
againstthethegameestate
of Mary
Beers, deceased,
to present
for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
Court
County,
to be onholden
at Monday
the Court
House,ofIn Cook
the city
of Chicaeo.
the first
of
June, A. D. Is72, being the third day thereof.
CYREN1US
BEERS,
Executor.
Chicago. March, 2f>, A. D, 1872.
Waitk & Clark, Attorneys.
2.'>-30a
BATES & HODGES,
Attorney. 113 W. MadLion Street.
ESTATE OF RICHARD MASON. Sr., DECEASED.
Notice
is herebyagainst
given the
to allestate
persons
having
claims and demands
of Richard
Mason, Sr., deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and
settlement
termtheofcourt
the County
court
county,at toaonregular
bethe
holden
in theofcityCook
of Chicago,
first atMonday
of house
June,
A. D. 1872, being the third dav thereof.
L. P. HILLIARD, Administrator.
Chicago,
March 2-">,Attorneys.
1872.
Baths & Hopgks.
25-30
0. R. BR0USE,"
Attorney, 4'K) Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE
MARY given
McNULTY,
DECEASED.
Notice OF
is hereby
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Mary
McNulty, deceased, to present the same for adjudi
cation and settlement hi a regular term of the County
court of (.-ook county, to be holden at the court
house,
citybeing
ot Chicago,
first Monday of
Julv, A.inD.the1872,
the firstondaythethereof.
FANNY
McNULTY,
Executrix.
Chicago. March at, A. D. 1872.
_0. R: Brol'SK, Attorney.
25-30
MAGRUDER & KERR,
-iO Central
Union Block.
INSTATEAttorneys,
OF LOUIS
BELT/
DECEASED. i
Notice
is
hereby
given
to
personsof having
claims and demands against theall estate
Louis
Belt/,, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County Court
of Cook county, to bo holden at tho Court House, in
the city of Chicago. on the first Monday of June, A. D.
1872, being the third day thereof.
LYNE
Administrator.
Chicago, March
2.\ A.S. D.DAVISON.
1872.
Mackudek & Kkrr. Attorneys.
25-30
NEWELL PRATT,
Attorney, 1124 Wabash Avenue.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
April
A. I). 1--72.Chancery.
llattie A. Thornton v. Wil
liam B.term.
Thornton.In
Affidavit
of theabove
nou-residence
of William
R. Thorn
ton,
defendant
named, having
been filed
in the
office
of
the
clerk
of
said
Superior
court
of
Cook
coun
ty, notice is hereby given totliesaid William R. Thorn
ton that tho complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against
on the first Monday
of Aprilsaid
next,defendant,
(1872.) as returnable
is by law required.
Now. unless you, thesaid William R. Thornton, shall
personally
be andonappear
before
court
of Cook county,
the first
daysaid
of aSuperior
term there
of,
to
bo
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
first
Monday of April, 1872. and plead, answer or demur
to
the
said
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
same,
and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will
be taken astoconfessed,
dcereeeutered
against
you according
the praverandof asaid
bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newell Pratt, Compl't's Sol'r.
25-28
HANCERY
Cook, ss. NOTICE^State
Circuit court of oFlIliuoisTCounty
Cook county. Aprilof
term, A. D. 1872. John Phillips v. Ann Phillips.In
Chaucer}'.
Affidavit
of tho
non-residence
AnninPhillips,
fendant
above
named,
having beenoffiled
the officedeof
the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice
is
hereby
given
to
tho
sai
l
Ann
that the complainant heretofore filed his Phillips
bill of
complaint in said court, on 1 he chancery side thereof,
and that u summons thereupon Ustied out of said
court against said defendant, returnable on tho third
Aprilyou,
next the
(1872),said
as isAnn
by lawPhillips,
required.shall
Monday
Now, of
unless
personally bo and appear before said Circuit court
of Cook
county,
on the first
daycounty,
of a term
thereof,
to
be holden
at Chicago,
in said
on the
third
Monday of April, 1S72. and plead, answer or demur to
tho said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken a*t confessed, ami a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Bonney, Fay & Gitmop, Compl't's SoPrs.
25-28
I~j^TATEl)F'KATHARINA
J Notice is hereby given r6SET
to all DECEASED^
persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Katharina Rose, deceased, to present the same for ad
judication
andofsettlement
at a toregular
term of
the
County
court
be the
holden
the
court house,
in theCook
city ofcounty,
Chicago,
on
firstatMon
day of June, A. D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
HENRY ROSE, Executor.
Chicago, March 29. A. D. l72.
Rosenthal. Pence A Moses. Compl't's SoPrs. 25-30
EWING & LEONARD,
Atiitrney*. 4S7 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE OF JOHN GEMMELL, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demands
against
the estate
of John Geiuuiell,
de
ceased,
to present
the same
for adjudication
and settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in tho city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
ing tho sixth.duy thereof.
MARGARET N. GEMMELL,
21-26
Administratrix.
M. A. RORKE & SON,
Attorneys, Ro<tm 57, Central Union Block.
TESTATE
ELIZA
^ Notice isOF
hereby
given toTURNER,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Eliza Turner, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at n regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, being
the sixth day thereof.
THOMAS A. TURNER. Administrator.
Chicago, Feb. 2V. A. D. 1872.
21-2*
M. A. Rorke & Son, Attorneys.

Chicago
HIGH * tuman,
Attorneys,
*<Hifft Arcnuc.
CHANCERY
Illinois,
County
Cook, H9. KOT1CB-Slatapf
Superior court of Cook
county.
Aprilof
Term, A. D. ls72. Kmma * iataroni v. Anglo Fiatearoui.Iu Chancery,
Affidavit of the non-residence of Angelo Kintaroni,
defendant above named, having been tiled in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Angelo Kiataroni,
that theiucomplainant
tiled her bill of com
plaint
said court, onheretofore
the chancery aide thereof, and
that a Buminoui thereupon Issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on tlie first Monday
ofNow,
April unless
next, (1872),
by lawAngelo
required.
you, astin-is said
Kiataroni, shall
personally be and appear before Bald Superior court of
Cook county, on the tint day ofa term thereof to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the tint .Monday
of April , 1*72. and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
ofcomplaint,
the stated,
same, and
matters
and things bill
therein
charged ami
will the
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
JACOBSON.
Clerk.
Hum A Ttti'MAN, AUGUSTUS
Comp'ts sol'rs.
_
21-27

Legal

News.

207

HOWE & RUSSELL,

BA XJ It UPTCY NO T1CES.
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
Attorneys 475 Wabash Avenue.
TRUSTEE'S SALE.Whereas, George Schmitt and
Theresia
Scbmitt.
hi-*
wile,
and
George
Anton
RICH
&
NOBLE,
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Bender, unmarried, executed and delivered to the UUA ttorncys.
18 E*u& Harrison Street.
dersigned. as trmdee. a deed of trust ot the premise* "VOTICE **0R PUBLICATION.This
Doa TN THEAttorney,
D1STRHT CoCRT OK THE UNITED
hereinafter mentioned, dated the twenty-first day ol ll tice, that on the 2flth day of March. isA.to1>give
1S72,
X Slates for the Northern District of Illinois. In the
January,
A.
D.
Itfv,
and
recorded
iu
the
Recorder's
warrant
in
bankruptcy
was
issued
against
the
estate
ol
of Sands Ale Brewing Company, bankrupt.
office of Cook county. State of Illinois, in hook 421 of
of Chicago,
the adjudged
county ofa bank
Cook, matter
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to an order this
deeds, on page 3,12, which said deed of trust was given William
StateIf.ot Law,
Illinois,
who has inbeen
day entered in said court, I. the undersigned assignee
to secure the payment of a certain promissory note, I and
rupt
on
his
own
petition,
that
the
paynienll
of
uny
bankrupt,
willbidders,
sell at public
bearing date the 21st day of Januar>, A. l>. I8to, exe
and the deliver! of any property belonging to nf
forthe
cashestate
to theof said
highest
and best
at theauction
front
cuted by the said George Scbmitt and George Anton debts
bankrupt,
to him or lor his use. and the trans door
ol number eighteen (WJ Kant Harrison street,
Bender, and payable to the order of themselves, three such
fer
of
any
property
by
him
are
forbidden
by
law
:
that
the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State 01
years after the date thereof, fur the principal sum of a meeting of the creditors uf the said bankrupt to iuIllinois,
in said district, on Saturday, tho thirteenth
three thuusaud dollars, with interest after due at the
thfir debts, and to choose one or more assignees
April, A.ofD.said
Is72,day.
commencing
at ten o'clock
in
rate of ten per centum per annum, and also nix other prove
of his estate, will be held at a court of bankruptcy, das
the offorenoon
and continuing
until all
certain
promissory
notes
of
the
same
date,
each
paya
to
be
holden
at
the
office
of
Homer
X.
Hibhard,
iu
the
property hereinafter described shall be sold, all the
ble to the order ol the said George Schmitt and George citv of Chicago, iu said county and Slate, before iloiner the
described real estate and property, all being
Anton Bender, respectively, in mx. twelve, eighteen, N. Hibbard. Register on the eighth day of May A. D. following
in the
said city
county
Cook, andcorner
State
twenty-four, thirty and thirty-six months after the IH72,
at u-n o'clock a. m.
of
lllinob.
to witof: Chicago,
Beginning
at theofsouthwest
date thereof, each tor the uui of one hundred and Jifi>
B.
H.
CAMPBELL,
of lot eight (*i of John S. Vogt's subdivision of the
dollars,
being
the
amount
of
semi-annual
Interest
in
U.
S.
Marshal,
Messenger.
south one-third of out lot twenty (20) of the Canal
stallment on tin; note lirst above described, computed
Trustees' subdivision of the southwest quarter of frac
at the rate of ten per centum per annum, all payable Rich A Noblb, AtCys. By A. B. COTES. Deputy.
aHH tional
section three CJi, in township thirty-nine (.%).
at the officeofGreeubaum and Foreman, Chicago, Illi
north
of range fourteen (14). east of third principal
nois.
EONNEY, FAT & ORIOQS,
TURNER, BRAWLEY & TURNER,
meridian
; thence
running
along the west
And,
whereas,
default
has
been
made
in
the
payment
Attorneys, ''or. Omal ami Madison Strtets.
said lot eight
(), and
alongnorth
said last-named
linelineproof
Attorney*.
of the said first-mentioned note of three thousand dol
PUBLICATION
NOTICE
IN
ATTACH
MENT"PUBLICATION
NOTICE.State
of
Illinois,
county
duced
to
the
north
line
ot
that
part
of
out
lot
lar*,
together
with
the
interest
thereon
since
the
loth
(2ii), conveyed
PeterJanuary
Kantenbuger
totwenty
Peter
of Illinois,
ss. Joseph
Circuit E.court
I of Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. Goebel
of June,
A.provided
D. I7I, and
the same
are
unpaidthat
: and,in March
by deed,bydated
2, lo.r)2,and
andwife
recorded
in
CookState
county.
March Cook
term, county,
A. D. 1*72.
Batesut day
D.
1*72.
William
Stevens
v.
Edwin
term,
A.
whereas,
it
is
in
said
deed
of
trust
Hotmail.Attachment.
v. The Anchor Life Insurance Company.
the
recorder's
office
of
Cook
county,
Illinois,
February
case
default
be
made
iu
the
payment
of
paid
notes
or
Public notice is hereby given to the said The Anchor auy or either of them or of any part thereof, according Public notice is hereby given to the said Edwin Hol- 4. 1K*)2, in book 4'> ofdeeds, at page.'iM; thence running
Life Insurance Company that a writ of attach- to the tenor and efleet thereof, then, on application of mau that a writ of attachment issued out of the office east along said north Hue of said lot so as aforesaid
ment
of the office
Circuit the legal holder of said mites, it shall be lawful tor the of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook county, conveyed to Peter Goebel to the west line of Pine
Court issued
of Cookoutcounty,
dated of
thethe2tithclerk
day ofofthe
Kebruury.
said trustee, his heirs, or successors in trust, after pub dated the first day of March. A. D. 1KT2, at the suit of street, as the same was extended by the comnioncounA.
I). l*<72,
the suit
of theAnchor
said Joseph
K. Bates,Com
and lishing
said William Stevens, and against the estate of cil of the city of Chicago ; thence running along the
a notice of sale In a newspaper printed in the the
against
theatestate
of The
Life Insurance
the said Edwin Hol nan, for the sum of four hundred west line of Pine street to the north line of l'earson
city
ol Chicago
twenty
daysthebefore
the
duyandofequity
sale, toof and
four
hundred
and
twenty-one
pany,
for
the
sum
of
eighty-one dollars and eighty cents, directed to street, and thence west along the north line of Pearson
sell
said
premises,
and
all
right,
title
and 13-lirfi dollars, directed to the sheritf of Cook redemption of the said George Schmitt and Theresia the sheriff
of Cook county, w hich said writ has been street to the place of beginningsaid property having
county, which said writ has been returned executed. Scbmitt
returned
executed.
a frontage of one hundred and sixty-seven (167) feeton
and
George
Anton
Bender,
their
heirs,
execu
Now, therefore, unless you, the said The Anchor tors, administrators and assigns, therein, at public Now, therefore,
you, the
said the
Edwin
Pearson street, by a frontage of one hundred and seven
Life Insurance
be and auction, at the north door of the court house, in the shall personally beunless
and appear
before
said llolman,
Superior (107)
feeton
and ing
being
the property
appear
before the Company,
said Circuitshall
Courtpersonally
ot Cook county,
court
of
Cook
county,
on
or
before
the
first
day
of
the
veyed
said Pine
Sandsstreet,
Ale Brew
Company
by JohnconF.
city
of
Chicago,
in
the
State
of
Illinois,
to
the
highest
term thereof, to be holden at tho court house, in Staffordto and
on
or
before
the
first
day
of
the
next
term
thereof,
to
wife
and
Richard
McClevey
(widower)
by
bidder
for
cash
;
to
make,
execute
and
deliver
to
the
be holden at the Court Home, in the city of Chicago, purchaser or purchasers a deed or deed ol the premises the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of March, deed dated the 36th day of January, A.D. W.l, which
on the third Monday of March, A.D. 1K72, give special so sold ; and, whereas, application has been made to A. D. 1872, give special bail and plead to the said plain deed was duly recorded in the Recorder's office ofCook
action, judgment will be entered against you, and county aforesaid, on the 15th day of March, A.D. WA,
ball and
plead toagainst
the saidyou,plaintiff's
me, the undersigned, by the legal bidder of said first- intiff'sfavor
will
be entered
and in action,
favor ofjudgment
the said mentioned
of the said William Steveus.and so much of the iu book 277 ofdeeds, at page ItJO, together with also tho
note of three thousand dollars (the six
Joseph E. Bates, and so much of the property attached other
property
attached
may be
boiler and engine, and the brick, Iron and other debris
notes
having
been
paid),
to
sell
the
premises
in
as
may
be
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
said
judgment
and
said
judgment
andas costs
willsufficient
be sold to
to satisfy
satisfy the
the ofdestroyed
buildings and machinery on said premises.
said
deed
of
trust
mentioned,
for
the
purposes
therein
costs will be sold to saiisfv the same.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON,
Also a certain leasehold estate in premises known and
specified; now, therefore, bj virtue of the power same.
NORMAN
T.
CASSETTE,
Clerk.
described
as
fourteen (Uh in the Assessors' division
and
authorily
in
me
vested
by
said
deed
of
trust,
Clerk
Superior
Court.
Boxnf.y. Fat & Griggs. Attorneys.
22-2* I. the undersigned, as trustee, will sell at lu Turner. Biiawi.ev * Turner. PlTtTa AtCys. 23-2fip of block two lot
(2) and lot ten ' 10), in the south one-third
and north two-thirds of block twenty (20), in Canal
o clock a. m., on the lfith day of April. A. D. W72,
Trustees' subdivision of section three (a), township
J. C. & J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
at the north door of the old court house, in the
JOHN H. FECK,
thirty-nine (39), north of range fourteen (14), east of
Attorneys, 163 W. Washington St,
city of Chicago, In the county of Cook, and State of
AWtrncv, Room 2. :t:l West Randolph street.
ESTATE or WATSON GOWARD, DECEASED. Illinois, at public auction, for the highest and best pHAM'ERV NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of tliird principal meridian, being the property west of
price the same will bring iu cash, the premises in said
Cook, bs. Circuit court of Cook county. May Pine street, leased to the said Sands Ale Brewing Com
Notice
Is
hereby
given
to
all
persons
having
clatmi
and
demands
against
of Watson Goward,
de deed of trust, described, to wit : The east half of the term, A. D. Ia72, Margaret Graff v. William Graff. pany by Albert Smeeds, by lease dated September first.
ceased,
to present
the the
sameestate
for adjudication
and settle
south half of lot fifteen (15). in block two (2). in Shef
A. D. lfrti*said lease runs twenty-one (21) years from
Chancery.
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook field's addition to Chicago, in the county of Cook, and InAffidavit
said Mh September, and is subject to a revaluation
of the
non-residence
William
county, to he holden at the Court House. In the city of State of Illinois, together with all and singular the fendant above
named,
having beenof filed
in theGraff,
officedeof every five years, and said leasehold will be sold subject
D.
lo72,
being
Chicago,
on
the
lirst
Monday
of
May,
A.
hereditaments
thereunto
belonging
or
in
auy
wise
ap
the
clerk
ofsaid
Circuit
court
ofCook
county,
notice!
all arrearages of rents and taxes.and all of said
the sixth day thereof.
pertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remain hereby given to the said William Graff that the com to
premises
are to be sold
freeforand
all liens
der
and
remainders,
rents,
issues
and
profits
thereof,
plainant
heretofore
filed
her
billof
complaint
in
said
and
(taxes
1*71discharged
excepted), ofaccording
GUSTAVUS
GOWARD,
Administrator.
and all the -t.it*-. right, title, interest, dower, right of court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a summons to theincumbrances
provisions ot said order. Also hits two (2), three
Chicago, March 6. A. D. 1872.
J. C s 3. J. Knickerbocker, Att'ys for Adm'r. 22-27 dower, equity of redemption, property, possession, thereupon issued out of said court against said defend (3) and four (4). in John S. Vogt's subdivision of the
claim
demand
whatsoever,
as well
in lawSchmitt
as iu ant, returnable on the third Mouday of May next, south one-third (.'*) of block or out lot number twenty
equity,and
of the
said George
Schmitt,
Theresia
(IS72.) as is by law required.
(20), in the Canal Trustees' subdivision of the south
A. H. DALTON,
and
George
Anton
Bender,
their
lo-irs
and
assigns,
in Now, unless you, the said William Graff, shall per west-quarter of fractional section three (.">), township
Attorney,
Thornton.
INSTATE OF ELIZABETH BEKGER. DECEASED. and to said premises, and every part thereof.
(3v). north range
fourteen
(14),hundred
east of
sonally be and appear before said Circuit court ut thirty-nine
principal
the
east one
on thein first
day of aonterm
thereof,Monday
to be tliird
GERHARD FOREMAN, Trustee.
J Notice is hereby given to all persons having
[limj feet
of lot meridian.
five [."<j. in Also
tho Assessors1
division of
24-27 Cook
holdencounty,
att;hicago,
said county,
thethird
claims and demands against the estate of Elizabeth Howe A Russell, Attorneys.
the north two-thirds of said block, or out lot twenty
of May,
1872, and bill
plead,
answer or demur
to the
Berger, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
subdivision
complainant's
of complaint,the
same, and
the [20] of the
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
>F MICHAEL FELTEN [alias] FIL- said
threeCanal
[3], Trustees'
in township
and rangeof fractional
aforesaid.
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be section
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, ESTATE
TEN,
T~
*d.
Notice
is
hereby
given
to
all
per
Also, all that part of lot seven m, in thesai . Assessors'
taken as confessed, and a decree eutered against you division
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May sons having claims and demands against the estate of according
of
said^
north
two-thirds
of
block
or out
to the prayer of said bill.
A..D. 1S72, being the fith dav thereof.
Michael
Felten
Jalias]
Filteu,
deceased,
to
present
the
twenty [2i)J aforesaid, bounded and described
as follot
NORMAN T. CASSETTE. Clerk.
for adjudication and settlement at a regular
. 2, JOHN
BERGER, Administrator.
lows, that is to say : commencing at the northeast cor
Chicago. Feb.
A. D. 1872.
21-2T. same
23-26 ner
term of the County court of Cook county, to be hold John H. Peck, CompPti1 Sol'r.
of said lot seven [7J, and running thence south on
en at the court house in the city of Chicago, on the ESTATE Or" GUNDER OLESON,
the 3rt-lonj
east line
said lot
I thirty-five
audoffi6-100
. DECEASED.first Monday of May, A. D. Ie72, being the sixth day
THEO. SCHINTZ,
feet,of more
or seven
less, to[7the
south line
said
Notice Is hereby given to
estate
all persons
havingOleson,
claims [35
thereof.
Attorney, Central Union Block.
lot
seven
[7], and thence west on said south line ninety
and
demands
against
the
of
Gunda
HUBERT
KEIPINGER,
Administrator.
TfSTATE OF FREDERICK BEHM, DECEASED. Chicago, March 1, A. D. 1872.
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
feet,
more
or
less,
to
a
point
one
hundred
at a regular term of the County court ol ninety-six [196] feet east of the west line of said and
lot
is hereby
all persons
having claims
24-29 settlement
Cook
comity,
tobeonholden
at the
courthouse,
the seven [7], being the east line ot Green Bay street, now
andNotice
demands
againstgiven
the toestate
of Frederick
Behm, Theo. Schintz, Att'y.
city of Chicago,
the first
Mouday
of May,inA.D.
called
Rush
Btreet;
thence
northwesterly
on
a
line
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
B.
C.
COOK,
parallel w ith said west line of said lot seven [7] thirty1872, being the 6ifa day thereof.
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
Attorney, 308 Wabash Aivnue.
seven and 7-10 [37 7-10l feet, more or less, to a point in
19, A.D. 1K72.
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of C1HANCERY
ofCook
Illinois,
County
of Chicago, February
the
north line of said lot seven [7], one hundred and
CHARLES
GLADDING.
Administrator.
Chicago, on the lirst Monday of May A. D. 1&72. being J Cook, BS. NOTICE.Slate
Superior
court
of
county.
April
21-2* ninety-six [ h] feet east of said west line of said lot
the sixth day thereof.
Term, A.D. 1872. Gardner S. Chapin and Jane J. Jang* Mich ir Att'y.
seven [7], and thence east on the north lino of said lot
CHRISTIAN
BEHM,
Executor.
Gore
v.
Benjamin
F.
Stafford.
Samuel
A.
Sargent.
L.
seven [7J to the place of beginning, being a portion of
Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D. 1672.
21-26a C. Paine Freer. John Marshall and Elizabeth Mar RUNYAN, AVERY, LOOMIS & COMSTOCK, the
property conveyed to said Sands Ale Brewing
Attorneys 141 W. Washington St.
Theo. Schintz. Attorney.
shall.In chancery.
by William Lilt, by deed dated the 1st day of
C1HANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of Coinpanv
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of
Benjamin
F.
Staf
July,
A. D. 1868. [*.'>!
Also,
forty
of the
' Cook.
ss.
Superiorcourt
ofCook
county.
To
May
ford. Samuel A. Sargent, John Marshall and Elizabeth term.
F. A. RIDDLE,
west
eighty-five
feettheof east
lot five
[M of[40]thefeet
Assessors'
A.
D.
1*72.
Edward
Williston
v.
Christina
WilMarshall,
defendants
above
named,
having
been
filed
Attorney, 25 West Madison Street.
division of the north two-thirds of block twenty [20]
Chancery.
in the office of the clerk of said Superior court of liston.In
ESTATE OF ANDREW NELSON, DECEASED.- Cook
of
tho
Canal
Trustees'
subdivision
of
the
southwest
Affidavit above
ofthe named,
non-residence
Christina
county,
notice Samuel
is herebyA. given
toJohn
the Mar
said defendant
is hereby
to all ofpersons
having
claims
of fractional section three [3], township thir
havingofbeen
filed inWilliston,
the office quarter
F. Stafford.
Sargent,
and Notice
demands
againstgiven
the estate
Andrew
Nelson,
de Benjamin
ty-nine [39], north range fourteen [14j. east of the
ofthe Clerk ofsaid Superior court of Cook county, no third
and Elizabeth
Marshall, that
the complainants
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set shall
principal
meridian.[2f>]Also,
partTrustees'
of said
tice is hereby given to the said Christina Williston, that block or.
heretofore
filed
their
bill
of
complaint
in
said
court,
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook on
of thethatCanal
complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint subdivisionoutoflotthetwenty
the chancery side thereof, and that a summons the
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of (hereupon
southwest
quarter
of
fractional
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
ana
that
Issued out of said court against said de a summons thereupon issued out of said court against tion three, township aud range aforesaid, describedsecas
Chicago, on the first Mouday of May, A. D. 1679, being fendants, returnable
on the first Monday of April next said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of follows: commencing one hundred and ninety-six
the sixth day thereof.
(1872,)
as
is
by law required.
WILLIAM M. LOUGHLIN, Administrator.
[]%] feet
east of aGreen
point onBaythestreet],
east line
of Rush
May uext (1*72), as is by law required.
Now, A.unless
you,
the
Benjamin
F. Stafford,
Chicago, Feb. 28, A. D. 1872.
21-26a Samuel
street
[formerly
seventy-live
Now, unless
you,appear
the said
Christina
Williston,
shall
Sargeut, John said
Marshall
and Elizabeth
Mar personally
%
[7SS3
feet
in
a
southerly
direction
from
be and
before
said Superior
Court
ot and
shall,
shall
personally
be
and
appear
before
said
Su
northwest corner of said block, running
GEORGE SCOVILLE,
on the
first county,
day of aonterm
to be the
perior court ofCook county, on the first day of a term Cook
thence
southerly
on
a
line
parallel
with
the
holdencounty,
at Chicago,
in said
the thereof,
first Monday
30
Ctinton
Strett.
thereof,
to
beholden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
west line of said block, thirty-seven aud 7-W [37 7-10],
rf~lHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of the first Monday ofApril, 1672, and plead, answer or de of May, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the said feet
thence
east
to
the
west
liue
of
lot
two
J2]
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
same,
and
the
Cook,
bs.
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
April
mur to thethesaidmatters
complainants'
of complaint,
the mutters and things therein charged and stated, will be JohnS. Vogt's subdivision of the south one-third of
of
term, A.D. 1872, George W. Lay, .Ir. and John R. same,
and thingsbilltherein
charged anil
out lotsection
twentythree
[20J of[:i]the
south-west
of were
frac
Brown v. Frederick Martens, Wilbelm Maheni. stated, and
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you tional
w
ill
be
taken
as
confessed,
end
a
decree
entered
aforesaid,
if saidQuarter
west line
according to the praver of said bill.
Christoph
Mueller,
Leon
Strauss,
Philip
Schwab
and
against
you
according
to
the
prayer
of
said
bill.
and extended norththence north on said
The unknown heirs-at-law of Louis Frederick August
JACOBSON, Clerk. produced
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
line so produced to a point due west of the place of
Koester. In Chancery,
RUNVAN, AVEHT, AUGUSTUS
LOOSIIB COMSTOCK,
beginning, thence east to the place of beginning. Also
Affidavit that the names of the heirs-at-law of Louis B. C. Cook, Compl't's Sol'r.
26-29
Comp't's
Sol'rs.
a certain leasehold estate in lots nnmbered twelve and
Frederick August Koester, named among the defend
S. M.
[12 and 13] of the assessor's division of block
C;UARDIAN'S
SALE
OFss.REAL
ESTATE.ants above, are unknown to said complainants,
-State
of thirteen
Attorney.
.rw) W.DAVIS,
Randolph St.
T
Illinois.
Cook
county,
In
the
Circuit
number
twenty[3] [20]
in Canal trustees
subdivision
of
having been filed in the office of the clerk of said ESTATE OF
.
circuit
Court
of
JOIIN HOPP, DECEASED.-Notice Cook county. In the mutter of the application of Eliza section three
aforesaidbeing
the property
[east of
Circuit court of Cook county, notice is hereby given
is hereby given to all persons having claims and II. Towne. guardian of Edward P. Jowue, to sell real Pine street] leased to said Sands Ale Brewing Com
to the said The unknown heirs-at-law of Louts Fred demands
against the estate of John Hopp. deceased,
pany by Albert Snieeds ^by lease dated September 1st,
of the said minor.
erick August lw-T-rrh.it the complainants hereto
present the same for adjudication and settlement at estate
A. D. 18w: said lease runs twenty-one years from said
decreeentered
in saidterm
cause,ofsaid
on thecourt,
fifth date,
fore filed their bill of complaint lnjsaid court, on the atoregular
term of the County court of Cook county, davByofvirtueofa
and is subject to a re-valuation every five years
April,
A.D.
1*72,
at
the
March
chancery side thereof, and that a summons thereupon to
at the court house, in the city of Chicago I shall on Monday, the twenty-ninth (2ttth)day ofApril, and said leasehold will be sold subject to all arrear
issued out of said court against said defendant, re on betheholdeu
Monday of June A. D. 1*72, being the A.D. 1*72, at 10 0 clock, iu the forenoon of said day, age* for rents and taxesand the iron, brick and other
turnable on the third Monday of April next, (LS72.) as third dayfirstthereof.
debrisleaseall
upon saidof premises
will bebeing
sold intogether
at the east door of the Court House, on South dark said
is by law required.
said property
the citywithof
Chicago, March .TO, A. D. 1*72.
street, in the city of Chicago, State of Illinois, sell at Chicago,
Now, ofunless
the said August
The unknown
county of Cook, and State of Illinois. And
_
,
WILLIAM
WENDLAND,
Executor.
public
auction
to
the
highest
and
best
bidder,
upon
at-law
Louisyou,
Frederick
Koester heirsshall aS.
M. Davis, Att'y.
2fi_31 the, {following terms, viz.: One-third cash, and the allot" said property will be sold [except as aforesaid]
personally be and appear before said Circuit court of
free and discharged ofall encumbrances, by order ofsaid
payments,bearing
payable
in one.at two
balance
three equal
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
BENNETT
&
SHERBURNE,
and
threein years,
respectively,
interest
the court; and also by order of said court the said lots two
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
third
Mon
[2], three [3J and four [4j of John S. Vogt's subdivision
Masonic
'Inn.,given
cor. toHalstrd
and liandofvh
sts. rate
of
eight
per
cent,
per
annum,
and
to
be
secured
day of April, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the Atry.
\rOTTCE
is
hereby
all
persons
having
claims
by mortgage or trust deed upon said premises all the of the south one-third of said out lot twenty [20], and
said complainants* bill ofcomplaint, the same, and the li and demands against the estate of Ann McDonald, right,
the
said parts of lotsof five
[.*>1 and
seven [7] in theof Baid
titledescribed
and interest
of
the
said
minor
in
the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will bo deceased, to preseut the same tor adjudication and set following
assessors
said
north
said
estate, situated in the State of lot
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you tlement at a regular term of The Uouuty court of Cook Illinois, to wit : Onerealundivided
twentydivision
\7o] with allthebrick,
iron two-thirds
and other debris
one-half
(
I...)
of
east
according to the praver of said bill.
thereon,
will
be
oflered
for
sale
together
in
one
body,
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of one-half i '.) of the west one-half
of lot number and
NORMAN*
T.
CASSETTE,
Clerk.
they will be so sold. And further particulars
on the first Monday of July, A. D. 1S72, be three f3) in block fifty-seven (,"7) of original town of regarding
Georoe Scoville, Comprts8orr.
24-27 Chicago,
said sale and said property may be obtained
Chicago.
_ .ELI ZA H. ft fWNE.
ing the first day thereof.
on application to the undersigned.
HENRY
MrDONALD,
Administrator,
Guardian
of
Edward
P.
Towne.
DENT & BLACK,
Chicago,
April,'.,
1*:
Chicsgo,
April
3,
A.
D.
Id72.
ROBERT
E. JENKINS.
2rt-2y
Attorneys, 740 Walxixh Avenue.
Assignee of Sands
Ale Brewing
Co. ,a Bankrupt,
T7STATE OF ELMA HOWELL, DECEASED.- Bennett & Shkkiiuhne.
Chicago. March y, lfC2.
24-27
22-26_
Atty's for Administrator.
2fi 31
SAWIN
&
WELLS,
_Ci Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
Atforneu*. 59 If. Madison St.
and demands against the estate of Klma Howell, de "VTOTICE is hereby given to all persons having claims CGUARDIAN'S
THE for
DISTRICT
COURT
OF THE
UNITED
SALE OF REAL ESTATE.By vir- J.TN States,
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set i\ and demands against the estate of Lucius A. Gris- T tue of an order
the
Northern
District
of
Illinois.
In
of the Superiorcourt
tlement at n regular term of the County court of Cook wold, deceased, to present the same for adjudication of Cook eountv. Stateandof decree
matter
ofthat
Eli the
N. undersigned
Small, a bankrupt.
Notice is
Illinois, in chancery sitting, the
county, to be ludden at the court house, in the city of and
hereby
given
will
on
Saturday,
settlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
court
and entered this ith day of April, A. D. 1872, in
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. X>. 1872, be of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the made
0th of
April, in1872,
,'W>
April term A. D. 1*72. of said court, in the matter the
ing the sixth day thereof.
Wabash
Avenue,
the atcity10ofo'clock,
Chicago,a. m..
sell atat No.
public
of Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A.D. the
of the petition of the undersigned guardian of Jacob auction
ANNIE E. HOWELL, Executrix. city
to
the
highest
bidder
for
cash,
any
and
all
in
lt*72,
being
the
first
day
thereof.
Saner
and Catharine
leave
to sell terest which the oaid bankrupt may have in the estate
Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D. 1*72.
2i-2fia
MARIA
Administratrix,
interest
of the saidSauer,
minorsminors,
in and for
to the
following
of his mother, Evelina Small, deceased.
Chicago. April
:t. A. D.GRISWOLP,
1*72,
2ft-.tt the
and hereinafter described real estate, for their sup 24-26
SNOWHOOK & GRAY,
Bennett
A
Sukkbukne.
Atty's
for
Administratrix.
S. S. MERRILL. Assignee.
port and education. I shall as such guardian, on Mon
Attorneys, :io West Monroe Street.
April 22, A. D. 1H72, at teu o'clock in the forenoon,
ESTATE OF PATRICK McALPIN, DECEASE!*. ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.Northern District of Illi day.
upon
the
premises,
expose
and
sell
at
public
vendue,
to all persons
having
claims
OF MARY ANN CAVANAUGH, De
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the for cash, to the highest bidder, all the right, title and ESTATE
and Noticejis
demands hereby
againstgiven
the estate
of Patrick
McAlpiu,
is herebyagainst
given to
persons
dayundersigned
of March, A.hereby
D. 1*72.
interest inof and
the said
Jacob
Saner
andblock
Catherine
Sauer, havingceased.Notice
deceased, tit present the same for adjudication and set 4thThe
claimB and demands
tlieallestate
ofe
gives notice of his appoint minors,
to
lot
eleven
(11,1
twenty-four
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook ment
Mary
Ann
Cavanaugh.
deceased,
to
present
the
sa mof
as
assignee
of
George
A.
Shufeldt.
Jr.,
of
Chi
(24,)
in
BushneH's
addition
to
Chicago,
County
of
county, to be holden at the court house. In the city of cago, in the county of Cook, and State of Illinois, who Cook, and State of Illinois.
for adjudication and settlement at a regular term
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1672, being has been adjudged a bankrupt, upon his own petition,
the County
Cook
eountv, toon bethe holden
at the
JACOB
SERAMOR,
the Bixth day thereof.
court
house,court
in theofcity
of Chicago
first Monday
by the District court oj[ the United Stales in
iu and for
Guardian
of
Jacob
Sauer
and
Catherine
Sauer.
of
May,
A.D.
1872,
being
tho
Cth
day
thereof
MICHAEL
SCANLON,
Executor.
said
District.
liOBERT
E.
JENKINS,
Chicago. April 4, 1*72.
Chicago, Feb. 27, A. D. 1672.
21-2fia 23-25
February 19, A. D. 172.
Assignee.
Sawin .t Wells, Atty's.
26-28 Chicago,
21-26
JOHN CORBETT, Administrator.

208

Chicago

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
KAY & BROTHER.
/"'HAS.
M. HAKUIS,
V.
S. E. cor. Clark and Adams.
33*
Philadelphia,
MILLER, WILLIAMSONll* W.
MILLER,
Rimdolrh street.
HAVE JUST PUBLISHED
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
ERXDON & OREXDORF,
Office west side square. 27*
H
KERR ON RECEIVERS,
JACKSONVILLE (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
ONE V01.11I:, Svo. 84.80.
'ETCHAM, I. J.
A
Treatise
on the Law and Practice as to Receivers
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
appointed by the Court of Chancery.
)EPl'>:R, WILSON 4 MARTIN,
Room 2 Bank Building.
9*
BY WILLIAM WILLIAMSON KERR,
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
Of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Lavr,
SANFORD, E. Special attention given to Collec
tions and Real Estate.
52* With Notes and References to American
Authorities,
By Geo. TCCKER BISPHAJH, Esq.
Of the Philadelphia Bar.
JAMES COCKGROFT & CO.,
Law Booksellers and Publishers,
499

WABASH A YEN UE,

Would respectfully invite the attention of the Legal

Profession to their stock of
Law Books,
Fine Legal Stationery,
Conveyancing Blanks,
Dockets,
Seal Presses, &c,

&c.

We make a specialty! of our Conveyancing

Blank*, which are the most complete, and put up in
the moat convenient form of any Publisher in the
country. We would also announce that our custom
ers will find upon our table, in convenient form for
-reading, all the Law Periodicals in this country and
"England, we having made arrangements for receiv
ing the same as fast as published. We cordially in
vite our friends to make tree use of them.
JAMES COCKCROFT & CO.,
LAW BOOKSELLERS,.
499 Wabash Avenue,
CHICAGO.

ROSENTHAL, PENCE & MOSES.

Attorneys,
ADMINISTRATORS SALE.-Louisa Heller, ad
ministratrix of the estate of Israel Heller, de
ceased, r. Bosa Hess, Abraham Hes*s, Fanny McCreary,
Robert McCreary
Caroline
Schram.
Benedict
Schram,
Theresa
Porges, Henry
Purges,
Esther
Schram,
Jacob
Schram and Elizabeth Heller. Superior court of Cook
county. Petition to sell real estate to pay debts.
Public notice is hereby given that in pursuance of the
decree of said court In said cause, I heretofore entered,
Ii " shall
the atIrith
day!auction,
of May,!
D.
- . at It. on Saturday,
k . a. m., sell
public
forA.cash,
to the highest bidder, at the north end of the new City
Hall, corner of LaSalle and Adams streets, in Chicago,
Illinois,
following
premises,
viz: Lotof
fix
(6) intheblock
three described
(.tj in Quick's
subdivision
Harlem, being part of the northeast quarter of sec
tion twelve (12.) in town thirty-nine (."Jy,) north of
range twelve (12) east of 3rd p. ni.. in Cook county,
IlIiiK.i-.
LOUISA HELLER,
April Administratrix
5. W2.
of estate of Israel Heller, deed.
Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, Pl'ffs Atty's. 26-31
HOMER COOK,
Attorney, 13T> W. Monroe St.
ESTATE OF JAMES THOMPSON. DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to alt persons having
claims and demands against the estate of James
Thompson, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June,
A.D. 1ST2. being the third day thereof.
ELLEN MARIA STRONG, Administratrix.
Chicago, April fi, A.D. 1*72.
Homer Cook. Att'y.
26-81
ELDRIDOE & TOURTELLOTTE,
-101 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE
MICHAEL
.LANG,
Kotice isOFhereby
given to all
personsDECEASEP.having claims
and demands against the estate of Michael Lang, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication ana set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county,
holden
the court of
house,
Chicago,toonbe the
firstat Monday
June,in A.the D.city1S72,ol
being the third day thereof.
CHARLES JORN, Administrator.
Chicago,
4, A. D. 1*72. Atty's for estate. 20-31
EldbumjiApril
i ToKTiLLOTTE,

Legal

News.
ATTORNEYS.

NOW READY.
JONES' FORMS & PROCEDURE

FRANK J. CRAWFORD,
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AT-LA W,
No. 328 Wabanh A vruue. Chicago.
GEORGE C. FRY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
31 Clinton tfrcet. Room 5. Chicago.
8. A. GOODWIN.
E. C. LARKED.
H. 8. TOTU.
GOODWIN, LARNED & T0WLE,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
No. 376 Wabash Avenue, Cliicago.
12
BATES * IIOIXVK.N.
Attorneys at Law, 113 W. Madison St.
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.

The Forms and Slode of Procedure in the various

Courts in the State of Illinois, and which, with little
variation, will apply to those ofthe neighboring States
and Territories. For the use of Judges of Probate,
Clerks ofJustice*
Courts, of
Sheriffs,
Coroners.
CountyConstable*,
Commis
sioners,
the Peace,
Lawyers.
Notaries Public, etc., with a variety of precedents In
conveyancing. By Jamks Jones. Esq.
Second edition, revised and enlarged, by Joseph
Wright.
IT CONTAINS
Forms of Writs and Proceedings in the Supreme
Court, Circuit Court, County Court, and the United
States District and Circuit Courts.
Forms in Chaucery Practice, such as Summons, Bills
of
Writsa complete
of Injunction,
Orders
andComplaint,
Decrees, with
record Notices,
suggesting
the
various proceedings in a cause, from filing a Bui to
perfecting
Appeal.
In Actions and other proceedings at law, with com
plete records in Assumpsit, Case, Attachment, Eject
ment,
etc.used by Justices of the Peace in Criminal and
Forms
Civil
matters,
by and
Notaries
Public,inand
of
Courts in entries
proceedings
casesbyat Clerks
Law and
in Chancery', from their commencement to final Cer
tificate of Transcript of Record.
ROGERS & ROGERS,
Forms used by Sheriffs and Coroners in holding in
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS.
quests.
Forms used in Naturalization, in Arbitration and
St Paul, Minn
46*
Award.
Of Affidavits, In Attachment and other cases at Law
andForms
in Equity.
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
used in Appeals from, and Certiorari to Jus
IN PRESS,
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
tices'
Courts.
Forms of Pleading: Declarations, Pleas. Demur
And U. S. Commissioner.
A DIGEST OF THE STATUTES AND DECISIONS rers.
Replications, Bills for Foreclosurefor Divorcein Dowerfor Specific Performance, etc., with An Western Union Telegraph Office, 551 Wabash Ave
swers, Replications, Decrees, Orders, and the Process
ON
thereon
Forms inof Equity.
Notes, Bills of Exchange, Letters of Cred
it,
Bonds, Bills of Sale, Bills of Lading, Releases, Cer
DIVORCE AND ALIMONY tificates
of Stock. Proxies, Mortgages, Judgment
AD VER TISEMENT.
Notes,
etc.
FormsAgreements,
used in Conveyancing:
In Depositionsin
IN THE UNITED STATES,
structions for taking and certifying the same, tie bene
e$neAnandAppendix
otherwise.containing the RULES OF PRAC
TICE OF THE COURTS, as Amended and Revised to
theAnpresent
Octavotime.
Vomruo. 700 pp. Bound in Law Sheep. STEVENS &HAYNES
WM. HARDCASTLE BROWNE, Esq.,
Price, 87.90, Sent fret to any addre** on receipt of the
Law Publishers,
prim,
01 the Philadelphia Bar,
K. B. Mir.KS, Publisher.
33-20
No. 3y3 Wabash Avenue.
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
ONE VOLUME, 8 vo.
AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS,
NE1F LAW BOOKS.
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
LONDON.
KAY &, BROTHER,
LITTLE, BR10WN & CO.,
Law Publishers, Booksellers and Importers,
Works in all Classes of Literature
Boston,
17 and 19 South Sixth Street,
HAVE NOW READY:
24-27
Philadelphia.
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
I. THE AMERICAN LAW REVIEW,
Orders Promptly Filled.
Vol. VI. No. 3. April, 1^72.
The Trunteea and Officers or Public 1.1br*rlca may rely upon the moat
Contents i
itlon to their
I. Private
Internationalof Courts,
CALLAGHAN & Co. III.
The Administration
Criminal II.
Law Fixtures.
in Scot
land. IV. Grain Elevators. V. Digest of the English
Law Reports. VI. Selected Digest of State Reports. By importing DIRECT from England a consider
VII.
of Cases
in Bankruptcy,
VIII.inBook
No
tices. Digest
IX. List
of Law
Books Published
England
able saving is effected, e*]>eQially in the Customs duty,
and America .since January, 1372. X. Summary of from which Public Institutions in the United States are
Events.
exempt.
CALLAGHAN & COCKCROFT,
terms :
have beenin made
by ourtheir
Foreign
Subscription,
$.1 00
andSUNDRY
Colonialmistakes
Correspondents
addressing
let
spectrally call the attention of the profession to
Vols
I.V., inperlawannum.
sheep, per...
vol, . , $fi
no
ters, we beg to notify that the members of our Arm are
Single Numbers,
$1 25
Henby G. trrevens and Robert W. Haynes, the son
.their large stock of
and
ot theSince
late our
Valentine
thehave
eminent
Lawstepson
Publisher.
lather'sStevens,
death we
con
tocarry on the business ofLaw Puhllabers,
II. UNITED*STATES DIGEST. tinued
Bookaellera and Exporters, at the above ad
Mew Series, Vol. I.
dress.
During Mb recent visits to the United States and
The United States Digest ; containing a Digest of Canada,
Robert W. Haynks secured mauy Friends
LAW 100
the Decisions of the Various Courts within the United and
Correspondents ; we are thus enabled to give ref
States.
erences of the highest character in must of the princi
palWeAmerican
BY BENJAMIN VAUGHAN ABBOTT.
have nocities.
connection whatever with any other
Embracing the REPORTS of all the leading New Series.
Tol. 1. Annual DIffeat for 1870. house
of business, and to prevent delay and miscar
Courts in this Country and England.
riage, our Correspondents abroad are respectfully re
Royal Sto. LawJSheep. 7.50.
quested to plainly address their letters to us ns fol
lows:
We hare a very full assortment of
III. MASSACHUSETTS! DIGEST.
STEVENS & HAYNES,
VOL, III.
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
New Text Books and Digests, THE MASSACHUSETTS DIGEST. Vol. III. Be
LONDON,
ing a Digest of the Decisions of the Supreme Judi
ENGLAND.
cial Court of Massachusetts, from the year 1857 to the
and an unusually full line of
year 1S9 ; or from the 9th Gray to the 102(1 Mass., in Extract from " Report of Jcurs Rosenthal, Esq.,
clusive. By Enxusn H. Bennett and Henby W.
Librarian to the President and Members of
BABE AND VALUABLE WORKS,
Holland.
the Chicago Law Institute." yovembertlS~0.
"To
our collection of English Reports a valuable
Royal 8vo. Law Sheep. Sj.
26
addition has been made by the importation of a
out of print, which we are offering' at lowest current
full and well preserved set of the House of Lords
Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 5S
prices.
volumes.
W A. IV T E i> :
" English books were imported directly free of
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the
We would also call attention to our superior facili
CLERK IN LA W OFFICE.
firm
of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose
ties for importing, being In monthly receipt of
Must write a good hand. Room 30, Nixon's Building.
diligence, promptness, and care in filling our or
2fip
ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
CONSIGNMENTS FROM LONDON
J. M. BATTEN,
THOMAS SHIRLEY,
STATIONER,
Attornetf. iil8 Clark St. Cor. Adams St.
185 LA SALLE STREET.
direct, which we are selling at unusually low figures.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
of Illinois, county of Cook, ss. Superior
Law Stationery and Legal Blanks.
19-30 courtState
of Cook county. April term, A. D. Ia72. Charles
A largo collection of Second-hand TextMeyer
v.
John
F. Marx.
Books, Dlffvafs and Report* kept constantly on
Public uotice is hereby given to the said John F.
Marx, that a writ of atttachment issued out of
hand.
the office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook
dated the l^th day of .-larch. A. D. 1S72,
Catalogues sent promptly upon application.
Iffi TREES! 8P PLANTS ! county,
at the suit of the said Charles Meyer, and agaiu.it
the
estate
of John F.dollars
Marx,directed
for the sum
one hunof
plower SEEDS!
dred and thirty-five
to theofsheriff
GARDEN
Cook county, which said writhasbeen returned execu
Address
Apple and Crab, 100 2 "to 4 ft., SM ; i to 6 ft., ftl. ted.Now, therefore, unless you, the said John F.
Pear, stand., extra, l.year, Bartlett, etc., 3 to 4 'St., Marx, shall personally be and appear before the
said oT
Superior
county,
or before
first
CALLAGHAN & CO., per doz., 82.50.
the nextconrt
termofCook
thereof,
to be on
holden
at thetheCourt
Seeds, Peach, bush., $2; Apple Osage, new, bush., day
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
April, A. D.action,
1-572, give
special bail
said
$12.
judgment
will and
be plead
enteredto the
against
525 Wabash Ave.,
Potatoes, Early; Rose, W'kiteCPeach Blow, per plaintiff's
you, and in favor of the said Charles Meyer, and so
much of the property attached as {may be sufficient
bush, $2.
satisfy the said judgment and costs will be sold to
Seedlings, 1000 Soft Maple, $1; Ash, S3: Elm, $2. to
CHICAGO, ILL.
Illustrated Catalogue 100 pages, and Price List, 10c. satisfy the same. AUGUSTUS JAC0BS0N. Clerk.
Taomas Shirley, Att'y.
15-27
F. K. PHCENIX, Bloomlngton, HI.
13-27

Qhicago

Jegal

"Mews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by the Chicaqo Legal News Company, in the'offlce of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 27.

U Courts.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
December Term, 1871.
The County of Bath et al. v. Henry Amy.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United statufor
the District of Kentucky.
JURISDICTION OF U. S. CIRCUIT COURT TO
ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
That the power to Issue a writ of mandamus as
an original and Independent proceeding, does not
belong to the Circuit Courts, and Is authorized only
when ancillary to jurisdiction already acquired,
and cannot operate as an enlargement of jurisdic
tion.Ed. Leual News.
Mr. Justice Strong delivered the
opinion of the Court.
It must be considered as settled that
the circuit courts of the United States
are not authorized to issue writs of man
damus, unless they are necessary to the
exercise of their respective jurisdictions.
Those courts are creatures of statute, and
they have only so much of the judicial
power of the United States as the acts of
Congress have conferred upon them.
The judiciary act of 1789, which estab
lished them, by its eleventh section en
acted that they shall have original cog
nizance, concurrently with the courts of
the several States, of " all suits of a civil
nature at common law, or in equity," be
tween a citizen of the State in which
the suit is brought and a citizen of
another State, or where an alien is a
party. While it may be admitted that,
in some senses, the writ of mandamus
may properly be denominated a suit at
law, it is still material to inquire whether
it was intended to be embraced in the
gift of power to hear and determine all
suits at common law, ef a civil nature,
conferred by the judiciary act. At the
time when the act was passed it was a
high prerogative writ issuing in the
king's name only from the court of
king's bench, requiring the performance
of some act or duty, the execution of
which the court had previously deter
mined to be consonant with right and
justice. It was not, like ordinary pro
ceedings at law, a writ of right, and the
court had no jurisdiction to grant it in
any case except those in which it was
the legal judge of the duty required to
be performed. Nor was it applicable, as
a private remedy, to enforce simple com
mon-law rights between individuals.
Were there nothing more, then, in the
judiciary act than the grant of general
authority to take cognizance of all suits
of a civil nature at common law, it
might well be doubted whether it was
intended to confer the extraordinary
powers residing in the British court of
king's bench to award prerogative writs.
All doubts upon this subject, however,
are set at rest by the 14th section of the
same act, which enacted that circuit
courts shall have " power to issue writs
of scire facias, habeas corpus, and all
other writs not specially provided for by
statute, which may be necessary to the
exercise of their respective jurisdictions
and agreeable to the principles and
usages of law." Among those other
writs, no doubt, mandamus is included ;
and this special provision indicates that
the power to grant such writs generally
was not understood to be granted by the
11th section, which conferred, only to a
limited extent, upon the circuit courts the
judicial power existing in the govern
ment under the Constitution, Power to is
sue such writs is granted by the 14th section.but with the restriction that theyshall
be necessary to the exercise of the juris
diction given. Why make this grant if
it had been previously made in the 11th
section? The limitation only was needed.
This subject has heretofore been under
consideration in this court, and in Mclntyre v. Wood (7 Cranch, 504) it was
unanimously decided that the power of
the Circuit Courts to issue the writ of
mandamus is confined exclusively to
those cases in which it may be necessary
to the exercise of their jurisdiction.

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, APRIL 13, 1872.

The court said : "Had the 11th section
of the judiciary act covered the whole
ground of the Constitution, there would
be much reason for exercising this power
in many cases wherein some ministerial
act is necessary to the completion of an
individual right arising under the laws
of the United States, and the 14th sec
tion of the act would sanction the issu
ing of the writ for such a purpose. But,
although the judicial power ofthe United
Slates extends to cases arising under the
laws of the U. States, the Legislature have
not thought proper to delegate the ex
ercise of that power to its Circuit Courts,
except in certain specified cases." And
in McClung v. Silliman (6 Wheat., 601),
this court said, when speaking of the
power to issue writs of mandamus :
The 14th section of the act under con
sideration (the judiciary act) could only
have been intended to vest the power
* * * in cases where the jurisdiction
already exists, and not where it is to be
courted or acquired by means of the writ
proposed to be sued out." In other
words, the writ cannot be used to confer
jurisdiction which the circuit court
would not have without it. It is author
ized only when ancillary to a jurisdic
tion already acquired. The doctrine as
serted in both these cases was conceded
to be correct by both the majority and
the minority of the court in Kendall v.
The United States (12 Peters, 584) ; see
also McGarrahau v. The Secretary (9
Wallace, 311. The power to issue a writ
of mandamus as an original and in
dependent proceeding does not, then,
belong to the circuit courts.
It has been argued, on behalf of the
defendant in error, that the writ of man
damus is a civil action in Kentucky ;
that the proceedings therein were regu
lated by an act of the Legislature of that
State, approved January 8, 1813, still in
force, which directed now a traverse to
the return shall be tried in the State
courts, and what judgment may be pro
nounced, and that the act of Congress of
May19, 1828, directed that the proceedings
in suits at common law in States admitted
to the Union since 1789, of which Ken
tucky is one, shall be the same in the
federal courts as those used, when the
act was passed, in the highest courts of
original and general jurisdiction in those
States. Hence it is inferred that the
law of Kentucky respecting mandamus
has been adopted as a part of the rule
of practice of the United States Circuit
Court -for that State. The argument
rests on a misapprehension of the mean
ing of the act of 1828. It was a process
act, designed only to regulate proceed
ings in the federal courts after they had
obtained jurisdictionnot to enlarge
their jurisdiction. The purpose was to
make the forms of process and forms
and modes of proceeding in those courts
correspond with the forms and modes in
use in the State courts. The words of the
act are, " that the forms of mesne pro
cess, except the style, and the forms and
modes of proceeding in suits in the
courts of the United States held in those
States admitted into the Union since the
29th day of September, in the year 1789,
in those of common law, shall be the
same in each ef the said States respect
ively, as are now used in the highest
court of original and general jurisdiction
of the same." It is quite too much to in
fer from this an enlargement ofjuris
diction, or an adoption of all the powers
which the State courts then had. There
is, then, no act of Congress which has
conferred upon circuit courts authority
to issue the writs of mandamus as an or
iginal proceeding, or at all, except when
necessary for the exercise of the juris
diction conferred upon them by law.
Applying this rule to the present case
it is decisive. The relator applied to
the circuit court for a mandamus to com
pel the levy and collection of a tax to
pay certain coupons or interest warrants
attached to bonds alleged to have been
issued by the county of Bath, and to be

long to him. His claim for payment had

not been brought to judgment in the
court, nor had it been put in suit. His
application for a mandamus was, there
fore, an original proceeding, neither
necessary nor ancillary to any jurisdic
tion which the court then had. For this
reason it should have been denied, and
the judgment that a peremptory manda
mus should issue was erroneous.
This renders it superfluous to consider
the other objections urged against the
jurisdiction.
The judgment of the circuit court is re
versed, and the cause is remanded with
instructions to dismiss the petition for
a mandamus.
U. S. DISTRICT CO CRT, W. D. OF
MISSOURI.
Ecfort & Petring, Petitioning Creditors, v. Wji.
F. Urkely.
INSOLVENCYINTENT TO DEFRAUD CREDIT
ORSWHAT CLAIM PROVABLE.
The court states :
1st What claims or debts are provable under
the bankrupt law, 'against the estate of a bank
rupt.
2nd. What constitutes insolvency.
3rd. What constitutes a transfer, sale or convey
ance by a bankrupt of his property, with intent
to delay, hinder or defraud his creditors.Ed. Le
gal News.
Opinion of the court by Krekel, J.
This case calls for the determination
of two questions.
First : Did Ecfort & Petring have a
claim or debt provable under the bank
rupt law ? and
Second : Did Greely make a transfer,
sale or conveyance of his property with
intent to delay, hinder, or defraud his
creditors ? The evidence as to the first
question is, that Greely was a partner of
a mercantile firm, (Brutsche & Greely,)
which, in the fall of 1867, became embar
rassed and asked an extension of time,
which was granted by their creditors, of
whom Ecfort & Petring were the larg
est, they having a claim of upwards of
thirty-two hundred dollars.
In the spring ofthe year, 1868, the firm,
finding that they could not meet their
liabilities, entered into a composition
agreement with their creditors, by which
they were to pay 50 cents on the dollar,
and which was paid to all except Ec
fort & Petring, whom they proposed to
pay in full, if they would give a large
extension of time. This proposition was
accepted by Ecfort & Petring, on con
dition that they would secure them as
far as they were able. This the debtor
firm agreed to do, and afterwards assign
ed two judgments, which amounted,
when collected, to thirteen hundred and
forty dollars. They also made a convey
ance of a lot in Jerome, a station on the
present Atlantic & Pacific Railroad at its
crossing of the Gasconade river, which
was estimated at 2,500 dollars. As to the
nature of this conveyance a controversy
arises, Greely claiming that the assign
ment of the judgments and conveyance
was in full satisfaction of the Ecfort &
Petring indebtedness, while it is claimed
by the latter firm that the conveyance,
though in form absolute, was collateral
only. The extension above referred to
was granted on the 20th day of Septem
ber, 1867, as shown by the notes execu
ted on that day ; the compromise with
the creditors the spring following, 1868,
and the assignment of judgments and
deed on the 16th day of March, 1869.
On the day of the assignment of the
judgments and the making of the deed,
two papers were signed by Ecfort &
Petring and delivered to Greely, who
produce them in court, one receipting
for the judgments, closing with these
words: "And the amounts realized on
said judgments to be placed to their
credit as soon as received by us ;" the
other staling that they had received
Brutsche & Greely's warranty deed for
lots 11 and 12 in block 24 in Jerome,
with the improvements thereon, valued
at 2,500 dollars, and proceeding to say :
" And we hereby agree with Messrs.
Brutsche & Greely to return them said

Whole No. 185.

property within twelve months from
date, provided they shall by that time
have liquidated their indebtedness," and
setting out that the deed was in the
name of Kleinschmidt. Construing
these papers together, it is difficult to
arrive at the conclusion that a final set
tlement and payment of the indebted
ness of Ecfort & Petring was thereby
intended. The assignment of the judg
ments shows upon its face, that the
amount realized therefrom should be
credited on the indebtedness. But aside
from this, the amount of the judgments
and the estimated value of the Jerome
property is far greater than any claim
Ecfort & Petring had against Brutsche
& Greely, and it is not to be supposed
that they would pay more than their
debt.
The peculiarity of the language of the
receipt for the deed is easily understood
when examined in the light of the ev
idence. Greely was deeply interested in
Jerome, and hoped to be able to control
the influence of the railroad company to
again make it the terminus, for a time
at least, of the railroad then building,
and hence his desire to have the right
to possess the property he had improved
and occupied at one time. The witness
es, except Greely, are unanimous in
declaring the Jerome property valueless
in 1869, the time it was conveyed. The
receipt itself speaks of a then existing
indebtedness, and only when that had
been paid was it to be effective. If any
doubt as to the nature of the convey
ance could still exist, a letter of Febru
ary 1, 1870, addressed by Ecfort & Pet
ring to Greely, and the response thereto,
would solve it. Among other matters,
Ecfort & Petring write : " We also re
quest you to come-forward and settle off
the old affair, as we are informed that
you are amply able to do so," to which a
response comes, dated February 7th, say
ing : "As soon as I can manage to pay
the balance due on B. & G.'s debt, I will
do so, meantime it is secured by the judg
ment assigned to you, which will be
paid. ***** I must beg pardon
for not calling on you before this, upon
this matter, but will do so shortly and
explain you my situation financially."
There never was a claim that a final
settlement and payment had been made
with Ecfort & Petring set up by Greely
until about the time of the suits which
E. & P. instituted. The notes were
never given up by E. & P., and the at
tempt Dy Greely to explain why this
was not done is unsatisfactory. Besides
all this, the evidence in the cause great
ly preponderates in favor of the deed
being intended as collateral.
The difficulty which might arise in
holding that the possessor of collater
als is entitled to sue without having ex
hausted his security, is removed by the
concurring testimony of all the witnesses
that the Jerome property is comparative
ly valueless.
Attention has been called to the course
E. & P. saw cause to pursue in first hav
ing instituted suit in the Circuit court of
the county in which Greely resides, and
that when Greely appears and puts in a
plea of payment, the plaintill's dismiss
their suit and make the present applica
tion. The causes assigned by the peti
tioning creditors as acts of bankruptcy on
the part of Greely, the disposing of his
property with the intent to hinder, de
lay or defraud his creditors while the
suit in the Circuit court was pending,
would seem to explain what caused the
getitioning creditors to move in the
ankrupt court. Be that, however, as it
may, their right to do so is beyond dis
pute.
The first question must be folved in
favor of petitioning creditors, as having
an existing indebtedness provable in
bankruptcy.
The second question did Greely
make a disposition of his property with
the intent to delay, hinder, or defraud
his creditors ?presents more difficulty ;
and in order to arrive at a conclusion, it

2IO

Chicago

Legal

News.

becomes necessary to carefully examine out of his usual and ordinary course of red the matter to me to examine the
the evidence. We find Greely, in 1867, business. He disposes of another part law and the evidence and report there
engaged as a merchant, partner of the of his goods, drawing an order for the on ; and having examined all the ev
firm of Brutshe & Greely, doing busi pay thereof in favor of one of his credi idence submitted by each party, and the
ness on the line of the present Atlantic tors. He turns in and sells his store argunieuts of counsel for the assignee
and Pacific Railroad. In the fall of 1867 house (which he had before rented for a and of the messenger in person, I have
they became embarrassed, obtained an year), the purchaser assuming a mort -now the honor to make my report.
The charges made by the Marshal and
extension of time, and in the spring of gage of 1,000 dollars, and giving him a
1868 compromising with their creditors note for 1,500 dollars, " payable at any excepted to, are as follows :
at fifty cents. The same partners con bank in St. Louis," for the balance. 1st. July 28, 1870. Serving the original or
tinue business for about eighteen months, When payment of the note is enjoined, der In Mercer Co, with copies of the pe
tition, and mileage, - - - - - $ 37 75
to September, 1869, when thev dissolve, under the bankruptcy proceedings, he 2nd.
28. Serving warrant at same
Greely undertaking to settle up the tells the payee that it is in the hands of timeJuly
and expenses of deputy - 78 90
affairs of the partnership. Greely tes an innocent purchaser, and that he will 3d. March 17. Serving copies of order and
21 50
tifies that out of the affairs of said part have to pay it. The attempted explan 4th.mileage
March 18. Copy oi warrant, mileage,
nership there remained to him about ation made by Greeley of the conversa
aud cost of advertising
...
1260
2,000 dollars, but this statement comes in tion, in which he is charged to have said .th. March 18. Notice to creditors by mail,
service, poRtflge and mileage - 12 90
conflict with his partner, who swears he this, leaves at least a very unfavorable Cth.
Apr. 21. Serving order in Mercer Co.,
never got more than 300 dollars out of impression aB to what he meant by it. copy
and mileage
- - - 21 50
the assets of the firm, which he himself We find the note, after it becomes due, 7th. Apr. 21. Copies of inventories. 85,76,
conmission for distributions, $5.50
- 11 32
collected. The Ecfort & Fetring debt in his hands, with no design to transfer 8th.
8. Postage aud materials 1 30
remains unsettled. Greely comuiences it to his creditors, as far as known, cer 9th. Apr.
1870. Two keepers' fees from Febru
business in the fall of 1869 on his own tainly with no effort on his part to turn ary 2nd to Mav 2nd, DO days, at 82.50 per
- - . - - - - 450 00
account, insures, is burned out in 1870, it into the channel of paying his debts. day eachand -keeping
horsea, not ascertain
and commences anew soon after the fire. When asked whether he is going to con Expenses
ed, in addition to these items, he claims
He had purchased his homestead in tinue in business at Marshlield, he em
in hi* reply to the assignee, " for care,
and responsibility incurred in
the fall of 1869, and improved it after phatically asserts that he is, while he trouble
wards by expending from 3 to 5,000 himself testifies that he was preparing this cuse," for 9 months, an allowance of 100 00
dollars, as variously estimated by the to go to Mississippi to engage in railroad
No affidavit showing the .items of his
witnesses. He also builds a store-house enterprises. The question of intent to disbursements, that the same were acton one of his lots, expending about 2,000 hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors, dually paid and were necessary and rea
dollars, in the meantime carrvinsr a stock must ' be solved by looking at what sonable, is annexed by the Marshal to
of from 5 to 10,000 dollars. He estimates Greely said and did, and the effect his fee bill, but for the purposes of this
his property at the time these proceed thereof. That the effect of the disposi examination, I will assume that the same
ings were instituted in round numbers tion which Greely had in part made of has been filed. No evidence or state
as worth 21,500 dollars, consisting of his property when he was stopped by ment has been furnished as to the na
store goods, 6,000 dollars; homestead, the bankruptcy proceedings was to hin ture of the services involving "care,
$8,000 ; Jerome property, $1,000 ; notes der arid delay his creditors, this court trouble and responsibility," rendered by
and accounts, $3,000 ; mining stock, has not the least doubt, That he must the Marshal beyond the services neces
$1,000; store, $1,500 (after deducting have known this to l>e the case, may sarily attendant on the service of pro
mortgage of $1,600) ; Verona real estate, readily bo inferred from what he said to cess, for which he claims an allowance
$1,000, making up the amount. When Potter, that goods could be more readily of $100 beyond taxable costs, and there
he is asked, how he has accumulated so made available to pay debts than real fore I am unable to express any opinion
much property in so short a time, under estate. If there were anv doubts as to upon it.
such adverse circumstances, he accounts Greely's intention to hinder or delay
In testing the amount of the costs tax
for it, by large profits, which he claims his creditors generally in the collection able to the Marshal as messenger, the
fo have "made, without in any way sup of their debts, there can be none as to court will be governed by the 47th sec
porting this affirmation. The evidence Ecfort & Petring. From the moment tion of the bankrupt act and by Rule
shows that the $3,000 of accounts, and they instituted suit he declared his inten XII of the Supreme court, but it was ev
$1,000 mining stock are utterly valueless. tion not. to pay them, and the reason he ident that it was not the intention
Add to this a SI ,500 homestead, and. the assigns for so doing is by no means of Congress to limit the fees of the Mar
assets, as estimated by himself, are re satisfactory to the court. The plea put shal for all services which he may prob
duced to 16,000. Of debts, he recounts forth, that they had received payment ably render to the four items enumera
from memory, 6,000 dollars due to vari by the assignment of the judgments and ted in that section, because the section
ous merchants, add 1,800 dollars to the Jerome deed, has so little to support further provides " that for cause shown,
Ecfort & Petring, and 3,500 dollars ob it in the evidence, thai it must be re and upon hearing thereon, such further
tained of his father-in-law, and mort jected as conclusive, or persuasive even. allowance may be made as the court in
gaged on homestead, 400 dollars, and we The fact that Ecfort & Petring were the its discretion may determine."
have nearly 12,000 dollars of liabilities, largest creditors of Brutche & Greely,
In view of the statute and of the rule,
all due. except the 3,500 dollars obtained and headed the composition agreement and of the authorities cited, it seems to
from his father-in-law, of which he savs entered into by them with their credi me clear, that rules to be observed in
he does not know whether that is a debt tors, and without which they could not taxing costs to the messenger, are : First.
or not, but that he gave a paper acknowl have succeeded in obtaining the terms To allow him such fees as are specific
edging the receipt of the money.
thev did, and afterwards trying to secure, ally enumerated by law, and Secondly,
Witnesses estimate the Greeley prop and" now claiming, their whole debt, ar Such other fees not included in the
erty variously at from 12 to 15,000 dol rested the attention of the court, and enumerated fees as he may show him
lars. All agree, that if the property, had there been anything in the testi self to have earned ;the items of which
situate as it is, had to be sold within say mony showing bad faith on their part to be determined by analogy to those
six or nine months, it would not bring toward the other creditors, the court allowed for similar services rendered by
over one-half of their estimates. It will would not be slow in ordering them not the Marshal in this court, in cases at
thus be seen that by very careful man to come here without clean hands. But common law and in chancery.
I think if he sends process by mail to
agement Greeley might be able to pay not the least testimony tending in the
his debts, provided his own time were direction of bad faith has been given by his deputy in a distant county for ser
given him. But to be solvent, when a any one, and hence the transaction must vice, he is entitled to mileage on that pro
merchant, does not mean that he can be looked upon as made bona fide. In cess, and if he sends a deputy from the
pay his debts in the manner suggested. compromises of tliis character, it may be court house to such distant county for
In a late case, the Supreme Court of well to remark, there should not only be service, he is entitled to be paid the rea
the United States, December Term, 1871, the utmost good faith among the credi sonable expenses of such deputy, but in
with precision defines insolvency, when tors, but it would be well to avoid every that event he is not entitled to mileage.
applied to merchants and traders. The thing calculated to throw the shadow of Believing this to be a correct view of
the law, ( and substantially the same
Court says : " It is sometimes used to a doubt upon them.
The first question; as to an existing, as it has been administered by this court
denote the insufficiency of the entire
property and assets of an individual to provable debt, having been answered in this District, I now proceed to retax
the cost bill under consideration, with
pay his debts. This is the general and in favor of petitioning creditors ;
The second question Did Greely this remark, that although the adminis
popular meaning. But it is also used in
a more restricted sense, to express the make a disposition of his property with tration of the bankrupt law and its ope
inability of a party to pay his debts as intent to hinder and delay his creditors? ration en bankrupts' effects are uni
they become due in the ordinary course being also answered in the affirmative ; form in all the judicial districts of the
Greely is, therefore, declared a bank United States, the duties imposed upon
of business. It is in this latter sense
the officers acting under the law, and
that the term is used when traders and rupt, and adjudged accordingly.
Luebke & Player and Judson, for the taxation of their costs, is not.
merchants are said to be insolvent, and
Neither section 47 nor Rule XII spec
as applied to them, it is the sense in creditors.
Phelps & McAfee, for defendant.
ifies all the services which the Marshal
tended by the Act of Congress." Ap
as messenger may be called upon to per
plying this definition to the case before
the Court, Greely may well be said to By the kidness of the law firm of Moux- form, and, therefore, no tariff of fees
be insolvent, with more than 8,000 dol ton & Johnson, of Cincinnati, we have covering all the acts which the messen
ger may be called upon to perform, has
lars of debts due, and unable to pay two received the following opinion :
been prescribed, either by Congress or
comparatively small claims presented to
him, at the very time he was making U. S. DISTRICT COURT, S. D. OF OHIO. the Supreme court, but the taxation of
such fees is left to the discretion of the
such large and sudden changes in his
court.
. 4
property. It is true, that this question RETAXATIONInOFBankruptcy.
MARSHAL
AND
MESSEN
Cost bill as retaxed :
of insolvency is not directly in issue, but GER'S COSTS.
the effect it has upon determining what
Jan. 28, 1870. To serving five defts. and
Report of Ball, Register.
parties in Mercer Co. w ith order - 8 10 00
a debtor may do or not do with his prop
Jan
28. Three copies petition on defts.
This matter comes before the court on $6.00,
erty, under such circumstances as are
copies
82.25,
shown, is too obvious to need elucida an appeal from the decision of the Reg Jan. 28. Warrant of seizure, 82.00 ; 1 copy 8 25
3 50
tion. We find Greeley merchandising ister at Columbus, to whom this cause 81.50
28. To expenses deputy sent to
with a stock of goods estimated by him was referred, whereby he sustains the Jan.
Mercer
Co..
$29.30,
telegrams,
31
90
at near 6,000 dollars, exchanging the exceptions taken by the assignee to the Jan 28. Wages, deputy in possession, 9
days
after
seizure,
at
82.00,
18
00
one-half thereof, the shelf goods and bill of costs of the messenger.
18. Servingorderadjudicatlonontwo
broken packages, for small pieces of The messenger now seeks redress from Men.
parties, S4 : copy 50c ; mileage, 817, 21 50
realty and two second-hand billiard the court, and the court by its special Mch.
18. Preparing notice publication, 40c.
paid printers,S9.60,
10 00
tables, a transaction plainly shown to be order, dated October 20, 1871, has refer

Mch. 18. Preparing notice 1st meeting,

11 (
87.00 ; services, $3.00 ; postage, $1.00,
Apr. 21. Serving order on two keepers to
deliver SI copy, 50c;
4 50
Apr. 21. Copies of inventories, - - 6 76Mav
2.
90
davs
keeper's
fees,
at
$2.00
each
per day, .- - -
- - 860 00'
Total,
$485 01
The messenger is also entitled to be
refunded the sum paid for keeping
horses, when ascertained.
There is no rule of law or practice,,
authorizing the messenger to charge a,
commission upon his own cost bill.
There is no analogy between such a
claim and a claim for two per cent,
against the government allowed him by
law, upon his disbursements' for the ex
penses of the Courts in the payment of
jurors, witnesses and othens, out of the
funds placed in his hands for such pur
poses. The charge of $1.30 for post
age and material is, I Ihink, covered by
the amounts which I have above allowed.
If it should appear that the deputy Whowas sent to Mercer county, acted as one
of the keepers of the property seized,
then, inasmuch as such fees are already
included in the item of $360, the item of
$18 above allowed him for nine days
should be stricken out, which would re
duce my finding to $467.01. I have been
obliged" to consider this matter without
having all the papers in the cause be
fore me, and was, therefore, obliged to
grope somewhat in the dark, and mayr
therefore, have made mistakes. It
seems to be conceded on the par), of the
assignee, that the Marshal performed
his duty promptly and faithfully, and to
the entire satisfaction of the petitioning
creditors, and, therefore, if I have lean
ed at all it has been on the .side of the
Marshal.
His biH of costs, however, is too vague
to serve as a precedent hereafter. He
should have stated the kinds of processes
served and also the number of notices
sent by him, and also, what expenses
were paid and to whom, so that the
court could judge whether they were
correct and necessary ; but it is a matter
of long standing, and lapse of time in
creases the difficulties attendant upon
the ascertainment of the exact amounts
due him, with judicial.certainty.
Respectfully submitted.
F. Ball, Register.
Our thanks are due C. Canning Smith,
of the Memphis bar, for the. following
opinion :
V. S. CIRCUIT COURT, W. DISTRICT
OF TENNESSEE.
Opinion Filed at Memphis, March
28, 1872.
John Donovan v. Thompson Dean.
Action in case demurrer to the declaration.
ACTION BY A STOCKHOLDER AGAINST A PER
SON FOR MALICIOUSLY SUING OUT AN INJUN'CTION AGAINST A CORPORATION OF
WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A STOCKHOLDER,
1. llfld, that an action cannot be maintained at
the suit of an individual stockholder againbt a
person for maliciously and wrongfully suing out
an injunction against the corporation of which
the plaintiff is a stockholder.
2. That if the plaintiff could maintain this ac
tion, every stockholder in Uie plaintiff's company
who has likewise been damaged, and every cred
itor and employee might likewise bring suit for
his damage, thus multiplying actions limited only
by the number of the stockholders, creditors and
employees ; that the corporation has brought its
action for the damage it has sustained, for the act
alleged in this plaintiff's ^declaration, and may
rightfully prosecute its suit against the defendant,
but that there is no right of action in this plaintiff
for the defendant's act in prosecuting his com
pany.
3. That all sums which could be recovered for
injury done to the capital stock, by wasting, im
pairing and diminishing its value, would belong
tothe corporation as assets, and forwhich italone
may sue. Through it the stockholders would be
entitled to receive any surplus remaining after
paying its liabilities.Ed. Leual News.
Opinion of the court by Withey, J.
This suit was commenced February 7, .
1871, in the State court, and removed to
this court in March following. The de
claration alleges, in substance, that Don
ovan was a stockholder and creditor, and
president of the Gayoso Gas Co. at a
large salary ; that Dean, with intent to
injure plaintiff and said Gas Company,
and to prevent him from receiving what
the company owed him, and from real
izing profits on his investments in said
company, and to prevent the construc
tion of the works, maliciously, and with
out probable cause, sued out an injunc
tion restraining the Gas Company from
constructing their works, and restrain
ing the city of Memphis from subscribe
ing for stock, falsely pretending that de
fendant's gas company, of wliicli he was
a stockholder, had the exclusive right,
and that defendant's company refused to

Chicago
take proper proceedings to protect the
rights of its stockholders: that said
Dean, well knowing that Donovan had
embarked his capital and was president
of the Gayoso Gas Company, at a large
salary, and, as presi lent, had made con
tracts for materials and had employed
laborers, and had thereby risked his
credit, commercially, and his character
as a skillful manager of said company,
which acts of defendant delayed trie
plaintiffs company and prevented it from
completing its works, and from obtain
ing large incomes and revenues, and in
jured it in the loss of credit, rendered its
success doubtful, and prevented the city
from subscribing $250,000 of the stock of
said company, whereby the plaintiff
has been greatly injured by the inability
of plaintiff's company to repay him
money advanced, breaking down his
credit, loss of time and labor, and failure
to receive large emoluments and profits
which he would have received liad plaintiff's company gone into oiieration. ' And
also was greatly injured in his credit,
and lost his capital and labor, and has
been wholly ruined, etc., to his damage,
$100,000.
A demurer was filed to the declaration
after the cause came to this court, the
grounds of which are :
1. That plaintiff, either as a stock
holder, officer, or creditor of the Gayoso
Gas Company, cannot maintain" an ac
tion to recover damages for the matters
complained of.
2. That the damages are not such as
can be recovered in an action by this
plaintiff, the game being remote, conse
quential and speculative, and not imme
diate or proximate :
3. The declaration is uncertain, indefi
nite, informal and insufficient.
. It is contended by the plaintiff that
while this suit is based upon a cause of
action both new and original in instance,
it is not such in principle. New, because
such a state of facts has never been pre
sented in the transactions of lifje. That
while the plaintiff was injured pecunia
rily, in common with and as a member
of the Gayoso Gas' Company, the act of
defendant, in suing out the injunction,
against plaintiff's company, thereby pre
venting it from prosecuting its works,
etc., injuriously affected the property
and commercial rights of this plaintiff
and of every stockholder in plaintiff's
company, and, also, of every one who
by contract was to receive values from
the company. That such parties were
all affected in matters of direct values, of
which the law takes cognizance; that
the injuries complained of are not in
any sense damnuvi absque injuria.
Especially is it claimed, that as the
act of defendant was willful and mali
cious, and as plaintiff held no contract
relative with defendant in the corpora
tion injured, may this action be main
tained. Again, it is urged that evert' a
stockholder in a corporation may main
tain an action against the officers of his
own corporation for a fraudulent over
issue of stock ; citing Cazeaux v. Mali,
25 Barb., 578.
Hence it is argued that if defendant's
act, charged to be willful and malicious,
had the effect to reduce the value of the
stock of plaintiff's company, to injure its
credit, or render it unable to pay its
officers' salaries, or its creditors, each
and every such person has a right of ac
tion, as also the company, against de
fendant, especially as lie is not a stock
holder in plaintiff's company.
The court is of opinion that the
. grounds urged by plaintiff to maintain
his action, nave no foundation in law,
and therefore the demurrer must be sus
tained.
There are cases that by' analogy and
upon principle arc decisive of this ac
tion. But first, looking at the case relied
upon, to some extent by plaintiff, of
Cozeaux v. Mali and others, 25 Barb.,
supra. Defendants were officers of a
coal company, and fraudulently issued
128,000 shares of stock beyond what the
company was authorized to issue. Plain
tiffs owned 800 shares of the stock of the
company, and purchased 2ft0 shares of
the fraudulent issue. The over issue was
not a stock of the company, and the
company was not liable for the same,
and the court expressly place the liabil
ity of the officers upon the ground that
the company could not maintain an ac
tion against its officers for a damage to
the individual holders of its stock, or of
the fraudulent issue ; the capital of the
company was not impaired by the act of

Legal

News.

its officers in the over issue, as it cortsti- collection of which there was an ade
tuted no liability against it. Those who quate remedy at law, by an action of as
had sustained damages by reason of the sumpsit as for money paid by Kckert on
the account of Dewey, at his request. Ad
over issue could alone sue.
In Smith v. Hurd and others, 12 Met- mitting that the court below had juris
calf, Shaw, Chief Justice, in an action diction to adjudge the indebtedness, as
brought by an individual stockholder of no objection to it was taken there, or
shares In an incorporated bank, against that the court had jurisdiction to enforce
the directors for various ads of negli or set off the claim upon the outstand
gence and malfeasance, in consequence ing note against Eckert, in favor of
of which the whole capital of the bank Dewey, yet that would not justify the de
was wasted and lost and the shares of cree in respect to the lands described in
*
the plaintiff became of no value : held, the bill.
Eckert should first have reduced his
that the action could not be maintained.
1st. Because there is no legal privity, re demand to a judgment, before he could
lation or immediate connection between come into a court of equity and question
the holders of shares in a bank, in their the disposition of the debtor's property,
individual capacity, on the one side, and and subject it to the satisfaction of his
the directors of the bank on the other. dobt. Unless the creditor has a certain
2d. The individual members of a cor claim upon the property of the debtor,
poration, whether they all join, or each he has no concern with his frauds. Un
acts severally, have no right or power to der the circumstances of this case, Eck
intermeddle with the property or con ert might have proceeded by attachment
cerns of the corporation, or call any offi against the property alleged to have
cer, agent, or servant to account, or dis been fraudulently conveyed, obtained
charge them from liability. They are not his judgment, and then gone into equity
the legal owners of the property, and to remove the conveyance out of the
damage done to such property is not an way of his execution, or to subject the
injury to them for which they can sue. property to sale in satisfaction of his
3rd. All sums which could be recov judgment. Greenway et al. v. Thomas,
ered for injury done to the capital stock, et al., 14 111., 271 ; Getzler v. Saroni, 18
by wasting, impairing, and diminishing 111., 511 ; Wiggins v. Armstrong, 2 John.
its value, would belong to the corpora- | Ch. Pi., 144 ; McConnell v. Dickson, 43
tion as assets, and for which it alone may 111, !>!>.
The payments of money by Eckert al
sue. Through it the stockholders would
be entitled to receive any surplus re leged in the bill, gave him an action for
money paid, but created no lien or trust
maining after paying its liabilities.
Neither can a creditor maintain suit that authorized a court of equity to ren
against the individual officers of a corpo der the real' estate liable on account
ration for their negligence or malfeasance thereof, and the court had no power to
in managing the affairs of the corpora create a lien, beyond the general one
tion, resulting in injury to the stock and which follows from a decree for the pay
capital of the .corporation, which is an, ment of nionqy.
It could only recognize and.nforce a
indirect ami contingent injury to the
stockholder and creditor only. The lien created by the acts of the parties,
statute might give a remedy by action to and they created none. Our law does
not recognize equitable attachments.
both stockholder and creditor.
Again, in Smith v. Poor and others, 40 Bigelow et al. v. Andress et ah, 31 111.,
Maine, 416, it was held, that for the of- 322. This proceeding would virtually
flcial.misconduet of the officers of a cor be one, if it could be sustained as to the
poration, and fraud in the discharge of lands involved.
The decree of the court bekrw is re
their duties, they are responsible to the
corporation; and not to an individual versed and the cause remanded for fur
contractor with the corporation who has ther proceedings, in conformity with this
suffered damage in his contract through opinion.
the fraudulent acts of the directors. His
We are under obligations ,,po S. S.
remedy is against the company.
Now, the facts of the case at bar, dis Knoles, ofthe Petersburg bar, for the
closed by the declaration, ace, that plain following opinion :
tiff was president, stockholder and cred
CIRCUIT COURT OF MEHARD
itor of the Gayoso Gas Company, of
COUNTY, ILL.
Memphis, and the injury complained of Opinion Filed
at March Term, 1872.
is, that defendant wrongfully procured
from this court an injunction restrain In the Matteii ok the location of a Road.
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1870 UPON
ing plaintiff's corporation from proceed EKF&TTLAW
RELATING TO THE LOCATION
ing to finish its work, etc., and resulting THE
OF ROADS.
in injury to the plaintiff in various ways, Held. That the law of this State, in force previ
by the inability of the company to repay ous to the adoption of the Constitution of 1870, in
relation to the taking of land for the purpose of
him money advanced, breaking down laying
roads, isin conflict with the provisions
his credit, "loss of time and labor, and of that out
instrument and void; that compensation
failure to receive large emoluments and in such oases must be ascertained by a jury.En.
profits which ho would have received, Legal News.
had the gas company gone into opera
The opinion of the court was delivered
tion, etc.
by Turner, J.
, '. .,
If plaintiff can maintain this action,
This was a proceeding under the road
every stockholder in the plaintiff's com law, U.S. of 1845 and amendment of 1855,
pany who has likewise been damaged, to locate a road, on a petition presented
and every creditor and employee, may to the county commissioners, and pro
likewise bring suit for his damage, thus ceedings were hud and an order made
multiplying actions, limited only by the pursuant to that law, locating the road
number of the stockholders, creditors and fixing the damages as assessed by
and employees. The gas company has the three householders appointed by the
brought its action for the damage it has County court, and appeal taken to the
sustained for the act alleged in the plain Circuit court, where the appellant moves
tiff's declaration, and may rightfully pros to dismiss the proceedings, for the reason
ecute its suit against defendant, but there that they are unwarranted by the law
i6 no-right of action in this plaintiff for under t he Constitution of 1870. The Con
the defendant's act in prosecuting his stitution provides, Art. 2, sec. 13, " Pri
company.
vate property shall not be taken or
Demurrer sustained.
damaged for public use without just com
Hon.T. W. Brown and Col. Geo. Gantt pensation. Such compensation, when not
for plaintiff.
made by the State, shall be ascertained
Judge Wright, Judge Ellett, Gen. by a jury as shall be prescribed by law."
Humes and Col. McRea for defendant.
The Constitution being the supreme
law of the State, the question presented
Through the courtesy of Frank J. is, whether this law, which was in force
Crawford, of the Chicago bar, we have previous to its adoption, is or not clearly
in conflict with the express provisions of
received the following opinion :
the Constitution above quoted, for it is
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
a well recognized principle in deciding
Opinion Filed Jan. 22, 1872.
upon the constitutionality of a law, that
Leroy D. Dewey et al. v. Jonas Eckebt.
where the act of the Legislature is not
Error to lAtkiHe.
clearly in conflict with the Constitution,
BILL TO ENFORCE A CLAIM OR LIEN.
That the defendant should have first reduced the benefit of any doubt should be in fa
his demand to a judgment before he could come vor of sustaining the law. Establishing
into a court of equity and question i the disposi a public road over the land of an individ
tion of the debtor's property and subject it to the ual, is a taking of private property for
satisfaction of his dubt ; that unless the creditor public use. If the owner does not con
has a certain claim upon the property of the debt
or, he has no concern with his funds.Eo. Legal sent to such taking, and does not release
News.
any claim that he has for compensation,
Opinion of the court by Sheldon, J.
then it must be ascertained by a jury to
The causes of action set forth in the meet the requirements of the Constitu
bill were mere legal demands, for the tion. Does the law in question provide

211
any mode by which such compensation
can thus be ascertained?
It appears to me clearly that it does
not.
It is insisted on the argument, that
after all the requirements of the law
have been complied with in the county
commissioners' court, an appeal may be
taken to the Circuit court, where the de
mands of the Constitution can be met
by the intervention of a jury. It is also
conceded that there is no oilier tribunal
provided for in the law, where this re
quirement can be complied with, as the
county commissioners' court is not a ju
dicial body before which a jury could be
called for that purpose.
The Constitution being clear and ex
plicit upon that point, it is very evident
that without the intervention of a jury,
the proceedings would not be such a
compliance with its requirements as to
justify the takrng of the land for the
public highway.
The raw in question, makes the pro
ceedings for the establishment of a road,
complete, where the report of the view
ers and commissioners appointed to as
sess damages, are approved and recorded
in the county commissioners' court, un
less an appeal be taken to the Circuit
court ; yet it cannot be contended, that if
the proceedings were to stop in the
county commissioners' court, the road
would be a legal highway, or that the
owner of the' land would be divested of
the same. It must be admitted then,
that when all the requirements of that
law have been complied with, the de
mands of the Constitution have not
been satisfied, nor is it easy to conceive
how they could be satisfied by following
any of the provisions of that law.
The provision of the law for the assess
ment of damages or ascertaining com
pensation, by the appointment of three
householders, is, under the Constitution,
a nullity ; 'hence it is difficult to conceive
how anything in the form of legal pro
ceedings, which in themselves have no
validity, should be considered a necessary
part of the proceedings, to render any
final result legal. If such a principle
could be admitted, how could the final
result be obtained in the Circuit court ?
Suppose no one proposes to take an ap
peal from the county commissioners'
court, the county cannot do it, and then
the proceedings must necessarily fail for
want of the intervention of a jury under
the direction of a judicial tribunal.
The case of Rich v. Chicago, is refer
red to as authority to sustain the law un
der the Constitution, but as I understand
the decision of the Supreme court in
that case, it does not meet the difficulty
presented in this. In view of the public
necessities, it would be desirable to sus
tain the validity of the law, but it can
not be done ', in violation of well settled
principles, and the legislature alone can
afford relief.
The proceedings must be" dismissed.
FROM VI. KANSAS.
error must be shown affirmatively.
1. Where the record does not show all
the evidence in a cause, this court will
not indulge in far-fetched inferences in
order to reverse a decision of the district
court.(Opinion by Kingman, C. J.)
Hoffman v. Meter & Ouye.
PROCEEDS OF SALE..
2. Surplus on sale of Homestead^- Who en
titled to receive.If a homestead is sold
under forced sale, to pay the debt of A.,
and B. has a mortgage foreclosed upon
the same premises, B. is entitled to the
surplus arising from the sale after A.'s
clann is satisfied, he having a better lien
than other judgment creditors.lb.
1. Assigmnmt of a debt, operates as an
assignment of the security.An assignment
of a debt carries with it the mortgage
made to secure the debt, and ordinarily,
whoever owes the debt is likewise the
owner of the mortgage ; and as this is a
conclusion of law, it need not be averred
in a petition to foreclose the mortgage
when it plainly appears that the debt is
assigned.(Opinion by Kingman, C. J.)
Kurtz et al. v. Sponable et al.
CONTRACT.
2. StipulationMade in violation of law
is void.A mortgage made in July, 1868,
covenanted for the payment of the debt
secured and for twelve per cent, interest
thereon, and the further sum of two
hundred dollars liquidated damages, in
case of foreclosure of the mortgage : Held,
that the stipulation for liquidated dama
ges in such case is in contravention of
the law, and void.16.

2I2

Chicago

Legal

News.

will not cause that confusion in a digest debted to Stone, nor was he under any
liability to him ; that no summon*
that it would in a set of reports. Mr. legal
or other process was ever served upon
Abbott, in accounting for the delay that him to appear and answer to the action,
has of late years attended ihe produc nor did he know that an action was pend
tion of the annual volumes of the Di ing against him at the suit of Stone, which,
if he had known, he would have ap
gest, says some time will yet be required peared
and defended against it, and that
to overtake the flight of time, but as the first intimation of the suit was the
sures us as soon as the arrears can be execution in the hands of the sheriff, and
made up, the Digest for each year will that the judgment was obtained by
fraud and imposition on the court ren
appear by May of the year following. dering
it; and the further allegation, if
We recommend all our readers who are a summons issued against him and was
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
returned served, that the same is untrue
Our So-Called Free Library.On engaged in the practice of law, to secure and
was made by mistake or fraud.
Terms :
last Monday, Mayor Medill nominated this volume at once.
The prayer of the bill is, that unless
rwo Dollars per annum. In advance. Single cop and the Common Council confirmed the Gazzam's Treatise on the Bankrupt Stone consents to vacate this judgment
ies Ten Cents.
Law, containing all the Amendments with leave to complainant to plead any
following gentlemen as the first Board
to the Bankrupt Act, and copious notes and all defenses, that he be enjoined
covering the latest American and En from any further proceedings on the
THE LEAL NEWS OFFICE la at 119 of Directors of our Free Library : Thos.
West
Street. The Printing; Hoyne, R. F. Queal, D. L. Shorey, Wilglish Decisions reported to Oct. 1, 1871. judgment.
Establishment la at 13 N. Jefferson St.
By Audley W. Gazzam, editor " Na
An affidavit of Stone appears in the
lard Woodard, S. S. Hayes, J. W.
tional Bankruptcy Register," etc., etc. record as having been filed on the 28th
Sheahan, Herman Raster, Elliott An
Fourth edition. Albany, N. Y. : W. of March, 1870, the day the writ of in
We call attention to the following thony, and Julius Rosenthal. The Tri
C. Little & Co., Law Publishers and junction was awarded, in which he
opinions, reported at length in this bune says : " Each division of the city and
Booksellers. 1872. Sold by Callaghan states the time when the suit at law was
& Co., Law Booksellers, Chicago.
issue :
commenced by him, the 'return of the
each occupation is fairly represented,
This
edition iB much larger than any firBt summons not served, and of an
and
the
Board
contains
members
of
the
Publication op Legal Notices in
alios summons returned served on the
Daily and Weekly Newspapers.The Baptist, Univerealist, Methodist, Episco former one, and comprises 789 pages. complainant by the proper officer, on
Mr.
Gazzam
is
known
to
the
profession
palian,
Presbyterian,
Unitarian,
Catholic,
opinion of the Circuit Court, of this
the 31st of August, 1869, and stating fur
county, delivered by Farwell, J., concur Hebrew and Free Thinking sects, so that throughout the Union as the editor of ther the indebtedness of the complain
and that the judgment is just, and
red in by Williams, C. J., holding where there is no danger of any denominational the " Bankruptcy Register," the leading ant,
periodical upon this [branch of the law, denies all matters and things in the
a statute requires a legal notice to be pub management."
bill, alleged in conflict with the state
The Daily News complains because the which is also the principal authority ments in the affidavit. At the June
lished in a newspaper a given number
in
the
work.
The
index
is
very
cited
term, 1870, a motion was made by de
of weeks, that publication in a daily Irish element is not more fully repre
full and consists of 224 pages. This vol fendant, Stone, to dissolve the injunc
newspaper once a week for the given sented.
and the same was dissolved and
We consider the gentlemen selected ume contains the Bankrupt Law, notes tion,
number of weeks is not a sufficient pub
damages assessed and the bill dismissed.
to
the
decisions
of
the
courts
construing
all
men
of
experience
and
well
qual
lication, but that it must be in every
To reverse this decree, complainantopissue of the paper during the required ified for the position, but notwith it, and the forms necessary to be used in peals.
The first remark we deem it proper to
number of weeks ; that is, if it is a daily, standing this, must raise our voice bankrupt proceedings, and will be use make
is, as to the affidavit made by ap
once a day ; if a weekly, once a week. in favor of the one hundred and fifty ful not only to the profession but to pellee out of court and brought into the
every
man
of
business.
This
law
so
thousand
women
of
Chicago
who
are
Under this decision, the statute requir
record. We.' are .not advised of any .
ing an attachment or chancery notice to unrepresented on this Board. There is affects commercial transactions, that practice in a court of chancery, in this .
to allow of such an affidavit, and '
be published in a newspaper for four no public institution that women are every trader, if he wishes to save him State,
it has no such place in this1 record as toweeks, if such notice is published in a better fitted to participate in the man self loss, should be familiar with its pro entitle it to consideration by this court.
daily newspaper, it must be in every pa agement of, and would take greater in visions.
. The question now before us is, was the
The American Law Review. The motion to dissolve the injunction and
per issued during the four weeks, and if terest in, than the Library Association.
the bill properly allowed, or, in
in a weekly, it must be in every number Why is it, that Mayor Medill has entire April number of this valuable publica dismiss
other words, was the bill destitute of
issued during the required four weeks. ly ignored the women of our city in his tion is before us. Its contents are: equity on its face ?
selection ? Is it because he considers 1. Private International Courts ; 2. Fix
has been the practice^n this State,,
MandamusU. S. Circuit Courts. the law under which this library is or tures; 3. The Administration of Crim forItmany
years, to give to such a motion
The opinion of the Supreme Court of ganized does not allow of their appoint inal law in Scotland ; 4. Grain Elevators ; the effect of .a" demurrer to the bill for
the United States, upon the jurisdiction ment ? Under its provisions, the prop 5. Digest of English Law Reports ; 6. Se want of equity in the bill. It was said
of the Circuit Courts of the United States erty of all women in our city is taxed lected Digest of State Reports ; 7. Digest by the court in Bull et al. v. Stiles et al.,
35 111., 305, that a motion to dismiss in
to issue writs of mandamus.
just as much as the property of men for of Cases in Bankruptcy ; 8. Book No such a case, might be regarded as an
Insolvency Intent to Defraud. its support. In the name ofjustice, then, tices ; 9. List of Law Books published in oral demurrer.
The office ofa demurrer to a bill in chan
The opinion of the U. S. District Court the property of women being liable to be England and ^America since January, cery
is to bring the merits of the cosetaxed
for
the
support
of
this
library,
we
for the W. D. of Missouri, delivered by
1872 ; 10. Summary of Events.
before the court. It admits all the facts
The articles upon Private Internation well pleaded, and asks the judgment of
Krekel, J., denning what constitutes in ask that they be allowed an equal voice
al Courts and Fixtures will well repay a the court ifj upon the facts so admitted,
solvency, what claims are provable in with men in its management.
complainant is entitled to the relief'
careful reading. Criminal Law in Scot the
bankruptcy as against the estate of a
he asks, or to have the matters of the
land, though well written, will not be of bill adjusted in his favor.
bankrupt, and what constitutes a trans
decent ^JufiltcationB.
The same is the office of a motion tomuch benefit to the American lawyer.
fer sale or conveyance by a bankrupt
with intent to delay, hinder or defraud United States Digest ; Containing a The Book Notices are exceedingly good dismiss. It admits the facts alleged in
bill and calls for the judgment of
Digest of Decisions of the various and tell some', truths that ought to be the
his creditors.
the court upon them.
Courts
within
the
United
States.
By
profitably received by the authors. The
this view, we are clear, the motion
Re-Taxing Costs in Bankruptcy.
Benjamin Vaughan Abbott. New Se Review may be had of E. B. Myers, law to In
dismiss the bill should have been de
The report of Ball, Register of the U.
ries, Vol. I. Annual Digest for 1870.
nied, for the allegations of the bill, on
Boston : Little. Brown & Company. bookseller of our city.
S. District Court for the S. D. of Ohio,
the admission that they are true,
1872.
Sold
by
E.
B.
Myers,
Law
Book
re-taxing the marshal and messengers'
make a strong case in favor of complain
seller,
Chicago.
Our thanks are due John Lyle King, ant.
cost in a bankruptcy case.
The effect of the motion to dismiss,
The United States Digest has been re of the Chicago bar, [for the following
CorporationSuit by Stockholder ceived with such favor, that it is found opinion :
was to admit that complainant was not
served with process in the action at law ;
for Injunction Against.The opinion in almost every lawyer's library in
that he did not owe the plaintiff in that
SUPREME
COURT
OF
ILLINOIS.
of the United States Circuit Court for Americain fact is considered indispen
[Opinion filed Jan. 22, 1872.
action ; that the return of the officer on
the District of West Tennessee, by sable to every practitioner. It would be
the summons of service, if there be such,
Michael
C.
Hickey
v.
A.
N.
Stone
et
al.
Withey, J., holding that an action by a impossible for any mathematician to
was untrue and made through fraud or
Appeal from Tazewell.
mistake, and that the judgment was
stockholder against a person for mali calculate the years of labor saved to the WHEN A COURT
OF EQUITY WILL ENJOIN by
obtained through fraud and imposition.
ciously and wrongfully sueing out an in profession, which would, were it not for AGAINST THE COLLECTION OF A JUDG These
facts present strong equities in fa
OF PROCESS MAY BE CON
junction against a corporation of which this Digest, be spent in examining the MENTSERVICE
TESTED.
vor of complainant, and being admitted
the plaintiff was a stockholder, could not reports of our State and Federal courts.
the bill should not have been dismissed.
Opinion of the court by Breesk, J.
That a party may contest the fact of
be maintained; that all sums which We congratulate the publishers upon
Alfred N. Stone, a resident of Taze
could be recovered for wrongfully sue having secured the services of Mr. Ab well county, in this State, brought an service of process is settled in the
of assumpsit in the Circuit court case of Owens v Ranstead, 20 111., 161,
ing out such injunction, would belong to bott as editor. We notice several im action
of that county against Michael C. Hick- and has been sustained in subsequent
the corporation as assets, and for which provements in the present volume. A ley, the complainant herein, then a res cases, Brown v Brown, decided at this
it alone could sue. The questions in more readable style of type has been ident of Cook county, and recovered a term.
the error in dismissing the bill
volved in this opinion are important, employed. Catch-words, to indicate the judgment against him for the sum of one theFor
decree is reversed and the cause re
hundred and fifty dollars and costs, on
and not settled by authority.
topics of the paragraphs, are introduced. which an execution was duly issued and manded:
Enforcement of Claim in Equity. The year each decision was rendered is placed in the hands of the sheriff of Jno. Lyle King & W. Donmaus, for
appellant.
The opinion of the Supreme Court of given, which is a great aid in the exam Cook county to execute.
Roberts & Green, for appellee.
The complainant filed his bill to en
this State, by Sheldon, J., as to when a ination of any given question. The table join
proceedings under the execution,
creditor may enforce a claim in equity of contents is more full. We notice but making Stone trie plaintiff in the action CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY.
against a debtor's property.
one thing that we regret, and that is the at law, and Fisher, the sheriff of Cook PUBLICATION
OF
PAPERS.
v LEGAL NOTICES IN DAILY
county, and Hendricks, his deputy, de
Taking Land for Roads.The opin change in the series, the present being fendants
Held, where a statute requires a notice to be
to the bill.
three weeks in a newspaper, it ought to
ion of the Circuit Court of Menard New Series, Volume 1, instead of Volume
An injunction was granted on the al published
in every issue of the paper during the three
county, by Turner, J., holding that the 30. It is true that a change of series legations that complainant was not in be
weeks ; if a daily, once a day ; if a weekly, once a

Chicago Legal News. law of this State in force previous to the

adoption of the present constitution in
relation to the taking of land for the
Hex Vindt.
purpose of laying out roads, is in con
flict with the provisions of that instru
CHICAGO, APRIL 13, 1872.
ment, and void. The ablest jurists of
the State agree with Judge Turner upon
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
this question, and we have no doubt his
The Chicago Legal News Co., opinion will be sustained by the Su
AT 115 MADISON STREET.
preme Court.

213
week
that& once
ft *'* ^0Mw
ln but
a dai'y
Pa
652 Pettis et al vs Atkins et al. Reversed and
per is ; not
publication
"!rec tlon
*elu,
is only
remanded.
three days.-ED.LfAiA1^'*8-
561 Commercial IiiBiirancc Company of Chicago
vb Treasury Bank of Chicago. Reversed and re
The opinion of the court was delivered manded.
^
by Farwell, J.
, 562 Mathews et al vs Cowan et al. Reversed and
The statute says they 6hould be pub ["remanded.
570 City of Chicago vs Dcrmoody. Affirmed.
lished three weeks in a newspaper, and 574 Hammond et al vs Will. Reversed and re
manded.
that ought to be, according to my view, 575 Kelley et al vs City of Chicago et al. Af
every day during that three weeks on firmed.
which the paper is published. If it is a 576 City of Chicago vs O' Kara. Affirmed.
578 Bliss et al vs Heasty et al. Affirmed.
weekly paper, once a week ; if it is a 682
Jackson et al vs Spink. Reversed and re
daily paper, once a day. It ought to be manded.
f>ublisned whenever the paper is pub-, 583 Cook vs South Park Commissioners. Re
and remanded.
ished ; but once a week in a daily pa versed
584 Th mpson, guardian, etc., vs Mason et al.
per, I do not think is good. I do not Reversed
and remanded.
know whether there are any decisions 588 Toledo, P. & W. R. R. vs Head. Reversed
and
remanded.
on the question or not. I asked Judge 590 Reed vs Hastings. Reversed and remanded.
Williams about it, and he at once said 600 Estes vs Furlong. Reversed and remanded.
he had no doubt about the question ; 605 McLennan Vi Johnston. Reversed and re
that once a week publication in a daily manded.
609 Leslie et al vs Fischer, for use, etc. Reversed
paper is not a publication of three and
remanded.
weeks, but is only three days.
611 The People of the Town of Jefferson et al
vs Boetteher. Reversed and remanded.
612 Pool et al vs Fisher ct al. Reversed and
remanded.
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.
Tipton vs Hale. Affirmed.
State of Illinois, Supreme (Jourt, Northern 615
627 Frazier vs Gales. Affirmed.
Grand Division, Clerk's Office, Ottawa, April 634 Home Mutual Fire Insurance Company of
vs Hauslcin, who sues, etc. Reversed and
11, 1872.The following list of opinions have this Chicago
1 been filed in the clerk's office of this court at remanded.
637 Trustees of the First Congregational Society
W. M. Taylor. Clerk. of Evanston vs Hubbcll. Reversed and remand
ed.
PEOPLE'S CAUSES.
10 Ogden vs The people. Judgment reversed 639 Mason vs Baumer. Reversed and remand
ed. (Dissenting opinion filed by Breese and
and remanded.
Thornton.)
1
CIVIL CAUSES.
44 of 1870 Russell, administrator, vs Town of 652 Vennum vs Vennum et al. Affirmed.
653 Dunning vs South, for use. Affirmed.
Steuben. Affirmed.
654 Funkhouser vs Wagner. Affirmed.
59 Bird vs Forceman. Affirmed.
68 Iroquois Agricultural Society vs Bates et al. 655 Doau vs SibbitL. Affirmed.
666 People ex rel vs DcWolf. Mandamus re
Mandamus awarded.
fused.
*m
84. Ullman vs Kent. Affirmed.
667 Osgood vs Blackmore. Affirmed.
98 Beach vs Shaw. Reversed and remanded.
700 People ex rel vs Presiding Judge of Will
116 Brown vs Booth. Reversed and remanded.
116 of 1870 Fitzgerald vs Hettinger. Reversed county Circuit court Mandamus awarded.
and injunction dissolved.
146 J. Vickcrv vs McCle'lan et al. Affirmed.
147 I. Vickery vs McClcllan et al. Affirmed.
BILLS APPROVED BY THE GOV
147 H. Vickery vs McClellan et al. Affirmed.
152 of 1870 O'Connor vs Wilson et al. Reversed
ERNOR.
and remanded.
155 Riguey et al vs Small ct al. Affirmed.
This list is continued .from page 196,
156 Goodrich vb City of Minonk. Affirmed.
176 Greeley et al vs The people ex rcl et al. Re and includes all bills signed by the Gov
versed and remanded.
278 Ryan vs Chicago and Northwestern Railroad ernor up to last Saturday :
Company. Reversed and remanded.
senate.
193 O'Brien vs Haynes. Affirmed.
37. To create a system of free schools.
206 Cleaves vs Herbert. Affirmed.
99.
An
act
concerning
207 Northern Line Packet Company of Illinois 194. Amend section 2 ofconveyances.
an act to enable coun
vb Shearer. Affirmed.
establish county normal schools.
225 Barnett vs Cline. Reversed and remanded. ties229.to To
increase
the
jurisdiction
of county courts
229 Hanford vs Blessing. Reversed and re in this State.
manded.
300.
Giving
the
assent
of
the
State
of Illinois to
281 Burrows vb Guthrie et al. Affirmed.
the construction of a bridge across the Mississippi
233 Adams Express Company vs Steltauers et al. river,
at
a
point
opposite,
or
nearly
bo,
to the city
Affirmed.
Cape Girardeau, Mo.
245 of 1870 Botsford vs O'Connor. Affirmed. of337.
In
regard
to
the
administrators
of
estatCB.
(Dissenting opinion of Scott tiled.)
345. To define the jurisdiction of the cities and
248 Eddie vb Eddie. Affirmed.
Incorporated
towns
bordering
on
the
Ohio
river.
261 Sullivan vs City of Oneida. Reversed and 347. To fix the pay of members of the General
remanded.
Assembly
after
its
first
session
under
the
present
2 2 Sullivan vs Stephenson et al. Reversed and Constitution.
remanded.
373.
To
incorporate
mutual
fire
insurance
com
256 Chicago and Northwestern Railway Com panies in townships.
pany vs Monfort et al. Affirmed.
382.
For
the
assessment
of
property
and
for
the
268 City of Chicago vs Hislop. Affirmed.
levy and collection of taxes.
275 Webster vs Vogell et al. Affirmed.
389.
To
authorize
the
assessmentof
property
and
280 Buck vb Buck. Affirmed.
levy and collection of taxes in municipal cor
291 Chicago City Railway Company et al vs the
porations where the assessment rolls have been
Henry. Reversed and remanded.
lost
destroyed.
294 Hills, impleaded, et al vs City of Chicago. 398.or An
act in regard to limitations.
Reversed and remanded.
403.
An
act to provide for the copying^of old or
340 Guild, Jr., vs Fulis. Affirmed.
damaged
public record books.
347 Tripp et al vs Gruoner. Reversed and re
408.
An
act to authorize the State Treasurer to
manded.
securities heretofore deposited by life
348 Omaha National Bank vs First National surrender
insurance
companies.
Bank of St. Paul, Minn. Affirmed.
417.
An
act
to provide an additional water sup
349 Moeller et al vs McLagan. Reversed and re ply at the Insane
Hospital at Jacksonville.
manded.
419.
An
act
for the sale of real prop
351 of 1870. Daniels et al vs Hartrunft et al. erty escheatedtotoprovide
and
vested in the State.
Reversed and remanded.
429.
An
act
making
an
appropriation
for the pay
356 Holden vs Hulburd et al. Affirmed.
of tlie officers and members of the next
374 Wiley vs Town of Brimfield. Reversed and ment
General
Assembly,
and
for
the
salaries
of the
remanded.
officers of the State government.
382 Grove vs Jeager et al. Reversed and re State
436.
An
act
making
appropriations
for
expenses
manded.
of the 27th General Assembly, and to provide for
400 Buckley vs Eaton. Affirmed.
the ordinary and contingent expenses of the gov
401 Buckley vs Gardiner et al. Affirmed.
ernment not already appropriated.
407 Mead vs Munson. Affirmed.
An act to grant use of canals in this State
408 Farwell et al vs Metcalf. Reversed and re to440.
the use of the inhabitants of the Dominion of
manded.
Canada
conditions named.
421 Bursen et al vs Goodspeed, administrator. 446. Anupon
act to authorize towns to sell and con
Affirmed.
vey
real
estate.
4i8 Truitt vs Griffin. Reversed.
449. An act authorizing the formation of union
433 C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. vs Magee. Reversed and depots
and stations for railroads in this State.
remanded.
466. An act to amend act to create a Department
438 Keller vs Rossbach. Affirmed.
of
Agriculture
in the State of Illinois.
440 Haywood vs Collins et al. Reversed and re
466. To amend section 7, chapter 65, Revised
manded. (Dissenting opinion by Sheldon filed). Statutes,
entitled
Jails and Jailors."
452 Smith et al vs Frazer ct al. Reversed and 471. To repeal "certain
acts and parts of acta
remanded.
therein
named,
relative
to practice.
455 City of Galesburg vs Higley. Affirmed.
HOUSE.
469 Thomas vs Lowey. Reversed and remanded.
472 Merrick vs Peru Coal Company. Reversed 137. To protect contractors and laborers in their
and remanded.
claim* against railroad companies, etc.
485 Means vs I.awrenceet al. Affirmed.
153. In regard to marks and brands.
492 Wethcrill vb Heeney et al. Reversed.
237. For the removal of county seats.
508 Hobson et al vs Ewan. Affirmed.
804. Provide for changing names of corpora
509 Boyen et al vs Rutherford, impleaded. Af tions.
firmed.
371. Enable counties, etc., to fund their indebt
512 Bosh et al vs Hill et al. Affirmed.
edness.
524 Chicago Artesian Well Company et al vs 389. Prevent criminal abortion.
Corey et al. Affirmed.
433. In regard to evidence and depositions in
532 Singer vs Jennlsen ct al. Reversed and re civil cases.
manded.
558. An act providing for the publication of the
534 Cooper et al vs Town of Delavan. Reversed Geological Report, and fixing the amount of sal
and remanded.
ary, etc.
536 Michigan Central Railroad Company vs 604. In regard to Building Associations.
Phillips ct al. Reversed and remanded.
617. Prevent use of jails as calabooses.
541 Reed, impleaded, vs Reber et al. Reversed 658. In regard to justices and constables.
and remanded.
677. Repeal act regulating manner of giving no
542 Reed, impleaded, V8 Moffatt. Affirmed.
tice in legal proceedings in Randolph county.
543 Illinois Land and Loan Company, implead
693.
matters in chancery.
ed, vs McCormick et al. Reversed and remanded. 694. Concerning
Substitute for No. 694.
544 Gillman vs The People ex rel et al. Re
697.
An
apt
to
fix
fees and salaries.
versed and remanded.
An act changing the time of holding court
645 Merriam vs The People ex rel et al. Re ln 706.
the 4th judicial district.
i7lo. An act concerning the appointment of nota
versed and remanded.
546 Lankeman vs The People ex rel et al. Af ries public, etc.
firmed.
714. An act to define the ninth judicial circuit.
547 Castle vs The People ex rel. Affirmed.
715. An act to define the twenty-eighth judicial
648 Princeton Loan and Trust Company et al vs circuit.
Munson. Reversed and remanded.
728. An act in regard to elections, etc.

731. An act in regard to bastardy.

7S4. An act to pay certain expenses of the State
government.
740. An act in relation to statutes at large.
770. An act to repeal the r avana German school.
791. Anactln relation to congressional appor
tionment.
828. An act to attach Tazewell county to the
Central Grand Division.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
PROCEEDINGS OF.
Thursday, April 4.
On 'motion of Mr. F. A. Dick, Ira D. Warren,
Esq., of New York, was admitted to practice as an
attorney and counselor of this court.
On motion of Mr. George VV. Woodward, Frank
lin B. Gowen, Esq., of Pennsylvania, was admitted
to practice as an attorney and counselor of this
court.
No. 159. Reuben S. Carpenter, plaintiff in error,
V. Z. Montgomery et al. The argument of this
cause was commenced by Mr. M. Blair, of counsel
for the plaintiff in errror, and continued by Mr.
S. O, Houghton for the defendants in error.
Friday, April 5.
No. 12. Original. Ex parte Max Newman et al.
Petition for writ of mandamus. On motion of Mr.
P. Phillips, ordered by the court that a rule to
show cause, etc., be granted, returnable on Friday,
the 19th instant.
No. 11. Original. Ex parte The United States.
On motion of Mr. Solicitor-General Bristow, leave
granted to file motion for writ of mandamus in
this cause.
No. 503. Frederick Steines et al., plaintiff in
error, v. Franklin County et al. The motion to
dismiss this causa was argued by Mr. F. A. Dick in
support of the same, and by Mr. T. W. B. Crews
and Mr. William H. Letcher in opposition thereto.
No. 467. The Northwestern Union Packet Com
pany, plaintiff in error, v. The Home Insurance
Company of New York. The motion to reinstate
this cause was argued by Mr. J. M. Carlisle and
Mr. J. D. McPherson in support of the same, and
by Mr. George W. McClary in opposition thereto.
No. 290. G. Jules Germain, plaintiff in error, v.
James Mason and L. B. Duke. The motion to dis
miss this cause was argued by Mr. Nathaniel Wil
son in support of the same, and by Mr. F. A. Dick
in opposition thereto.
No. 330. The Kennebec and Portland Railroad
Company, plaintiff in error, v. The Portland and
Kennebec Railroad Company et al. The motion
to dismiss this cause was argued by Mr. Artemas
Libbey in support of the same, and by Mr. A. G.
Stanchfield in opposition thereto.
No. 159. Reuben S. Carpenter, plaintiff in error,
v. J. Montgomery et al. The argument of this
cause was continued by Mr. F. A. Dick, of counsel
for the plaintiff in error.
Adjourned until Monday morning at 11 o'clock.
Monday, April 8.
On motion of Mr. Solicitor-General Bristow,
James M. Bradbury, Jr., Esq., of Maine, was ad
mitted to practice as an attorney and counselor of
this court.
No. 145. The Steamship Java, etc., appellants,
v. The Judd Linseed and Sperm Oil Company.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States
for the District of Massachusetts. Mr. Justice
Bradley delivered the opinion of the court, re
versing the decree of the said Circuit Court, with
costs, and remanding the cause, with directions to
enter a decree affirming the decree of the District
Court.
No. 38. The East Saginaw Salt Manufacturing
Company, plaintiff in error, v. The City of East
Saginaw etal. In error to the 8upreme Court of
the State of Michigan. Mr. Justice Bradley deliv
ered the opinion of the court, affirming the de
cree of the said Supreme Court in this cause, with
costs.
No. 118. Joseph H. Bradley, plaintiff in error, v.
George P. Fisher. In error to the Supreme Court
of the District of Columbia. Mr. Justice Field de
livered the opinion of the court, affirming the
judgment of the said Supreme Court in this cause,
with costs. Dissenting, Mr. Justices Davis and
Clifford.
No. 123. The Traders' National Bank of Chicago,
appellant, v. George. W. Campbell, assignee, etc.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States
for the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Justice
Miller delivered the opinion of the court, affirming
the decree of the said Circuit Court in this cause,
with costs and interest.
No. 125. George W. Dent, plaintiff in error, v.
Frantz Emmiger et al. In error to the Circuit
Court of the United States for the District of Mis
souri. Mr. Justice Swayne delivered the opinion
of the court, affirming the judgment of the Baid
Circuit Court in this cause, with costs.
No. 116. The First National Bank of Bethel,
plaintiff in error, v. The National Pahquioque
Bank. In error to the Supreme Court of Errors of
the State of Connecticut. Mr. Justice Clifford de
livered the opinion of the court, affirming the
judgment of the said Supreme Court in this cause,
with costs.
No. 129. The United States, plaintiffs in error, v.
Charles J. Ballard et al. In error to the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Northern Dis
trict of Ohio. Mr. Chief Justice Chase delivered

the opinion of the court, affirming the judgment

of the said Circuit Court in this cause.
No. 36. John Frank Pargoud. appellant, v. The
United States. Appeal from the Court of Claims.
Mr. Chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion of
the court, reversing the judgment of the said
Court of Claims, and remanding the cause for fur
ther proceedings in conformity witli the opinion
of this court.
No. 159. Reuben S. Carpenter, plaintiff in error,
v. Z. Montgomery et al. The argument of this
cause was concluded by Mr. F. A. Dick, of counsel
for the plaintiff in error.
No. 160. The Schuylkill and Dauphin Improve
ment and Railroad Company ct al., plaintiffs in
error, v. Samuel A. Munson et al. The argument
of this cause was commenced by Mr N. H. Sharpless, of counsel for the plaintiff In error.
Tuesday, April 9.
On motion of Mr. Henry Stanbery, Henry B.
Carrington, Esq.. of Indiana, was admitted to prac
tice as an attorney and counselor of this court.
No. 160. Schuylkill and Dauphin Improvement
and Railroad Company et al., plaintiffs in error,
v. Samuel A. Munson et al. The argument of thia
cause was continued by Mr. F. B. Gowen and Mr.
George W. Woodward, of counsel for the defend
ants in error, and concluded by Mr. N. H. Sharpless lor the plaintiff in error.
No. 161. Thaddeus Williams, plaintiff in error,
v. Anna T. E. Kinland. This cause was argued by
Mr. E. C. Palmer, of counsel for the plaintiff in
error, and by Mr. Ira D. Warren, for the c1
in error.
No. 162. John T. Pierce and Charles Williams,
plaintiffs in error, v. James Carskadon. Thi
cause was argued by Mr. Caleb Boggess, of counsel
for the plaintiffs in error, and submitted on print
ed arguments by Mr. B. Stanton for the defendant
in error.
No. 163. William Creevy et al., appellants, v.
The Eclipse Towboat Company. This cause was
submitted on printed arguments by Mr. J. H. Ashton, of counsel for the appellants, and by Mr. Con
way Robinson for the appellee.
Important Suit Decided.Last week
the Supreme Court of the United States
affirmed the judgment of the U. S. Cir
cuit Court in this district in the case of
John J. Walker et al. v. William M.
Derby et al. Over two hundred thou
sand dollars worth of real estate in the
South Division is affected by this deci
sion. H. S. Monroe, assisted by B. F.
Ayer, of our city, represented Mr. Derby,
the successful party.
Secretary of State.Mr. Rummel, Sec
retary of State, having learned that CoL
Geo. H. Harlow, his assistant, was a can
didate for the position which Mr. Rum
mel now holds, wrote him a letter re
questing his resignation, which was at
once sent in. Mr. Harlow is well known
by the press, exceedingly popular with
the people, and will, undoubtedly, be a
formidable 'opponent to Mr. Rummel,
who is a candidate for re-election.
Clerk of the Supreme Court.The
term of Woodbury M. Taylor, Clerk of
the Supreme Court at Ottawa, will ex
pire in November. Mr. Taylor is a can
didate for re-election, and it is only
justice to him to say that he has made
an efficient and accommodating officer,
and is very popular with the members
of the bar with whom he has transacted
business.
Laws of Illinois.Under a joint res
olution of the General Assembly, a'
special pamphlet edition of all the lawsof the 27th General Assembly, was or
dered to be printed, and one copy to be
sent by the Secretary of State to each of
the circuit and county clerks in the
State. The Journal Company, of Spring
field, will, at the same time, print an ex
tra edition on its own account, which it
will furnish for $1 in paper covers, and
$1.50 in leather. We are informed that,
this edition will be ready for delivery
on the 15th of May.
A Probate Judge in Ohio, recently, by
request, appointed a lady as one of the
appraisers of the personal property of
an estate.

Chicago

214

Legal

JAMES FRAKE,
Attorney. 11') jr. Madison St.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, COOK COUNTY, bs.-To
the May term of the County court of Cook county,
^Barker & Wait*, 46 East Harrison,
A. D. WW. In the matter of the guardianship of Mar*
gret Horn (formerly Margret Muller). Mena Muller,
fcates & Hodges, 131 La LaSatle street.
Otto
and Louis
Muller.
minora.
Beattie, C. J., 45 South Canal.
To Muller
all persons
concerned
: Take
notice,
that theMar
un
dersigned,
guardian
of Margret
Born
(formerly
BRADWELL, J. B., lift West Madison street.
Muller), Mena Muller. Otto Muller and Louis
Bonner, Fay & Griggs, 120 West Washington street, gret
minors, will, at the May term of paid court, to
Bent ley, Bennett, Ullman & Ires. 376 Wabash ave. Muller.
be holden at the court house, in the city of Chicago, in
said county, on the firBt Monday of May next, present
Brouse, <). R., 400 Wabash avenue.
to said court, for acceptance, his resignation of the
Carmichael, D. L 345 Prairie avenue.
office of guardian of the above-named minors, accord
Chafe, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue.
ing to the statute in inch Case made and provided.
MEDARB M. LOCHNER, Guardian, etc.
Clarksou & Van Schaack, 4M Wabash avenue.
Dated Chicago. April 8, i72. *
Deaue A Cahill, room 7, Lind's Block.
^ 27-80

Dent A Black, 131 LaSalle, Room 22.

TN
THE
MSTRICT
COURT
OF
THE
UNITED
J. States, for the Northern District of Illinois. In
Rldrklge ft Tourtalotte, 401 Wabash avenuo.
the mutter of Eli N. Small, a bankrupt. Notice is
&wiug it Leonard, 187 Wabash avenue.
hereby
that 1872,
the undersigned
on Saturday,
the 6thgiven
of April,
at ID o'clock,willa. m.,
at No,
JEUis, B. W., 115 West Madison street.
Wabash
Avenue,
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
sell
at public
Felker, Wm. S.. 92 Desplaines street.
to the highest bidder for cash, ain and all in
Goodwin, D., jr., n. e. corner Monroe and La Salle. auction
terest which the said bankrupt may have in the estate
of his muther, Evelina. Small,
Goudy & Chandler, Union Central Block.
S. 8. deceased.
MERRILL. Assignee.
Graham, Geo. T., 60 South Canal.
The' above sale is postponed until the 13th day of
Herbert k Quick, 61 Union Central Building, and 52 April, 1872, at tLe sume hour and place.
27
S. S. MERRILL. Assignee.
State street.
Hoyne, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michigan
J0HNES
&
SUTHERLAND,
and Wabash avenues.
Attorney.
Hoyne, Horton A Hoyne, 267 Michigan avenue.
rUIANOERY NOTICJiL-State of Illinois, ffcunty
Hitchcock, Dupee A Evarts, corner Wells and Mon Vv
of Cook, ss.Superior court ofCook county. April
term, A. D. 1872. Joseph Kipley v. Catharine Kipley.
roe streets.
In
Chancery. the defendant. Catharine Kipley, on
Howe A Etussell, 47.") Wabash avenue.
dueAffidavit
inquiry,that
cannot be found or is concealed within
tngersoll, 0. P., 92 South Green street.
this State, so that process cannot be served upon her,
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
been filed
in thecounty,
office ofuotice
the Clerk
ot saidgiven
Su
Knickerbocker, J. C. A J. J., 160 West Washington having
perior Court
of Cook
is hereby
to tlm said Catharine Kipley, that the complainant
Leary, D. James, K West Madison.
heretofore
filed his
of complaint
court,
Magruder, B. D., 181 West Madison.
on
the chancery
sidebillthereof,
aud thatin asaid
summons
thereupon issued out of said court against said defend
McClelland, Thos. S., 45 South Canal, room 6,
ant, returnable on the first Monday of April next
Moore A Caulfleld, M Central Union Block.
(1872), as is by law required.
Monroe, Bisboe A Gibbs, 523 Wabash avenue.
Now, unless you, the Baid Catharine Kipley, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court ot
Norton, Jessie 0., 3*6 Wabash avenue.
Cook county, on the first day of the term thereof, to be
Nissen A Barnum, I0y Fifth avenue.
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
Otis, E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
of April, 1872, and plead, auswer or demur to the
complainant's bill of complaint, the same,, and
Perkins, N. C, 479 Wabash av., cor. Eldridge court. said
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
^Reynolds, W. C., 176 West Washington st.
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
'Roberta,
43 South
Rorke, M.R.A.Biddle,
A Son,room
Room7, 57,
CentralCanal.
Union Block.
AUGUSTUS JACOBS0N, Clerk.
JollNES & SuTHMJLAND, CoaiplVs Sol'rs. 26-29p
'Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, 328 Wabash avenue.
THOMAS SHIRLEY,
Sawiu A Wells, 79 West Madison St.
Attorney, 213 Mark St. Cor. Adams St..
Scammon, McCagg A Fuller, 889 Wabash avonue.
PUBLICATION
NOTICE
ATTACHMENT.
Scoville, Geo., 30 South Clinton.
State of Illinois,
countyINof Cook,
ss. Superior
court
of
Cook
county.
April
term,
A. D. 1872. Charles
$inall A Ingalls, 481 Wabash Ave.
v. John F. Marx.
Smith, Upton A Waterman, 135 West Monroe street. Meyer
Public notice is hereby given to the said John F.
Tenny, McClellan A Tenny, 454 Wabash avenue,
Marx, that a writ of attachment issued out of
the office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook
Thomas, Sidney, 79 Dearborn street.
county, dated the 23th day of i.larch, a. D. 1872,
Waughop, J. W., 401 Wabub>venue.
at the suit of the said Charles Meyer,' Ufad against,
the estate of John F. Marx, for the sum of.one hun
Williams A Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
dred and thirty-five dollars directed to the sheriff of
Walker, Dexter A Smith, 562 Wabash avenue.
Cook county, which said writ has been returned execu
Wilson, Perry A Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
ted.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said John F.
Marx, shall personally be and appear before tbe
first
said
Superior
county,
or before
JAMES B. BRADWELL
day of
the nextcourt
termofCook
thereof,
to be on
holden
at thethoCourt
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday oi
April, A. D. 1*72, give special bail and plead to the said
-3?. 113 Wed Madison Stred, CJiicago.
plaintiff's action, judgment will be entered against
Special Attention Given to Probate Matters. you, and in favor of the said Charles Meyer, and so
much
of the
the said
property
attached
maywillbe be
sufficient
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
to satisfy
judgment
and ascosts
sold to
ESTATES SETTLED.
satisfy the same.
JACOBSON. Clerk.
" Set thine house in order ; for thou shalt die, Thomas Shirley,AUGUSTUS
Att'y.
26-29
and not live."2 Kinos xx. L
ROSENTHAL, FENCE & MOSES.
Attorneys.
ADMINISTRATORS SALE.-Louisa Heller, ad
S. W\ RAWSON,
ministratrix of the estate of Israel Heller, de
Attorney, S3 W. Randolph Sired.
v. Rosa Hess, Abraham Hess, Fanny McCreary,
/ jfte-ffNCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois,' Count/ of ceased,
McCreary Caroline Schram, Benedict Schrum,
vy Cork, ss. Superior court of Cook county. May Robert
Theresa Forges, Henry Porges, Esther Schram, Jacob
Term^A, D. 1872. Annie A. Hoffmau v. William Hoff- Schram
and Elizabeth Heller. Superior court of Cook
aian.ft\ Chancery.
Petition
to sell
estate
to pay debts.
Affidavit of the non-residence of William Hoffman. county.
Public notice
is hereby
givenrealthat
in pnrsuance
of the
ael'endaht*rf*?ove named, having been filed in the office decree
court in said canse, I heretofore entered,
of the clter-k. of said Superior court of Cook county, I shaliofsaid
,
on
Saturday,
tho
Wh
day'
of
May. A. D.
notice is 'hereby given to the said William Hoffman 1S72, at 10 o(clcck, a. m., sell at nnblic auction,
for cash,
that Che1 complainant heretofore tiled her bill of com to the highest bidder, at the north end of the new
City
plaint
safe! court,thereupon
on the chancery
side ofthereof,
and Hall, corner of LaSalle and Adams streets, in Chicago,
that ainftrmitr-tffrs
issued out
said court
the following described premises, viz: Lot
against said deftftiunt, returnable on the first Monday Illinois,
six (6) in block three (3) in Quick's subdivision of
ox May next. (1872.) as is by law required.
Harlem, being part of the northeast quarter of sec
Now, unless1
ydt>, the
William
Hoffman,
shallof tion
twelve (12.) in town thirty-nine (:wf) north of
personally
be and
pearsaid
before
said Superior
court
range
twelve (12) east of 3rdLOUISA.
p. in., imHELLER.
Cook connty,
, Cook
county,
on
the*rst
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to
be
hQlden' at Chicago, lb said county, on the first Monday Hlinois.
April
.>, 1S72.
"of May. 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
Administratrix of estate of Israel Heller, deed.
complainant's
ofcomplaint,
the stated,
same, and
TK&V^r^atid
things "bill
therein
charged and
willthe
be Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, Pl'iTs Ally's. 26-31
taken as ^irfesseu; Mid a decree entered agamet you
HOMER COOK,
according ta the prayer of said bill.
Attorney, 135 rF. Monroe St.
AUGUSTUS JACOHSON, Clerk. INSTATE OF
THOMPSON, DECjEASEP.S. W. RawsoS, CoinyrCs^oPr.
25-2S* j Notice is JAMES
hereby given to all persons having
and demands against the estate of James
VTOANOBBY NOTICE.-Stote of Illinois, County of claims
Thompson, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. April tion
and settlement at a regular term of the County
Term, A. I). 1872. Edwin Km^ekind v. Fidelia Knee- court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in
the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of Jane,
landIn
Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Fidelia Kneeland A.D. 1872.
being the
third STRONG,
dav thereof.Administratrix.
defendant above named, having been filed in the oflier
ELLEN
MARIA
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook countv
Chicago,
April
*\
A.D.
1S72.
totkre is hereby given to the said Fidelia Kneeland Homeb Cook, Att'y26-38
that
tba-cejwslgUnantonheretofore
filedside
his thereof,
bill of comjflulnt'!n*ff'c!"':ouTt,
the chancery
and
ELDRIDGE
&
T0URTELL0TTE,
that afHPihmpDJ thereupon issued out of said court
Waba#h Avenue.
against said defendants, returnable on the first Mon- ESTATE OF 401
MICHAEL LANG. DECEASED.of
A.tnl
next,
(1872,)
as
is
by
law
reouired.
Notice
is
hereby
to all persons having claims
te*taftr, unless you, the said Fidelia Kneeland, and demauds against given
the estate of Michael Lang, de
snail
personally
and appear
before
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
rior court
of Cook becounty,
on the first
daysaid
of aSupe
term tlement
at a regular term of the County court of Cook
thereof,
to be
holdenof at
Chicago,
in plead,
said county,
holden at the court house, in the city ol
on the first
Monday
April,
1672, and
answer county, toonbe the
first Monday of June, A. D. 1372,
r demur to the said complainant s bill of complaint, Chicago,
thereof.
the same, and the matters and things therein charged being the third day
CHARLES
stated, will be taken a* confessed, and a decree Chicago, April 4, A. D. 1872. JORN, Administrator.
acninst youT^cT?"""5
you according \*
to the prayer of said Eldridoe A Tourtkm.otte. Atty's for estate. 2fi-3l
entered against
OBSON, Clerk.
25-2Sp
S ' W. Rawson, Compl't'e Sol r.
DUNNING & EASTON,
Attorney*, 47y H'nbaxh Avenue.
NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Connty of
i-lHANCERT NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of /HIANCERY
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. May
term, A. D. 1872. Edmund J. Hooper t, Emma
W^ifM non^i^c^'of 'un K. Reed, Hooper.In
Affidavit ofChancery.
tbe non-residence of Emma Hooper, de
fendant
above
named,
having
tiled incounty,
the office
dc$eTi*tnt above named, having been flle.l In the office of
the clerk
ofsaid
Superior
courtbeen
of Cook
no
of
the
clerk
of
said
Superior
court
of
t
ook
comity
tice is hereby given to tbe said Emma Hooper thai
i notice in herety g ven to tho said Wlllian K. Reed the
complainant heretofore riled his bill of complaint
?hatlhe" mplainant heretofore filed her bill of com- in said
conrt, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
plaint: inaid court, on the chancery >ide thereof, and summons
thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of May
next,
(1872.)
as is by tho
lawsaid
required.
5iovvfui::inr
Nov, unless
Kinina
Hooper, shall
sonally
be and yon.
appear before
said Superior
courtperot
Cook county, on tbe first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
Wden
.aid county
^ Monday
1*72, and plead, answer or demar to the
r f Ar-rilat Chicago,
1H72, and inplead,
answeronorthedemur
to tne of May,
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
whlcoii'plainanCs bill of complaint the same and said
the matters
thereinandcharged
and catered
statedthecmatwrs th*n therein charged and stated v, n will
be takenandasthings
confessed,
a decree
be taken as confessed, and a decree entered agamt against
you according to the prayer ofcaidbill.
you according to the prayer
nf
say
b.t
ot
sam
mil.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
UGlISTUS JACOBSON, Clerk2j
27-30
20-23 Du.nning A Eastok, Compl't'd Sol'rs.
ShowhoOk & Geay Compl't's Sol'rs.
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.

News.

E. T. ALLEN,
MUNN & HAMILTON,
Attorney, S. W. cor. Randolph and Ocmal Sts.
A ttorney*. 114 Hatded Stred.
OF
ARISTAHCHUS
BULKIrBY,
De
(1HANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of ESTATE
ceased.Notice
is hereby
given
all persons
li*vJ. Cook, as. Circuit court of Cook county. May
and demands
against
thetoestate,
of Aristarterm, A. D. 1872. Charles S. Thompson v. Harriet L., Ing,claims
chus
Bulkley,
deceased,
to
present
the
aaiue
for
adju
Stewart
and James
P. Stew art.Mechanic's
dication and settlement nt a regular term of the
Affidavit
non-residence
Harriet
L.Lien.
Stewart
county
of Cook
fo onbe the
holden
the
and
Janiea of
1*. the
Stewart,
defendantofabove
named,
having Countyhouse,
in the
city ofcounty.
('hiettgo,
first atMon
been tiled in the office -of the clerk of said Circuit court
day of June, A. \). 1872, beius the third day thereof.
court
of
Cook
county,
notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
H. BUIiJi-LEY, Administrator.
said Harriet L. Stewart and James P. Stewart that the Chicago.ROBERT
April 8, A. D. laT2.
complainant heretofore filed his petition for me
K. F. ALLKN. AU>- '
^
27-32a
chanic's
lien
in
said
court,
and
that
a
summons
there
upon issued out of said court Against Maid defendants,
>-'^I)ENT & BLACK,
returnable- on the third Monday of May next (1872),
Attorneys, lioonc Block.
as.Now,
is'^y law n-quired.
you, shall
the said
HarrietbeL.andStewart
NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of
James P.unless
Siewurt,
personally
appearaud
be rtHANCERY
^ Cook, ms. Circuit court of Cook county. June
fore said Circuit court of Cook county, on tbe iirst day term, A. I). 1872. Barbara Ann Harle^s and Thomas
Of a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said LJeury Harless v. Marion U. Harluss. Ella Nora Har
county, on the third Monday of May. 187?, and plead, lem, Charles D. JIarless. Frank B. Harless, Willie W.
answer or demur to the said petition, the same, and the Harless, and Asa D. Reed, guardian, etc.. George E.
matter? ami things therein charged aud "tated, will be Halsey, Tappen Ilalwey, Mrs. Mary Coleman, Mrs.
taken as confesbed, and a decree entered against you Elizabeth A. Warren and Lambert Kllel.In Chan
according to the prayer of said petition.
cery.
NORMAN
T. SoPrs.
CASSETTE, Clerk.
Affidavit
non-residence
Marion
G. Har
Muwn vfc Hamilton,
ComplVs
^7--0Q less.
one of of
thethe
defendants
above of
named,
having
been
filea
in
the
office
of
the
clerk
of
said
Circuit
of
rpitrSTEE'S SALE.-Whereaa. on the first day of Cook county, notice is hereby giveu to the saidcourt
Marion
X August, A. I). 1*70, Vesper Dorneck, of Chicago, G. Harless that the complainants heretofore filed their
Cook county. State of Illinois, executed his trust deed bill of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
of that tlate. which was recorded on the said tiir*t day thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of
of August, A, D. 1870, in the Recorder's office of said said court against said defendants, returnable on the
Cook county, in Book 31*' of Deeds, at page 215, thereby third Monday of May next (1872),as is by law required.
conveying
G. Hamilton,
ofsaid
Now, uuless you, the said Marion G. Harless,
trustee,
lotstooneme,U),David
two (2),
three (.'!), four
H) Chicago,
and five shall
personally be and appear before Haid Circuit
(5), in block twelve (12) of Winner's subdivision of the court of Cook county, on the first day of a torm
northeast one-fourth of the northeast quarter of thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
section
twenty-five
on the third Monday of June, 1872, and plead, answer
north range
fourteen(2.'i),
(14), township
east of ;klthirty-seven
P. M., in trust(-17).
to or
demur to the said complainants' bill of complaint,
secure the payment at maturity of a certain promis the
and the matters aud tilings therein charged
sory note of said Vesper Dorneck, of even date with and same,
willyou
be according
taken eVconlessed,
and a of
decree
stated,
against
to the prayer
said
(said tniMt deed, payable to the order of O. It. Brouse, entered
for the sum of one hundred and thirty dollars, with bill.
NORM
AN
T.
GASSETTE,
Clerk.
Dknt & Black, Compl'ts' Sol'rs.
22-30
interent
at
eight
per
cent,
per
annum,
said
note
being
payable in one year after date, aud being given for
part of ihe purchase money for the above-described
S. M. DAVIS,
premises; aud, whereas, in said irust deed it was pro
Attorney, 60 Wed Randolph Sired.
vided that in case of default in payment of said note PUBLICATION
NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.and interest, or either or any part thereof, it should be
8tatecounty.
of Illinois.
Cook county, ss. Circuit court
lawful for said trustee, on tho application of the legal of Cook
May
holder of said note, to sell the premises therein and son v, J. R. Jackson. Term, A.D. 1872. Andrew Pear
above described in moss or in parcels, as said trustee
notice is hereby given to the said J. R. Jack
might prefer, at public auction, at tho north door of sonPublic
that a writ ofattachment issued out of the office of
the court house, in said city of Chicago, to tho highest the clerk
of the Circuit court of Cook county, dated
and best bidder for cash, thirty days' notice of said the first day
February, A. D, 1872, at the suit of the
sale having been first given in one of the newspapers said Andrew of Pearson
and against the estate of
published
in
said
city
of
Chicago,
and
to
adjourn
said
J.
R.
JackBon
the sum of five buiKlredWolsale from time to time, as might be thought expedient lars, directed to for
the
sheriff
of Cook couuty, wnich
bv
>uid trustee,
and to make
and sufficient
writ has been returned executed.
or devils
of conveyance
for thegood
premises
sold, anddeed
to said
Now,
therefore,
unless
you,
the said J. R. Jackson
pay out of the proceeds of such sale, first, all costs of
personally be and appear before the said Cir
advertising and sale and commission and alt other ex shall court
of
Cook
county,
on
before atthethe
firstcourt
day
penses of said trust and secondly, the principal and cuit
<m the next term thereof, to beorholden
interest due on said note, rendering the overplus if house,
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
third
Monday
of
any,
said party
of the
part, upon
reasonable
A.D. 1872, give special bail and plead to the said
questto; and,
whereas,
thefirst
principal
and interest
due .e-:
on I May,
plaintiffs
action,
judgment
will
be
entered
agaiust
said
note have
been (feed;
paid, nor
part thereof,
as you, and in favor of the said Andrew- Pearson and so
{>rovided
in saidnottrust
and.anywhereas,
the legal
much of the property attached as may be sufficient to
lolder of said uote has requested me, as such trustee, satisfy
tho said judgment and costs will be sold to
to make sale of said premises to pay said note aud in satisfy the
same.
terest
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Now,; therefore, notice is hereby given that on Sat
S.
M.
Davis,
Att'y.
24-27
urday, the eighth day of June, A. D. 1872, at ten
o'clock a. m.. at tho north door of the court house, in
DANIEL GOODWIN, Jr.,
said city of Chicago, I will proceed to sell the aboveV) Nixon's BuiUiing.
described premises at public auction, to the highest THIS is toAttorney.
certify that the undersigned 'hare formed
bidder
cash, toApril
pay said
note and interest.
a
limited
partnership,
articles
of coof
DatedforChicago,
in, 1872.
in the office ofand
the have
clerktiled
of the
county
DAVID G. HAMILTON, Trustee. partnership
Cook, State of Illinois, agreeably to the statute in such
0. R. Brouse, Att'y.
27-29 case
made and provided, and said clerk bos designated
the
Chicago
Nkvh as shall
the newspaper
in which
HARDING & McCOY,
notice
of sucliLkual
partnership
be published;
now,
Attorney>t, litis Wabwh Ave.
therefore, notice is hereby given that the terms of saia
rtHANCERY NOTICE. State of Illinois, County copartnership
are as follows:
\J
of
Cook,
ss.
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county.
June
1st.
The
name
of
said
firm
is
R.
M.
Oliver.
term, A. D. 1*72. Hector V. Loving v. Mary Q. Mor
The business to be conducted by said firm is that
ton, Henry C. Horton, Eugenia Q. Young, John C. of2d.packing
and vending
meat, fresh aud cured, at
Young, Corinno Q. Watson. George C. Watson, Laura No. bKX.'t Southpork
Halsted
street. Chicago.
Bell Quigley, Hallie E. Quigley, Lucian G. Quigley, 3d. The general
partner is Richard M. Olivor; the
Mary H. Quigley. Eliza M. Quigley, Martha P. It. special partner is the
Allertou Packing Co., a corpora
Quigley, Eli7Ji G. Quigley, Maria E. Quigley, Edward tion duly existing under
the laws of the State of Illi
P. Quigley, Fannie Quigley, and tbe Connecticut Mu nois, all of Chicago.
tual Lite Insurance Company.In Chancery.
4th.
The
amount
of
capital
stock which the said
Affidavit of the non-residence of all the defendants special partner, tho Allertou Packing
Co., has contrib
above named, having been filed in the office of the uted
to
said
copartnership
is
tjje
sum of twelve thou
clerk
of
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
notice
sand
dollars.
is hereby given to the said defendants that the com- 5th. Tho said copartnership is to commence on tho
plainantlheretofore
filed his
of complaint
said first day of March, A. D. 1872, and terminate at the will
court,
on the chancery
sidebill
thereof,
and that ina sum
either party, evidenced by notice in writing served
mons thereupon issnua out of said court against said of
termination.
defendants, returnable on the third Monday of June ten days before said
RICHARD
M. OLIVER.
next (1872), as is by law required.
22-27
T11E
A LLERTON
PACKING CO.
Now, unless you, the said Mary Q. Morton, Henry C.
Morton, Eugenia Q. Young., John C. Youug, Corii
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
SfEYER,
DECEASED.-NoQ. Watson, George;e C. Watson. Laura Bell Quig.
Quigley
.....
is hereby given to all persons having claims
Hallie
E. Quigley.
Lucian
G. Quigley.
Quigley,
Mary H.Eliza
QuigQuigG. and tico
demands against the estate of John Meyer, de
ley,
Eliza
M. Quigley,
Martha
P. II. Quigley,
to present the same for adjudication and settle
Quigley, Maria E. Quigley. Edward P. Quigley, Fannie ceased,
ment at a regular term of the County court of Cook
Quigluy, and the Connecticut Mutual Life insurance county,
holden at the court house, in the city of
Company, shall personally be and appear before said Chicago,toonbethe
first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, be
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
t * riii thereof, to be holdeinat Chicago, in said county, ing the sixth day thereof. ANNA MEYER,
on the third Monday of June, 1872, and plead, answer
ALBERT MEYER, and
or
demur
toandthethe
saidmatters
complainant's
billtherein
of complaint,
ROBERT MEYER,
the
same,
and
things
charged
Executors.
and stated, will be taken confewied, and a decree en
tered against you according to tbe praver of said bill. Worth. Cook county, March II, A. D. 1872. 23-28p
NORMAN
T.
GASSETTE,
Clerk.
Habding & McCoy,Couipl't's SolTrs.
27-30 ESTATE OF CONRAD KUHLMANN. DECEASED
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Conrad Kuhlmaun,
THOMPSON & BISHOP,
deceased,
to present the same for adjudication andfcetAttorneys, 17 Cbngreas Street.
tlement at a regular term ot the County court of Cook
to
holden
the courtofhouse,
of
1HANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of county,
0Hc
onbe the
firstat Monday
May,inA.theD.cityL872,
J Cook,
ss. A.Superior
of Cook
county.
To Chicago,
being the sixth day thereof
Katter
v. James
Term,
D. 1K72. Court
Gustavus
May
_
CAROLINE KUHLMANN, Executrix.
Blake, Elizabeth D. Blake. Ellen Lacy McKee, Wil
liam C. Holway. Elliott C. V. Blake, Isabella M. Mose- Chicago, March 2. A.D. 1872.
23-28
ley, Simeon H. Smith, Ezekiel S. Smith, and Joseph E. Clowet & Bahum, Attorneys for Estate.
Dellaven.lu
, of James Blake, Eliza
Affidavit of theChancery.
non-residence
BARBER
&
LACKNER,
beth D. Blake Elliott 0. V. Blake, Isabella M. Moset'A Wed Vike Stred.
ley, Simeon It. Smith, and Ezekiel S. Smith, six of ESTATE Attorneys.
OF
HENRY
APPKL,
the defendants above named, having been tiled in the
Notice
is
hereby
given
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook and* demands against the to
estate
of
Henry
Appel,
de
county,
is hcrebv
given
said James
Blake,
the same for adjudication and set
Elizabethnotice
J>. Blake,
Elliott
C. toV.theBlake,
Isablella
M. ceased, toat present
a regular term of the County Court of Cook
M. Moseley. Simeon 11. Smith and Ezekiel S. Smith, tlement
county,
to
be
holden
the court
house,A.in D.the1872,
citybeof
thatcomplaint
the complainants
amendedside
bill Chicago, on tbe first atMonday
of June,
of
in Baid heretofore
court, onfiled
thehischancery
ing the ^d day thereof.
thereof,
aud
that
a
summons
thereupon
issued
ont
of
A^PEL, Administratrix.
said court against said defendants, returnable* on the Chicago, April 4, A.MARE
1872.
first Monday of May next (1*72), as is by law re Baruku & Lacknkb. D.Attys.
26-31a *
quired.
,
.
Now, unless you, the said James Blake Elizabeth D. ESTATE OF JOHN G. GINDELE, DECEASED .
Blake. Elliott C. V. Blake. Isabella M. Moseley. Sim
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
eonand
H. Smith
EzekielsaidS. Superior
Smith, shall
demandsto against
the same
estateforofadjudica
John G.
be
appearaudbetore
courtpersonally
of Cook claims and
deceased,
present the
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden Giudele,
tion and settlemt.it at a regular term of tho County
at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday ofMay, court
county, to be holden at the court house
1872, and plead, answer or demur to the said com in the ofcityCook
of Chicago, on the first Monday of June,
plainant's
of complaint,
theliematters
the third day thereof.
aud
thinesbilltherein
charged the
andsame,
stated,audwill
taken A.D. 1872, being FRANZ
GINDELE, Administrator.
as confessed, and a decree entered against you accord
Chicago. April \, 1*72.
26-3la
ing to the prayer ofAUGUSTUS
said bill. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Bauueu & Lackkeh, Attys.
Thompson & Bishop, Compl't's SoPrs.
26-29
WM. T. BUTLER,
Attonney. 'Ml State Street.
ESTATE
OF
GEORGE
JEFFRES.
DEOEASED.t
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
DECEASED.No
Notice
is
hereby
given
to
all
persons
having
claims
tice is hereby
giventhetoPFUN'D
all persons
having
claims
and demands against the estate of George Jetties, and demands
agaiust
estate
of Johu
Pfund,
de
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set ceased, to present
the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of tbe County court of Cook tlement at a regular
term
of
the
County
court
of
Cook
county,
to
be
holden
at
tbe
court
house,
in
the
city
of
county. to be holden at tho court hoiist-, in tho city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, Chicago,
on the first Monday of July, A. D., 1872, be
being the third day thereof.
ing the first day thereof.
Gl'RimN S. HUBBARD and
ANNA B. PFUND, Executrix.
GEORGE J. JEFFRES.
Chicago, April 2. A. D. 1S72.
Administrators.
26-31*
Chicago, April 8, A. D. 1872.
27-32* Wm. T. Butlkk, Atty.

Chicago
mo* *JwjMAH.
;.
Attorney**. *" nwHixh Aivnue.
/"^nANCERY NOTlCE.-State of Illinois, County of
\J
of Cookv.county.
April
Term,Cook,
A. D.bp.1872.Superior
Kmniacourt
Kiataroni
Anglo Eiatearonl,In
Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Angelo Fiataroni,
defendant above uained, having been tiled in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice Is hereby giren to the said Augelo Kiataroni,
that
tiledHide
her thereof,
bill of com
plainttheIncomplainant
said court, oaheretofore
the chancery
and
that
a
summon*
thereupon
issued
out
of
court
against said defendant, returnable on the firetsaidMonday
of April next, (1*72), as is by law required.
How, unless
you,appear
the Baid
Kiataroni.
shall
i*i*Honiilly
be anil
beforeAngelo
Superior
court
."Cook
county,
on the
first day
of said
a term
thereof,
to beof
holden
Chicago,
said county,
first Monday
of
Aprilat, 1872,
and inplead,
answer onor thedemur
to the
aid complainant's bill ofcomplaint, the same, and the
iunth'1 - and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken an confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
Mi. in a. Tut' mas, Comp'ts sol'rs.
84-27
J. 0. ft J. J. KNICKERBOCKER,
Attonirtjs, lbo IV. Washington St,
ESTATE
WATSON
Notice isOKhereby
given toGOWARD,
all personsDECEASED.
baring claims
and demands against the estate of Watnou Coward, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, being
the sixth day thereof.
GUSTAVUS COWARD, Admiulstrator.
Chicago, March 6. A. D. IK72.
J.C & J.J. K" nick f.rbock Bit, Aft'ys for Adm'r. 22-27
GEORGE SCOVILLE,
HO Clinton Street.
pHANCERY NOTiCK.-State of Illinois, County of
Kj Cook, as. Circuit court of Cook county, April
term,
1*72. GeorgeMartens,
W. Lay, Wilbelm
Jr. and John
R.
BrownA.D.
v. Frederick
Mahem,
Christoph Mueller, Leon Strauss, Philip Schwab and
The unknown heirs-at-law of Louis Frederick August
Koester.In Chancery.
Affidavit that the names of the heirs-at-law of Louis
Frederick
August
named
among
the defend
ants above,
are Koester,
unknown
to ofsaid
having
been filed
in the office
the complainants,
clerk of said
Circuit
courtTheofunknown
Cook; county, notice isofhereby
given
to
the August
said
Louishereto
Fred
erick
Koester thatheirs-at-law
the complainants
fore filed their bill of complaint in>aid court, on the
chancery side thereof, and that a summons thereupon
Issued out of said court against said defendant, re
turnable oit the third Monday of April next, (1672,) as
is Now,
by lawunless
required.
you, the said The unknown heirsat-law
of
Frederick
Koestercourt
shall
personally beLouis
awd appear
beforeAugust
said Circuit
of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
third
Mon
day of April, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the
aid complainant*' hill of complaint, the sanie, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will ho
taken us confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Gkoroe Scovit.lt:, Compl'tsSol'r.
2-1-27
M.
BLANCHARD,
.Altorru'V
HVd Washinqton SL
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county n|
Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
June Term, A. I). 1*72. Annie E. Hill v, Ives JlillT
Chancery.of the non-residence of Ives Hill, de
wJnAffidavit
fendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook couuty.
notice is ;hereby given to the said Ives Hill that
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
in
said conrt,
on the clwincery
andagainst
that a
summons
thereupon
Issued ontsideof thereof,
said court
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of
June
next,
(1*72.)
as
is
by
law
required.
Now, unless yon, the said Ives Hill, shall , per
sonally
be andonappear
Superior
court
Cook county,
the firstbefore
day ofsaida term
thereof,
to beof
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of
1*72, and plead,
or the
demur
to and
the
aidJune,
complainant's
lull of answer
complaint,
same,
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will
taken astoconfessed,
decree
you be
according
the prayerandof asaid
bill.entered against
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
M. Blancilahd, Comp'ts Sol'r.
25*28
WA1TE & CLARK,
Attorneys, 21 Kant Van liuren Street.
ESTATE
MARYgivenBEERS,
DECEASED.
Notice OF
iB hereby
to all persons
havingclaims and demands against the estate of Mary
Beers,and
deceased,
to present
the same
fortheadjudica
tion
settlement
at a regular
term of
County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the Court
Houso, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
June, A. D. 1672, being the third dav thereof.
Chicago. March, 2f>,CYRENIUS
A. 1>. 1*72. BEERS, Executor.
Waitk Clahk, Attorneys.
25-30a
BATES & HODGES,
Attorney. 113 11'. Madwon Street'.
ESTATE
MASON.
DECEASED.
NoticeOFis RICHARD
hereby given
to ailSr.,
persons
having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
Richard
Mason, Sr., deceased, to present the same forof adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court
county, toonbetheholden
the court
In
theofcityCook
of Chicago
first atMonday
of house
June,
A. D. 1872, being the third dav thereof.
L. P. HILLIARD, Administrator.
Chicago. March 25. 1872.
Bates A HoDfiKS, Attorneys.
25-30
S. M. DAVIS,
Attorney, 50 IT. Randolph St.
ESTATE
JOHN
is herebyOFgiven
to allHOPP,
personsDECEASED.-Notice
having claims and
demands against the estate of John Hopp, deceased,
to present the same for adjudication and settlement at
a regular
lar termat the
of the
Cook
county,
courtConnty
house,court
in theofcity
of Chicago,
to be hilolden
""
on the first Monday of June A. D. 1872, being the
third day thereof.
Chicago, March 30, A. D. 1*72.
WILLIAM WENDLAND, Executor.
S. M. Daxifl.Att'y.
26-31
BENNETT & SHERBURNE,
AWy, Matoiric Tern-, ear. Hoisted and Randolph rt*.
NOTICE is hereby given to all persons havingclaims
and demands
the estate
of Ann McDonald,
deceased,
to presentagainst
the aame
for adjudication
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago,
on the
first Monday of July, A. D. 1872, be
ing
the first
dav thereof.
HENRY McDONALD, Administrator,
Chicago,
3, A. D. 1872.
Bennett April
Sl bhf.bburne,
Atty's for Administrator.
26 31
"VfOTICE
is
hereby
given
to
all
persons
having
claimB
-Li and
demands
Lucius
A. Griswold,
deceased,
to against
presentthetheestate
sameoffor
adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to beholden at the court house, in the
city
of Chicago,
flrBt Monday
of July, A. D.
1872, being
the firstondaythethereof.

^
MARIA GRISWOLD, Administratrix.
Chicago, April 3. A. D. 1872.
26-31
Bennett & Suerbukne, Atty's for Administratrix.

Legal

. HOWE ft RUSSELL,
Attorneys, 475 Wnoush Avenue.
TRU8TEE'S
SALE.Where**,
SchmittAnton
and
Therosia Schmitt.
bis wife, George
and George
Bender,
unmarried,
executed
and
delivered
to
the
un
dersigned, an trustee, a deed Of trust of the premises
hereinafter mentioned, dated the twenty-first day ot
January, A.D. isd-v, and recorded in the Recorder's
office ofon Cook
county.
Iliiuois,
in book
421 of
deeds,
page .'iw,
whichState
saidofdeed
of trust
was given
to secure the payment of a certain promissory note,
bearingby date
trie George
2lst dayScbmilt
of January,
I). 1*6*.Anton
exe
cuted
the said
and A.
Gettfgo
Bender, and payable to the order of themselves, three
years after the date thereof, for the principal sum of
three thousand dollars, with interest after due at the
rate ftf ten per centum per annum, and also six other
certain promissory notes of the same date, each paya
ble to the order of the miid George Schmitt and George
Anton Bender, respectively, in six* twelve, eighteen,
twenty-four,
thirtylorand
thirty-six
the
date thereof, each
the sum
of one months
hundredafter
and fifty
dollars,
semi-annual
in
stallmentbeing
on the
the amount
note firstofabove
described,interest
computed
at the rate of ten per centum per annum, all payable
at
the office of Greeubauiu and Foreman, Chicago, Illi
nois.
And,
whereas,
default hasnote
beenofmade
the payment
of the said
first-mentioned
threeinthousand
dol
lars, together with the interest thereon since the loth
day of June, A. D. 1*71, and the same are unpaid; and,
whereas, it is provided in said deed of trust that in
case
payment
of saidaccording
notes or
any ordefault
eitherbeofmade
themiuorthe
of any
part thereof,
to the tenor and effect thereof, then, on application of
saidornotes,
it shallin betrust,
lawful
the
the
holder
saidJegal
trustee,
hi* of
heirs,
successors
afterlorpub
lishing a notice of sale in a newspaper printed in the
city said
of Chicago
twentydays
sale, to
sell
premises,
and all
thebefore
right,the
titleday
andofeuuity
of
redemption of the said George Schmitt and Thurefua
Schmitt
and
George
Anton
Bender,
their
heirs,
execu
tor*, administrators and assigns, therein, at public
auction,
at the innorth
door ofot Illinois,
the courttohouse,
in the
city
of Chicago,
the State
the highest
bidder for cash ; to make, execute and deliver to the
purchaser or purchasers a deed or deed of the premises
so sold; and, whereas, application lias been made to
me, the undersigned, by the legal holder of said tirstmeutJoned note of three thousand dollars (the six
other
notes'of having
been paid),forto sell
the premises
in
said deed
trust mentioned,
tlie purposes
therein
specified ; now, therefore. liy virtue of the power
and authority in me vested by said deed of trust,
1. the a.undersigned,
will A.
sell I).at172,10
o'clock
m., on the asifiih trustee,
day of April.
at
the
north
door
of
the
old
court
house,
in theof
city of Chicago, in the county of Cook, and Stale
Illinois, at public auction, for the highest and best
price the same will bring in cash, the premises in said
deed
to wit:
The two
east(),halfin ofShef
the
south ofhalltrust,'
of lotdescribed,
fifteen (1,">).
in block
field's addition to Chicago, in the county of Cook, and
Stat..' of Illinois, together with all and. singular the
hereditaments thereunto belonging or in any wise ap
pertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remain
der and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof,
and
all the
estate,
title, interest,
dower,
right of
dower,
euuity
of right,
redemption,
property,
possession,
claim
and
demand
whatsoever,
as
well
in
law
as in
equity, of the said George Schmitt. Theresia Schmilt
aud George Anton Bonder, their heirs and assigns, in
and to said premises, and everv part thereof.
GERHARD FOREMAN, Trustee,
Howe A Russell. Attorneys.
24-27
B.
C.
COOK.
Attornetf.$G& Wabatth Avenue,
C1HANCERY
Illinois,
County
J Cook, ss. NOTICK.-Statc
Superior court ofofCook
county.
'Aprilof
Term,
A.
IX
1*72.
Gardner
S.
Chapin
and
James
Gore r. Benjamin F. Stafford, Samuel A. Sargent. L.J.'
C. Paine Freer, John .Marshall and Elizabeth Mar
shall.In chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Benjamin F. Staf
ford,
Samuel
A. Sargent,
John
Marshall
and been
Elizabeth
Marshall,
defendants
above
named,
haviug
tiled
in
the
office
of
the
clerk
of
said
Superior
courtsaidof
Cook coanly, notice is hereby given to the
Benjamin K. Stafford. Samuel A. Sargent, John Mar
shall and Elizabeth Marshall, that the complainants
heretofore filed their bill of complaint In said court,
on
the chancery
thereof,
and that
a summons
thereupon
issued side
out of
said court
against
said de
fendants, returnable on the tirst Monday of April next
(1p72,) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the Said Benjamin F. Stafford,
Samuel A. Sargent, John Marshall and Elizabeth Mar
shall, shall personally be and appear before said Su
perior court of Cook county, on 1 110 first day of a term
thereof, to beholden at Chicago, in said county, on
the first Monday ofApril, 1*72. and plead, answerordemur to the said complainants' bill of complaint, the
same, and the matters and things therein charged and
stated, will he taken as confessed, and a decree entered
againBt you according to the prayer of said bill,
AUGUSTUS
B. C. Cook, Compl't's
Sol'r. JACOBSON, Clerk.
24-27
, NEWELL PRATT,
.Attorney, 1124 [Vabtusk Avenue.
CnANCERY
6f Cook
Illinois,county.
County To
of
Cook, ss. NOTK'E.-State
Superior court of
April term. A. D. 1*72. Hattio A. Thornton v. Wil
liam
R. Thornton.In
Chancery.of William R. Thorn
Affidavit,
of the non-residence
ton, defendant above named, having been filed in the
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook cvunty, notice Is hereby given to the said William U. Thorn
ton that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint
in said court,
on theissued
chancery
sidesaidthereof,
and that a summons
thereupon
out of
court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Monday
of April nexl, (1*72.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said William R. Thornton, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term there
of, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first
Monday of April, 1872, and 'plead, answer or demur
to the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same,
and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will according
be taken astoconfessed,
decree
you
the praverandof asaid
bill.entered against
'UGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Newell Pratt, Compl't's Sol'r,
25-28
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Comty of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. April
term, A. I). 1872. John Phillips v. Ann Phillips.In
Chancery.
Affidavit
of the
non-residence
AnninFhtlUps,
fendant
above
named,
having beenoffiled
the officedeof
the
said given
Circuitto court
of Cook
county,
noticeclerkis of
hereby
the said
Ann Phillips
that
the
complainant
heretofore
filed
his
bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said
court against said defendant, returnable on the third
Monday of April next (ls72), as is by law required.
Now, unless
you,appear
the said
shall
personally
be and
beforeAnnsaidPhillips,
Circuit court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof,
to
be
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
third
Monday of April, 1S72. and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken #confessed, and a decree entered against
you according* toUhe prnver of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Bonnky, Fat A Grtos, Compl't's Sol'rs.
25-28
STATE
NoticeOFlKATHARLNA
is hereby given ROSE.
to ail DECEASED^
persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Katharina Rose, deceased, to present the same for ad
judication and settlement at a regular term of the
County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on tho first Mon
day of June, A. D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
HENRY ROSE, Executor.
Chicago, March 29. A. T>. 1*72.
Rosenthal. Pence 4 Moses, Compl't'B SoPrs. 25-30

News.

RUNYAN, AVERY, LOOMIS & C0MST0CK,

Attorneys, 1 11 \V. Wanldnqton St.
f 1HANCEUY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county of
Cook,
court
of Cook v.countv.
To WilMay
term, A. 1).ss.1S72.Superior
Edward
Williaton
Christina
liston In Chancery.
Allidavitol the non-residence of Christina Williston,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the Clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, no
tice
is hereby givenheretofore
to the saidfiled
Christina
that
the complainant
hi* billWilllwton,
of complaint
in said court, on the cbam eiy Hide thereof, and that
a summons thereupon Issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on* the first Monday of
May next 1 1-72), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said ('hristina Williston, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior Court of
Cook count) , on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
Chicago,
In saidanswer
county,orondemur
the tirst
Monday
of
May.atts72,
and plead,
to the
safd
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, anil the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Runvan, Avery, Loomis A Comstock,
26-29
CoinpTs Borra.
CGUARDIAN'S SALE OF REAL EST ATE.-State of
I Illinois, Cook county, ss. In the Circuit Court of
Cook county. In the matter of the application of Eliza
H. Towne. guardian of Edward P. Towne, to soli real
cutByatevirtue
of theofa
saiddecree
minor.entered in said cause, on the fifth
day
of
April.
A.D.
at the March (2Mh>day
term ofsaid
court,
I shall on Monday, 1*72,
the twenty-ninth
ofApril,
A.D. 1*72, at to o clock, in the forenoon of said day,
at the east door of the Court House, on South Clark
street,
in the city
of Chicago,
Statebest
of Illinois,
at
public auction
to the
hi Lrheat slid
bidder, sell
upon
the (following terms, vi/. : One-third cosh, and the
balance in three e^ual payments, payable in on, two
and
renpeciively,
bearing
at the
rate three
of eightyear*,
per cent,
per annum,
and interest
to be secured
by
mortgage
or
trust
deed
upon
said
premises
all
the
right, titledescribed
and interest
of the
sain minor
in the
following
real estate,
situated
11/ the State
of
Illinois, to wit : One undivided one-half
of east
one-half pa) of the west one-half p3) of lot number
three (-H) in block fifty-seven ('i7) of original town of
Chicago.
ELIZA H. TOWNE,
Guardian of Edward P. Towne.
Chicago, April 5/1*72.
26-2*
SAWIN & WELLS,
A1torney*.?& \V. Madiwn St.
GUARDIAN'S
SALE
REAL
H8TATE.-Ry
virSuperior court
\J tue of an order
and OF
decree
of the
of Cook county, State of Illinois, in chancery sitting,
made
and term
entered
4th ofdaysaidof court,
April, inA.the
D. matter
1*72. 111
the April
A. this
D. 1873,
of the petition of the undersigned guardian of Jacob
Sauer ami Catharine Saner, minors, for leave to sell
the interest ofthe said minors in and to the following
and hereinafter described real estate, for their sup
port and education, I shall as such guardian, on Mon
day,
22, A. D. 1S72,
at ten
the forenoon,
uponApril
the premises,
expose
ando'clock
sell atinpublic
vendue,
for cush. to the highest bidder, all the right, title and
'minors,
terest in
of and
the said
Jacob
Sauer
and
Catherine
Saner,
to lot eleven (11,) block twenty-four
CM,) in Uushnell's addition to Chicago, County of
Cook, and State of Illinois.
JACOB SERAMOR,
Guardian
Chirngo.
AprilofJacob
I, 1K7*J. Sauer and Catherine Sauer.
Sawin A: Wf.I.i.8. Atty's.
2f.-28
0.
R.
BR0USE,
Attorney, 4M Waba*h Avenue.
TESTATE OF MARY McNULTY, DECEASED.J Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims
and demandsto aguiust
tho same
estateforofadjudi
Mary
McNulty.
the
cation
anddeceased,
settlement atpresent
a regular
term of the
County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court
house,A.inD.the1672,
citybeing
of Chicago,
first Monday of
July,
the firstondaythethereof.
FANNY McNULTY, Executrix.
Chicago,
MarchAttorney.
30, A. D. la72.
O.
K. Brouse.
25*30
MAGRUDER & KERR,
40 tkiUrai
Union Block.
INSTATE-Attorneys.
OF LOUIS
BEXTZ.
DECEASED. J Notice is hereby given to all persons haviug
claims and demands against the estate of Louis
Iieltz, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at.a regular term ot the County Court
of Cook cwunty, to be holden at the Court House, in
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday ofJune, A. D.
1872, being the third day thereof.
LYNE
Administrator.
Chicago. BTarch
2.'. A.S\ D.DAVISON.
IS72.
Maoruiikr & Kerr, Attorneys.
25-30
EST(TATE OF MICHAEL fELTEN [alias] FIL_ T_ EN , deceased. Not ice is hereby given to all per
sons
having
claims
and] Kitten,
demands
againsttothe
estatetheof
Michael
Felten
[alias
deceased,
present
same
for
adjudication
and
settlement
at
a
term of the County court of Cook county, to beregular
hold
en at the conrt house in the city of Chicago, on the
first Monday of .May, A. D. 1872, being the sixth day
thereof. HUBERT KEIPIXGER, Administrator.
Chicago, March A. D. 1872.
THK0. Schixtx, Att y.
21-29
OMAR BUSHNELL,
!i HVsf Randolph Street.
nnANCERY
Illinois.County,
County To
of
v' Cook, ss. NoTK'E.-State
Superior Court ofof Cook
April
Term,
A.D.,
1872.
Harmon
Maring
v,
Sarah
Jane Marin*.In Chance
icery.
Affidavit of the non-resi<
i-residence
of Sarah
defendant above named,
having been
filed'Jane
in theMaring,
office of
the clerk ofsaid Superior court of Cook county, notice
is hereby given to the said Sarah Jane Maring that
the complainant heretofore tiled his hill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
a summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendaut, returnable on the first Monday of April
next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Sarah Jane Maring, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in Baid county, on the first Mon
day of April, 18i 2, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill ofcomplaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will'be
taken
as confessed,
and ofa decree
according
to the prayer
said bill.entered against you
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON. Clerk.
Omar Bushnell, Compl't's Sol'r.
24-27
F. A. HOFFMAN, Jr.,
Attorney, Room 5, LineVa Block.
ESTATE OF THEODORE E. JOHNSON, Dbceabeo.
Notice is hereby given to all perrons having
claims and demands against the estate of Theodore E.
Johnson, deceased, to present the same foradjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cookofcounty,
to bein holden
at theoncourt
in the
city
Chicago,
said county,
the house,
first Monday
of May, A. D. 1^72, being the sixth day thereof.
BERTHA JOHNSON, Administratrix.
Chicago. March 16. A. D. 1872.
F. A. HoiTMAN, Attorney.
23-28
ESTATE OF ARTHUR G. MORVAN. DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Arthur G.
Morvan,
deceased,
present:the
adjudication
and settlement
at atoregular
termsame
of theforCounty
conrt
of
Cook
county,
to
be
holden
at
the
court
house,
in
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May,
A. D.
1872, being the sixth day thereof.
MARY_MORVAN. Administratrix.
Chicago, March 22, A. D. 1872.
25-30P

215
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney. IS Ead llarrustm Street.
TN
THE
DISTRICT
COURT
THE UNITED
X States for the Northern
DistrictOKof Illinois.
In the
matter of Sands Ale Brewing Company, bankrupt.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to an order this
day entered in said court, I. the undersigned assignee
nt the estate of said bankrupt, will sell at public auction
for cash
the highesi
and (is.)
best East
bidders,
at thestreet,
front
door
ot tonumber
eighteen
Harrison
in the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State of
Illinois, in said district, on Saturday, the thirteenth,
day of* April, A. D. Ift7^. commencing at ten o'clock in
the forenoon of said day, and continuing until all
the property hereinafter described shall be sold, all the
following described real estate and property, ail being
in tho satd city of Chicagot comity of Cook, and State
of lot
Illinois,
: Beginning
at (hesubdivision
southwest corner
of
eight to(s)witof.Johu
S. Yogi's
of the
south one-third of out lot twenty (20; of the Canal,
Trustees' subdivision of the- southwest quarter of frac
tional
(3), in (lo.eant
townshipofthiriy-nine
(3y).
north section
of rangethree
fourteen
third principal
meridian : thence running north along the west line of
said lottoeight
andline
along
said part
last-named
pro
duced
the (>/,
-north
ot that
of out lotlinetwenty
(iflt), conveyed by Peter Kanienbuger and wife to Peter
Got-bel by deed, dated January 2, ln52, and recorded in,
the recorder's office of Cook county, Illinois, Kebruary
4,eastIK'C,along
in book
of deeds,
runningsaid 45north
line atof poge3l4
said lot; sothence
as aforesaid
conveyed to Peter Goebel to the west line of Pine
street, as the same was extended by the common coun
cil of the city of Chicago; theuce running along the
west line of Pine street to the north line of Pearson
street, and thence west along the north line of Pearson
street
to theofplace
of beginningsaid
property
a frontage
one hundred
and sixty-seven
(107) having
feet on
Pearson street, by a frontage of one hundred and seven
(107) feet on Pine street, and being the property con
veyed to and
said wife
SandsandAlaRichard
BrewingMcClevuy
Company(widower)
by John by
K.
Stafford
deed dated the 26th day of January, A.D. 1-m-i, which
deed was. duly recorded in the Recorder's office ofCook
county
on atthepage
15th W>,
daytogether
of March,
in book aforesaid,
277 of deeds,
withA.D.
also1864,
the
boiler and engine, and the brick, iron and other debris .
ofdestroyed buildings and machinery on said premises.
Also a certain leasehold estate in premises known and
described
as lot
(I I),(in),
in the
Assessors'
division
of block two
(2) fourteen
and lot ten
id the
south one-third
and
north
two-thirds
of
block
twenty
(20),
in
Canal
Trustees' subdivision of section three (3;. township
thirty-nine (3y), north of range fourteen (14), easL of
third
principal
meridian,
belng*,the
property
west
Pine street,
leased
to the said
Sarlds Ale
Brewing
Comof
pany
by
Albert
Srueeds.
by
lease
dated
September
first,
A.
186bsaid
lease and
runs istwenty-one
years from
saidD. 5th
September,
subject to(21)a revaluation
every Jive years, and said leasehold will Ive sold subject
to all arrearages of rents and taxes.and all of said
premises are to be sold free and discharged of all liens
and
for 1*71Also
excepted;,
to theincumbrances
provisions ot(laxes
said order.
lots twoaccording
(2), three
(3) ana four (4), in John S. Vogt's subdivision of the
south one-third C-j) of block or out lot number twenty
(20), in the Canal Trustees' subdivision of the south
west quarter of fractional section three (.1). township
thirty-nine (.iy), north range fourteen (H), east of
third principal meridian. Also the east one hundred
[10ti] feet of lot five [;Vj Ln the Assessors' division of
the
north
of saidsubdivision
block, or outof lot
twenty
[20] of
the two-thirds
Canal Trustees'
fractional
section
aforesaid.
Also, ahthreethat partofinlottownship
seven [7],and
in therango
Kai.. Assessors'
division of sauC north two-thirds of block or out lot
twenty [20] aforesaid, bounded and Jesc ibed as fol
lows, that is to say : commenciuaat tpe northeast cor
ner
of said
[7 j,seven
and running
thenceand
south66-100
on
the east
linelotofseven
said lot
[7] thirty-five
[35 36-100] feet, more or less, to ttlie sduth line of said
~- \- \\ ~ , and thence west on saidsmith line ninety
lot
[yo]sere
feet, more
ninety-six
[196] or
feetless,
easttoofathepoint
westonelinehundred
of said anil
;lot
seven
[7j,
being
the
east
line
ot
Green
Bay
street,
called Itnsh" street: thence northwesterly on a now
line
parallel with said west line of said lot seven [7j thirtysevennorth
and 7-10 of
[37 said
7-10]lotfeet,
more or less, to a pointand
in
the
seven
ninety-sixline
[ 1!*] feet
east of
satdi 7J,westonelinehundred
of said lot
seven
[7],
and
thence
east
on
the
north
line
of
said
lot
seven [7] to the place of beginuing, being a portion of
,the property conveyed to said Sands Ale Brewing
Company by William Lill, by deed dated the 1st day of
July, A. D. 1868. Also, the east forty [401 feet of the
west
eighty-five
[t*5l feet
of lot fiveof[51
of thetwenty
Assessors'
division
of the north
two-thirds
block
[20]
of tho Canal Trustees' subdivision of the southwest
quarter of fractional section three [3]. township thirty-niue [39], north range fourteen [14], east of the
third orprincipal
partTrustees1
of said
block
out lot meridian.
twenty [20] Also,
of thethat
Canal
subdivision
of
the
southwest
quarter
orfractional
tion three, township and range aforesaid, describedsecaa
follows: commencing one hundred and ninety-six
[196] feet east of a point on the east line of Rush
street
Bay street],
seventy-five
and )i [formerly
[75^] feetGreen
in a southerly
direction
from
the
northwest
corner
of
said
block,
runuingthence southerly on a line parallel with
the
west lino of safd block, thirty-seven and 7-10 [37 7-10],
feet
thence
east
to
the
west
line
of
lot
two
[21
of
JohnS. Vogt's subdivision of the south one-third of
out lot twenty [20] of the south-west quarter of frac
tional
section
[3] aforesaid,
if said west line
produced
and three
extended
norththence
on were
said
line so produced
to a point
due west ofnorth
the placa
of
beginning, thence east to the place of beginning. AIbo
a certain leasehold estate in lots numbered twelve and
thirteen [12 and 13] of the assessor's division of block
number twenty [20] ln ('anal trustees subdivision of
section three [3] aforesaidbeing the property [east of
Pine
street]
leased
to saidbySands
Ale Brewing
Com
pany
by Albert
Smeeds,
lease dated
Septemher
1st.
A.
I>. 1868;
said lease
runs twenty-one
years
from soiil
date, and is subject to a re-valuation every five years
and said leasehold will bo sold subject to all arrear
ages for rents and taxesand the iron, brick and other
debris upon said premises will be sold together with
Baid leaseall of said property being in the city of
Chicago, county of Cook, and State of Illinois. And
all of said property will be sold [except as aforesaid]
free and discharged ofall encumbrances, by order ofsaid
court ; and alBO by order of said court the said lots two
[2],the
three
[3] one-third
and four [4]
of JohnS.
of
south
of said
out lotVogt'ss'jhdivision
twenty. TJ20], and
the said parts of lots five [ft] and seven [7] In the. said
assessors' division of the said north two-thirds of paid
lot twenty [20] with all brick, iron and other debris \
thereon, will be offered for sale together In one body,
and they will be so sold. And further particulars
regarding
said sale
said property may be obtained 1
on application
to theand
undersigned.
ROBERT
E. JENKINS.
Assignee of Bands
Ale Brewing
Co. .a Bankrupt.
Chicago, March 9, 1872.
24-27
22-26
RICH ft NOBLE,
Attorneys.
NOTICE FOR PUBLICATION.-This Is to give no
tice, that on the 26th day of March, A. D 1872, a
warrant In bankruptcy was issued against the estate of
William
of Chicago,the adjudged
county ofa bank
Cook,
and StateH.ot Law,
Illinois,
who hasinbeen
rupt on his own petition, that the payment! of any
debts and the delivery of any property belonging to
such bankrupt, to him or. for his use, and the trans
fer of any property by him are forbidden by law; that
a meeting of tlie creditors of the said bankrupt to
prove their debts, and to choose one or more assignees
of his eBtate, will be held at a court of bankruptcy,
to
at the
officecounty
of Homer
N. Hibbard.
in the
citybeofholden
Chicago,
in said
and State,
before Homer
N. Hibbard. Register on the eighth day of May. A. D.
1872, at ten o'clock a. m. B. II. CAMPBELL,
U. 8. Marshal. Messenger.
By A. B. COTES, Deputy.
Rich A Noble, Att'ys.
26-28

Chicago

2 I 6

Legal

News.
ATTORNEYS.

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
QHAS. M. HARRIS,
8. E. cor. Clark and Adams.
MILLER, WILLIAMSON I3U4 W.
MILLER,
lUudcilph

Landlord
AND
33*

Tenant's
SPRINGFIELD (Hi.) ATTORNEYS.
Lawyer.
HERNDON & ORENDORF,
Office west side square. 27*
ADAPTED TO EVERY STATE
JAOKBONmLEjnj^} ATTORNEYS.
OF THE UNION.
Tg^ETCHAM, I. J.
BY AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW.
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
PEPPER, WILSON A MARTIN,
A
Book
of Law, but not a Law Book ;
Room 2 Bunk Building.
Giving the legal rights and liabilities of LAN DLORDS
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
and TENANTS, and PURCHASERS and SELLERS of
SANKOBD, E. Special attention given to Collec REAL ESTATE; with a clear and comprehensive
tions and Real Estate.
M* statement !of ALL THE LAW relating to their in
terests. Also, Practical Advice and Suggestions to
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.

KAY & BROTHER.

FRANK J. CRAWFORD,
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOB-AT-LAW,
Ho. .128 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
GEORGE C. FRY,
HAVE JUST PUBLISHED
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
44
34 ainton Street, Room 5, Chicago.
KERR ON RECEIVERS,
. GOODWIN.
K. C. LARNED.
H. 8. TOWL*.
GOODWIN,
LARNED
&
TOWLE,
ONE VOLUIE, Sto, 94.80,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
A Treatise on the Law and Practice as to Beceivers
No.
376
Wabaeh Avenue, Chicago.
12
appointed by the Court of Chancery.
BATES
*
HODGES,
BY WILLIAM WILLIAMSON KERR,
Attorneys at Law, 113 W. Madison St.
Of Lincoln's Inn, BarriBter-at-Law,
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lake, Utah.
With Notes and References to American
H. M. HERMAN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Authorities,
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kaneat
26
By Geo. TUCKER BISPnAH, Esq.
ROGERS
&
ROGERS,
Of the Philadelphia Bar.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS.
Bt Paul, Minn
Philadelphia.,

About to Let a House,

About to Hire a House,
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
About to Sell a House,
TN THE DISTRICTAttorney.
COURT OF THE UNITED
About to Purchase a House.
1. States, for the Northern District of Illinois. In
the matter of William WeiUell, bankrupt.-In Bank- 4 " It shows how Landlords can protect their prop
CHARLES DRIE8SLEIH,
IN PRESS,
"sotfie is hereby given that a second and third gen erty and rents.
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
eral
meeting
of
the
creditors
of
said
bankrupt
will
be
Mo'
It
Bhows
how
Tenants
can
protect
themselves
And U. S. Commissioner.
held on the 13th day of May, 172, at 2 o'clock p. m in from the impositions of Landlords.
A DIGEST OF THE STATUTES AND DECISIONS
the
of Chicago,
and before
H. N.inHit),
Weste-n Union Telegraph Office, 554 Wabash Ave
bard,city}>i..
Iteintnr,at the
for offlceof
the purposes
named
the 4c" It shows how Purchasers of Real Estate can
ON
27th and iisth sections of the Bankrupt Act of March avoid the many dangers which exist of losing both
2, Chicago,
1867. April liy*.^ ^ JENKINSi A9signM. property and purchase money, and how they can detect
DIVORCE AND ALIMONY
N B In the late tire all proofs of debt in the hands worthless or imperfect titles.
AD VERTISEMENT.
of the Assignee and Rogister in Bankruptcy were de- It contains a full collection of Forms, giving
...ill V.
anuu.arv f.ireadi
r.,ra,-li creditor
f-reilitnr toHi make
mnk<
stroyed. It(? will
be necessary
IN THE UNITED STATES,
' ROBF""
ROBERT K.1 JENKINS,
another proof.
Assignee.
27-28
nr
STEVENS &HAYNES
Honest Mortgages.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
Hones* Power* of Attorney,
WM. HARDCASTLE BROWNE, Esq.,
Stateit, for the Northern District of Illinois. In
Bankruptcy. In the matter of Sands' Ale Brewing
Law Publishers,
Honest Trust Deeds,
Company, a bankrupt. Notice is hereby given that
Ac, Ac, Ac,
Of the Philadelphia Bar,
pursuant to an order duly eatered in said court, the
undersigned assignee of the estate of said bankrupt,
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
PRICE: Cloth Extba,$2.00; Law Sheep, $2.50.
will
sell and
at public
auction,at for
hand,
to theIS
highest
best bidder,
the cash
front indoor
of No.
ONE
VOLUME,
8
vo.
Sent by mail on receipt of price.
East Harrison street, in the city of Chicago, on Satur
AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS,
day, the 27th day of April, A. D. 172, commencing at
ten o'clock in the forenoon of said day, and continu
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
ing until the property hereinafter named shah be sold, H. R. THOMPSON & CO.,
allthe
theundersigned
right, title and
interest of
said bankrupt,
of
as Assignee
aforesaid,
in and to and
the
LONDON.
following described desperate and doubtful claims to
KAY & BROTHER,
Law Publishers,
wit: The balance of a claim against the Lorillard
Fire
Insurance
Company
of
New
York
for
f9.147.ft0,
upon; balance
which adividend
60 per the
cent,Hide
hasand
>>eenLeather
collec
Law Publishers, Booksellers and Importers, Worts in all Classes of Literature
400 Wabasb Avenue,
ted
of a claim ofagainst
SCPPIsIED TO ORDER.
Insurance Company of Boston, Mass., for 8*.7rt>,87, up17 and 19 South Stxtb Street,
on whichofa
a dividend
of .to per
has Fire
been Insurance
collected ;
CHICAGO.
balance
claim against
thecent,
Irving
Company
New York,
for $4,631.M,
whichagainst
adiv
Philadelphia. Catalogues and Estimates Fumuhed, and
SS" Agents Wanted, to whom exclusive terri 24-27
idend
of30ofpercent,
has been
collectedupon
; a claim
the
Merchants
Insurance
Co.,
ofChicago,
for
$'.',573.75,
Orders I*romptly Filled.
nothing collected ; also, claims against the Merchants tory will be given.
The Trustees and Officers or Public Li
Insurance Co., of Hartford, Conn.; the Putnam Insur
ance
Hartford, Conn.;
Conn., and
Norwich
Insuebraries may rely upon the naosut
ance Co.,
Co., of
of Norwich,
thesethelast
three claims
of Danville. 111., lias for sale from
ul attention to their
have beeu compromised and settled by the under THENo.undersigned,
1
to
66,
inclusive,
of
the
Commiulotu.
signed, but it is understood that in some cases a fur
CALLAGHAN&Co.
ther
percentage
may
be
paid,
dependent
on
the
amount
realized from assets of companies ; also alt the uncol
By
importing
DIRECT
from England a consider
lected elaini* on account of judgments, promissory
"Common Law,"
able saving is effected, espeoioJly in the Customs duty,
notes, and debts due on open account, belonging to
said estate, a list whereof, so far as known, may be
from
which
Public
Institutions
in the United States are
WITH
seen at the offlco of the undersigned,
exempt.
7 Volume, of HARBISON'S DICIEST,
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
CALLAGHAN & COCKCROFT,
27-28
Assignee
SUNDRY mistakes have been made by our Foreign
FOB
and Colonial Correnpondenu* in addressing their let
ASSIGNEES NOTICE.-Northem District of Illi
ters,
we beg to notify that the members of our firm are
#300.00.
espectfully
call
the
attention
of
the
profession
to
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the 9th
Henry G. Stevens and Robeet W. Haynks. the son
dayTheofundersigned
April. A. D. 1672.
V. LESEURE.
and stepson ot the late Valentine Stevens, the eminent
;their large stock of
hereby gives notice of his appoint 27p
Law Publisher. Since our lather's death we have con
ment
of Arthur Schnls
and P.John
N.
tinued to carry on the business of Law Publishers,
Young,asof assignee
Raciue.Wisconsin.and
William
Wright,
Booksellers and Exporters, at the above ad
of Naperville, in the county of Dupage, and State of
dress.
Illinois,
co-partners,
the city
A. B. JENKS,
During his recent visits to the United States and
of Chicago,
county oflately
Cook,doing
andbusiness
State ofinIllinois,
In
Attorney.
_
Canada, Robekt W. Haynes secured many Friends
said district, under the firm name and style of Scholz, ESTATE OF LEWIS P. HILL. DECEASKD.and
Correspondents : we are thus enabled to give ref
Young A Co.. and who have been adjudged bankrupt,
is hereby given to all peinonH having claims
erences of the highest character in most of the princi
upon their own petition, by the District court of the and Notice
demands against the estate of Lewis P. Hill, de
palWeAmerican
United States in and
for
the
said
District.
ceased,
to
present
the
name
fur
adjudication
and
settle
nocities.
connection whatever with any other
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee. ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook Embracing the BE POSTS of all the leading house have
of
business,
and to abroad
prevent are
delayrespectfully
and miscar
county, to be liolden at the Court House, in the city of
riage,
our
Correspondents
re
Courts in this Country and England.
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, bequested to plainly address their letters to ub as fol
CLAKKSON 4c VAN BCHAACK,
iuir
the
third
dav
thereof.
lows:

JOHN L. WOODCOCK, Administrator.

Attorneys,
454 Waba*hyf Avenue.
We hare a very full assortment of
ISABELLA HILL, Administratrix.
/"IHANUERY
NOTICE.-State
Illinois, County of
STEVENS & HAYNES,
Cook!, i. Circuit court of Cook county, March Chicago, April 9, A. D. 1872.
27-32a
term A D 1(*72. Catherine McKny and Hector'McKay A. B. Jknkb, Att'y.
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
v o?ie W:Hill, Sarah J. Hill, Adam S. Bamter. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.-We, the under
Luke B. McMurray. George W. errall. John V
LONDON,
signed, have formed a limited partnership, to be New Text Book's and Digests,
Heaney,
Sarah
J.
Wheeler,
Siancy
M.
Gmldard.
Mel
ENGLAND.
on under the name of H. M. Haigbt, in Chi
ville 07 Karnes. Catherine Gallagher, Meyer Is ew- carried
cago,
Cook
county
Illinois,
from
April
1,
18.2,
to
April
and an unusually full line of
lierger,
GilbertA. Cleveland.
ICleveland.
terser, jJ.. W.
Aaron
. Turner,
iu,,,N., Hart,
... . . Albert 0. 1 1874, to carry on the retail grocery business, and the
Extract
from
"
Report
of
Julius
Rosenthal,
Esq.,
N. Nugeiit"Ifora<:e
of selling groceries, provisions, produce, and
Librarian to the President and Members or
Allen. George t. Cram and Robert H. Walkor.Iu business
those things incident to retail grocery trade. The
the
Chicago
Law
Institute."
November,
1870.
Chancery.
Cross-Bill.
undesigned, U. M. Haight, is thegeuoral partner,
RARE AND VALUABLE WORKS,
Affidavit that upon due inquiry Sarah J. Hill. Adam said
" To our collection of English Reports a valuable
of said Chicago,
and hasofout
S. Bainter. Luke It. Mi-Murray, George W. Ferrall, groceries
addition has been made by the importation of a
and property
the Into
cash the
valuecommon
ot 81 Win.stock
and
Nancy
M.
Goddard.
Catherine
Gallagher,
J.
W
Tur
Oscar C. Chase is the special partner, of said Chicago, out of print, which we are offering;at lowest current full and well preserved set of the House of Lords
ner, Gilbert Cleveland, A. N. Nugent and Horace and
Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58
has put into the common stock ^jC1"^"i^caj1"^
Allen, defendant* above named, cannot be found, so
prices.
that process cannot be served upon tbelu, having beeu jyjj
volumes.
OSCAR C. CHASE.
" English books were Imported directly free of
tiled in the office of the clerk of said Circuit court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said Sarah
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the
We would also call attention to our superior facili firm
J. Hill, Adam 8. Bainter, Luke R. McMurray, George
EDWIN
GREENE.
of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose
W. fVrrall, Nancy M. Goddard, Catherine Gallagher,
Attorney, 46 Hubbard Court
ties for importing, being in monthly receipt of
diligenee, promptness, and care in filling our or
-J. w. Turner, Gilbert Cleveland, A. N. Nugeut and TESTATE OF
JOSEPH
MEEKEB,
DECEASED.
ders,
I have thankfully to acknowledge."
Horacecross-bill
Allen, that
complainants
is hereby given to all persous having claims
their
of the
complaint
in saidheretofore
court, on tiled
the andJ Notice
demands
against
the
estate
of
Joseph
Meeker,
de
CONSIGNMENTS
TROM
LONDON
chancery side thereof, and that a summons thereupon ceased,
to present the same for adjudication and set
Issued
outonofthe
saidthird
court
against
said defendants,
at a regular term of the County court of Cook
Scale of Advertising Rates.
turnable
Monday
of March
(1872). as is reby tlement
county, to be hoiden at the court house, in the city of direct, which we are selling at unusually low figures.
law required, whicli summons was, on the l*th day of Chicago,
on the first Monday of Juno, A. D. 1872, be
March, A. D. 1*72, duly returned by the sheriff of said ing tho third
day
thereof.
county, not served upon yon, the last above-named de
MEEKEB, Executrix.
A large collection of Second-band Text- Space. 1 w. 2 w. 3 w. 4w. 1 3 m. 16 m.
fendants, and that upon diligent inquiry and search he Chicago AprilELIZABETH
A. D. 1872.
83.25 SS.OO'/SIS.jO
ItookM,
Dlsjeali aud Report* kept constantly on
JLOO JL75
was unable to And you in his county, so that he could EnwiN Gree.nr,1"Att'y.
27-30
notNow,
serveunless
Kafd summons
uponSarah
yon. J. Hill, Adam 8.
hand.
4.7:.
6.00 15.75 30.00
3.50
yon,
the
said
2.00
2
sq
TDCCC I GARDEN D| AklTC f
Bainter, Luke B. McMurray, George W. Ferrall, FRUIT
SHADE I nttO I HEDGE YLAN I O S Catalogues sent promptly upon application.
Nancy
M.
Goddard,
Catherine
Gallagher.
J.
W.
Tur
8.00 23.00 41.00
5.00
6.50
2.80
3q
ner, Gilbert Cleveland, A. N. Nugeut and Horace
Allen, shall personally be and appear before Baid
37.50 73.75
15.00
1287
8.75
4.08
4
col....
Circuit court ot Cook county, on the first day of a
gaS SEEDS !
term thereof, to be hoiden at Chicago, in said county,
on the third Monday of May, 1872, and plead, answer Apple and Crab, 100 2 |to 4 ft.. $4 ; 4 to 6 ft., $3.
\i col.... 8.70 14.37 21.50 27.50 72.50 135.00
or demur to the said complainants cross-bill of com
plaint, the same, and the matters and things therein Pear, stand., extra, l.year, Bartlett, etc., 3 to 4 ,ft.. CALLACHAN & CO., 1 col 15.00 27.50 138.75:52.50 lST'.OOi 262.50-'
charged and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a per doz., 82.30.
decree entered against yon according to the prayer of Seeda, Peach, bush., $2 ; Apple Osage, now, bush.,
Ten lines of Afrnte make a Square.
said cross-bill. NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
Advertisements must be paid lor in advance,
Claskson A Van Sciiaack, Compl'ts' Sol'ra. 27-ao $12.Potato**., Early. Rose, White^Peach Blow, per
and when not m> paid. 50 percent, will bo added
525 Wabash Ave.,
Legal Notices not Included in the udqyc.
bush,
$2.
J. II. BATTEH,
Seedling*,
lono Soft Maple, si: Ash, $3; Elm, $2.
^Mntod attluTciiicAOoTKOAlTNEWS Press, IS
STATIONER,
CHICAGO, ILL.
Illustrated
Cutalogue 100 pages, and Price List, 10c,
North Jefferson street, Chicago.
IU LA SALLE STREET.
15-27
V. K. PHCENIX, Bloomingtou, 111.
l'J-30 15-27
Law Stationery and Legal Blanks.

Qhicago

Jegal

^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, In the year 1871, by the Chicago Legal News Company, injthejofflce of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 28.

Courts.
We are under obligations to the law
firm of Rosenthal & Pence, of this city,
for the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed April. 11, 1872.
Chablet R. O'Connor, et al. v. John L. Wilson
et al.
Appeal from Recorder'n Oaurt, City of Chicago.
fAMENDING SHERIFF'S RETURN.
1. The True RuleWhen Notice Required
The true rule of practice in all cases of amend
ment ofa record, requires that where a case has
been disposed of and passed from the docket, the
record should not be permitted to be amended,
unless the party to be affected by it shall be noti
fied. The amendment ol a sheriff s return comes
within the same rule.
2. As a Matter of Course.Such amendments,
as a matter of course, and without notice, should
only be permitted during the term at which the
cause is determined or at a previous term.
The cases of Turney v. Organ, 16 111., 43; Dunn v.
Rogers, ! 111., 260; Moore v. Purple, Oilm 149;
Morris v. Trustees, 15 111., 266, should be modilied
so far as thev announce a different rule.
S. By Whom Made.The return can only be
amended by the facts. Either the officer who
served the writ and knows the facts, can amend
the return by the facts, or if amended by his prin
cipal, then it can only be done by a memorandum
made by the deputy at the time of service, and
which clearly and unmistakably states the facts
omitted in the return.
4. Within What Time.Whilst the court would
not fix the period within which an application
for an amendment shall be made, it is held that
such an amendment cannot be made after the lapse
of time that intervened in this case (to wit : twelve
years.)
5. Ex -sheriffWilson had neither knowledge nor a
memorandum which could, under any circum
stances, authorizo the amendmentthe amend
ment was recklessly made. No officer has a legal
or moral right to make a false return, or one that
he does not know to be true.
1 16. When Sheriff Interested.The sheriff, in
this case, being an interested party at the time of
making the amendment, was. also, for this reason,
powerless to amend the return under the statute
prohibiting the sheriff from executing process in a
case in which he has an interest.
7. A remark in Botsford v. O'Conner, Sept term,
1869, explained and the court below excused in
the light of previous decisions. (See No. 2 above.)
8. Equity has Jurisdiction.Equity had juris
diction to grant the relief sought, because :
(a.) A fraud was perpetrated on appellants,
which a court of equity should not sanction.
(6.) No other adequate relief can in this case be
perceived, but by a decree in chancery, (illustrat
ing the correctness of the decision iu Owens v.
Eanstcad, 22 111., 101.)
(c.) This false and improper return, as amend
ed, operates as a cloud on appellant's title.
Opinion of the court, by Walker, J.
It appears that Charles O'Connor died
on the first of March, 1858, intestate,
seized of the premises in question, and
leaving surviving him his widow, Ann
O'Connor, and two children, appellants
in this case. On the 21st of October,
1858, the widow, who was at the time of
his death enciente, was delivered of a fe
male child, who was named Ann ; these
three children being his only heirs-atlaw. The widow was on the 4th day of
March, 1858, appointed administratrix
of the estate of deceased, and on the
28th of the following August she tiled a
petition as such in the County Court of
Cook county, asking leave to sell real es
tate to pay debts of the estate.
Appellants, and two tenants in posses
sion, were made defendants, but the
posthumous child was in no manner
made a party to the suitor otherwise no
ticed in the proceeding. A summons
was issued, directed to the sheriff to ex
ecute, returnable to the next September
term of the court. On the day of its
date, Samuel Miles, the deputy sheriff,
Berved it and indorsed upon it this re
turn :
"Served this writ on the withinnamed Marv O'Connor, and Charles
O'Connor, the others not found in my
county, the 26th day of August, A. D.
1858.
John L. Wilson, Sheriff.
By S. Miles, Deputy."
Mary was at that time between three
and four years old, and Charles between
one and two. A guardian ad litem was
appointed for them by the court and at
the return term, and before the birth of
the posthumous child a decree was ren
dered ordering a sale of all the premi
ses to pay debts of the estate. About a
year after the rendition ofthe decree the

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, APRIL 20, 1872.

premises were sold by the administra
trix and a large portion of the property
was purchased by Gilbert L. Wilson, a
brother of the then sheriff. Gilbert L.
Wilson conveyed a portion of the prop
erty to Maria E. Wilson, wife of John L
WilIson, and another portion to Caroline
L. Bishop, sister of himself and John S.
Wilson. John S. and his wife, by gen
eral warranty deed conveyed her por
tion to defendant, Botsford, and he is in
Sossession, claiming under that deed.
Irs. Bishop is in possession by tenants
of the portion conveyed to her, claiming
to own the same. Roles Casey and Muther claim the portion not purchased by
Gilbert Wilson. Litigation having arisen
involving the validity of the proceed
ings in the county court, and the return
on the summons being supposed to be
insufficient to confer jurisdiction of the
person of the defendants in the county
court, John L. Wilson, the then sheriff,
about twelve years after the service was
had, amended the return. This is the
amendment :
" Pursuant to the order of the court, I
have amended the return to this sum
mons by inserting after the words
Charles R. O'Connor, by reading the
same to each of them, this 21st day of
March, A. D. 1870."
Miles, the deputy of Wilson, died in
1862, and on the motion for leave to
amend the return no notice was given to
complainants, or their guardians, of the
intended application to the county court
for leave to amend the return.
Appellants entered a motion to set
aside the order giving leave to amend
the return, and to quash the amended
return but it was overruled by the court.
Thereupon they filed a bill to set aside
the amended return as a cloud on thoir
title, and upon the grounds that it was
fraudulently made. On a hearing the
hill was dismissed, and the record is
brought to this court by appeal, and
errors assigned on the dismissal of the
bill. It is insisted that correct practice
requires, that where a case has been dis
posed of and passed from the docket, the
sheriff should not be permitted to amend
his return, unless the party to be atfected by it shall be notified. This is
the rule in all other cases of amendment
of a record, and it would seem that no
well-founded distinction exists, or suffi
cient reason can be assigned why the
same rule should not apply to the amend
ment of the officer's return. This case
fully illustrates the necessity of giving
parties an opportunity to be heard on
such an application. Here it was sup
posed that the return was insufficient to
give the court jurisdiction of the persons,
and if so, no title to valuable property
passed uuder the proceedings, and by an
amendment of the return, so as to show
jurisdiction, the evidence of the rights of
the parties is reversed. Before the
amendment, if the return was insuffi
cient, the title would appear to be in
appellants, whilst after the amendment
it would appear to be in the purchaser at
the sale by the administratrix, or his
grantees. In case the return fails to
show such a service as gives the court
jurisdiction of the person of the defend
ant, a subsequent amendmentthat shows
such jurisdiction, is vital to the rights of
the parties, and is as effectual to change
the evidence of title as a conveyance or
the judgment or decree itself. To per
mit such amendments as a matter of
course, without notice and by any per
son who may have been in office at the
time, and who may subsequently have
become insolvent, and whose sureties
may be in like condition, or who, by
lapse of time, have become released,
would be calculated to work great wrong
and injustice. The true rule of practice,
upon much and mature reflection, we
think, should only permit such amend
ments as a matter of course and without
notice during the term at which the
cause is determined, or at a previous
term. We are, therefore, of the opinion
that the cases of Turney v. Organ, 16 111.,

43 ; Dunn v. Rogers, 33 111., 260 ; Moore v.

Purple, 3 Gilm. 149, and Morris v. Trus
tees, 15 111., 266, should be modified so
far as they announce a different rule.
It is next objected that the return was
made by the deputy sheriff, and the
amendment was made by the person
who was then sheriff and his principal.
In such a case the presumption is that
the person making the return served the
writ, or did what the return states was
done. We cannot presume that when
the deputy says the service was made by
him, that the writ was executed by his
principal, or that he was present and cog
nizant of what was done or the manner
in which service was actually made, and
in this case it is rendered almost moral
ly certain that Wilson did not serve this
writ, as he says he had Miles as a deputy
for the County court, and that he served
the process of that court.
He further says that he himself served
but few writs during his term in office.
Hence, it is not at all even probable
he even knew that such a writ was
issued. This court has held that where
a service is defective, and the officer
making it is dead, that it cannot be aid
ed by parol evidence ; that due service
was in fact made, Wilson v. Greathouse,
1 Scam., 174. Inasmuch as the return
can only be amended by the facts, it
should be made by the officer who
served the writ and knows the facts,
or if by his principal, then a memoran
dum made by the officer at the time the
service was had, and which clearly and
unmistakably states the facts omitted in
the return.
It is a wrong that the law cannot sanc
tion, to permit records to be recklessly
amended by persons who are ignorant
of'he facts inserted as an amendment.
It Would be in violation of every rule
of law, to place the rights of parties in
such hazard ; that interest, prejudice or
recklessness of irresponsible persons
might thus destroy them at will, yet
when a service has been properly made,
but through accident or inattention the
proper return has not been indorsed,
the furtherance of justice requires that
proper amendments should be allowed.
It is next insisted that an amendment
should not be allowed after the lapse of
nearly twelve years. In the case of
Thatcher v Miller, 13 Mass., 271, the
court hold that a return by a deputy
sheriff cannot be amended by him after
a period of six years from the date of
the return. The court there say:
" More than six years have elapsed since
the return was made, and the deputy
sheriff now offers to insert an essential
fact, the omission of which may render
him liable to an action of damages. It
would be unsafe to expose officers to
such temptation. For an officer to un
dertake, six y6ars after a defective re
turn, to know with certainty the per
formance of a particular duty, when he
is daily and hourly performing similar
duties upon different persons, is more
than can be expected of men, however
strong their memory, and numerous
other cases might be cited to the same
effect. In the case of Coughran v. Gutcheus, 18 111., 390, on an application to amend
a record four years after judgment, it
was said that the motion was out of time,
particularly where there is nothing to
amend by in the record.
There must be a time where such mo
tions will be considered as coming too
late. In this case it is after the lapse of
nearly double the period in which ac
tions are based for the recovery of land.
Under the limitation laws of 1835 and
1839, which has designated the period of
seven years, and quadruple the time al
lowed a non-resident not served with
process, to come in and have the decree
opened and be permitted to defend,
whilst we do not undertake to fix the
period within which such an application
shall be made, we are prepared to hold
that such an amendment cannot be
made after the lapse of time that inter
vened in this case.

Whole No. 186.

Again, this amendment was improper
ly made without reference to the time of
the application. From all ofthe evidence
in the case, we think it does not onlyfail to appear the sheriff had the re
quired knowledge of the facts to make
the amendment, but on the contrary it
does appear, that he did not have such
information. He says he was not in the
habit of serving process, but may have
served a few writs during his continu
ance in office. That Miles was appoint
ed a deputy for the county court and
served its process ; that many thousand
writs were issued and served during his
term, and that he gave a general super
intendence to the business of the office.
And further, the return is made aa
having been served by the deputy. Wil
son also declines to answer whether he
had any knowledge of the service, lest
he might render himself liable. From
these facts who can doubt that he was
entirely ignorant of this service and of
the manner in which it was made. In
stead of saying he knew the service was
made by reading, or by copy, he says he
makes the amendment under the order
of the court.
The court had|made no such order, but
simply given leave to amend. That
leave only implied authority if the facts
warranted it. Only if the truth in refer
ence to the service justified it. No one
can suppose the court had the power to
authorize an amendment by the inser
tion of what was untrue in fact ; or if he
had such power, that he would author
ize such injustice to be perpetrated. No
officer has the legal or moral right to
make a false return, or one that he does
not know to be true. -It seems to us that
this amendment was recklessly made
where the fx.ts disclosed wholly fail to
warrant it.
Nor does it appear that there was any
memorandum which could under any
circumstances authorize the amendment.
The memorandum in pencil " served
upon Charles R. and Mary O'Connor,
August 26th, does not in the remotest de
gree indicate the manner of the service,
whether by copy, by reading, or in some
other mode tne officer may have sup
posed was equally valid.
This memorandum discloses nothing
more than was shown by the return it
self. Nor can the memorandum 208
Hurron St., lend the slightest aid. It
seems to be without any significance as
to the return. If it referred to the sup
posed residence it would not in the
slightest degree aid in determining
whether a copy of the summons was de
livered or it was read to the defendants.
The record seems to be barren of all facts
justifying the amendment.
Again, Wilson had almost a direct in
terest in the amendment, as if the return
was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction
he was liable on his warranty for a large
sum of money, but if jurisdiction could
be shown he would escape such liability.
The law has not authorized, but has pro
hibited the sheriff from executing^ pro
cess in a case in which he has an inter
est. And this amendment falls as fully
within the statute as if it was original
service of the writ. And it is the com
mon law rule that an officer shall not
decide his own case or execute process
in his own favor. Snydacker vs. Brose,
51 111., 357.[2 Chicago Leoal News,
162].
He was for this reason powerless to
amend the return.
In the case of Botsford vs. O'Connor,
September term, 1869, [2 Chicago Legal
News, 170] in which a rehearing was
granted, this court said in reference to
this return : " It may be if the service
was by reading, and the sheriff were to
amend his return so as to show that fact,
it might be different" from the conclu
sion then announced. It will be ob
served that this does not give leave to
amend, but simply leaves the parties to
apply for leave in the court below.
And the parties seem to have under
stood that they had to apply to the court

2l8
below for the purpose, as that was the
course pursued.
From what was then said in the light
of previous decisions of this court the
court below reasonably supposed that
the amendment must be allowed as a
matter of course.
We now come to the question of
whether a court of equity has jurisdic
tion to grant the relief sought. It abund
antly appears that Wilson, who made the
amendment to the return, had a direct
interest in the result of the amendment.
He, with his wife, had sold a considera
ble portion of this property and war
ranted the title. If the return, as origi
nally made, failed to confer jurisdiction,
then he was liable on his warranty, but
if such an amendment should be made
as to obviate the objection, then he
would escape that liability. And we
have seen that he did not profess to have
the requisite information to make the
amendment. And by his use of his for
mer position as sherfff to release himself
from that liability he perpetrated a
fraud on appellants that a court of equity
should not sanction. He should not,
while pretending to perform a duty un
der the law, be permitted to act alone
for the promotion of his own interest by
gaining such an advantage under color
of office. Again, as a general rule, the
return of an officer cannot be attacked
in a collateral proceeding. And in this
case, inasmuch as Wilson is insolvent,
no available remedy can be had by
suing for a false return, and we can per
ceive no other adequate relief but by a
decree in chancery.
In the case of Owens v. Ranstead, 22
111., 161, it was held that in a proper case
made, equity will relieve against the ef
fects of a false return. That the remedy
by action against an officer for a false re
turn is not always adequate, and this
case illustrates the necessity of the rule.
This false and improper return as
amended operates as a cloud on the
title of appellants, be that what it may,
and thev have a right to have the return
restored to its original condition so as to
be unembarrased by it in asserting their
title. For these reasons the decree of
the court below is reversed and the cause
remanded.
Decree reversed.
Rosenthal & Pence for Appellants.
Hon. Grant Goodrich &Geo. C. Bates
for Appellees.
CIRCUIT COURT OF U. S., E. D. OF
PENNA.
In Admiralty.Appeal from the District Court.
Storage Co. v. The Barque Thomas.
A libel in Admiralty will not lie for wharfage as
a maritime lien, the remedy in the Common Law
Courts is adequate.
Opinion by McKennan, Circuit Judge.
April 1st, 1872.
In Jones v. The Coal Barges, 3 Wall.,
Jrv 56, Mr. Justice Grier, with character
istic sententiouspess, said, " A Court of
Admiralty is not needed to try common
law actions of trespass, nor to administer
common law remedies in any form."
And so it may be said here, that the ad
miralty jurisdiction is not to be invoked
to enforce common law rights, for which
the common law has provided appro
priate and efficacious remedies.
The libellants are wharfingers at Phila
delphia, and presented their libel in
rem. to the District Court, to enforce the
payment of wharfage as a maritime lien
upon the respondent's vessel. There is
no authoritative adjudication that a
claim of this sort stands upon such a
footing. Certainly it has not Deen so de
cided by the Supreme Court. The weight
of judicial opinion is the other way. It
has generally been treated only as a
common law lien, to be enforced by
the detention of the vessel by the'
wharfinger, or to be recognized and paid
as such out of the proceeds of the sale
of the vessel, which had been brought
under the control of the court otherwise
than by an original libel, founded upon
the dockage demand. This is the import
of the opinion of Judge Peters in The
New Jersey, 1 Pet. Ad. 223, and of Mr.
Justice Johnson, in the St. Iago de Cuba,
9 Wheat., 418, and I do not regard the
opinion of Judge Story in Ex parte
Lewis, 2 Gall., 483, as determining a dif
ferent rule. Until the Supreme Court
shall decide otherwise, I see no reason
forjexpanding the admiralty cognizance
of a demand, which rests securely upon
a basis of common law right, and for the
enforcement of which by the wharfinger

Chicago

Legal

News.

himself the common law supplies an ef

We are under obligations to Louis
fectual remedy.
Shissler, of the Galena bar, for the fol
The disallowance of the libel by the lowing opinion :
District Court, is therefore affirmed.
Henry Hazlehurst and J. Warren CoulSUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
ston, Esqs., for Libellants.Legal lntelliOpinion filed Jan. 22, 1872.
gencer.
John McKenna etal. v. Charles H. Heny.
Appeal from Jo Davies.
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
AUTHORITY OF GUARDIANWHAT ARE NE
Opinion Filed April 11, 1872.
CESSARIES.
The City of Chicago v. Daniel O'Haha.
1. What are Necessaries.The court ttatcs the
Mandaimtn.
rule ior determining what are necessaries, and
CRIMINAL COURT OF COOK COUNTYWHO holds that the articles furnished or money ad
vanced, must be actually necessary in the particu
TO PAY FEES OF CLERK.
for use, not mere ornament ; for substan
The court affirming the judgment of Judge lar case,
good, not mere pleasure, and must belong to
Rogers, of the Circuit Court of Cook county, hold tial
the
class
the luw generally pronounces nec
that the city, and not the county, is liable to pay essary forwhich
the fees ot the Clerk of the Criminal Court of 2. W hat Ainfants.
htic
les
are Excluded.That the courts
Cook county.Ed Legal News.
have generally excluded from the term necessaries,
The opinion of the Court was deliv horses, bridles, saddles, pistols, liquors, fiddles,
chronometers, etc. But if riding on horseback was
ered by Lawrence, C. J. :
to the health ofthe fufant, the rule was
This was an application for a manda necessary
different.
mus by the Clerk of the Criminal Court 8. Pleasure Trip.That the estate ofan infant
not liable for money advanced to an infant,
of Cook County, against the City of Chi was
without the consent of her guardian, to enable
cago, to compel the payment of certain the
ward to take a trip to California.
fees due to him as such clerk. The act 4. Duty and Power of Guardian.The court
duty and power of a guardian in referof 1853, creating the Recorder's Court of states the
to taking care of his ward's property and
that city, provided that the fees of the erence
furnishing necessaries, and holds that a guardian
sheriff and clerk in criminal convictions, is the judge of what are necessaries for his ward,
when he acts in good faith, a third party has
where they could not be collected from andright
to intervene and usurp the rights and du
the defendant, should be paid out of the no
ties of the guardian, even if the money paid by
city treasury. Under that law the juris such third party i*. in some sense, for the benefit
diction of the court was confined to the of the ward.Ed. Legal New s.
Opinion of the court, by Thornton, J.
city, and hence this provision was not
In 1804 Kate Feehan, since inter-mar
unreasonable. The new Constitution ex
pressly continues the existence of the ried with McKenna, accompanied appel
court, but extends its jurisdiction over lee and wife, on a trip from Illinois to
the county. It is now the only tribunal California, by water. Her passageof general jurisdiction for the adminis money was paid by appellee. Kate was
tration of criminal justice in the county. then an infant and under the control of
Under these circumstances, the city her gtiardian, who was desirous that she
claims that the fees which were willingly should attend school for another year
paid by her when the court was exclu and disapproved of the trip. The only
sively a city court should now be paid proof as to the value of her estate, is
by the county, the court having become that it consisted of an undivided onea county court. In this view it is in third of some realty, which after her
sisted that the clerk should have sought marriage and a few years after the ad
vancement of the money, was sold for
his remedy against the county.
If there were a general statute requir three thousand and two hundred and
ing counties to pay fees in criminal con fifty dollars. There is no proof that this
victions, where they cannot be collected trip was necessary for her health ; or
from the criminals themselves, there that it subserved any purpose, other
would be some plausibility in the claim than pleasure, or as company for the
that this petitioner should look in the wife of appellee.
The court gave for appellee the fol
first instance to the county. Counsel for
the city, in his brief, states this to be lowing instructions : " What are neces
the general law of the State, but we saries depends upon the circumstances of
know of no such statute. There jfl a the case. If the going of defendant,
special act, passed in 180.5, establishing Kate, to California was prudent and
this rule in certain counties, and, by sub proper, under the circumstances proved,
sequent act, some other counties have and the plaintiffadvanced money neces
been added to the list ; but Cook county sary to take her there, and the same was
is not one of them. There being no for her benefit, then it is for the jury to
general law making counties liable for determine whether such advances of
fees of this character, this petitioner has money were for necessaries."
There is no positive rule by means of
no legal claim against Cook county, and
he must be permitted still to collect his which it may be determined what are,
fee from the city, unless the framers of and what are not necessaries. Whether
the new Constitution intended to leave articles are of a class or kind for which
the clerk to his remedy against convicted infants are liable, or whether certain sub
criminals, as is done in all counties in jects of expenditure are necessaries, are
the State, except those named in the to be judged by the court. Whether
they come within the particular clasB
special act mentioned.
But this cannot be supposed, for it and are suitable to the condition and es
might endanger the very existence of tate of the infant, is to be determined
the court by rendering the office of clerk by the jury, as matter of fact. For ex
of such little pecuniary value that no ample, suppose this trip had been to Eu
competent person would undertake its rope, and involving in time sev
responsible duties. Outside of Cook eral years, and an expenditure of
county, the collection of fees in criminal thousands of dollars, would any court
cases is of less importance, as the clerks hesitate to decide that the money
of the Circuit Court depend chiefly upon thus advanced did not constitute nec
fees in civil business. But, under the essaries? Chitty on Con., 141, a note
new Constitution, the Criminal Court of 2; 1 Parson Con., 290; Becler v. Young,
Cook county can exercise no civil juris 1 Bibb., 519 ; 1 Am. leading cases, 248.
diction, and it is well known that in a The court, in the instruction, merely in
very large proportion of criminal con formed the jury, that if the trip was pru
victions, costs cannot be collected from dent and proper, and that the money was
for her benefit, then the jury must deter
the defendants.
We cannot suppose the makers of the mine whether such advances of money
Constitution intended either to deny to were for necessaries. There was not a
the clerk of this important court a rea particle of proof to enable the jury to de
sonable compensation, or to render it as termine as to the propriety or impropri
precarious as it would be if solely de ety, the prudence or imprudence of the
pendant on fees to be collected from con trip ; or that the advancement of the
victed criminals. They expressly con money was for the benefit of appellant.
Even if there had been such proof,
tinued the Recorder's Court under a new
name, and further provided that the the instruction was wrong. The court
clerk of the court should continue in should have defined necessaries in some
office until the expiration of the term manner. Blackstone defines necessaries
for which he was elected. As no other to be " necessary meat, drink, apparel,
mode of compensation was established, physic," and says that an infant may
and as none of an adequate character bind himself to pay " for his good teach
existed under the general laws of the ing and instruction whereby he may
State, we must conclude they intended profit himself afterwards." The articles
the existing mode should continue until furnished or money advanced must be
changed by the Legislature. We fully actually necessary, in the particular case,
agree with the Counsel for the city that for use, not mere ornament; for sub
these fees should now, in justice.be paid stantial good, not mere pleasure, and
by the county, but we are of opinion must belong to the class which the law
the clerk has no power to compel such generally pronounces necessary for in
payment, and that the mandamus against fants.
The courts have generally excluded
the city was properly awarded by the
from the, term necessaries horses,
Circuit Court.

bridles, saddles, pistols, liquors, fiddles,

chronometers, etc. It has been held,
however, that if riding on horseback
was necessary to the health of the infant,
the rule was different.
We have been referred to no case, and,
after a thorough examination, have
found none, in which it has been held
that moneys advanced for traveling ex
penses, under the circumstances of this
case, were necessaries. The Court should
have instructed the jury as to the classes
and general description of articles for
which an infant is bound to pay ; then
the jury must determine whether they
fall within any of the classes, and
whether they are actually necessary and
suitable to the estate and condition of
the infant.
It may be proper to advert to another
principle. The infant had a guardian,
who had charge and management of her
estate, which consisted entirely of realty.
It was the duty of the guardian to super
intend the education and nurture of his
ward, and apply to such purpose, first,
the rents and profits of the estate, and
next, the interest upon the ward's
money. This is the positive command
of the statute, and he was liable, upon
his bond, for non-compliance. He was
the judge of what were necessaries for
his ward ; if he acted in good faith, a
third party had no right to intervene
and usurp the rights and duties of the
guardian. Even if the money paid was,
in some sense, for the infant's benefit,
and the trip was prudent and proper ;
yet if the guardian, in good faith, and in
the exercise of a wise discretion, and
with reference to the best interests of
his ward, supplied her wants and con
tributed means, suitable to her age and
station in life, and in view of her estate,
then the infant would not be liable for
the money as necessaries. Becler v.
Young Supra, Kline [\. L'Amonoieux, 2
Paige, 419 ; Guthrel v. Murphy, 4 Watts,
80 ; Wailing v. Tall, 9 John, 141.
We express no opinion as to the
weight of the evidence, for the reason
that there must be a new trial. The
judgment is reversed for the errors indi
cated, and the cause remanded.
L. Shissler, for Appellants.
D. Sheean & W. Weigley, for Ap
pellee.
OFFICIAL.
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,
Passed at the Second Session of the FortySecond Congress.
[General NatureNo. 32.]
AN ACT in addition t an act entitled "An act to
amend an act entitled 'An act for the removal
of causes in certain cases from State courts,' ap
proved July twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred
and sixty-six,'' approved March second, eighteen
hundred and sixty-seven.
Re it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled. That,
whenever a personal action has been or
shall be brought in any State court by an
alien against any citizen of a State who
is, or at the time the alleged action ac
crued was, a civil officer of the United
States, being non-resident of that State
wherein jurisdiction is obtained by the
State court, by personal service of pro
cess, such action may be removed into
the circuit court of the United States in
and for the district in which the defend
ant shall have been served with process,
in the same manner as now provided for
the removal of an action brought in a
State court by the provisions of section
three of the act of March second,
eighteen hundred and thirty-three, en
titled "An act further to provide for the
collecting of duties on imports."
Approved, March 30, 1872.
[General NatureNo. 33.]
AN ACT to authorize the construction of i bridge
across the Mississippi river at or near the town
of Clinton, in the State of Iowa, and other
bridges across said river, and to establish them
as post-roads.
Re it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That it
shall be lawful for any person or persons,
company or corporation, to build a bridge
across the Mississippi river, at such point
on said river, within fifteen miles of the
town of Clinton, in the State of Iowa, as
may accommodate the Chicago, Burling
ton and Quincy railroad and its connec
tions on the west side of said river, and
to lay on or over said bridge railway
tracks for the more perfect connection of
any railroads that are, or shall be, con
structed to the said river at or opposite
said point, under the limitations and

Chicago
conditions hereinafter provided ; that
said bridge shall not interfere with the
free navigation of said river beyond
what is necessary in order to carry into
effect the rights and privileges hereby
granted ; and in case of any litigation
arising from any obstruction, or alleged
obstruction, to the free navigation of
said river, the cause may be tried before
the district court of the United States of
any State in which any portion of said
obstruction or bridge touches : Provided,
That said bridge shall not be so located
or constructed as to interfere In any
manner with the approaches to the rail
road bridge now erected at Clinton, or
with the piers of the same, or so as to
obstruct in any manner the passage of
said bridge by boats, vessels, or rafts, or
to render such passage more difficult or
dangerous : Provided, however, That this
clause shall not be construed to prohibit
the crossing of the approaches to said
bridge, if such crossing shall be found
necessary.
Sec. 2. That any bridge built under
the provisions of this act may, at the
option of the company building the
same, be built as a draw-bridge, with a
pivot or other form of draw, or with un
broken or continuous spans: Provided,
That if the said bridge shall be made
with unbroken and continuous spans, it
shall not be of less elevation, in any
case, than fifty feet above extreme highwater mark, as understood at the point
of location, to the bottom chord of the
bridge; nor shall the spans of said
bridge be less than two hundred and
fifty feet in length, and the piers of said
bridge shall be parallel with the current
of the river, and the main span shall be
over the main channel of the river, and
not less than three hundred feet in
length: And provided also, That if any
bridge built under this act shall be con
structed as a draw-bridge, the same shall
be constructed as a pivot draw-bridge,
with a draw over the main channel of
the river at an accessible and navigable
point, and with spans of not less than
one hundred and sixty feet in length in
the clear on each side of the central or
pivot pier of the draw; and the next ad
joining spans to the draw shall not be
less than two hundred and fifty feet ;
and said spans shall not be less than
thirty feet above low-water mark, and
not less than ten above extreme highwater mark, measuring to the bottom
chord of the bridge ; and the piers of
said bridge shall be parallel with the
current of the river, where said bridge
may be erected : And provided also, That
said draw shall be opened promptly,
upon reasonable signal, for the passage
of boats.
Sec. 3. That any bridge constructed
under this act, and according to its limi
tations, shall be a lawful structure, and
shall be known and recognized as a postroute, upon which, also, no higher charge
shall be made for the transmission over
the same of the mails, the troops, and
the munitions of war of the United
States than the rate per mile paid for
their transportation over the railroads
public highways leading to the said
bridge, and the" United States shall have
the right of way for postal-telegraph
purposes across said bridge.
Sec. 4. That all railway companies de
siring to use the said bridge shall have
and be entitled to equal rights and
privileges in the passage of the same,
and in the use of the machinery and
fixtures thereof, and of all the ap
proaches thereto, under and upon such
terms and conditions as shall be pre
scribed ,by the Secretary of War, upon
hearing the allegations and proofs of the
parties in case they shall not agree.
Sec. 5. That the structure herein au
thorized shall be built and located under
and subject to such regulations for the
security of navigation of said river as
the Secretary of War shall prescribe,
and the said structure shali be at all
times so kept and managed as to offer
reasonable and proper means for the
passage of vessels through or under said
structure; and the said structure shall
be changed at the cost and expense of
the owners thereof, from time to time,
as Congress may direct, so as to preserve
the free and convenient navigation of
said river. And the authority to erect
and continue said bridge shall be subject
to revocation, modification by law when
ever the public good shall in the judg
ment of Congress so require, without
any expense or charge to the United
States.

Legal

Sec. 6. That the Muscatine Western

Railroad Company, or their assigns, a
corporation existing under the laws of
the State of Iowa, be, and is hereby,
authorized to construct and maintain a
bridge across the Mississippi river at the
city of Muscatine, in the State of Iowa.
The bridge authorized to be built by this
section is hereby declared to be a postroute, and shall have all the privileges,
and is subject to all the terms, restric
tions, and requirements contained in the
foregoing sections of this act.
Sec. 7. That a bridge may lie con
structed and maintained across the Mis
sissippi river, at any point they may se
lect, between the counties of Carroll and
Whitosides, in the State of Illinois, and
the counties of Jackson and Clinton, in
the State of Iowa, either by the Western
Union Railroad Company or the Sabula,
Ackley, and Dakota Railroad Company,
or both of them, or by either or both of
their successors or assigns, or by any
person, company, or corporation having
authority from the States of Illinois and
Iowa. The bridge authorized to be built
by this section is hereby declared to be
a post-route, and has all the privileges,
and is subject to all the terms, restric
tions, and requirements contained in the
foregoing sections of this act.
Sue. 8. That a bridge may be con
structed and maintained across the Mis
sissippi river, at any point they may se
lect, between the county of La Crosse,
in the State of Wisconsin, and the
county of Houston, in the State of Min
nesota, by the Milwaukee and St. Paul
Railway Company, their successors or
assigns^ or bv any person, company, or
corporation having authority from the
States of Wisconsin and Minnesota. The
bridge authorized to be built by this sec
tion is hereby declared to be a post-route,
and has all the privileges, and is subject
to all the terms, restrictions and require
ments contained in the foregoing sec
tions of this act.
Sec. 9. That the right to alter or
amend this act, so as to prevent or re
move all material obstructions to the
navigation of said river by the construc
tion of bridges, is hereby expressly re
served.
Sec 10. That this act shall take effect
and be in force from and after its pas
sage, without any expense or charge to
the United States.
Approved, April 1, 1872.
[General NatureNo. 34.]
AN ACT to authorize the restoration of Gilbert
Morton to the naval service.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer
ica in Congress assembled, That the Presi
dent of the United States be, and he is
hereby authorized to nominate, and, by
and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, to re-appoint Gilbert Morton an
ensign in the navy.
Approved, April 1, 1872.
[General NatureNo. 35.]
AN ACT to authorize the President to appoint
George l'luukutt a paymaster in the navy.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer
ica in Congress assembled, That the Presi
dent be, and he is hereby, authorized to
appoint George Plunkett a paymaster in
the United States navy, if, in" his opin
ion, the interests of the public service
will thereby be promoted.
Approved, April 2, 1872.
[General NatureNo. 36.]
AN ACT to provide for the reporting and print
ing of the debates in Congress.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer
ica in Congress assembled, That the Con
gressional Printer is hereby directed to
enter into a contract, in behalf of the
General Government, with Franklin
Rives, Jefferson Rives, and George A.
Bailey, for the reporting and printing of
the debates in Congress for the term of
two years, on and from the fourth day of
March, eighteen hundred and seventyone, in accordance with a proposed form
of contract from the said Rives and Bai
ley, submitted to and approved by the
Joint Committee on Public Printing on
the part of the Senate.
Sec. 2. That for the purpose aforesaid
there be appropriated and paid, out of
any money in the treasury not other
wise appropriated, the sum of four hun
dred thousand dollars, or so much there
of as may be necessary, the accounts
having been approved, as in previous

News.

years, bv the Secretary of the Senate and

by the Clerk of the House, or their rep
resentatives.
Sec 3. That no person shall be em
ployed as a reporter for the House with
out the approval of the Speaker of the
House : Provided, That it shall be the
duty of the Joint Committee on Public
Printing to publish an advertisement
once a week, for four weeks, in one news
paper.in each of the cities of Washing
ton, Philadelphia, New York, Boston,
Chicago, Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis,
and San Francisco, inviting proposals in
detail for reporting and for printing, to
gether and separately, the dehates of the
Forty-Third, the Forty-Fourth, and the
Forty-Fifth Congresses, together or sep
arately, and to report all proposals
which may be received before the desig
nated day to Congress, at the earliest
practicable date, with estimates, hereby
directed to be made by the Congress
ional Printer, of the cost of report
ing the debates and of printing them at
the Government Printing Office, accomP anied by the recommendations of the
J oint Committee on Public Printing on
all proposals and estimates so submitted ;
and that the bills for such advertising be
paid in equal parts from t#he conting
ent funds of the Senate and of the
House of Representatives : And provided
further, That no debates shall be reported
or published at public expense, after the
close of the present Congress, except
upon written contracts entered into
therefor under the authority of Con
gress.
Approved, April 2, 1872.
[General NatureNo. 37.]
AN ACT to establish a port of entry and delivery
at the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer
ica in Congress assembled, That a port of
entry and delivery be, and is hereby, es
tablished at the city of Pittsburgh, Penn
sylvania, which shall be entitled to the
same provisions and subject to the same
regulations and restrictions as other ports
of entry and delivery in the United
States.
Approved, April 2, 1872.
[General NatureNo. 38.]
AN ACT to amend an act entitled "An act to au
thorize protection to be given to citizens of the
United States who may discover deposits of
guano," approved August 18, 1S56.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amerca in Congress assembled, That the pro
visions of the act of Congress approved
August eighteenth, eighteen hundred
and fifty six, entitled "An act to author
ize protection to be given to citizens of
the United States who may discover de
posits of guano," be, and the same are
hereby, extended to the widow, heirs,
executors, or administrators of such dis
coverer, where such d iscoverer shall have
died before perfecting proof of discovery
or fully complying with the provisions
of said act approved as aforesaid, after
complying with the requirements of the
act of Congress of August eighteenth,
eighteen hundred and sixty-five : Pro
vided, That nothing herein contained
Bhall be held to impair any rights of dis
covery or any assignment by a discov
erer heretofore recognized by the gov
ernment of the United States.
Sec. 2. That section three of an act
approved July twenty-eighth, eighteen
hundred and sixty-six, entitled "An act
to protect the revenue, and for other
purposes," amendatory of the act afore
said, approved August eighteenth, eight
een hundred and fifty-six, be, and the
same is hereby, amended by striking out
the word " five," wherever the same oc
curs, and inserting in lieu thereof the
word " ten."
Approved, April 2, 1872.
[General NatureNo. 39.]
AN ACT to enable honorably discharged soldiers
and sailors, their widows and orphan children,
to acquire homesteads on the public lands ofthe
United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer
ica in Conaress assembled, That every pri
vate soldier and officer who has served
in the army of the United States during
the recent rebellion for ninety days, or
more, and who was honorably dis
charged, and has remained loyal to the
government, including the troops mus
tered into the service of the United
States by virtue of the third section of
an act entitled "An act making appropri
ations for completing the defenses of

219
Washington, and for other purposes,"
approved February thirteenth, eighteen
hundred and sixty-two, and every sea
man, marine, and officer who has served
in the navy of the United States, or in
the marine corps, during the rebellion,
for ninety days, and who was honorably
discharged, and has remained loyal to
the government, shall, on compliance
with the provisions of an act entitled
"An act to secure homesteads to actual
settlers on the public domain," and the
acts amendatory thereof, as hereinafter
modified, be entitled to enter upon and
receive patents for a quantity of public
lands (not mineral) not exceeding one
hundred and sixty acres, or one quartersection, to be taken in compact form, ac
cording to legal subdivisions, including
the alternate reserved sections of public
lands along the line of any railroad or
other public work, not otherwisejireserved or appropriated, and other lands
subject to entry under the homestead
laws of the United States : Provided, that
said homestead settler shall be allowed
six months after locating his homestead
within which to commence his settle
ment and improvement : And provided
also, That the time which the homestead
settler shall have served in the army,
navy, or marine corps aforesaid, shall be
deducted from the time heretofore re
quired to perfect title, or if discharged
on account of wounds received, or disa
bility incurred in the line of duty, then
the term of enlistment shall be deducted
from the time heretofore required to
perfect title, without reference to the
length of time he may have served : Pro
vided, however, That no patent shall issue
to any homestead settler who has not re
sided upon, improved, and cultivated his
said homestead for a period of atleastone
year after he shall commence his im
provements as aforesaid.
Sec. 2. That any person entitled un
der the provisions of the foregoing sec
tion to enter a homestead, who may have
heretofore entered under the homestead
laws (a quantity of land less than one
hundred and sixty acres, shall be per
mitted to enter under the provisions of
this act so much land as, when added
to the quantity previously entered, shall
not exceed one hundred and sixty acres.
Sec 3. That in case of the death of
any person who would be entitled to a
homestead under the provisions of the
first section of this act, his widow, if un
married, or in case of her death or mar
riage, then his minor orphan children,
by a guardian duly appointed and offic
ially accredited at the Department of the
Interior, shall be entitled to all the ben
efits enumerated in this act, subject to
all the provisions as to settlement and
improvements therein contained : Pro
vided, That if such person died during
his term of enlistment, the whole term
of his enlistment shall be deducted from
the time heretofore required to perfect
the title.
Sec. 4. That where a party at the date
of his entry of a tract of land under the
homestead laws, or subsequently there
to, was actually enlisted and employed
in the army or navy of the United
States, his services therein shall, in the
administration of said homestead law, be
construed to be equivalent, to all intents
and purposes, to a residence for the same
length of time upon the tract so entered :
Provided, That if his entry has been can
celed by reason of his absence from said
tract while in the military or naval ser
vice of the United States, and such tract
has not been disposed of, his entry shall
be restored and confirmed : And provided
further, That if such tract has been dis
posed of. said party may enter another
tract subject to entry under said laws:
and his right to a patent therefor shall
be determined by the proofs touching
his residence and cultivation of the first
tract, and his absence therefrom in such
service.
Sec. 5. That any soldier, sailor, ma
rine, officer, or other person coming
within the provisions of this act may, as
well by an agent as in person, enter up
on said homestead : Provided, That said
claimant in person shall, within the time
prescribed commences settlements and
improvements on the same, and there
after fulfill all the requirements of this
act.
Sec. 6. That the Commissioner of the
General Land Office shall have authority
to make all needful rules and regulations
to carry into effect the provisions of this
act.
Approved April 4, 1872.

220

Chicago

Legal

word male in connection with admission

Chicago Legal News. to the bar to be stricken out, thus open
ing the way to women to practice in the
ILei Vindt.
courts here."
CHICAGO, APRIL 20, 1872.
THE CHICAGO COURT HOUSE.
Our Chicago Court House is in ruins,
and no attempt has yet been made to re
build it. It is now over six months
since the fire, and not a single blow has
been struck, not even a plan has been
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
adopted, and no man can tell when or
Terms:
rwo Dollars per annum, in advance. Single cop how it will be rebuilt. Our County Com
missioners, we have no doubt, want to
ies Ten Cents.
do what is for the best interest of the
THE IjESAL MEWS OFFICE at lis people, but seem to fear the heavy bur
West Hadlioa Street. The Printing den that an immediate rebuilding of the
EstablUhmrnt 1* at 13 Bf. Jeflenon St,
Court House would impose upon the
people. We are satisfied that our court
We call attention to the following ' house should be rebuilt, cost what it
opinions, reported at length in this issue : may, in the least possible time that it
Amending Sheriff's Return. The can be, and have it well done.
In little more than a year after the
opinion of the Supreme Court of this
State, delivered by Walker, J., stating great fire at Portland, the court house
when and under what circumstances a was rebuilt, containing a public hall that
sheriff may amend his return to a sum would seat over four thousand people,
mons. We are glad to note the fact, that and in a style much superior to our Chi
our Supreme Court has so far modified cago Court House, before the fire.
its former decisions, and gone back to Parties visiting our city, after seeing
the ancient land-marks of the law, as to the large handsome buildings that
hold that a sheriff cannot amend his re have been erected by private indi
turn after the term at which judgment viduals, since the fire, ask, why is not
is rendered, except upon notice to the your Court House being re-bulit ? Jus
parties in interest. It was a dangerous tice to the judges, the lawyers, the
doctrine to hold, that a sheriff might, as people and property- holders, in the
a matter of course, without notice, amend south division, who have lost so heavily
his return, 'and thereby, in many cases, by the fire, requires that it should be
done at once. If a good, substantial
deprive parties of valuable estates.
Power and Duties of Guardians Court House should be erected upon the
What are Necessaries.The opinion of site of the old one, within a year from
the time of the fire, it would increase
the Supreme Court of this State, deliv the
value of real estate in Cook county
ered by Thornton, J., as to the powers
more
than ten times its cost, to say
and duties of guardians in educating nothing
of the importance of having
and supporting their wards, and what proper places to hold our courts and
are to be considered necessaries.
transact the public business in.
At the request of our Commissioners a
Homesteads for Soldiers and Sail law was passed to aid them in obtaining
ors.Many of our readers will be inter money to rebuild the Court House, and
ested in the law of the United States, we hope they will, without delay, adopt
which we print in this issue, recently a plan and complete it with that speed
passed to enable honorably discharged which the interests of the public de
soldiers and sailors, their widows and mand.
orphan children, to acquire homesteads
on the public lands of the United States.
Kecent ^uuUcatfom
PUBLI8HF.D EVERY SATURDAY BY
The Chicago Legal News Co.,
AT 115 MADISON STREET.

Legal Matters in Utah.The Su

preme Court of the United States has
reversed the judgment rendered by the
Supreme Court of Utah in the case of
Clinton v. Englebrecht. We have not
seen the opinion, but understand it is
upon the ground that the jury which
tried the case was not selected in con
formity to the territorial laws, and that
tested by the law as announced in this
opinion all the prosecutions and indict
ments now pending against the Mor
mons must be abandoned.
This opinion fully sustains the posi
tions taken by Attorney-General Bates,
and is equivalent to saying that all the
decisions of Chief Justice McKeon made
for the past year in criminal cases were
in violation of the law of the land. The
course pursued by Chief Justice McKeon
cannot be justified. We regret to say
that he has not acted like ajudge whose
duty it was to patiently hear and im
partially determine, but like a prose
cuting attorney who was bound to con
vict the prisoner, even if he had to do
it in violation of law.
Women as Attorneys in Washington
The Chronicle says: "The Judges of
the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia, in revising the new code pre
pared by the commission to codify the
laws of the District, have ordered the

Reports of Cases at Law and in Chan

cery, Argued and Determined in the
Supreme Court of Illinois. By Nor
man L. Freeman, Reporter. Volume
LIV. Containing the remaining ca
ses decided at the January term,
1870; those of the June term, 1870;
some omitted cases of the June term,
1869, and a portion of the cases decided
at the September term, 1870. Printed
for the Reporter, Springfield. 1872.
Mr. Freeman deserves the thanks of
the bar for the very careful manner in
which he prepares his Reports. He
makes less mistakes than any other re
porter whose volumes have come under
our notice. The opinions in this volume
are shorter than usual. It contains 123
cases ; of these 45 were affirmed, and 75
reversed. There were 3 cases of original
jurisdiction, and in one case the opinion
was per curiam. The opinions delivered
by Chief Justice Lawrence, affirmed the
judgments below in 13 cases, and re
versed them in 22. Those delivered by
Justice Walker, affirmed them in 17
and reversed them in 15 cases. Those
delivered by Justice Breese, affirmed
them in 6 and reversed them in 27 cases.
Those delivered by Justice McAllister,
affirmed them in 2 and reversed them
in three cases. Those by Justice Shel
don, affirm them in 2 and reverse them
in 3 cases. Those by Justice Thornton,
reverse them in 2 and affirm them in 2
cases. Those by Justice Scott, affirm

News.

C. ; B., admitting his mere signature, set

up in defense that he had signed the
lease with the express understanding be
tween him and A. that one D. would also
sign it ; that D. refused to sign it, and
that it waB then proposed by A. to have
C. in the place of A. : but that he, B.,
positively objected to naving his name
on a lease with C. ; that thereupon A.
said that it would make no difference,
for that he would release A. C. now
signed. Some evidence tended to prove
these facts and some to prove a different
state of facts. The court submitted it to
the jury whether there had been any ac
ceptance of the lease by A. Held, that
this was equivalent to submitting to
them whether the instrument had been
delivered at all as the deed of A., and
that this was a proper submission ; and
that it was not equivalent (as contended
by the plaintiff in error) to submitting
whether the deed had been delivered
and accepted by A. on condition that he
should be released afterwards ; a submis
sion which it was admitted by the court
would not stand on the same footing.
Wadsworth v. Warren, p. 307.
1. A certificate signed by only two of
the direct tax commissioners appointed
under the act of Congress of June 7th,
1862, that land charged with the tax, had
been sold to the United States, is admis
sible in evidence in an action brought
to try title to the land.Cooley v. O'Con
nor, p. 391.
2. It is error to rule such a certificate
void.lb.
3. In trespass to real property brought
to try the title, a freehold or a mere pos
sessory right in the defendant may be
given in evidence under the general is
sue.lb.
4. The act of Congress contemplates a
certificate of sale, though the United
States becomes the purchaser.lb.
5. Whether the advertisement of sale
was such as the law required is a mixed
question of law and fact, and it must be
submitted to the jury.
1. In appeals involving mere question
of fact, where the District and Circuit
Courts have taken the same view, this
court, affirming the decree, contents it
self with an announcement of its con
clusions, without extended comment on.
the testimony.The Spray, p. 366.
2. A vessel racing in order to enter a
harbor before another and preoccupy a
loading-place condemned for a collision
resulting.lb.
1. A mortgage by a railroad company
covering all future acquired property,
attaches only to such interest therein as
the company acquires, subject to any
The First Law Book Since the Fire. liens under which it comes into the com
We take pleasure in announcing that pany's possession. United State* v. New
the [first law book printed in Chicago, Orleans Railroad, p. 362.
2. If the company purchase property
since the fire, containing over three hun subject
to a lien for the purchase-money,
dred pages, was printed at the Legal such lien is not displaced by the general
News office, for Messrs. H. R. Thomp mortgage.lb.
3. If the company give a mortgage for
son & Co., publishers.
the purchase-money at the time of the
purchase, such mortgage, whether regis
XII. WALLACE.
tered or not, has precedence of the gen
mortgage.lb.
Through the kindness of W. H. & O. eral
4. This rule fails, however, when the
H. Morrison, the publishers, we have property purchased is annexed to a sub
received advance sheets of the 12th ject already covered by the general
Wallace, from which we take the follow mortgage, and becomes a part thereof;
as when iron rails are laid down and be
ing head-notes :
come a part of the railroad.lb.
1. During the rebellion the United
A dismissal of a case for want ofjuris
States
took as
possession
of and
A.'s abandoned
house in a diction held to have been rightly made
rebel town
' captured
from the Circuit Court for Louisiana, as
property," rented it from 1862 to 1865, being a proceeding which, under the act
and received rents, $7,000, which were in of Congress of July 28th, 1866, was to re
the Federal treasury. After the suppres main in the District Court of the United
sion of the rebellion, A. having returned States for that district; the case being
home, the government sued him, and in one that had been begun in the " Pro
March, 1867, got judgment and issued ex visional Court of Louisiana," on plead
ecution against him, he not pleading as ings which showed that both parties
a set-off the $7,000 received by the were citizens of the State named. The
United States. In May, 1869. he applied ' jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was held
to the court to satisfy the judgment, and not to have been helped by a suggestion
moved also for a writ of audita querela ; made there on transferring the case, tha?
assigning as a reason for not naving the defendant was an alien ; the fact be
pleaded a set-off, that he did not know ing denied in the subsequent pleadings,
until just before he filed his petition and and no proof of it in any way made.
made his present motion, that the money Edwards v. Tanneret, p. 446.
1. Action will not lie for the price of
was in the treasury of the United States.
Held, that the petition and motion was goods sold in aid of the rebellion, or
rightly denied ; for that if A, had a claim with knowledge that they were pur
on the United States, he was in fault in chased for the Confederate States gov
not having discovered and pleaded it. ernment.Hanauer v. Doane, p. 342.
Avery v. United Slates, p. 304.
2. A promissory note, the considera
2. Audita querela does not lie where tion of which is wholly or in part the
the party has had a legal opportunity of price of such goods, is void, and an ac
defense and neglected it.lb.
tion cannot be sustained thereon by a
3. Nor in any case against the United holder who received it knowing for what
it was given.lb.
Stateslb.
3. Due-bills given for the price of suchA. sued B. for rent as a co-lessee with

them in 3 and reverse them in 2 cases.

We give the names of the judges who
tried the cases in the courts below, and
how they were disposed of in the Supreme
Court : A. J. Gallagher, 1 affirmed ; Jo
seph Sibley, 1 affirmed ; Charles Turner,
2 reversed ; John M. Scott, 5 reversed ;
B. S. Edwards, 1 affirmed ; Joseph Gill
espie, 3 affirmed, 13 reversed ; A. D. Duff,
3 affirmed, 3 reversed ; M. C. Crawford,
3 affirmed and 5 reversed ; S. L. Bryan,
6 affirmed, 9 reversed ; Hiram B. Decius,
3 affirmed, 3 reversed ; Richard S. Canby,
3 affirmed, 5 reversed ; H. S. Baker, 1 re
versed ; C. L. Higbee, 1 affirmed ; Circuit
Court Marion Co., 1 reversed ; James M.
Pollock, 3 affirmed, 3 reversed ; Wm. P.
Murphy, 2 reversed ; Hardin Circuit, 1
reversed ; David J. Baker, 1 affirmed ; S.
S. Marshall, 1 affirmed ; St. Clair County
Court, 1 reversed ; Justin Harlin, 1
affirmed , Wesley Sloan, 1 reversed ; Jo
seph E. Gary, 1 affirmed, 1 reversed ; B.
R. Sheldon, 2 affirmed, 2 reversed ; Geo.
W. Pleasants, 1 affirmed ; Wm. A. Porter,
1 affirmed, 2 reversed ; E. S. Williams,
1 affirmed, 2 reversed ; E. S. Leland, 1
affirmed, 1 reversed; C. R. Starr, 1
affirmed ; C. H. Wood, 6 affirmed, 1 re
versed ; W. W. Heaton, 1 affirmed, 3 re
versed ; John A. Jameson, 1 affirmed :
Josiah McRoberts, 1 affirmed ; S. Wil
cox, 1 reversed ; A. A. Smith, 1 reversed ;
W. R. McAllister, 1 reversed ; Charles
H. Gillman, 1 reversed ; Superior Court,
2 affirmed.
Registration op Written Instru
ments.We have received from Baker,
Voorhis & Co., the publishers, of New
York, a pamphlet upon the Registration
of Written Instruments Affecting Title
to Real Estate, with a brief historical
review of the subject, also a statement
of the defects in the present system, and
suggestions as to its improvement, by
Samuel D. Sewards, of the New York
bar. This pamphlet contains much val
uable information to those interested in
the subject, and may be had of the pub
lishers for fifty cents.

Chicago
goods and passed in^ the hands of a
person knowing tbe fact, will not be a
good consideration for a note.lb.
4. It is contrary to public policy to give
the aid of the courts to a vendor who
knew that his goods were purchased, or
to a lender who knew that his money
was borrowed, for the purpose of being
employed in the commission of a crimi
nal act, injurious to society or to any of
its members.lb.
1. Where the whole law of a case be
fore a circuit court is settled by a decree,
and nothing remains to be done, nnless
a new application shall be made at the
foot of the decree, the decree is a final
one, so far as respects a right of appeal.
French v. Shoemaker, p. 80.
2. Where there is nothing on the re
cord to show to the court that the indem
nity given by an appeal bond is insuffi
cient, the presumption is that it is suffi
cient.lb.
3. Where a party is perpetually en
joined and restrained by a decree of a
Circuit Court, from any proceeding what
ever, not in accordance with certain con
tracts which a complainant had applied
to that court to make him, by injunction,
observe, that courtthough an appeal
here has been taken within ten days,
and an appeal bond with sufficient in
demnity given,may yet properly order
the defendant to desist from a second
Buit in another court of the United
States, to Bet aside the contract, just as
above mentioned, passed on. And this
although in such second suit new parties
are introduced, whom the Circuit Court
had held were not necessary parties to
the proceeding there. Such an order is
not a misconstruction by the Circuit
Court of its own decree.lb.
VI. KANSAS REPORTS.
Our thanks are due W. C. Webb, Re
porter of the Supreme Court of Kansas,
for advance sheets of the 6th volume of
his Reports, from which we take the fol
lowing head-notes :
ASSIGNMENT.
1. Parol evidencecontract.Where a
note is assigned in writing on the back
thereof, it is competent for the original
payee of the note to show by oral testi
mony that the note was assigned for col
lection only, and that the party to whom
it was delivered agreed to collect the
note and to pay over its proceeds when
collected.John T. Mc Whirt v. John Mc
Kee, receiver, etc.
AGENCY.
2. Inability Estoppel. Where the
holder of a note assigned to him for col
lection only, brings a suit thereon in his
own name, and obtains the benefit of
the amount of the note for his own use,
he is not, in an action against him by the
original payee for the amount of the
note, in a position to raise the question
whether the maker of the note is not
still liable to the payee of the note.76.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
3. Dismissal of action without prejudice.
A dismissal of an action without prej
udice to the plaintiff, is such a " failure
in an action otherwise than upon the
merits" as entitles a party to the benefit
of the saving clauses of section 23 of the
code of civil procedure, and prevents
the bar of the statute.lb.
TAX ROLL.
1. Correction of Omitted property may
be inserted.County commissioners have
authority in December and January, af
ter the tax-roll has passed into the hands
of the Treasurer,(to place on the tax-roll
property omitted by the assessor, and
charge up the proper taxesj thereon.
(Opinion by Kingman, C. J.)Lappin
ac Scrofford v. The Board of County Com
missioners.
profertyJsubject to taxation.
2. What constitutes a mortgage.Where
money is advanced, and the person mak
ing the advance takes a note for the
money and a deed for land, and gives
hack a bond to reconvey the land on pay
ment of the note, the whole series of
transactions constitute a loan on mort
gage.lb.
DEDUCTION FROM CREDITS, WHEN NOT
ALLOWED.
3. Money loaned secured by lien on
real estate is not of that class of credits

Legal

from which debts can be deducted in

assessing property for taxation.lb.
CRIMINAL LAW.
1. What is necessary to constitute a " sec
ond offense."Before a person can make
himself liable to be convicted of a second
offense, as such, under section three of
the Dramshop Act/ he must previously
have been convicted of the first offense ;
but it is not necessary that the first
conviction should be first satisfied by a
payment of the fine, or by pardon.
(Opinion by Valentine, J.)State of
Kansas v. Yolmer.
" CONVICTION," EFFECT OF.
2. The effect of the conviction where a
person is sentenced to pay a fine only,
may be suspended for all purposes by an
appeal, until the case shall be finally
determined on the appeal; and then if it
appear that the conviction was errone
ous or illegal, its effect will be totally de
stroyed for all purposes ; but if it was
correct, then it will nave the same effect
as though no appeal had ever been taken.
lb.
3. "Appeal," effect of.An appeal from
a judgment of conviction in a criminal
cause suspends the effect of such judg
ment, (where the sentence is to pay a
fine onlv,) until final judgment is pro
nounced m the appellate court.lb.
DIGEST OF RECENT INSURANCE
CASES.
[From the Western Insurance Review.]
APPLICATION.
Fire When a part of the contract.
Where a policy of insurance against fire
referred to the application, " for a more
full and particular description and form
ing a part of this policy," and declared
that the policy was made and accepted
in reference to the terms and conditions
therein contained and thereto annexed,
which were declared to be a part of the
contract. Held, that by force of such
reference, the application was made a
part of the contract.Shoemaker v. Glens
Falls Ins. Co. To appear in 60 Barb.
DAMAGES.
A deduction for insuranre money paid.
A town liable for damages occasioned
by the insufficiency of a highway, is not
entitled to have deducted the amount
received by the plaintiff from an insur
ance company on account of the inju
ries, for which he claims to recover
against the town.Harding v. Town of
Townshend. To appear in 43 Vermont.
EXECUTION CREDITOR.
FireClaim on Policy.A person hav
ing acquired title by levy of execution,
debtor is not entitled to the proceeds of
the policy in case of loss by fire.
SembleThe mortgagee has in general
no claim, either in law or equity, upon
the proceeds of a policy effected by the
mortgagor in his own name on the mort
gaged premises, without any agreement
to Keep the premises insured, unless the
policy be assigned to him. Plimpton v.
Farmers Ins. Co.To appear in 43 Ver
mont.
INCEPTION OF RISK,
MarinePolicy on freightAt and from.
A ship was chartered to carry a cargo
from Liverpool to Lagoo, on the west
coast of Africa, then discharge and re
load another cargo for the United King
dom, in consideration of a lump sum by
way of freight, payable, half before sail
ing from Liverpool, and half on the de
livery of the homeward cargo. The
plaintiff, the ship owner, expected an
insurance on freight, " at and from La
goo," and the policy contained a clause
whereby the defendants, the insurance
company, agreed that the insurance
" shall commence upon freight and goods
or merchandise aforesaid, from the load
ing of the said goods or merchandise on
board the said ship or vessel, at as
above." The ship was lost before she
had shipped any of her homeward cargo.
Held, that this clause precluded the
plaintiff from recovering against the un
derwriters, although the freight was
chartered freight.Becket v. W. of Eng
land Ins. Co. Q. B. 25, L, T. R. 739.
LIEN ON PREMIUM NOTE.
Firesubse(juent conveyance.A mem
ber of a mutual insurance company held
a policy on buildings and property, con
taining a provision that the buildings
insured and the land on which they

News.

221

this cause with costs, Jintcrest and ten per cent

damages.
No. 128. Isaac A. Davenport, appellant, v. John
R. Lamb, et al. Appeal from the Circuit Court of
the United States for the district of Oregon. Mr.
Justice Field delivered the opinion of the court,
affirming the decree of the said Circuit Court in
this cause with costs.
No. 64. George N. Black, plaintiff in error, v.
David R. Curran. In error to the Circuit Court of
the United States for the southerd district of Illi
nois. Mr. Justice Davis delivered the opinion of
the court, affirming the judgment of the said Cir
cuit Court in this cause with costs.
No. 143. F. W. Robinson et al., plaintiffi) in error,
v. The United States. In error to the Circuit
Court of the United States for the district of Cali
fornia. Mr. Justice Davis delivered the opinion
of the court, affirming the judgment of the said
Circuit Court in this cause.
No. 12. John Watson et al., appellants, v. William
A. Jones, et al. Appeal from the Circuit Court of
the United States for the district of Kentucky.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the
court, affirming the decree of the said Circuit
Court In this cause with costs. Dissenting, Mr.
Justices Clifford and Davis. The Chief Justice
was not present at the argument, and took no
part in the decision.
No. 503. Frederick Stines et al., plaintifls in
error, v. Franklin County et al. In error to the
Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. Mr. Jus
tice Clifford delivered the opinion of the court,
dismissing the writ of error in this cause for tho
wont ofjurisdiction.
No. 37t>. Jeter Clinton et al., plaintiffs in error,
v. Paul Englebrecht et al. In error to the Su
preme Court of the Territory of Utah. Mr. Chief
Justice Chase delivered the opinion of the court,
reversing the judgment of the said Supreme
Court with costs, and remanding the cause for
further proceedings in conformity with the opin
ion of this court.
No. 60. The Butchers' Benevolent Association of
New Orleans, plaintiff in error, v. The Crescent
City Live Stock Landlngjand, Slaughter Hous*
Company.
No. 67. Paul EBterbere et al., plaintifls in error,
v. The State of Louisiana ex rel. The Attorneys
UNITED ^STATES SUPREME COURT. General.
No. 62. The Butchers' Benevolent Association of
PROCEEDINGS OF.
New Orleans, plaintiff in error, v. The Crescent
Wednesday, April 10.
City Live Stock Landing and Slaughter Housa
On motion of Hon. 8. O. Houghton, John M. Company.
Coghlan, Esq., of California, was admitted to prac
Ordered by the Court that these causes be con
tice as an attorney and counselor of this court.
tinued and reargued at the next term.
On motion of Hon. F. T. Frelinghuysen, James No. 155. The Philadelphia and Reading Rail
M. Lewis, Esq., of New York, was admitted to road Company plaintiff in error, v. The Common
practice as an attorney and counselor of this wealth of Pennsylvania.
No. 156. The Philadelphia and Reading Railroad
court.
No. 164. James S. French, appellant, v. Samuel Company, plaintiffin error, v. The Commonwealth
M. Shoemaker. This cause was argued by Mr. H. of Pennsylvania.
O. Claughtoa and Mr. F. P. Stanton for the appel
Ordered by the court that these cases be con
lant, and by Mr. T. J. Durant and Mr. Joseph H. tinued for reargument at the next term, and leaveBradley for tne appellee.
be granted to counsel for parties interested In the
No. 165. A. T. Caperton, plaintiff in error, v. questions to file printed briefs.
Phillip Bowyer. No. 166. A. T. Caperton, plaintiff The Chief Justice announced to the bar that no.
in error, v. William A. Ballard, administrator. case will be taken up for argument after Friday
The argument of these cases was commenced by the 26th instant.
Mr. R. T. Merrick, of counsel for the; plaintiff In No. 10. Original. Ex parte T. Jefferson Greer.
error.
The argument of this cause was concluded by Mr. .
Reverdy Johnson of counsel for the petitioner.
Thursday, April 11.
Adjourned until to-morrow morning at eleven
On motion of Hon. C. N. Potter, Douglass Camp
bell, Esq., and E. Ellery Anderson, Esq., of New o'clock.
York, were admitted to practice as attorneys and
Tuesday, April 16.
counselors of this court.
No. 167. Edward W. Paige et al., executors, ap
On motion of Mr. R. T. Merrick, Joseph P. pellants vs. David Banks, Jr., et al. The argu
Joaehimsen, Esq., of New York, and John H. ment of this cause was continued by Mr. E. E.
Thompson, Esq., of Illinois, were admitted to Anderson, of counsel for the appellees, and con
practice as attorneys and counselors of this court. cluded by Mr. Douglass Campbell, for the appel
On motion of Mr. Conway Robinson, John Selden, Esq., of Washington, D. C, was admitted to lants.
327. William H. Warner, appellant, vs. Jas..
practice as an attorney and counselor of this F.No.
Joy.
court.
328. William H. Warner, plaintiff in error,
No. 165. A. T. Caperton, plaintiff in error, vs. No.
James F. Joy.
Philip Bowyer; No. 166. A. T. Caperton, plaintiff vs.No.
in error, vs. Wm. A. Ballard, administrator. The F. Joy.360. Peter F. Holden, appellant, vs. James
argument of these causes was continued by Mr. The argument of these causes was commenced
R. T. Merrick, of counsel for the plaintiffs in by Mr. William Lawrence, of counsel for the ap
error, and by Mr. J. H. Ashton for the defendants pellants.
in error, and concluded by Mr. Conway Robinson
for the plaintiffs in error.
No. 167. Edward W. Page et al, executors, ap
Judge McArthur, in the Circuit Court at
pellants, vs. David Banks, Jr., et al. The argu Washington, recently, decided that a
ment of this cause was commenced by Hon. C. N. sewing machine was a household neces
Potter, of counsel for the appellants.
sity and was, therefore, exempt from
Monday, April 15.
On motion of Hon. L. Trumbull, Benjamin A. seizure under the law exempting $3CK>
Williss. Esq., of New York was admitted to prac worth of household furniture, etc.
tice as an attorney and counselor of this court.
Removals.The first of May is near at
No. 117. Louisa Chew, p.aintiff in error, v. Rich
ard J. Brumagen. In error to the Court of Chancery hand, and a large number of the mem
of the State of New Jersey. Mr. Justice Strong bers of the bar will then remove their
delivered the opinion of the court reversing the offices, and need cards, letter-heads,
decree of the said court with costs, and remand blanks, etc., printed. We would remind
ing the cause for further proceedings in con attorneys that we are giving special at
formity with the opinion of this court.
No. 127. Balic Peyton, appellant, v. Q. Helncken tention to all kinds of legal printing.
et al., appeal from the Circuit Court of the Uniud
Wm. H. Stickney, Esq., has been ap
States for the middle district of Tennessee. Mr.
Justice Strong delivered the opinion of the court, pointed by the Governor a Notary Pub
affirming the decree of the said Circuit Court in lic for this city.

stood, became pledged by the insurance,

to the company, and that the com
pany should have a lien thereon for the
premium. The insured died in debt for
the premium, having devised the prop
erty insured, with the land, to his
widow, who conveyed it to Mather, the
latter not having notice of the lien of the
insurance company. Held, that the lien
of the policy could not be enforced after
the property had passed into the hands
of a bona-fide purchaser.Kentucky Far
mers M. Ins. Co. v. Mather. 3 Am. Re
ports, 286.
PAROL CONTRACTS.
Marinechange by subsequent ayreement
Charter requirements.Parties may by
a subsequent parol agreement, upon a
sufficient consideration, change or mod
ify the terms of their written contract.
Where the written contract is not de
clared on and the petition sets forth an
absolute, independent agreement, dis
connected with any other previous trans
action, it is not competent to blend the
two and graft the verbal on the prior
written contract. At common law there
is nothing absolutely requiring that a
contract should be in writing. Corpora
tions, when not restrained by their char
ter, may do business in all reasonable
modes that rational persens may. A
private person may insure and will be
bound by his parol contracts. It is the
universal and well recognized rule, that
a corporate body can act only in the
manner prescribed in its charter. It is
a mere creature of law, and derives all
its powers from the act of incorporation.
The charter required policies to be writ
ten or printed. The by-laws require the
President to sign all policies and con
tracts, and that every proposal for in
surance shall be by written application.
These provisions are conclusive that
there could be no contract by parol.
Herring v. U. S. Ins Co. 47 Mo., 425.

222

Chicago
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.

Barker <t Waite, 46 East Harrison.

Bates A Hodges, 131 La LaSalle street.
Beattie, C, J., 43 South Canal.
BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison street.
Bonney, Fay A Griggs, 120 West Washington street.
Bentley, Bennett, Ullman A Ives. 376 Wabash are,
Brouse, 0. It., 400 Wabash avenue.
Carmichae], D. L 815 Prairie avenue.
Chase, F. L., 366 Wabash avenue.
Clarkson A Van Schaack, 454 Wabash avenue.
Deane A Cahill, room 7, Lind's Block.
Dent A Black. 131 LaSalle, Boom 22.
Eldridge A Tourtalotte, 401 Wabash avenue,
Ewing A Leonard, 487 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. W., 115 West Madison street.
Felker, Wm. S., 92 Desplaineg street.
Goodwin, D., jr., n. e. corner Monroe and La Salle.
Goudy A Chandler, Union Central Block.
Graham, Geo. T., 60 South Canal.
Herbert A Quick, 61 Union Central Building, and 529
State street.
Hoyne, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michigan
and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne, Horton A Hoyne, 267 Michigan avenne.
Hitchcock, Dupee A Evarts, corner Wells and Mon
roe streets.
Howe A Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, 0. P., 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E., Id East Harrison street.
Knickerbocker, J. C. A J. J., 163 West Washington
Leary, D. James, 95 West Madison.
Magruder, B. D., 181 West Madison.
McClelland, Thos. 8., 45 South Canal, room 6.
Miller, M. M., Room I, Masonic Temple.
Moore A Caulfleld, 54 Central Union Block.
Monroe, Bisbee A Gibbs, 523 Wabash avenue.
Norton, Jessie O., 386 Wabash avenue.
Nissen A Barnum, lo,t Fifth avenue.
Otis. E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Perkins, N. C, 479 Wabash av., cor. Eldridge court.
Reynolds, W. CM 176 West Washington st.
Roberts, R. Biddle, room 7, 43 South Canal.
Rorke, M. A. A Son, Room 57, Central Union Block.
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, 328 Wabash avenue.
Sawin A Wells, 79 West Madison St.
Scammon, McCagg A Fuller, 389 Wabash avenue.
Scoville, Geo., 30 South Clinton.
Small A ingallB, 481 Wabash Ave.
Smith, Upton A Waterman, 135 West Monroe street.
Tenny, McClellan A Tenny, 451 Wabash avenue.
Thomas, Sidney, 79 Dearborn street
Waughop, J. W.f 401 Wabash^avenue.
Williams A Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
talker, Dexter A Smith, 562 Wabash avenue.
Wilson, Perry A Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
S. W. RAWSON.
Attorney, 33 W. Randolph Street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State ofl11inois,*County of
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. May
Term. A.D. 1872. Annie A. Hoffman v. William Hoff
man.In
AffidavitChancery.
of thenamed,
non-residence
of William
defendant
above
having been
filed in Hoffman,
the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice fs hereby given to the said William Hnffmau
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that
a summons
thereupon
issuedonout
court
against
said defendant,
returnable
the offirstsaidMonday
or May next, (1872.) as iB by law required,
Now, unless you, the said William Hoffman, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
<k>ok countyt on the nrst day of a term thereof, to be
holden
Chicago,
said county,
first Monday
of May,at 1873,
and inplead,
answer onor thedemur
to the
said complainant's bill ofcomplaint, thesame, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken
as confessed,
and ofa said
decree
according
to the prayer
bill.entered against you
AUGUSTUS JAC0BS0N, Clerk.
S. W. Rawson, Compl't's Sol'r.
25-28p
/CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
\y Cook.BS. Superior court of Cook county. April
Term, A. D. 1872. Edwiu Kneeland v. Fidelia KneelandIn
AffidavitChancery.
of the non-resiaeiice of Fidelia Kneeland,
defendant above named, havii.ar been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
noticetheis complainant
hereby givenheretofore
to the saidfiledFidelia
that
his billKneeland
of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summonH thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendants^ returnable on the first MonofNow,
April unless
next, (1872,)
is bysaid
law required.
you, asthe
t idelia Kneeland,
shallcourt
personally
and appear
before
rior
of Cook becounty,
on the firBt
daysaid
of aSupe
torm
thereof,
to
be
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
on the first Monday of April, 1872, and plead, county,
answer
or demur to the said complainant s bill of complaint,
thesame, and the matters and things therein charged
and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree
entered against you according to the prayer of said
bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
8. W. Rawson, Compl't's Sol'r.
26-28p
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, countv of
Cook.ss. Superior court of Cook county. April
Term, A. D. 1872. Lucy M. Buckley, Jr., v. City of Chi
cago
and Wiofliam
Reed.In Chancery.
Affidavit
the K.
non-residence
of William K. Reed,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is herely given to the said William K. Reed
that the complainant heretofore filed her bill ofcom
plaint in salt! court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said Court
against said defendant, returnable on the first Mon
dayNow,
of April
is by lawK.required.
unlessnext,
you, (1872),
the saidasWilliam
Reed, shall per
sonally
be
and
appear
before
Superior
Court
of
Cook county^ on the first day ofsaid
a term
thereof,
to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of April, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
bill therein
of complaint,
the stated,
same, will
and
the matters
and things
charged and
be taken as confessed, and a decree entered againt
you according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Snowhook A GaAT, Comprt's Sorra.
25-28
"INSTATE OF LEMUEL FOSTER. Deceased.-Notice
Xj is hereby given to all persons having claims and
demands against the estate of Lemuel Foster, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment, at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, being
the third day thereof.
LYDIA C. FOSTER, Executrix.
Chicago, April 17, A. D. 1872.
28-33a

Legal

SANFORD B. PERRY,
Attorney, 47y Wabash Avenue.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois. County of
Superior
of Cookv.county.
Term,Cook,
A. D.ss. 1K72.
Mariacourt
A. Kidder
GardinerMay
G.
Kidder and Daniel A. Gleason.In Chancery.
Affidavit ofthe non-residence of said Gardiner G. Kid
der and Daniel A. Gleason, defendants abuve named,
having been filed in the office of the clerk ofsaid Supe
rior court
of Cook
county, and
noticeDaniel
is hereby
given tothat
the
said
Gardiner
G. Kidder
A. Gleason
the ^complainant heretofore filed her bill of com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendants, returnable on the first Monday
ofNow,
May next,
by lawGardiner
required.G. Kidder and
unless(1872),
you, astheis said
Daniel A. Gleason, shall personally be and appear be
fore said Superior court of Cook county, on the first
day of a term thereof, to be holden ut Chicago, In said
county,
on theor first
of May.
A. D. 1*72,billandof
plead, answer
demurMonday
to the said
complainant's
complaint, the same, and the matters and things there
in charged and stated, will be taken as confessed, and
a decree entered against you according to the prayer
of said bill.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Sanfokd B. Pkrrt, Comp't's sol'r.
28-31
D. S. PRIDE,
Attorney.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
^ Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook county. To
May Term, A. D. 1872. Real Estate Loan and Trust
Company v. F. A. Soule and M. R. Jeffords.In Chan
cery.
the non-residence
of F.having
A. Soulebeen
andtiled
M.
R.Affidavit
Jeflerds,ofdefendants
above named,
in the office ol the clerk of said Superior court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said F. A.
Soule and M. R. Jofferds that the complainant hereto
fore
filed side
its bill
of complaint
said court,
on the
chancery
thereof,
and that ainsummons
thereupon
issued out of said court against said defendants, re
turnable on the first Monday of May next, (1672,) as is
by law required.
Now, unless
the saidbe F.andA.appear
Soule before
and M.said
R.
Jeflerds,
shall you,
personally
Superior court ol Cook county, on the first day of a
to be holden
at Chicago,
said county,
term
on thethereof,
first Monday
of May,
1872, andinplead,
answer
or demur to the said complainant's bill of complaint,
the same, and the matters and things therein charged
and
taken as confessed,
andofasaid
decree
teredstated,
againtwill
youbeaccording
to the prayer
bill.en
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
D. S. Prioe, Compl't's Sol'r.
28-31
S. W. OSGOOD,
Attorney, 128 West Washington Street.
ESTATE OF MICHAEL SCHAFFER, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Michael Schafler,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, be
ing the third day thereof.
CATHOIUNE SCHAFFER, Administratrix.
Chicago, April 15, A. D. 1872.
S. W. Osgood, Attorney for Estate.
28-33
WM. H. HOLDEN,
Attorney, Central Union Block.
TESTATE OF MAURICE CONLEY, DECEASED.Xj Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Maurice Conley.
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court ol
Cook county, to be holden at the courthouse, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D.
1872, being the third
day thereof.
ELLEN
CuNLEY, Administratrix.
Chicago, April 16, A.D. 1872.
Wm. H. Holden, Att'y.
SNOWHOOK & GRAY,
Attorneys, So West Monroe Street.
TESTATE
OF
DANIEL
Notice is hereby
given REAKDON,
to all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Daniel ifeardon,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June. A. D. 1872, being
the third day thereof. MATHEW REARDONand
Chicago, April 17, A. WILLIAM
D. 1872. JOi', Executors.
Snowhook A Gray, Att'ys.
28-33a
BARKER & WAITE,
Attorneys, 4ii East Harrison Street.
ESTATE
JAMES

Notice isOF
hereby
givenROBINSON,
to all personsDECEASED
having claims
and demands against the estate of Jam. s Robinson,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, being
the third day thereof.
MYRON L. PEARCE, Executor.
Chicago, April 16, A. D. 1S72.
Barker A Waite, Att'ys.
28-33a
MORAN & ENGLISH,
Attorneys, 102 West Randolph street.
ESTATE OF NICHOLAS KRAEMER, DECEASED.
Notice is herebyrgiven to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Nicholas Kraemer,
deceased, to present the Bame lor adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of J une, A. D. 1872, be
ing the third dayJOHN
thereof.KRAEMER, Administrator.
Chicago, April 16 A. D. 1872.
Moran A English. Att'ys.
28-33*
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.-We, the under
signed, have formed a limited partnership, to be
carried on under the name of U. M. Haight, in Chi
cago, Cook county Illinois, from April 1, Ia72, to April
1, 1874, to carry ou the retail grocery busiueBs.and the
business of selling groceries, provisions, produce, and
those thiugs incident to retail grocery trade. The
said undersigned, II, M. Haight, is the genera] partner,
of said Chicago, and has put into the common stock
groceries and property ot the cash value of $1,000, and
Oscar
Chase
special partner,
of said
Chicago,
intoisthethecommon
stock $2.uuo
in cash.
and hasC. put
H. M. HAIGHT.
27-32
OSCAR C. CHASE.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN rATTACHMENT.State of Illinois. Cook county, ss. Superior court
of Cook county. To May Term, A.D. 1*72. Bonoit
Briard
George
W. Roll.given to tho said George W.
Publicvs.notice
is hereby
Roll, that a writ of attachment issued out of tho office
of the clerk of the Superior court of Cookcounty, dated
the 13th day of April, A.D. 1872, at the suit of the said
Benoit Briard, and against the estate of George W,
Roll, for the sum of four hundred and sixty-two dol
lars and forty cents, directed to the sheriff of Cook
county, which said writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said George W. Roll,
shall personally be and appear before the said Superior
court of Cook county, on or before the first day of the
next term thereof, to be holden at tho court house, in
the
Chicago,
first Monday
of May.
A.D.
1872,city
giveofspecial
Dai]onandtheplead
to the said
plaintiffs
action,
judgment
will
be
entered
against
you,
and
in
favor of the said Benoit Briard, and so much of the
property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy tho
saiu judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the
same.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Eliiebt H. Gary A Sam'l W. Smith, Attorneys.

News.

MTJNN & HAMILTON,

Attorn* t/s. 114 HatsU <t Street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
court
of Cook county.
term,Cook,
A. D.ss.1872.Circuit
Charles
S. Thompson
v. HarrietMay
L.
Stewart and James P. Stewart.Mechanic's Lien.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Harriet L. Stewart
and James P. Stewart, defendant above named, having
been filed in the office of the clerk of Baid Circuit
court of Cook county, notice is hereby given to tha
said Harriet L. Stewart and James P. Stewart that the
complainant heretofore filed his petition for me
chanic's lien in said court, and that a summons there
upon issued out of said court against said defendants,
returnable
the third Monday of May next (1872),
as is by law on
required.
Now,
unless
you,
the said
HarrietbeL.andStewart
James P. Stewart, shall
personally
appearand
be
fore Baid Circuit court of Cook county, on the first day
of a term thereof to be holden at Chicago, in said
county, on the third Monday of Way. 1872, and plead,
answer or demur to the said petition, the Bame, and the
matters
things therein
chargedentered
and stated,
willyou
be
taken asand
confessed,
and a decree
against
according to the prayer of said i>etition,
NORMAN
T. Sol'rs.
GASSETTE, Clerk.
Mdxn A Hamilton.
Compl't's
27-30
HPRUSTEE'S SALE.-Whereas. on the first day of
JL August, A. D. 1670, Vesper Dorneck, of Chicago,
Cook
State ofwasIllinois,
executed
of thatcounty,
date, which
recorded
on the his
saidtrust
first deed
day
of August, A. D. 170, in the Recorder's office of said
Cook
county,
in
Book
of
Deeds,
at
page
215,
thereby
conveying to me, David G. Hamilton, ol said Chicago,
trustee, lots one (1), two (2), three (3), four (4) and five
(5), in block twelve (12) of Wisner's subdivision of the
northeast
one-fourth(2."),
(>i) of
the northeast
quarter(37),
of
section twenty-five
township
thirty-seven
north range fourteen (14), east of :id P. M., in trust to
secure
theofpayment
at maturity
of of
a certain
promis
sory note
said Vesper
Dorneck,
even date
with
said trust deed, payable to the order of 0. R. Brouse,
for the sum of one hundred and thirty dollars, with
interest
per cent,
annum,
said note
being
payable atin eight
one year
afterper
date,
and being
given
for
part
of
the
purchase
money
for
the
above-described
pf entities: and, whereas, in said trust deed it was pro
vided
that in or
caseeither
of default
and interest,
or anyinpartpayment
thereof,ofit said
shouldnote
be
lawful for said trustee, on the application of tho legal
holder of said note, to sell the premises therein and
above described in mass or in parcels, as said trustee
might prefer, at public auction, at the north door of
the court houso, in said city of Chicago, to tho highest
and best bidder for cash, thirty days notice ofsaid
sale having been first given in one of the newspapers
published in said city of Chicago, and to adjourn said
sale from time to time, as might be thought expedient
by said trustee, and to make good and sufficient deed
or deeds of conveyance for the premises sold, and to
pay
out of the
such sale, and
first,allallother
costsexof
advertising
andproceeds
sale andofcommission
penses of said trust, and secondlyttbe principal and
interest due on said note, rendering the overplus if
any, to said party of the first part, upon reasonable re
quest; and, whereas, the principal and interest due on
said note have not been paid, nor auy part thereof, as
provided in said trust deed ; and, whereas, the legal
holder of said note has requested me, as such trustee,
to make sale of said premises to pay said note and in
terest
Now,: therefore, notice is hereby given that on Sat
urday, the eighth day of June, A. D. 1872, at ton
o'clock a. m., at the north door of the court house, in
said city of Chicago, I will proceed to sell the abovedescribed
at public
to the highest
bidder for premises
cash, to pay
said noteauction,
and interest.
Dated Chicago, April
10,
1872.
DAVID G. HA3IILT0N, Trustee.
0. R. Broise. Atl'y.
27-29
HARDING & McCOY,
Attorneys, 3CS Wabash Ave.
CHANCERY NOTICE. State of Illinois, County
of
Cook,
ss.
of Cookv. county.
term, A. D. 1872. Circuit
Hectorcourt
V. Loving
Mary Q. June
Mor
ton. Henry C. Morton, Eugenia Q. Young. John C.
Young, Corinne O. Watson, George C. Watson. Laura
Bell Quigley, llallie E. Quigley, Lucian G. Quigley,
Mary H. Quigley, Eliza M. Quigley. Martha P. H.
Ouigley, Eliza G. Quigley, Maria E. Quigley. Edward
P. Quigley, Fannie Quigley, and the Connecticut Mu
tual
Lite Insurance
Company.InofChancery.
Affidavit
of the non-residence
all the defendants
above named, having been filed in the office of the
of
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
clerk
is hereby given to the said defendants county,
that thenotice
complainanUhcretoforo filed his bill of complaint in Baid
court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a sum
mons thereupon issued out of said court against said
defendants, returnable on the third Monday of June
next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Mary Q. Morton, Henry C.
Morton, Eugenia Q. Young, John C. Young. Corinne
Q. Watson, George C. Watson, Laura Bell Quigley,
Hallie
E. Quigley,
Lucian
G. Quigley,
Mary H.Eli/a
Quig
ley. Eliza
Martha
l\ H. Quigley,
mfll......Quigley,
r>" Quigley.
v,t...^^^
f 0.
Quigley, Maria
E.
Edward P.n in.i.rt,...
Oujgley, Fannie
Quiglsy. and the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance
Company, shall personally be and appear before said
Circuit
court tool beCook
county,
on the infirst
of a
term thereof,
holden
at Chicago,
saidday
county,
on the third Monday of June, 1872, and plead, answer
or demur to the said complainant's bill of complaint,
the same, and the matters and things therein charged
and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree en
tered against you according to the prayer of Baid bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Harping & McCoy,Compl't's Sol'rs.
27-30
THOMPSON & BISHOP,
Attorneys, 17 Qmgress Street.
/CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
Cook,
ss.
of Cook
county.
To
Mav Term, A.Superior
V. 1872. Court
Gustavus
Kutter
v. James
Blake. Elizabeth D. Blake. Ellen Lacy McFee. Wil
liam C. Holway. Elliott C. V. Blake, Isabella M. Mose
ley, Simeon H. Smith, Ezekiel S. Smith, and Joseph E.
Dellaven.In
Affidavit of theChancery.
non-residence of .lames Blake, Eliza
beth D. Blake Elliott C. V. Blake, Isabella M. Moseley, Simeon H. Smith, and Ezekiel S. Smith, six of
the
aboveofnamed,
having been
the
officedefendants
of the clerk
said Superior
courtfiledof InCook
county, notice is hereby given to the said James Blake,
Elisabeth D. Blake, Elliott C. V. Blake Isablella M.
M. Moseley, Simeon H. Smith and Ezekiel S. Smith,
that the complainants heretofore filed his amended bill
of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out of
said court against said defendants, returnable on the
firat Monday of May next (1672), as is by law re
quired.
Now, unless you, the said James Blake Elizabeth D.
Blake. Elliott C. V. Blake, Isabella M. Moseley, Sim
eon H. Smith and Ezekiel S. Smith, shall personally
be and appear betore Baid Superior court of Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday ofMay,
1872, and plead, answer or demur to the said com
plainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the matters
and things therein charged and stated, will be taken
as confessed, and a decree entered against you accord
ing to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Thompson & Bishop, Compl't's Sol'rs.
96-29
ESTATE OF GEORGE JEFFRES. DECEASED.Notice Is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of George Jeffres,
deceased, to present the Bame for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of tho County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872,
being the third dayGURDON
thereof. S. HUBBARD and
GEORGE J. JEFFRES,
Administrators.
Chicago, April 8, A. D. 1372,
27-32a

E. F. ALLEN,
Attorney, S. W. cor. Randolph and Canal Sis.
ESTATE OF ARISTAKCH0S BULKLEY, DEceased.Notice is hereby given to all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Aristarchus Bulkloy, deceased, to present the same for adju
dication
and settlement
at a regular
term of
County county
of Cook county,
to be holden
at the
the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
day of June,
A.
D.
1872,
being
the
third
day
thereof.
ROBERT H. BULKLEY, Administrator. Chicago, April 8, A. D. Iti72.
E. F. ALLEN, Att'y.
27-32&
DENT & BLACK,
Attorneys. Boone Block.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
Cook,
ss.
court
Cook county.
June
term, A. D. 1872.Circuit
Barbara
Annof Harless
and Thomas
Henry Harless v. Marion G. Harless. Ella Nora Har
less, Charles D. Harless, Frank B. Harless, Willie W.
Harless, and Asa D. Reed, guardian, etc.. George E.
Halsey, Tappen Halsey, Mrs. Mary Coleman, Mrs.
Elizabeth A. Warren and Lambert Eliel.In Chan
cery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Marion G. Har
less. one of the defendants above named, having been
filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said Marion
G.
that theincomplainants
heretofore
filed their
billHarless
of complaint
said court, ou
the chancery
side
thereof, and thata summons thereupon issued out of
Baid court agaiust said defendants, returnable on the
third Monday of May next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unlesB you, the Baid Marion G. Harless,
shall personally be and appear before said Circuit
court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
thereof,
to beMonday
holdenofatJune,
Chicago,
in plead,
said county,
on the third
1jn2, and
answer
or
demur
to
the
said
complainants'
bill
of
complaint*
the same, and the matters and things therein
charged
and stated, will he taken as confessed, and a decree
entered against you according to the prayer of said
bill.
_
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Dent & Black, Compl'ts' Sol'rs.
22-30
DANIEL GOODWIN, Jr.,
Attorney, 19 Js'ixon's Building.
THIS iB to certify that the undersigned nave formed
a limited partnership, and have filed articles ofco
partnership in the office of the clerk of the county of
Cook,
Stateand
of Illinois,
the statute
in such
case made
provided,agreeably
and said toclerk
has designated
the Chicago
News as shall
the newspaper
in which
notice
of suchLegal
partnership
be published;
now,
therefore, notice is hereby given that the terms of said
copartnership are as follows:
1st. The name of said firm Is R. M. Oliver.
2d. The business to be conducted by said firm is that
of packing pork and vending meat, fresh and cured, at
No. 593 South Halsted street. Chicago.
3d. The
general
partner
is Richard
the
special
partner
is the
Allerton
PackingM.
Co..Oliver;
a corpora
tion duly existing under the laws of the State of 111:nois, all of Chicago.
4th. The amount of capital stock which the said
special partner, tho Allerton Packing Co., has contrib
uted to said copartnership is the sum of twelve thou
sand
5th.dollars.
The said copartnership fs to commence on the
flrst-day of March, A. D. Irf72, and terminate at the will
party, said
evidenced
by notice in writing served
of
either
ten days before
termination.
RICHARD
M. OLIVER.
22-27
THE ALLERTON
PACKING CO. _
ESTATE
OF JOHN
MEYER,
DECEASED.-Notice is hereby
given to
all persons
having claims
and
demands
against
the for
estate
of John Meyer,
de
ceased,
to present
the same
adjudication
and settle
ment at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, beiug the sixth day thereof.
ANNA MEYER,
ALBERT MEYER, and
ROBERT MEYER,
Executors.
Worth, Cook county, March 11, A. D. 1872.
23-28p
ESTATE
OF
CONRAD
KUHLMANN
DECEASED
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Conrad Kuhlmann,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication andkettlement at a regular term ol the County court of Cook
county,
holden
the courtofkotiBe,
of
Chicago,toonbe the
firstat Monday
May,inA.theD.city1872,
being the sixth day thereof.
CAROLINE
KUHLMANN,
Executrix.
Chicago, March 2, A.D. 1872.
Olowet & Baumm, Attorneys for Estate.
23-28
BARBER & LACKNER,
Attorneys, ?A West Lake. Street.
ESTATE OF HENRY APPEL, DECEASED.
Notice i8 hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Henry Appel, de
ceased,
Bameof the
for County
adjudication
set
tlementtoatpresent
a regulartheterm
Court and
of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1S72, be
ing tho 3d day thereof.
MARE APPEL, Administratrix.
Chicago, April 4, A. D. 1872.
Bailber & Lackner, Attys.
26-31a
ESTATE OF JOHN G. GINDELE, DECEASED.is herebyagainst
given totheallestate
persons
having
claimsNotice
and demands
of John
G.
Gindele, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and Bettlenitnt at a regular term of the County
court-of Cook county, to be holden at the court housa
in the1872,
city being
of Chicago,
thethereof.
first Monday of June,
A.D.
the thirdondav
FRANZ
GINDELE,
Administrator.
Chicago, April 4. 1872.
26-31*
Bauber & Lackner, Attys.
WM. T. BUTLER,
Attonney, 371 State Street.
ESTATE OF JOHN PFUND DECEASED.-Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of John Pfund, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D., 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
Chicago, April 2. A.ANNA
D. 1872.B. PFUND, Executrix.
Wm. T. Butler, Atty.
26-3U
HOMER COOK,
Attorney, ISo W. Monroe St.
ESTATE OF JAMES THOMPSON, DECEASED.Notice
hereby against
given totheall estate
personsof having
claims and isdemands
James
Thompson, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
In the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June,
A.D. 1872. being the third dav thereof.
ELLEN
STRONG, Administratrix.
Chicago
April MARIA
fi, A.D. 1872.
Homer Cook, Att'y.
26-31
ELDRIDGE & TOURTELLOTTE,
401 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE OF MICHAEL ILANG. DECEASED.
Notice
is
hereby
to all persons
having
claims
and demands agaiust given
the estate
of M ichael
Lang,
de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872,
being the third day thereof.
CHARLES J0RN, Administrator.
Chicago. April 4, A. D. 1872.
Eldridge & Tourtellotte, Atty's for estate. 26-31

Chicago
Attorney 128 West WaeAmoton St.
CHANCERY NOTICK.^ate of Illinois, county ol
Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
June Term. A. D. 1*72. Annie E. Hill v. Ives Hill.
InAffidavit
Chancery.of the non-reaidenco of Ives Hill, de
fendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
motice is .hereby given to the said Ives Hill that
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery aide thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant,
the first Monday of
June
next, (1-72.)returnable
as is by lawonrequired.
Now, unless you, the said Ives Hill, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, ou the first Monday
of June, ls72. and plead, answer or demur to the
Bald
complainant's
bill oftherein
complaint,
the and
same,
and
the matters
and things
charged
stated,
will
be
taken
asconfessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you according to the praver of t-uid bill.
AUGUSTUS
M. Blanchard. Cump'tH
Sol'r. JACOBSON, Clerk.
25-28
~ WATTE & CLARK,
Attorneys, 21 East Van Buren Street.
ESTATE
MAKYgivenBEERS,
DECEASED.
Notice OF
is hereby
to all persons
havingclaims and demands against the estate of Mary
Beers,and
deceased,
to present
the same
fortheadjudica
tion
settlement
at a regular
term of
County
Court of Cook County, to be holden at the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
June, A. D. 1S72, being the third dav thereof.
CYRENIl'S BEERS, Executor.
Chicago.A March.
A. D. 1872.
Waite
Clark, 26,
Attorneys.
2.V30a
BATES & HODGES,
Attorney, 11M W. Madison Street.
ESTATE
MASON.
DECEASED.
NoticoOFis RICHARD
hereby given
to allSr.,
persons
having
claims and demandB against the estate of Richard
Mason, Sr., deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court
county, toonbethe
holden
the court
house
In
theofcityCook
of Chicago,
first atMonday
of June,
A. D. 1*72, being the third day thereof.
L. P. HILLIARD, Administrator.
Chicago,
March 2.',Attorneys.
1872.
Bates & Hodges.
25-30
S. M. DAVIS,
Atfornn/. ro H'. Randolph St.
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
is hereby given to allHUPP,
personsDECEASED.-Notice
having claims and
demands against the estate of John IIopp, deceased,
to present the tamo for adjudication and settlement at
a regular
termat the
of the
Cook
county,
to
be holden
courtCounty
house,court
in theofcity
0/ Chicago,
on the first Monday of June A. D. 1872, being the
third dav thereof.
Chicago, March 30, A. D. 1*72.
WILLIAM WENDLAND. Executor.
3. M. Davis. Att'y.
26-.U.
BENNETT & SHERBURNE,
AtCy, Masonic Tern., cor. Halsted and Randolph sts.
NOTICE is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Ann McDonald,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement
the County
county, toat bea regular
holden term
at theofcourt
house, incourt
the ofcityCookof
Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first dav thereof.
HENRY McDONALD, Administrator,
Chicago, April 3, A. D. 1872.
Bennett A Sherbcrne,
Atty's for Administrator.
26-31
NEWELL PRATT,
Attorney, 1124 Wabash Avenue.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois. County of
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
April term. A. D. W2. Hattie A. Thornton v. Wil
liam
R. Thornton.In
Chancery.of William R. Thorn
Affidavit
of theabove
non-residence
ton,
defendant
named, having
been filed in the
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook coun
ty, notice is hereby given to the said William R. Thorn
ton that the complainant heretofore filed her bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and
thatsaid
a summons
thereupon
issued
out first
of said
court
against
defendant,
returnable
on the
Monday
of April next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now. unless you, the said William R. Thornton, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term there
of, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first
Monday of April. 1872. and plead, answer or demur
to the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same,
and the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
^Newell Pratt, Compl't'B
Sol'r.JACOBSON. Clerk.
25-28
CHANCERY NOTICE^-State ofHHnois, County of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. April
term,
A. D. 1872. John Phillips v. Ann Phillips.In
Chancery.
Affidavit
of the
non-residence
AnninPhillips,
fendant above
named,
having beenoffiled
the officedeof
the
clerk
of
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
notice is hereby given to the Baid Ann Phillips
that the coinrlainant heretofore filed his bill of
complaint In said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said
court against said defendant, returnable on the third
Monday of April next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, uulesa you, the said Ann Phillips, shall
personally be and appear before said Circuit court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof,
to bo holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third
Monday of April, 1872. and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN
T. GASSETTE,
Bonney, Fat A Griggs,
Compl't's
Sol'rs. Clerk.
25-28
SAWLN & WELLS,
Attorneys, 59 W. Maslison St.
GUARDIAN'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE.-By vir
tue of an order and decree of the Superior court
of
Cookandcounty.
chancery
made
enteredState
this of4thIllinois,
day of inApril,
A. I). Bitting,
1*72, in
the April term A. D. 1872, of said court, in the matter
of the petition of the undersigned guardian of Jacob
Lauer and Catharine Lauer, minors, for leave to sell
the interest
of thedescribed
said minors
and to for
the their
following
and
hereinafter
realinestate,
sup*
Sort and education, I shall as such guardian, on Monay, April 22, A. D. 1872. at ten o'clock in the forenoon,
upon the premises, expose and sell at public vendue,
for cash, to the highest bidder, all the right, title and
interest
of and
the 6aid
Jacob
Lauer(11,)
andblock
Catherine
Lauer,
minors, in
to lot
eleven
twenty-four
(24.) in BushneH'e addition to Chicago, County of
Cook, and State of Illinois.
JACOB
SERAMOR,
Guardian of Jacob Sauer
and Catherine
Sauer.
Chicago, >ft>ril 4, 1872.
26-23
Savin & Wells. Atty'B.
0. R. BROUSE,
Attornei/, 400 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE OF MARY McNULTY, DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Mary
McNulty, deceased, to present the same for adjudi
cation and settlement at a regular term ofthe County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court
house, in "the city eing
of Chicago,
first Monday of
the firstondavthethereof.
FANNY McNfJLTY, Executrix.
Chicago, March 30, A. D. 1872.
0. R. Broube, Attorney.

Legal

CLARKS0N & VAN SCHAACK,

Attorneys, 454 Wnltaxh Avenue.
fJHANOERY
Illinois,
of
v Cook, ss. NOTICE.State
Circuit court of of
Cook
county,County
March
term,
A.
D.
1872.
Catherine
McKay
and
Hector
McKay
v. George W. Hill. Sarah J. Hill, Adam S. Baiuter,
Luke R.Sarah
McMurray.
George
W. M.
Ferrall,
JohnMelF.
Heaney,
J. W heeler.
Nancy
Goddard
ville
Catherine
Gallagher,
Meyer
Newberger.C. J.Eames.
W. Turner,
Gilbert
Cleveland.
Albert
C.
Cleveland, Aaron N. Hart, A. N. Nugent Horace
Allen. George F. Cram and Robert H. Walker. In
Chancery. Cross-Bill.
Affidavit that upon due inquiry Sarah J. Hill, Adam
S. Baiuter, Luke R. McMurray, George W. terra!I,
Nancy
M. Goddard
Catherine
J. W.Horace
Tur
ner, Gilbert
Cleveland,
A. N. Gallagher,
Nugent and
Allen, defendant* above named, tan not he found, so
that process cannot be served upon them, having been
filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said Sarah
J. Hilt, Adam S. Baiuter, Luke R. McMurray, George
W. Ferrall, Nancy M. Goddard. Catherine Gallagher,
J. W. Turner, Gilbert Cleveland, A. N. Nugent and
Horace Allen, that the complainants heretofore filed
their
cross-lull
nf complaint
caid court,
on the
chancery
side thereof,
and that in
a summons
thereupon
issued out of said court against said defendants, re
turnable
on the
thirdsummons
Monday of
is byof
law
required,
which
was.March
on the(172).
18th asday
March. A. D. 1872. duly returned by the sheriff oi said
county, not served upon you, tho last above-named de
fendant*, and that upon diligent inquiry and search he
was serve
unablesaidto summons
find you inupon
his county,
not
you. so that he could
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
Sarah
J. Hill,
Bainter, Luke R. McMurray, George
W. Adam
Ferrall,S.
Nancy M. Goddard. Catherine Gallagher. J. W. Tur
ner, Gilbert Cleveland, A, N. Nugent and Horace
Allen, shall personally be and appear before said
Circuit court o! Cook county, on the first day of a
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
on the third Monday of May, 1872, and plead, answer
or demur to the said complainants' cross-bill of com
plaint, the same, and the matters and things therein
will you
be taken
as confessed,
andofa
charged
and stated,
decree entered
against
according
tn the prayer
said cross-bill. NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Clarkson A Van Schaack, Compl'ls' Sol'rs. 27-30
J0HNES & SUTHERLAND,
Attornei/.
pHAXCERY
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois,
\J of Cook, ss.Superior
court ofCook
county.County
April
term, A. D. 1872. Joseph Kipley v. Catharine Kipley.
In Chancery.
Affidavit that the defendant, Catharine Kipley, on
due inquiry,
be found
or isbe concenled
within
this
State, so cannot
that process
cannot
served upon
her,
having been filed in the office of the Clerk of said Su
perior Court of Cook county, notice is hereby given
to the said Catharine Kipley, that tho complainant
heretofore filed his bill of complaint in said court,
on the chancery side thereof, and that a summons
thereupon issued out of said court against Baid defend
ant, returnable on the first Monday of April next
(1*72),
is by law
Now,asunless
you,required.
the said Catharine Kipley, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook
county,
on
the
first
of theonterm
thereof,
to be
holden at Chicago, in saidday
county,
tho first
Monday
of April, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree ontered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Johnes & Sutherland, Compl't'B Sol'rs. 2fi-29p
THOMAS SHIRLEY,
Attorney. 213 Clark St. Cur. Adams St.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
of county.
Illinois, April
county
of Cook,
ss. Superior
courtState
of Cook
term,
A. D. 1872.
Charles
Meyer v. John F. Marx.
Public notice is hereby given to the said John F.
Marx, that a writ of attachment Issued out of
the office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook
county,
datedofthethe23th
of Meyer,
idarch, and
A. D.against
1872,
at the suit
said day
Charles
the
estate
of
John
F.
Marx,
for
the
sum
of
one
hun
dred and thirty-five dollars directed to the sheriff of
Cook county, which said writ has been returned oxecuted.
Now, therefore, unless you. the Baid John F.
Marx, shall personally be and appear before the
said
Superior
county,
or before
first
day of
the nextcourt
termofCook
thereof,
to be on
holden
at thetheCourt
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
April, A. D. 1872, give special bail and plead to the said
plaintiffs action, judgment will be entered against
you, and in favor of the said Charles Meyer, and so
much
of the
property
attached
maywillbe be
sufficient
to satisfy
the Bald
judgment
and ascoBts
sold to
satisfy the eame.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON.
Clerk.
Thomas Shirley, Att'y.
2t>-29
ROSENTHAL, PENCE ft MOSES,
Attorneys.
ADMINISTRATORS SALE.-Louisa neller. ad
ministratrix
of
the
estateHess,
of Israel
de
ceased, v. Rosa Hess. Abraham
FannyHeller,
McCreary,
Robert
McCreary
Caroline
Schram,
Benedict
Schram,
Theresa Porges, Henry Porges. Esther Schram, Jacob
Schram
Elizabeth
Heller.
Cook
county. and
Petition
to sell
realSuperior
estate tocourt
payof debts.
Public notice is hereby given that in pursuance of the
decree
court in Baid
heretofore
I shaliof, said
on Saturday,
thecause,
lsfh Iday
of May,entered,
A. D.
1872,
at
10
o,c!ock.
a.
m.,
sell
at
public
auction,
for cash,
to the highest bidder, at the north end of the new
City
Hall,
corner
LaSalle and
Adamspremises,
streets, inviz:
Chicago,
Illinois,
the offollowing
described
Lot
six (6) in block three (.t) in Quick's subdivision of
Harlem, being part of the northeast quarter of sec
tion twelve (12,) in town thirty-nine (39,) north ol
range twelve (12) east of 3rd p. m., (n Cook county,
Illinois.
Aprils, 1*72.
Administratrix ofestate of Israel Heller, deed.
Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, Pl'ffs Atty's. 26-31
ESTATE
NoticeOFis KATHARINA
hereby given ROSE.
to all DECEASED.persons hay
ing claims and demands agafnBt the estate of Hatharina Rose, deceased, to present the same for ad
judication and settlement at a regular term of the
County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
day of June, A. D. 172, being the third day thereof.
HENRY ROSE, Executor.
Chicago, March 29, A. D. 1872.
Rosenthal. Pence & Moses, Compl't's Sol'rs. 25-30
DUNNING & EASTON,
Attorneys 479 Wabash Avenue.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
Cook, bs. Superior court of Cook county. May
term,
A. D.Chancery.
1871 Edmund J. Hooper v. Emma
Hooper.In
Affidavit of the non-residence of Emma Hooper, de
fendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk ofsaid Superior court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Emma Hooper that
the complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons
thereupon
issuedonout
court of
against
said defendant,
returnable
the offirstsaidMonday
May
next,
(1872.)
as
1b
by
law
required.
Now, unless you, the said Emma Hooper, shall per
sonally be and appear before Baid Superior court ot
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of May, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Dunning A Eabton,
Compl't'B Sol'rs.
27-30

News.

223

RUNYAN, AVERY, LOOMIS & COMSTOCK,

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
Attorneys. 141 W. Washington St.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, countv of
Cook. ss. Superiorcourt ofCook county. To May
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
term,
A. D. Chancery.
1872. Edward Williston v. Christina WilAttorney.
liston.In
THE
DISTRICT
COURTDistrict
OF THE
UNITED
Affidavit ofthe non-residence of Christina Williston, TN
X
States,
for
tho
Northern
of Illinois.
In
defendant
named,
having
beenof Cook
filed incounty,
the office
matter of William Wuitzell, bankrupt.In Bank
of the Clerkabove
of said
Superior
court
no the
tice is hereby given to the said Christina Williston, that ruptcy.
Notice is hereby given that a second and third gen
the complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint eral
meeting of the creditors of said bankrupt will be
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
on the 13th day of May, l>72, at 2 o'clock p. m., in
a summons thereupon issued out of said court against held
tho
city
of Chicago,
ofand before
H. N.inHlbsaid defendant, returnable on the first Monday of bard, Esq..
Register,at the
fur office
the purposes
named
the
May
next
(1672),
as
iB
by
law
required.
and "th sections of the Bankrupt Act of March
Now, unless you, the said Christina Williston. shall 27th
2,
1n>7.
personally he and appear before said Superior Court of Chicago, April 12. 1S72.
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
ROBERT E. JENKINS. Assignee.
holden
Chicago,
in saidanswer
county,orondemur
the first
In the late tire all proofs of debt in the hands
of
Maytat1K72,
and plead,
to Monday
the said ofN.theIt.Assignee
and
Registerfor
in each
Bankruptcy
de
complainant's
bill therein
of complaint,
It will be necessarv
creditorwere
to inako
matters and things
chargedtheandsame,
stated,and
will the
be stroyed.
another
proof.
ROBERT
E.
JENKINS,
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you 27-28
Assignee.
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON. Clerk. "\TOTICE FOR Pt'BLICATlON.-This is to give no
Runyan,
Avery,
Looms
A
Comstock,
li lice, that on the loth day of April, A. D. 1872, a
2t>-2,J>
Comp't's Sol'rs.
warrant in bankruptcy was issued against the estate of
Daniel P. Newell,
city ofwho
Chicago,
in theadjudged
county
UARDIANS
SALE
OF
REAL
ESTATE.-State
of
,
Stateofofthe
Illinois,
has been
1; Illinois, Cook county, bs. In the Circuit Court of | of Cook, and ou
his
own
petition,
that
the
payment
of
Cook county. In the matter of the application of Eliza aanybankrupt
debts and the delivery of any property belonging
H. Towno, guardian of Edward P. Towno, to sell real to such
bankrupt,
to
him
or
for
his
use,
aud
the
trans
estate of the said minor.
of any property by him are forbidden by law; that
By virtue ofa decree entered in said cause, on the fifth fertmeting
of the creditors of the said bankrupt to
day of April. A.D. 1872, at the March term ofsaid court, aprove
debts, and to choose one or more assignees
I shall on Monday, the twenty-ninth (29th) day ofApril, of hiB their
estate, will be held at a court of bankruptcy to
A.D. 1872, at 10 o clock, in the forenoon of said day, be holden
at thebefore
officeHomer
of Homer
N. Hibbard,
said
at the east door of the Court House, on South Clark city ot Chicago,
N. Hibbard,
Esq.,inReg
street, in the city of Chicago, Statu of Illinois, sell at ister, on the fifteenth
day of May, A. D. 1872, at 10
public
auction
to
the
highest
and
best
bidder,
upon
CAMPBELL,
the following terms, viz : One-third cash, and the o'clock a. m.
V. B.S. H.
Marshal,
Messenger.
balance
three equal
payments,bearing
payable
in one,at two
By S. H. TOl'RTELLOTTE, Deputy.
and threein years,
respectively,
interest
the 28-30
rate
of
eight
per
cent,
per
annum,
and
to
be
sutured
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
by mortgage or trust deed upon faid premises all the IN States,
the Northern District of Illinois.In
right,
titledescribed
and interest
of the
said minor
in theof the matter offorEli
N. Small, a bankrupt.
following
real estate,
situated
in the State
Notice
is
hereby
on
Illinois,
to
wit
:
One
undivided
one-half
(\)
of
east
the llth ofgiven
May,that
187:',theat undersigned
lo o'clock a.will,
m..at
one-half ('..) of the west one-half 0a) of bitnumber Saturday,
No.
3M>
Wabash
avenue,
in the city of Chicago, sell at
three (3j in block fifty-seven (.V71 of original town of public auction to the highest
bidder formaycash,
Chicago.
ELIZA H. TOWNE,
all interest which the (>aid bankrupt
haveanyin and
the
of his mother, Evelina Small, deceased.
Chicago, April \ 1872.Guardian of Edward P. Towno.
28-29 estate
28-31
S S. MERRILL, Assignee.
A. B. JENKS,
*VOTICE FOR rUBLICATlON.-This is to give no
Attorney.
li tice,inthatbankruptcy
on the 13thwasdayissued
of April,
A D.
ESTATE
OF
LEWIS
P.
HILL,
DECEASED.warrant
against
the172,
estatoa
Notice Is hereby given to all persons having claims
William 0. Clark, of the city of Chicago, In tho
and demands against the estate of Lewis 1'. Hill, de of
county
of
Cook,
and
State
of
Illinois,
who
has
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle adjudged a bankrupt on hi* own petition, that the been
pay
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
of any debt* and the delivery of any property
county, to he holden at the Court House, in the city of ment
to
such
bankrupt,
to
him
or
for
bis
use,
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, be belonging
the transfer of any property by him are forbiddenand
by
ing the thirdJOHN
dav thereof.
law
: thattheir
a meeting
ofthetochoo**e
creditorsone
ofthe
said bankrupt
L. WOODCOCK, Administrator. to prove
debts, and
or more
assignees
ISABELLA HILL, Administratrix.
of his estate, will be held at a court of bankruptcy, to
Chicago, April A. D. lt>72.
holden at the office of Hoiuer N. Hibbard, in the
A. B. junks, Att'y.
27-.12a be
city
Chicago, before
N. Hibbard,
on
theof sixteenth
day of Homer
May , A.D.
1.S72, at HiRegister,
o'clock
HOWE & RUSSELL,
a.m.
B.
II.
CAMPBELL,
Attorneys, 475 Wabash Avenue.
U. S. Marshal, Messenger.
ESTATE
OF
SENECA
WRIGHT,
DECEASED.
By S. H. TOURTELLOTTE, Deputy.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims 28-30
and demands against the estate of Seneca Wright, de IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
ceased, to present tho eame for adjudication and set
States, for the Northern District of Illinois. In
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
In the matter
Brewing
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of Bankruptcy.
a bankrupt.
Noticeof IsSands'
herebyAlegiven
that
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, Company,
pursuant
to
an
order
duly
eatered
in
said
court,
the
being the third day thereof.
undersigned
assignee
of
the
estate
of
said
bankrupt,
ADALINE C. WRIGHT, Administratrix. will self at public auction, for cash in hand, to the
Chicago, April 13, A. D. 1872.
and best bidder, at tho front door of No. 18
Howe A Russell, Attorneys.
28-33 highest
East the
Harrison
in theA.cityD. oflf*72,
Chicago,
on Saturat
day,
27th daystreet,
of April,
commencing
OF
SOPHIaTB.
WHITING,
DECEASED^
E~~STATE
ten o'clock in the forenoon of said day, and continu
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims ing
until
the property
hereinafter
shall be Bold,
and demands against the estate of Sophia B. Whit alfthe
right,
title and interest
of named
said bankrupt,
and
ing,
deceased, toat apresent
for County
adjudication
the underBigned as Assignee aforesaid, in ana to the
and settlement
regularthe
termsame
of the
court of
following described desperate and doubtful claims to
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the wit:
Tho balance of a claim against the Lorillard
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A.D. Fire Insurance
Company
1872, being the third day thereof.
upon which a dividend
offioofperNew
cent,York
has for
been$y,H7.M),
collec
JOSEPH T. JANES,
ted : balance of a claim against the Hide ami Leather
HELEN
S.
J
AXES.
Chicago, April 13, A. D. 1ST2.
Executors. Insurance Company of Boston, Mass., for $4,786.87, up
Howe & Rukrell, Attorneys.
28-33 on which a dividend of 30 per cent, has been collected ;
balance of a claim against the Irving Fire Insurance
Company
New York,
for $t,631..W,
whichagainst
a div
EDWIN GREENE,
idend
of30ofpercent,
has been
collectedupon
; a claim
Attorney, 4o Hubbard Court.
the Merchants Insurance Co., of Chicago, for $y,.*>73.7ft,
17STATE
OF
JOSEPH
MEEKER.
DECEASED.collected : also, claims against the Merchants
JLj Notice is hereby given to all persous having claims nothing
Insurance
of Hartford,
theNorwich
Putnam Insur
and
demands
against
estateforofadjudication
Joseph Meeker,
de ance
Co., ofCo.,
Hartford,
Conn.,Conn.;
and the
IiiBueceased,
to present
thethesame
and set
ance
Co.,
Conn.; theBO last three claims
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook have beenof Norwich,
and settled by the under
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of signed, but itcompromised
understood that in some cases a fur
Chicago,
on the
Monday of June, A. D. 1872, be ther percentageis may
be paid, dependent on tho amount
ing ttie third
day first
thereof.
from assets of companies ; also all the uncol
ELIZABETH MEEKER, Executrix. realized
lected claims on account of judgments, promissory
Chicago, April 10 A. D. 1872.
notes, and debts duo on open account, belonging to
Edwin Greene. Att'y.
27-30 said
estate, a list whereof, so far as known, maybe
seen at the office of the undersigned.
MAGRUDER & KERR,
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorneys, 40 Central Union Block.
27-23
Assignee
ESTATE
LOUIS
DECEASED.Notice OF
is hereby
givenBELTZ.
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Louis ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern DiBtrlct of Illi
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the 9th
Beltz,settlement
deceased,attoa regular
present term
the same
adjudication
and
ot theforCounty
Court dayTheof undersigned
April, A. D. 1872.
hereby gives notice of his appoint
of Cook county, to be holden at the Court House, In ment
of Arthur Scholz and John N.
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday ofJune, A. D. Young,asof assignee
Racine, Wisconsin, and William P. Wright,
1672. being the third day thereof.
of Naperville, in the county of Dupage, and State of
LYNE
S.
DAVISON,
Administrator.
IUineis, co-partners, lately doing business in the city
Chicago. March 25. A. D. 1872.
Chicago, county of Cook, and State of Illinois, in
Maukuder A Kebr, Attorneys.
25-30 of
said district, under the firm name and style of Scholz,
TESTATE
OF
MICHAEL
FELTEN
[alias]
FILYoung
& Co., and who have been adjudged bankrupt,
JEj TEN, deceased. Notice is hereby given to all per
their own petition, by the District court of the
sons having claims and demands against the estate of upon
United
States
in and for the said District.
Michael Felton [alias] Fllten, deceased, to present the
ROBERT E. JENKINS. Assignee.
same for adjudication and settlement at a regular 27-29
term of the County court of Cook county, to be hold
RICH
& NOBLE,
en at the court house in the city of Chicago, on the
Attorneys.
first Monday of May, A. D. 1872, being the sixth day NOTICE FOR PUBLICATION.-This
Is to give no
thereof. HUBERT KEIPINGER, Administrator.
tice,inthat
on the 26th
of March,
1872,ofa
warrant
bankruptcy
wasday
issued
against A.
theD.estate
Chicago, March 18, A. D. 1872.
William H. Law, of Chicago, in the county of Cook,
Theo. Schintz, Attfy^
24-29 and
State ot. Illinois, who nas been adjudged a bank
rupt on his own petition, that the payment! of any
F. A. HOFFMAN, Jr.,
debts
and the delivery
property
belonging
Attorney, Room 5, LineCs Block.
such bankrupt,
to himoforany
for his
use, and
the transtoTDSTATE
Deceased.
of any property by him are forbidden by law; that
JTj NoticeOFis THEODORE
hereby givenE. toJOHNSON,
all persons
having fer
a meeting of the creditors of the said bankrupt to
claims
anddeceased,
demandstoagainst
of adjudication
Theodore E. prove
their debts, and to choose one or more assignees
Johnson,
present the
the estate
same for
of his estate, will be held at a court of bankruptcy,
and
settlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
court
of
to be holden at the office of Homer N. Hibbard, in the
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the city
of Chicago, in said county and State, before Homer
city of Chicago, in Baid county, on the first Monday N. Hibbard,
Register on the eighth day of May, A. D.
of May, A. D. 1*72. being the sixth day thereof.
BERTHA JOHNSON, Administratrix. 1872, at ten o'clock a. m. B. H. CAMPBELL,
Chicago, March 16. A. D. 1872.
U. S. Marshal, Messenger.
F. A. Hoffman, Attorney.
23-28
By A. B. COTES, Deputy.
26-28
ESTATE OF ARTHUR G. MORVAN. DECEASED. Rich ft Noble, Att'ys.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Arthur G.
JAMES FRAKE,
Morvan,
deceased,
present-the
adjudication
Attorney, 115 W. Madison St.
and
settlement
at atoregular
termsame
of theforCounty
court
OF ILLINOIS, COOK COUNTY, ss.-To
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in STATE
the May term of the County court of Cook county,
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D. A. D.
1872. (formerly
In the matter
of the
guardianship
Mar1872, being the sixth day thereof.
gret Horn
Margret
Mullor).
Amelia ofMuller,
MARY
MORVAN.
Administratrix.
Muller and Louis Muller. minors.
Chicago, March 22. A. P. 1S72.
26-30p Otto
To all persons concerned : Take notice, that the un
NOTICE is hereby given to all persons having claims dersigned, guardian of Margret Born (formerly Mar
and demands against the estate of Lucius A. Gris- gret Muller), Amelia Muller, Otto Muller and Louis
wold, deceased, to present the same for adjudication Muller, minors, will, at the May term of said court, to
and settlement at a regular term of the County court be holden at the court house, in the city of Chicago, In
county,
first Mondayhisof resignation
May next, present
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the said
said
court,onfortheacceptance,
of the
city
of Chicago,
first Monday of July, A. D. to
office of guardian of the above-named minors, accord
1872, being
the firstondaythethereof.
ing to the statute in such ca*e made and provided.
MARIA
GRISWOLD,
Administratrix,
Chicago, April 3, A. D. 1872.
26-31
MEDARD M. LOCHNER, Guardian, etc.
Bennett & Sueruvbne, Atty's for Administratrix.
Dated Chicago, April 8, 1872.
27-30

224

Chicago

Legal

News.

ATTORNEYS.
MATTHEW MARX,
JAMES COGKCROFT & CO.,
Attorney, 92 S. Des]>laines Street.
.Mv tin NOTICK.-State
r.. ^i.ic of
1'. Illinois,
i ! i uuJ, CCounty of
(HANCERY
FRANK J. CRAWPORD,
Cook. u. Circuit court of Cook county. May
Term, A.D. 1*72. Lena Brolius v. August Brolius. HAVE IN PREPARATION, AND WILL SOON
ATTORNEY AND C0UN8EL0B-AT-LAW,
In
Chancery.
Affidavit
of the non-reidence of August Brolius, de
No. 328 Wab<uh Avenue, Chicago.
M
PUBLISH, THE
fendant above named, having been tiled in the office
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
GEORGE C. FRY,
notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
August
Brolius
that
SPRINGFIELD (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
the complaiuant heretofore 8.1ml her bill of complaint FIB8T VOLUME
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
34 Clinton Street, Room 5, Chicago.
HERNDON & ORENDORF,
summons
thereupon
Issued
out
of
said
court
against
Office west side square. 27* said defendant, returnable on the third Monday ofMay
Of a proposed Seriea of
8. A. GOODWIN.
E. C. LARNED.
H. 8. TOWLE.
next,
(1372,) as 'yon.'tho'
is by law required.
rNow,'0un(ess
said'1 August,
Brolius. shall
tli
'
"
_JACgSONVILLE (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
"

'
1
said
Circuit court of
personally be
and appear before a term
GOODWIN,
LARNED
&
TOWLE,
I
to he
Cook
county,
on theinfirst
day
of on thethereof,
jr^ETCHAM, L J.
.nty,
third Mon
holden
at Vyllll^SV,
Chicago,
said
count)
UUIIltTIJ
1*1
ILl .>,.
" or> demur
39* day
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
of May,
1S72, and
plead,
answer
to -
the American
said complainant's bill ofcomplaint, the same and the
No. 376 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
12
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
taken iw confessed, and a decree entered against you
P'EPPER. WILSON A MARTIN,"
HODGES,
according
to
the
prayer
of
said
bill.
Railway
9
Room 2 Bank Building.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Matthkw Marx, Compl'ta Sol'r.
28-31
Attorneys at Law, 113 W. Madison St.
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lakx, Utah.
W. W. PERKINS,
Reports.
Attorney, 386 Wabash Avenue.
SANFORD, E. Special attention given to OoUett NOTICE OF
FORofRE-ENTERING
~~
H. M. HERMAN,
Hons and Real Estate.
02" 11 of Record ofAPPLICATION
a Judgment. State
Illinois, county
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
of Cook. as. Superior court of Cook county. May Term,
1S72. Willis H. Ksty v. Samuel Rodger* and John D.
No. 79 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, Kansas.
Fee.Application for restoration of judgment.
26*
Affidavit of the non-residence of John D. Fee, one of It is the intention of the Editor of these Reports to
the above named defendants, having been filed in the
ROGERS
&
ROGERS,
clerkgiven
ofsaidtoSuperior
courtD.ofCook
county,
LE&ALMSPRIHTIl] DEPARTMENT office
furnish all the current
said
noticeofisthe
hereby
said John
Fee, that
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS.
Willis H. Ksty ha* filed his petition for the re-entering
of
record
a
certain
judgment
heretofore
obtained
by
Bt Paul, Minn
him against said John D. Fee and one Samuel Rod- Decisions of the American Courts
gers, in said Superior court of Cook county, as sot
JAMES
B. BRADWELL
by said Esty in his said petition, anil that a sum
Briefs & Abstracts. forth
mons thereupon issued out td said court against said
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
defendants, returnable on the first Monday of May
On questions of
jYo. 113 West Madison Street, Chicago.
next
as 1byou,
by said
law required.
Now.(1*72),
unless
John T). Fee, shall personally
Special Attention Given to Probate Hatter*.
be
and
appear
before
said
Superior
court
of
Cook
The attention of Attorneys is called to our superior county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be bolden
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
RAILWAY LAW,
sciltties for printing BRIEFS and ABSTRACTS.
at1X72,Chicago,
in said
county,oron(lemur
the first
Monday
of May
ESTATES SETTLED.
and plead,
answer,
to the
said petition
" Set thine house in order ; for thou shalt die,
the same, and the matters and tilings therein charged, With references and notes of recent English Cases, and
Our prices are :
not live."2 Kings xx. 1.
stated, and alleged, will be taken as confessed by you,
BBIEH,
per page,
and an order entered in accordance with the prayer of and to make of the series a compendium of all the
1.75 said petition.
ABSTRACTS,
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk
CHARLES DRIESSLETN,
LATEST DECISIONS on matters arising in litiga
Orders left either at the office of the Lioal Niws, W. W. Pebkins, Att'y for Petitioner.
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
tion
for
or
against
Railway
Companies.
115 W. Madison St., or at the Printing Office, 13 North CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
And U. S. Commissioner.
Jefferson St., will be promptly executed.
Cook,
Superior
court
of Cook
county.
To May
Western Union Telegraph Ogice, 554 Wabash Ave
Term,
A.D.ss. 1872.
Ruben
Rubel
v. J ohn
L.iCanipboll.
In
chancery.
Affidavit
of the non - residence of John L. ( ampJ. II. BATTEX,
bell, defendant above named, having been filed in
STATIONKK,
the office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook
Price $6.00 per Vol.
185
LA SALLE STREET.
county,
given toheretofore
the said John
L.
ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
Campbell,notice
that isthehereby
complainant
filed his
Law Stationery and Legal Blanks.
19-30
COURTS.
bill of complaint in Baid court, on the chancery side
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out
IN REGARD TO THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICES of said court against said defendant, returnable on
the first Monday of May next (1872,) as is by law reBANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
IN THE LEGAL NEWS.
JAMES COCKCROFT& Co.,
''no'w!
unless
you,
the
Baid
John
L.
Campbell,
shall
The following order was entered in personally be and appear before said Superior court
TN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
J. States, for the Northern District of Illinois. In
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to
the United States District Court for the of
the matter of John Phillip Mueller and Hieronymus
be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Mon
499
WABASH
AVENUE,
day
of
May,
1872.
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
the
Mueller,
bankruptcy.
Northern Dktrict ofIllinois, on the 28th Baid complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
This isasbankrupts.In
to
give notice,
I have
tiledbankrupts,
my final acin
counts
assignee
of the that
estate
of said
the matters and things therein chargod and slated, will
CniCACKD,
111.
said
court,
and
that
on
the
twentieth
day
of
May,of1*172,
of July last :
be taken as confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you
I shall apply to said court for the settlement
my
tl.,. P-^g^t'^
nravar nf nnid billJACOBSON, Clerk.
" Ordered, that hereafter notices of according to the
said accounts, and for a discharge from all liability as
assignee of said estate, in accordance with the pro
sales or other proceedings in bankruptcy Rosenthal, Pence * Moses, Compl't's Sol'r. 28-31
AD VEBTISEMENT.
visions of the 28th section of the Bankrupt Act of
and admiralty cases pending in this
March 2nd, 1-07. ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assigneo.
SAMUEL STRAUS,
court may be published in the Chicago
Attorncy-at-Law, 562 Wabash Avenue.
Chicago, April Is, 1872.
28-29
rtHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois,
of
Legal News with the same effect as if ^
ss. Superior
court of Cook
county.County
To .1 uno
STEVENS
&HAYNES
published in either of the other papers TermCook,
TN
THE
DISTRICT
COURT
OF
THE
UNITED
A.D., 1872. Michael Schmidt v. Louise Schmidt.
X States, for the Northern District of Illinois. In
designated by the rules and orders of In
Chancery.
, oSchmidt,
-j.
the matter of Sand's Ale Brewing Company, bank
AfHdavit
of the non - residence of Louise
Law Publishers,
this court for the publication of notices." defendant
rupt.In
above named, having been filed In the oftcj
Notice isbankruptcy.
hereby given, that a third general meeting
the isclerk
of said
court
of Cook
county,
A similar order was also entered in of
of
the creditors of said bankrupt will be held on the
notice
hereby
givenSuperior
to the said
Louir-e
Schmidt
that
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
tenth
day
of
May,H. 1*72.
at two o clock
at theinoffice
the
complainant
heretofore
filed
his
bill
ol
complaint
the Circuit Court in regard to notices in iu said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
of, and before,
N. Hibbard,
Esq., p.m.,
Register,
the
city of Chicago, county of Cook, State of Illinois, for
a
summons
thereupon
issued
out
of
said
court
against
that court.
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday ot J uue AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS, the purposes named in the 2*th section of the Bankrupt
ActChicago,
of March 2, 1667. 1H72.
next,
is bythe
lawsaid
required.
now
Now(1872,)
unlessas you,
Louise scnmiat,
Schmidt, snail
shall per
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
28-29 April 17th.
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
sonally be and appear before Baid Superior court of
THE CHICAGO LEGAL NEWS
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
LONDON.
holden
at
Chicago,
iu
said
county,
on
the
first
Mon
H. H. ANDERSON,
AS A MEDIUM FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE dayy of June, JM72,
1872, and pieaii,
plead, answer or aemur
demur iuto u*
t ie
Attorney,
Nixon's Building.
saidid complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and tn
the
NOTICE.-Northern
District of IlllLAWS, DECISIONS, AND LEGAL NOTICES
itters and things therein charged and stated, will l>be forks in all Classes of Literature ASSIGNEE'S
matters
nois ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you
19th
dav
of
April,
A.D.
1*72.
Since the fire but few of the Attorneys according to the P^|^sbijAC0BS0N, clerk.
SUPPLIED TO ORDER.
The undersigned hereby givos notice of hisi appoint
ment as assignee ofthe estate ofA. H. Davis, ofChicago,
in the city have access to the session Saslukl Straus, Compl't's Sorr.
2a-.U
in the county of Cook, and State of Illinois who haj
been aihudeed a bankrupt, upon his own petition, by
laws ; we therefore reprint the following
and Estimates Furnished, and the
pfslrict court of the United States .1. and fcr said
NOTICE. -State of Illinois, County CataloguesOrders
Promptly Filled.
relating to the Legal News. The char CHANCERY
of Cook ss. Superior Court of Cook County.
May
Term,
A.D.
1872.
James
Carter
t.
The
Washing
Trusters and Officers or Public Li
ter of the Chicago Legal News Com ton Insurance Company of New York, George Satter- The braries
may rely upon the most
Charles ofV. Dyer,
and F. H. Winston.In
1 SSIGNEE'S
District
of' impany passed the Legislature and was ap lot\Affidavit
the non-residence
of George Chancery.
Satterlee.
A
nois, ss. AtNOTICE.-Northern
Chicago, in said DiBtnct,
on the
15th
careful attention to their
of the defendants above named, having been Hied
Commissions.
proved by Governor Palmer on the 29th one
dh?unfJr8igned'hereby gives notice of hit ^oint
in
the
office
of
the
Clerk
of
said
Superior
court
of
Cook
notice is hereby given to the said George Sat
as assignee of Edward H. P"r J* ,'?5"d
day of February, 1809, from which we county,
terlee, that the complainant heretofore tiled hin bill of By importing DIRECT from England a consider ment
S Perry, of Chicago, in the county of Cook, and State
complaint
in
said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
of
Illinois,
who have
adjudged
banV!y)0tafT"R'S
able
saving
is
effected,
especially
in
the
Customs
duly,
take the following :
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said from which Public Institutions in the United States are creditors' petition,
by been
the DiBtnct
court
of the United
against said defendant, reiuruable on the first
States,
iu
and
for
g^DgWct.
JENKIN8>
A.8ignee.
"Section 5. Any notice or advertise court
Monday
of
May
next
(1S72),
as
is
by
law
required.
ment required by law, or the order of Now, unless you, the said George Satterlee, shall
Strsonally
be
and
appear
before
said
Superior
court
of
any court, to be published in any news- ook county , on the first day of a term thereof, to be SUNDRY mistakes have been made by our Foreign
H A. IfyTTTTB
Colonial Correspondents in addressing their let
fiaper, shall be as good and valid if pub- holden
at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday and
AUorney.
No. 165 A.West
>'S''''Sr^JLB!m
ters,
weG.begStevens
to notifyandthatRobert
the members
of our lirm
are ESTATE
OF
GEORGE
DECEASED
May,
1872,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
the
said
Henry
W.
Haynes,
the
son
isned in the Chicago Legal News, as in of
N otice is hereby given toBIGELOW
all persons having.claims
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the and stepson ol the late Valentine Stevens, the eminent
any Newspaper, and the certificate of the matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will
b
and
demands
against
the
estate
of
<?m'W
A- ""r?^S
Law
Publisher.
Since
our
father's
death
we
have
con
taken as confessed, and a decree entered agaiut you tinued tocarry onthe business I l.a., Publl.hera, deceased, to present the samo for adjudication
an 1 set
President or Secretary, under the seal of according
tlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
court
t ookof
to
the
prayer
of
said
kill.
Boobaellera
and
Exporlert,
at
the
above
ad
county, to be holden at the court house, in the ofcity
A. JACOBSON, Clerk. dress.
said company, of the publication of any 2-H-31
Charles H. Lawrence, Compl't's Sol'r.
During his recent visits to the United States and Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A.D. 1872, Being
notice or advertisement, shall be suffi
Canada, Robert W. Hayneb secured many Friends the third day thereof.
cient evidence of the publication therein
and Correspondents ; we are thus enabled to give ref Chicago, ^^i^taUOW. Executrix.
MONROE, BISBEE & GIBBS,
erences of the highest character in most of the princi
Attorneys.
523
Wabash
Avenue.
set forth."
H. A. Whitk, Attorney.
.jST/LOF JAMES N. FERGUSON, DECEASED palWeAmerican
The following sections are from a law ESTATE
have nocities.
connection whatever with any other
Notice
in
hereby
given
to
sll
persons
having
of business, and to prevent delay and miscar
of this State, approved on the 11th of claims and demands against the estate of James 3. house
Scale
of
Advertising
Rat^s.
riage, our Correspondents abroad are respectfully re
Ferguson,
deceased, toat present
theterm
sameoffortheadjudica
March,
18692. : All laws of this State, and tion
anil settlement
a regular
iC.nunty quested to plainly address their letters to us as fol Space^ 1 w. j 2 w. j S w. I 4w^ I ^ m^ j 6^
" Section
court of Cook county, to bo Tiolden at the court house, lows:
the city of Chicago, on the ttrst Monday of June, STEVENS & HAYNES,
all decisions of the Supreme Court of Ill in
88.00
1 sq
D 1872. being the third day thereof.
inois, printed in the Chicago Legal A 'ChiCcTBoilNEbAfEBUUSON,
Administratrix.
Bell
Yard,
Temple
Bar,
2 8Cj.. 2.00 3..V) 4.75 6.01 15.75
News, shall be and the same are hereby 2s.j3
With will annexed.
LONDON,
6..r>0 8.00 23.00
declared to be primafacie evidence of the
ENGLAND. I sq.. 2J0 5.00
existence and contents of such laws and
decisions, in all places and before all
Extract from " Report of Julius Rosenthal, Esq., /j. col... 1.6S S.75 12.81 15.00 37.50
Librarian to the President and Members ov ^ col... S.75 14.87 [21.50 27.50 72.50
courts of law and equity in this State.
the Chicago Law Institute." November, 1870.
" Section 3. Any change in the form
Desirable Law Offices.The two of
"
To our collection of English Reports a valuable lcol... 115.00 27.50 138.75 152.50 135.00 2fi2.50j 437.50
of Baid Chicago Legal News shall not
addition
has been made by the importation of a
aftect the legality of any legal notice, ad fices adjoining the new rooms of the full and well preserved set of the House of Lords Ten lines of Agate make a Square.
Advertisements must be paid for In advance,
vertisement, or other thing published in United States District Court are for rent. Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58 and
when not so paid. 50 per ceut. will be added.
volumes.
said paper ; and said Chicago Legal
" English books were imported directly free of Legal Notices not Included In the above.
News is hereby declared to be a news Enquire at this office.
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the
firm of Stevens and Haynes in London, whose Printed at the Chicago Legal Nkws Pbeb, U
paper, within the meaning and intent
diligence, promptness, and care in filling our or North Jefferson street, Chicago.
of chapter three of the Revised Statutes
ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
of this State."

CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
CHAS. M. HARBIS,
8. E. cor. Clark and Adams^

Qhicago

Jegal

^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, In the year 1871, by the Chicago Ljkjal News Company, lnjtheJofBce of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 29.
Through the kindness of Hon. Norxan L. Frekman, Reporter, we have
received advance sheets of the LVth
volume of Illinois Reports, containing
the Revised Rules of Practice adopted
by the Supreme Court of this State on
the 25th of last month, with Notes to
the decisions of the court upon ques
tions of practice in that tribunal, care
fully prepared by Mr. Freeman, as they
will appear in the forthcoming volume
of his Reports :
RULES OF PRACTICE IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Revised and adopted at Springfield, March 25,
1872, being of the January Term of that year.
WRITS OP ERRORSUPERSEDEAS.
1. No supersedeas will be granted un
less a transcript of the record on which
the application is made be complete, and
ao certified by the clerk of the court be
low, and the requisite bond be entered
into and filed in the office of the clerk
of this court according to law, with an
assignment of errors written on or ap
pended to the record.1 And on every
application for a supersedeas, an abstract
of the record, with a brief containing
the points and authorities relied upon,
and pointing specifically to those por
tions of the record upon which the
alleged errors arise, with the record,
shall be presented to the court or judge
to whom the application is made.
Every such application, whether made
in open court or to a justice in vaca
tion, must be accompanied by an affida
vit of the proposed securities, or some
other credible person, justifying the suf
ficiency of bail, sworn to and properly
certified.
2. Whenever a bond is executed by an
attorney in fact, the clerk shall require
the original power of attorney to be filed
in his office, unless it shall appear that
the power of attorney contains other
powers than the mere power to execute
the bond in question ; in which case the
original power of attorney shall be pre
sented to the clerk, and a true copy
thereof filed, certified by the clerk to be
a true copy of the original.
3. When a writ of error shall be made
a supersedeas, the clerk shall indorse
upon said writ the following words:
" This writ of error is made a superse
deas, and is to be obeyed accordingly,"
and he shall thereupon file the writ of
error, with the transcript of the record,
in his office. Said transcript shall be
taken and considered as a due return to
said writ, and thereupon it shall be the
duty of the clerk to issue a certificate, in
substance as follows, to wit :
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ss.
Office of the Clerk of the \
Supreme Court.
j
I do hereby certify, that a writ of error
has issued from this court for the rever
sal of a judgment obtained by
v.
, in the
court of
, at the
term, A.D. 18, in a certain action
of
, which writ of error is made a
supersedeas, and is to operate as a sus
pension of the execution of the judg
ment,2 and, as such, is to be obeyed by
all concerned. Given under my hand
and the seal of the Supreme Court, at
, this
day of
, A.D. 18
, Clerk.
4. Writs of error shall be directed to
1. Where a supersedeas has been awarded, inad
vertently, without an assignment of errors on the
record, the court, upon its attention being called
to the omission, will require them to be assigned
at once, and in default thereof, will dismiss the
oause. Gibbs v. Blackwetl, 40 111., 51.
2. Effect of supersedeas&s to issuing fee bills to
collect costs. Carr v. Miner, 40 111., 33. Whether
record must be filed and cause docketed. Anon.
U>, 115.

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1872.

the clerk or keeper of the record of the
court in which the judgment or decree
complained of is entered, commanding
him to certify a correct transcript of the
record to this court ; but where the
plaintiff in error shall file in the office
of the clerk of this court a transcript of
the record duly certified to be full and
complete, before a writ of error issues,
it shall not be necessary to send such
writ to the clerk of the inferior court,
but such transcript shall be taken and
considered as a due return to said writ.
5. The process on writs of error shall
be a scire facias to hear errors, issued on
the application of the plaintiff in error
to the clerk, directed to the sheriff, or
other officer of the proper county, com
manding him to summon the defendant
in error to appear in court, and show
cause, if any he have, why the judgment
or decree mentioned in the writ of error,
shall not be reversed. If the scire facias
be not returned executed, an alias and
pluries may issue without an order of
court.3
6. The first day of each term shall be
return day, for the return of process.
And no party shall be compelled to
answer or prepare for hearing, unless
the scire facias shall have been served
ten days before the return day thereof ;
nor shall a defendant be at liberty to
enter his appearance and compel the
filaintiff to proceed with the cause, uness the defendant shall have given the
plaintiff ten days' notice, before the
term, of his intention to enter his
appearance and have the cause proceed
to a hearing.
7. In all cases in which a writ of error
is made a supersedeas, the plaintiff in
error shall, on filing the record with the
clerk, at the same time order and direct
a scire facias to issue to hear errors, and
shall use reasonable diligence to have
the same served ten days before the first
day of the term to which the writ of
error is made returnable ; on failing to
do so, the defendant in error shall have
the right to a hearing at the said term,
after joining in error; without giving ten
days notice as required by rule six : 4
Provided, If there be not ten days be
tween the allowance of the supersedeas
and the sitting of the court, the cause
shall stand continued until the next
term, unless by consent of parties it
shall be otherwise ordered.
notice to non-residents.
8. In all cases where a writ of error
and scire facias shall be sued out, the
Elaintiff therein, or other person for
im, may file with the clerk of the court
for the division in which said writs
issued, an affidavit, setting forth that
the defendant or defendants has or have
gone out of this State, so that process
cannot be served on him, her or them,
or that he or they are non-residents of
this State, or, on due inquiry, cannot be
found, or is or are concealed in this
State so that process cannot be served
on him or them, or evades service of
said process ; and thereupon it shall be
the duty of said clerk of the proper
division to cause publication of notice
to be made to said defendant or defend
ants in some newspaper published in
the county where said court for said
division shall be held, setting forth the
pendency of said writ of error, the
names of the parties, the title, term and
time of said court to which the scire
facias may be returnable, which notice
shall be published for four consecutive
weeks, the first insertion to be not less
than sixty days before the return day of
said writ. And in case there shall be
no newspaper published in the county
where, by law, said court is to be holden,
then said notice may be published in
3. Service of scire faciasevasion thereofits ef
fect. Cameron v.Savagc.iO 111., 124. Return of two
nihils, equivalent to actual service. Ib., 124 ; Mar
shall v. Moses, ib., 126. Notice by publication.
Cameron v. Savage, ib., 124.
4. Effect of neglect to use proper diligence to ob
tain service of scire facias. See Gibbs v. BlackweU,
40111., 51.

Whole No. 187.

any paper in said division ; and upon the costs accrued on account of the
the same being done, and a certificate of copying of such unnecessary matters.
publication signed by the publisher, TIME FOR FILING RECORDS HEARING
together with a proper affidavit ( that a
DOCKET.
copy of said notice has been mailed to
13.
No
case
brought
this court by
said defendant at his usual post office, appeal shall be placedto on
court
naming it, and the time when mailed, docket for hearing, unless thethe
record is
if known, so distinctly marked that filed within the time now prescribed
by
attention will be called thereto) being law,9 or within the further time allowed
filed with the clerk of said court; and if by the court for filing the record, except
such notice shall.pot have been sent to
extraordinary cases, the court, upon
the party or parties, and each of them, in
special application, may order a cause to
an affidavit shall be filed showing that, be
placed on the hearing docket.
upon diligent inquiry, the residence or
14. No case which may be brought to
post office of the party or parties to this
court on writ of error, shall bo
whom such notice has not been sent,
on the court docket for hearing,
could not be ascertained, said cause placed
the record shall be filed on or be
shall proceed as if the said defendant or unless
fore the secona day of the term,7 or
defendants had been personally served. withiD
such further time as may be al
notice to purchasers and terrelowed by the court for filing the same,
tenants.
except in extraordinary cases, the court,
9. In all cases wherein guardians, upon special application, may order a
executors or administrators, or others cause to be placed upon the hearing
acting in a fiduciary character, having docket.
obtained an order or decree for the sale
REMOVING RECORDS.
of lands in causes ex parte and a sale has
15.
No
person
shall remove from the
been had under such decree or order, office of the clerk
any record of this
and the same shall be brought to this court, except upon special
leave granted
court for revision, the purchaser or terre- for that purpose.8 No record
be
tenants of Buch lands, if known, shall be taken from the files of the court,shall
except
suggested to the court by affidavit of the on application therefor to the clerk
plaintiff in error, and notice given them his deputy ; and it is made the duty or
of
of the pendency of the writ of error ten the clerk to report promptly to the court
days before the first day of the term of every violation of this rule. The clerk
the court to which the wfit of error is shall be held responsible for the safe
returnable, so that said terre-tenants may keeping and production of the records.
appear and defend.
Application for leave to remove records
RECORDS OF INFERIOR COURTS 5HOW
may be considered at any time in the
PREPARED.
discretion of the court.
10. Hereafter, the clerks of the infe
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.9
rior courts in this State, in cases of 16. The appellant or plaintiff in error
appeal and of error or certiorari, in shall, in all cases, assign errors at the
making up "an authenticated copy of time of filing his record in this court,
the re<pnji of the judgment appealed and, on failing to So fo, the case may be ,
from," or in sending up a transcript of
; but oSher errors may be as
the record to this court as a return to a dismissed
after the filing of the record, by
writ of error or certiorari, shall certify signed
court. The appellee or de
to this courtFirst, a copy of the pro leave of intheerror
shall have the right to
cess ; Second, the pleadings of the par fendant
assign cross errors10 within two days
ties, respectively ; Third, the verdict in after
the record is filed in this court, and
jury trials ; Fourth, the judgment of the not afterwards
special leave of
court below, whether tried by the court the court. Thewithout
assignment of errors
or jury; Fifth, all orders in the same
cause made by the court ; Sixth, the bill 6. The second section of the act of Feb. 16 1865,
of exceptions ; and Seventh, the appeal Sess. Laws, 3. provides : " Authenticated copies of
bond in cases of appeal. And in no records of decrees, judgments and orders ap
pealed from, shall be filed in the office of the
case shall the said clerk insert in such clerk
of the Supreme Court, on or before the
transcript any affidavit, account, or other second
day of the succeeding term of said court,
document or writing, or other matter, provided twenty days shall nave intervened be
tween the date of the decree, judgment or order
which, according to the decisions of this appealed
and the sitting oi said Supreme
court, have been held to constitute no Court; butfrom,
if ten days and not twenty shall have
part of the record of a cause. This rule intervened as aforesaid, then the record shall be
as aforesaid, on or before the tenth day of
shall not extend to appeals or writs of filed,
said succeeding term." The time within which
error in chancery or criminal causes.
the transcript of the record is required to be filed
11. The clerk of the court below shall in this court, in case of an appeal, under that act,
must be computed from the day on which the
arrange the several parts of the record judgment
from was rendercdt regardless
aforesaid according to their chronologi of the timeappealed
when the court may be adjourned for
cal order. The clerk of this court shall the term. Toledo, Peoria Jc Warsaw Railroad Co. v.
not tax as costs in this court any matter Ooomes, 40 111.. 37. for further time within which to
inserted in such transcript contrary to fileAna application
transcript of the record, in a case brought to
this court by appeal, must be made within the
the rule.
time prescribed by law for filing such transcript.
12. The party or his attorney may, by Adams
v. Robertson, ib.. 40.
praecipe, indicate to the clerk, and direct And cttheal. extension
of time must be obtained
what of the files of the cause shall be within that time. Ragar v. Tilford, Breese (Beech407; Flint v. PhelpsA Scam., 581.
copied into the record ; and, in such er's7. Ed.),
omission to file the transcript ofthe record
case, if the record shall be insufficient, in a The
cause in which a writ of error has beeu sued
it shall be supplied at his costs, and, if out, within the first two days of the term, is not
for dismissing the suit, but a rule may be
unnecessarily voluminous, he shall pay ground
taken upon the clerk of the court below to make
return to the writ of error. Strong v. Allen, 40 111.,
5. Of imperfect and incomplete transcripts. Of the 43.
time and manner of reforming them. See Illinois 8. Withdrawing records from the Mrstor purpose
Central Railroad Co. v. Garish, 40 III., 70; Rivard ct of amendment. See Rowley v. Hughes, 40 111., 71 ;
al.v. Walker et al., ib., 120; Rowley v. Hughes, ib., Rivard v. Walker, ib 120. To prepare the case for
71; Gardner v. Dicdrich, ib., 72 ; Reed v. Curry, ib-, trial. Bond et vx. v. Lockwood, ib., 119. On dis
73; Schirmer v. The People, ib., 66. Within what missal of appeal, use of the record for purposes of
time a diminution of the record may be suggested. a writ of error. See Brooks v. Toum of Jacksonville,
See Gibbs V. Blackwell, ib., 66; Steele v. The People, 1 Seam., 568; Carson v. Merle. 8 Scam., 168 ; Lee v.
ib., 59 ; Boynlon v. Champlin, ib., 63,
Hicks, 3 Scam., 169 ; Frink v. Phelps, 4 Seam., 581.
Imperfect record in the court below. Time and Note.Joinder in Error. Section 79 of the act
mode of amendment, and how to procure a tran of 1872, entitled ' An act in regard to practice in
script of an amended record. nVder et al. v. courts of record," which will be in force on the
House, ib., 92; Gecum v. Dean, ib., 92; Ballance v. first day of July. 1872. provides that "Nojudg-Leonard, lb., 72; Bergen et al.v. mam, ib., 61 J Un ment, decree or order shall be reversed by the
derwood v. Hossack, lb., 98. Amendment in the Supreme Court upon appeal or writ of error, for
court belowof the time for making the applica want of a joinder in error; but upon error being
tion. WaUahan et al. v. The People, ib., 103. If im assigned, if the opposite party does not plead in
properly made, will be stricken out. Ib. Amend Eroper time, the cause shall do treated as if error
ment or bill of exceptions at subsequent term. Ib. ad been joined."
Presumption in support of amendment below. 9. See Rule 1, as to requirement for assignment
Continuance for purpose of amendment. Shipley
on an application for a supersedeas.
et al. v. Spencer, ib., 105. Costs on continuance to of10.errors
errors are not necessary on an appeal
amend the record, lb. Certiorari, when not nec from Cross
decree in chancery, in order to bring the
essary to bring up amended record. Rowley v. wholeacase
before the court. Carter v. Moses, 40
Hughes, ib., 71 ; Flagler v. Crow, lb., 70. But will be
awarded If necessary. Bergen et al. v. Riggs, ib., 61. 111., 55.

226
and cross errors must be written upon or
attached to the record.11
ORIGINAL ACTIONS.
17. In proceedings in original actions
relating to the revenue, the process, or
notice of a motion, shall be served on
the defendant at least twenty days be
fore the first day of the term. If there
shall not be twenty days between the
day of service and the "first day of the
term, the cause may be continued on
the application of the defendant.
18. In such original actions, if a declar
ation setting forth the cause of action
shall not be filed at least twenty days
before the first day of the term, the
cause may be continued on the applica
tion of the defendant.
MANDAMU8.
19. Before an application for a writ of
mandamus will be heard by this court,
the applicant must show that all the
parties interested in the subject matter
to be reached or affected by the issuance
of the writ, have been notified in writing
of the time and place of the intended
application, at least ten days previous
thereto, unless the court, for special rea
sons, shall otherwise direct.
AGREED CASES.
20. No judgment will be pronounced
in any agreed case placed upon the re
cords of this court, unless an affidavit
shall be filed, setting forth that the mat
ters presented by the record were liti
gated in good faith about a matter in ac
tual controversy between the parties,
and that the opinion of this court is not
sought with any other design than to
adjudicate and settle the law relative to
the matter in actual controversy between
the parties to the record.
MOTIONS.
21. Motions may be made immedi
ately after the decisions of the court are
announced, but at no other time, unless
in case of necessity, or in relation to a
cause when called in course.
22. Motions are to be made by the at
torneys in the following order : First,
by the Attorney General ; next, by the
oldest practitioner at the bar, and so on
to the youngest.
23. All special motions shall be in
1 writing and filed wi^h trie clerk together
with the reasons in support thereof, at
least one day before they shall be sub
mitted to the court.12 Objections to mo
tions must also be in writing ; oral argu
ments will not be heard.
24. When a motion is intended to be
based on matters which do not appear
by the record, the facts must be disclosed
and supported by affidavit.13
SECURITY FOR COSTS.
25. Upon filing an affidavit that any
glaintiff in error is not a resident of this
tate, and that no bond for costs has
been filed, a rule shall be entered against
him, of which he shall take notice, to
show cause why the writ shall not be
dismissed.14
ABSTRACTS.
26. In all cases, the party bringing a
cause into this court shall furnish a com
plete abstract or abridgment of the re
cord therein, referring to the appropriate
11. Where the errors had been assigned upon
the abstract and brief the court refused to dismiss
the suit for non-compliance with the rule requir
ing the assignment to he on the record, on condi
tion It was complied with at once. w et al. v.
Blackviell et al.. 40 111., 51.
Where an amended transcript of the record is
filed, it Is regarded as a part of the original tran
script, and an assignment of errors on such origi
nal record Is sufficient Anon., it... 53.
12. Special motions are not considered by the
court until the day following that upon which
they are entered. United States Express Co. v. Bedbury, 40 111., 122.
13. A suggestion of diminution of record, as the
basis for an application for a writ of certiorari,
should be supported by affidavit showing the fact
of diminution, where the fact does not appear
from the face of the record itself. Von Qtahn v.
Von Qtahn, 40 111 , 73.
A motion for an extension of time for filing a
transcript of the record In this court, must be in
writing and supported by affidavit. Webster et al.
V. Pteree ct al., lb.. 39.
14. Waiver by delay. Where a defendant In error
has filed a plea of release of errors, and an issue
Is made up thereon, and a verdict upon the issue
is certified back to this court, and action taken
thereon, it is too late to object that the plain Mi! in
error was a non-resident, and had failed to file a
bond for costs prior to the suing out of the writ of
error. Buckman v. AUwxxl, 40 ill., 128.
Into'oency of plaintiff in error. Where it appears
the plaintiff in error nas no property out of which
the costs of suit can be collected, he will be lu't'-d
to give security therefor. Parr v. Van Hu.ne. b..
122. And where a writ of error was sued out by
an administrator, and it appeared that the estate
of the intestate was utterly Insolvent, a rule was
entered, requiring the plaintiffto show cause why
he should not give security for costs. Phelps,
Admr., v. Funkhouser, ib., 27.

Chicago

Legal

pages of the record by numerals on the

margin, and shall cause such abstract to
be printed, in a neat and workmanlike
manner, with small pica type and leaded
lines, on one side only, upon 'vhite fools
cap paper, leaving a margin at least two
inches in width on the left hand side of
each sheet. Ten copies of such printed
abstract shall be filed in each case, one
for each of the judges, one for the de
fendant in error or appellee, one for the
reporter, and one to be filed with the
record.
27. The defendant's counsel shall be
permitted, if he is not satisfied with the
abstract or abridgment furnished by the
plaintiff's counsel, to furnish each of the
justices of this court with such further
abstracts as he shall deem necessary to a
full understanding of the merits of the
cause.15
BRIEFS.
28. Printed briefs will be required in
all cases,16 whether argued orally, in full
or in part only, or when submitted on
briefs without oral argument. The briefs
required should contain a short, clear
statement of the points, and the author
ities in support thereof; and in citing
cases from published reports, counsel
will be required not only to give the
book and page, but also the names of the
parties as they appear in the title of the
reported case ; and the names of counsel
filing brief or abstract must appear to
the same. But the filing of a printed
brief shall not preclude the party from
filing full printed or written arguments
in support of his brief of points and au
thorities, provided he does so within
the time his printed brief is required to
be filed.
29. Ten copies of the briefs must be
filed in each case, one for each of the
judges, one for the opposite party, one
for the reporter, and one to be filed with
the record.
DOCKETING AND HEARING.
30. Causes in which the people are a
party, and in which they have a direct
interest in the decision, shall be placed
at the head of the docket; all other
cases shall be docketed and called for
argument in the order in which the
records shall have been filed; w^th the
clerk.
CALL OF DOCKET EXPIRATION OF RULES.
31. The civil docket shall be called nu
merically, and the causes shall be argued,
continued, or otherwise disposed of, as
they are called, unless, for good cause
shown, they be placed at the foot of the
docket ; all unexpired rules will termi
nate upon the call of the cause for hear
ing : Provided, That if the court shall
give time to either party without the
consent of the other, the cause shall not
lose its precedence on the docket.
CALL OF DOCKET TIME OF FILING AB
STRACTS AND BRIEFS.
32. Hereafter, in the Northern and
Central Divisions, the call of the docket
will commence with the second week of
the term, and in the Southern Division
on the third day of the term, and twenty
cases per day will be subject to call. The
abstract and brief of plaintiff in error
or appellant, must be filed in the clerk's
office one day before the day when a
cause stands subject to call, and in the
event that either the abstract or brief is
not filed within the prescribed time, the
judgment or decree of the court below
will, on the call of the docket, be af
firmed. The defendant in error or ap
pellee, in case he does not argue orally,
can file a brief within ten days after the
time fixed for filing the brief of plain
tiff in error or appellant, and the latter
can have ten days for a reply, at the ex
piration of which time the cause will
stand for decision, and no further argu
ments will be received.
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE BRIEFS IN TIME.
33. If the defendant in error, or ap
pellee, falls to file his brief within the
prescribed ten days, the judgment or de
cree will be reversed pro forma, unless
the court, on examination of the record,
shall deem it proper to decide the case
upon its merits.
15. Of the costs where the defendant files an ad
ditional abstract, see Plteips. Admr.. v. Funklumser,
40 111., 27.
16. Printed 'briefs must be filed, even though
there be a printed argument, unless the points are
clearly and separately set down in the argument,
with the authorities in support thereof immedi
ately following. Qillespie v. Rout, 40 III., 58. But
the filing of a wriiten argument will not dispense
with the necessity of a printed brief. Oochenour
V. Howry, ib., 57.

News.

ORAL ARGUMENT.
34. Oral argument will be heard on
the calling of a cause upon the regular
call of the docket, on behalf of the ap
pellant or plaintiff in error, if he shall
have complied with the rule in regard to
filing printed abstracts and briefs; and
on behalf of the appellee or defendant
in error, if he shall have filed his printed
brief on or before the day preceding the
calling of the cause. Where a cause
shall be argued orally in behalf of either
party: printed or written argument in
addition to his brief will not be received
from such party, unless the same shall
have been filed within the time pre
scribed in this rule for the filing of his
printed brief.
35. Oral argument will not be heard
upon any motion ; nor upon the rehear
ing of a" cause, unless specially directed
by the court.17
36. The time allowed for each oral ar
gument shall be restricted to one hour,
unless otherwise specially permitted.
DAMAGES ON DISMISSING APPEALS.
37. When appeals from decrees, judg
ments or orders for the recovery of mo
ney,18 are dismissed by this court for
want of prosecution, or for failing to file
authenticated copies of records, as re
quired by law,19 the court will award
damages against the appellant, at ten per
cent, upon the amount recovered in the
court below, if it be less than one hun
dred dollars, and at five per cent, upon
the amount of such recovery if it equals
or exceeds that sum.
REHEARINGS20TIME AND MANNER OF
APPLICATION.
38. The manner of applying for a re
hearing Bhall be as follows : Within
fifteen days after an opinion is filed, a
party desiring a rehearing shall give
actual notice in writing to the opposite
party, or to his attorney, of his intention
to make such application, and, within
thirty days after the filing of the opin
ion, shall place on file in the clerk's
office ten printed copies of the petition.
39. Application for a rehearing of any
cause shall be made by petition to the
court, signed by counsel, briefly stating
the grounds for a rehearing, and the
authorities relied on in support thereof.
When a rehearing is granted, notice
Bhall be given to the opposite party of
the time when such rehearing will be
had.
REHEARING SUPERSEDEASSTAY OF PRO
CEEDING!.
40. Any two of the justices of this
court may, in vacation, issue an order
which shall operate as a supersedeas in
any case which has been submitted to
this court for hearing and judgment,
whenever a reargument of the same
shall, in their opinion, be advisable.
41. Where an opinion in any case is
filed in vacation, and a petition for a re
hearing shall be presented to either of
the justices of this court, if he shall cer
tify that there is probable grounds for
granting a rehearing, all further pro
ceedings authorized by the judgment of
this court, shall be stayed until the next
term of the court in the division in
which the judgment shall have been
rendered .
EXECUTIONS.
42. Upon the affirmance of judgments,
executions may issue at the option of
the party, from this court, or if such
party so elect, a writ of procedendo shall
be issued to the court below, upon the
payment by the successful party of the
costs made by him in this court.
LICENSING ATTORNEYSEXAMINATION.
43. Every applicant for license to
practice law in the courts of this State
17. Oral argument is not permitted upon a mo
tion for an alternative writ of mandamus; but
upon the return to the alternative writ being
made, oral argument is allowed as in other cases.
Anon., 40 111., 128.
18. Damages are allowable, under the fifty-sev
enth section of the "practice" act, upon dismiss
ing an appeal for want of prosecution, taken by
the defendant from a decree of foreclosure of a
mortgage, which found the amount due, and di
rected a sale of the premises, although there was
no decree in personam against the defendant for
the payment of the money. Oottry ctal.v. Small, 40
111., 42.
19. Upon what the motion to dismiss may be
based, in order to show an appeal was taken. See
Tlic People v. Public Officers, 4 Gilm., 141.
20. An oral motion for a rehearing is not neces
sary. The filing of the petition and docketing the
cause, after due notice given, is sufliclnt to bring
the matter before the court. Anon., 40 111., 125.
An answer to a petition for a rehearing is not al
lowable. Ib., 130. Nor will affidavits be received
upon such application. Boynton v. Champlin, ib.,
Gf. Or a suggestion of diminution of record, lb.

will be required to appear before theSupreme court at on> of its regula

terms in any of the grand divisions, and
then and there, in open court, be exam
ined by the court touching his qualifica
tions as an attorney and counselor at
law, and shall also then and there pre
sent to the court a certificate from some
court of record of the county in which
such applicant resides, of good moral
character. Provided, however, it shall
be a requisite of such examination that
such applicant shall have pursued a
regular course of law studies in the
ofhee of some lawyer in general prac
tice, for at least two years, of which fact
he shall satisfy the court by the certifi
cate of such lawyer and his own affida
vit. Provided, furtfier, that the time
employed at any law school as a law
student, shall be considered as part of
the two years, of which the court shall
be satisfied in the manner above speci
fied. Thursday and Friday of the first
week of each term, shall be the days on
which such examination shall be had.
LICENSING ATTORNEYS FROM OTHER STATES.
44. Any application for admission to
the Bar, based upon a license granted in
another State, must be made in term
time, by motion of some attorney of this
court, made in open court ; and no appli
cant will be admitted upon such license
without examination, except it appear
to the court by affidavit, or otherwise,
that in the State in which the license
was issued, a course of study was re
quired at least equal to that prescribed
in this State by the preceding rule ; or
the applicant has been engaged in active
practice for a period of two years, under
such license.
LICENSESBY WHOM ISSUED.
45. Licenses which may be granted
upon such applications, shall be issued
by the clerk of the grand division in
which the successful applicants shall
reside.
BLANK LICENSESCLERK'S FEES.
46. The clerk of each grand division
shall furnish blank licenses for the
admission of attorneys and counselorsat law, printed upon parchment, with
appropriate vignette, and licenses shall
only be issued upon such blanks, so fur
nished by said clerks; the clerks afore
said shall be allowed to charge each
attorney admitted five dollars for said
blank, including the fee for enrolling
the name of said attorney on the roll of
attorneys in his office.
LIBRARY.
47. The librarians of the law libraries
attached to this court shall not permit
any person, except those authorized by
these rules, or by the laws of the State,
to take from the rooms of this court any
book or books belonging to said libraries,
without the consent of the court being
first obtained for that purpose ; and if
any person not so authorized shall take
away a book without such consent, such
person shall be considered in contempt
of the court, and may be fined at the
discretion of the court.
48. Books may be taken from the
library in the Central Grand Division
upon the written order of a judge of the
United States Circuit or District Court.
49. The books of the law libraries
shall not be marked or underlined with
pen or pencil, nor shall the pages of the
same be folded down. The librarians
shall adopt such rules as to the safe
keeping of the books as they may deem
expedient.
clerks' fees.
50. There shall be advanced by the
party filing the transcript of the record
from the court below, in this court, in
any of the several grand divisions, at
the time of filing the same, the sum of
five dollars ; and there shall be advanced
by the party filing abstracts in any such
cases, at the time of filing the same, the
further sum of five dollars, both said
sums to apply on account of the taxable
fees to the clerk.
61. In the Northern Grand Division,
the clerk shall not be allowed any fee
for abstracts, except the fee allowed by
law for filing the same.
52. The clerks in the Central and
Southern Grand Divisions shall be al
lowed a fee upon abstracts filed in this
court in said divisions, respectively, for
the full amount thereof, at the present
mode of taxation, less twenty cents for
each one hundred words of one copy of
said abstracts, to be allowed the party
for printing the same; but in no case

Chicago
shall the clerk's fe8 (or 8uch abstracts,
as provided in this rule, exceed the sum
of twenty-five doll*1*ABSTRACTSTAXED AS COSTS.
53. Upon printed abstracts being fur
nished, in any of the several grand
divisions, in conformity to the rules of
this court, it shall be the duty of the
clerk to tax a printer's fee, at the rate of
twenty cents for each one hundred
words of one copy of such abstract,
Against the unsuccessful party not fur
nishing such abstracts, as costs to be
recovered by the successful party fur
nishing the same ; and in addition
thereto, there shall be taxed as costs, in
cases in the Central and Southern Grand
Divisions, against the unsuccessful party
such fees for abstracts as are allowed to
the clerks of the two last named divi
sions, under the preceding rule.
FORMER RULES RESCINDED.
54. The foregoing fifty-three rules are
adopted as a revised code of rules of
this court, and all rules adopted prior to
this revision are rescinded.
Through the kindness of G. D. A.
Parks, of the Joliet bar, we have re
ceived the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed April 11, 1872.
The People ex rel. The Decatur and State Line
R, R. Co. v. Presiding Judge ok Circuit Court
of Will Co., Hon. Josiah McRobcrts.
Petition /or Mandamus.
EMINENT DOMAINTHE THIRTEENTH SEC
TION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE NEW
CONSTITUTION NOT PROSPECTIVE, AND
DECLARED OPERATIVE WITHOUT ADDI
TIONAL LEGISLATION.
L Constitutional provisions arc to be construed
According to their popular acceptation.
2. The Bill of Rights, prescribing new condi
tions for the exercise of the right of eminent do
main not found in the former Constitution, went
into operation in presenti, and was uot dependent
upon the contingency of future legislation. As
guaranteeing the inviolability of private property
ft must be deemed self-executing, even if from
Che want of appropriate statutory provisions the
exercise of the right of eminent domain is sus
pended.
3. Law of 1852 in part Unconstitutional.So
much of the law of 1852 for condemning the right
of way, under which this proceeding was insti
tuted, as is inconsistent with the Constitution of
1870 is abrogated.
4. Assessment of Damages by a Jury.The as
certainment of damages by a Jury, if demanded
by the land-owner, and the actual payment, are
essential conditions precedent to the acquisition
of the right of way.
5. Power of Commissioners.The first six sec
tions of the Right of Way Law declared to be not
inconsistent with the Constitution, and also so
much of the subsequent provisions as contemplate
an estimate by commissioners to be proposed to
the land-owner for his acceptance, and as throw
do obstacles in the way of a full enjoyment of the
benefit of the constitutional guaranty.
Opinion by Tiionrton, J.
An alternative writ of mandamus was
awarded by this court, requiring the pre
siding Judge' of Will county to show
cause why he refused to appoint commis
sioners to fix the compensation to be
made to parties for the right of way over
their lands, and to assess damages in ac
cordance with the laws of the State.
The return of the respondent and the
argument submitted contend that the
law of June 22nd, 1852, providing for the
condemnation of land, by virtue of the
exercise of the right of eminent domain,
has become a nullity by the adoption of
the present Constitution. The following
is the constitutional provision which is
assumed to be inconsistent with the act
of 1852: " Private property shall not be
taken or damaged for public use without
just compensation ; such compensation
when not made by the State shall be
ascertained by a jury, as shall be pre
scribed by law. The fee of land taken
for railroad tracks, without consent of
the owner thereof, shall remain in such
owners, subject to the use for which it is
taken." Sec. 13 of Bill of Rights.
A constitution must be expounded in
its plain and obvious meaning. It is an
instrument, the truest exposition of
which is that which best harmonizes
with its design and object. As has been
said by Judge Story : " Constitutions are
of a practical nature, founded on the
common business of life, designed for
common use, and fitted for common un
derstandings. The people make them,
the people adopt them ; and the people
must be supposed to read them, with the
help of common sense."
Is the section of the Bill of Rights
prospective in its effect, and inoperative
without legislative action ? The right of
property, thus intended to be secured,
cannot depend upon the mere will of the
Legislature. The prime object of a Bill

Legal

of Rights is to place the life, liberty and

property of the citizen beyond the con
trol of legislation, and to prevent either
Legislatures or courts from any inter
ference with, or deprivation of, the
rights therein declared and guaranteed
except upon certain conditions. It
would be the merest delusion to declare
a subsisting right as essential to the ac
quisition and protection of property, and
make its enjoyment depend upon legis
lative will or judicial interpretation.
Such absurdity cannot be ascribed to the
framers of the instrument. Neither can
the Constitution be regarded as a play
thing, to be made the sport of any de
partment of the government, to be an
nulled by non-action or to be operative
at the mere pleasure of those who are
bound to obey and respect it, but it is a
solemn instrument, emanating from the
people, declaratory of rights and re
straining in its operation, and which can
only be abrogated by the sovereignty
which created it. The intention of the
instrument must prevail, and in its as
certainment we must look at the conse
quences of a particular construction. If
a literal meaning involve a manifest ab
surdity, it should never be adopted.
Was it the design to leave the deter
mination of the necessity of a jury wholly
to legislative discretion ? If so, the sec
tion is not only unnecessary but absurd,
for the former Constitution did not make
a jury indispensable, and the act of 1852
provided for the appointment of three
commissioners to assess damages upon
proceedings to condemn land, w ith the
right of appeal, upon the execution of a
bond, and a trial by jury in the Circuit
court ; and this legislation had been sus
tained by the courts.
The present Constitution differs from
the Constitution of 1848, in the require
ment that the compensation shall be
ascertained by a jury. It evidently was
intended to provide a different mode,
and to require that a jury shall act be
fore private property shall be, in any
respect, endangered. There must have
been an object in the additional restric
tion. It is affirmative in its character
and must imply an exclusion of any
other mode. If there is no law upon the
subject and the legislature neglect to
provide one, the Constitution cannot be
in abeyance. This would defeat the
object and make the limitation opera
tive or nugatory at the pleasure of the
legislature.
Suppose that the words, "as shall be
prescribed by law," had been omitted in
the section, no one would doubt for a
moment, that the section went into ef
fect in presenli, and that, until the enact
ment of a proper law, if there was none,
the right of eminent domain could not
be exercised. It would have been the
duty of the legislature then, as well
as now, to provide for the empan
eling of a jury, and the machinery nec
essary to make the section effectual.
Private property was protected and its
inviolability secured from damage or
seizure, until the ascertaiment by a ju
ry, ofjust compensation and its payment.
The inhibitum of any other mode of de
termining the compensation is indepenent of and complete without the words
quoted. They merely declare the duty
of the legislature.
As was said by the counsel for respon
dent, " Condemnation is forbidden with
out just compensation; just compensa
tion cannot be made without ascertain
ment ; and ascertainment is impossible
except by a jury."
He also happily illustrates the sense
of the section under consideration by
other sections of the same article. Sec
tion twelve prohibits imprisonment of a
debtor, unless upon refusal to deliver up
his estate, "as shall be prescribed by
law." Does the freedom of the citizen
from incarceration therefore depend up
on the action of the legislature. We
apprehend not. He is secure from im
prisonment for debt, except upon a re
fusal to surrender his estate for the ben
efit of his creditors, or there is strong
presumption of fraud, and until the
manner of the surrender is provided by
law.
Section sixteen forbids the quartering
of troops in the house of the citizen,
even in time of war, except in the man
ner prescribed by law. The failure to
prescribe the manner cannot destroy
the prohibition. This right to take pri
vate property for public use is a high
Ererogative of sovereignty, controlled
y the constitution, and can be exercised

News.

only subject to the bill of rights, and the

limitations therein contained. The sec
tion under consideration differs from
the late constitution in another respect.
It declares that private property shall
not be taken or damaged for public use
without compensation. The word " dam
aged" is peculiar to the present consti
tution. We shall not undertake to
determine the meaning and effect of
this additional word, in all the phases
in which it might be viewed, but only
with reference to the proceedings before
us.
Where land is taken for public use,
there is an appropriation of it, the own
er is deprived of the use and enjoyment,
and the control and possession are
transferred to the corporation. The fee
only remains in the owner, subject to
the use for which the land is taken.
The damage, if to the land which may
be taken, must precede the actual tak
ing ; if to contiguous lands, it would be
consequent upon the taking. The com
pensation for property damaged as well
as taken must be ascertained by a jury.
It can be neither damaged nor taken
without compensation, and it follows as
a necessary sequence that there can be
no entrance upon or possession of land
for public use until the compensation
for the land damaged, as well as taken,
has been paid.
The important question remains,
whether the law of 1852 is so far incon
sistent with the constitution as to render
the former inoperative? The first sec
tion of the schedule provides "that all
laws in force at the adoption of this
constitution, not inconsistent therewith,
* * * shall continue to be as valid as
if this constitution had not been adopt
ed."
From the view we have taken of the
constitutional guarantees, the conclusion
is inevitable, that the owner of land
proposed to be condemned must not be
deprived of a regular trial by jury. He
must not be fettered by any provision of
law, which may deprive "him of a fair
and speedy trial, or which may prejudge
his rights," before a submission of them
to a jury. His land must not be taken
or damaged without his consent, until
the compensation has been fixed and
paid.
The first six sections of the act of
June 22d, 1852, are in no sense in con
flict with the constitution. They provide
for filing a petition, due notice to the
persons interested, the appointment of
commissioners, their inspection of the
premises, and a report of the compensa
tion assessed by them, to be filed with
the clerk of the Circuit court.
Section seven, which makes the deci
sions of the commissioners conclusive
upon the parties, before they can have
the benefit of a trial by jury, is inconsis
tent with the letter of the constitution.
The assessments and reports of the
commissioners Bhould conclude no own
er of the land, and confer no right upon
the corporation, unless the landowner
assents by an acceptance of the compen
sation, or in some other manner.
The requirement of the execution of
an appeal bond by the party who may
desire to appeal from the estimates or
decisions of the commissioners, is also a
serious obstacle to a trial by jury. No
hindrance, however slight, should be
interposed to the enjoyment of this
right. A non-resident landowner might
be deprived of his right to bring the
proceedings before the Circuit court,
and submit them to a jury, if required
to give bond. The party whose land is
sought to be taken ought not to be com
pelled to pay costs, if the assessment of
the commissioners should be affirmed
or not increased. Section nine, providing
for the bond, is clearly annulled by the
constitution.
Section twelve, which permits the land
to be entered upon during the pendency
of the appeal, is manifestly inconsistent
with the bill of rights.
It is not unreasonable that parties,
after notice of the filing of the report of
the commissioners, should bring the
proceedings before the Circuit court, as
provided in sections ten and eleven. If
satisfied with the report and the com
pensation fixed, the latter may be ac
cepted, and thus an adjustment can be
made by those who are competent to
act. If the report is not satisfactory,
then notice should be given to the
opposite party, as provided in the sec
tions referred to, so that a trial can be
had in the Circuit court.

227
There is enough of the act which is
not inconsistent with the constitution to
enable private property to be taken for
public use. The filing of the petition,
the full notice required of the applica
tion to appoint commissioners, their
appointment and subsequent inspection
of the property, the making an assess
ment, filing a report, and giving notice
thereof, are merely initiatory of the
proceeding for condemnation. Their
action concludes the right of no person,
against his consent. The trial by jury
follows, without any unreasonable delay,and without any hindrance. But until
the ascertainment of the compensation
by a jury, if either party desire one, and
the payment thereof, no right is ac
quired "to enter upon, use or apply the
land, for the purposes in the petition
indicated. The land can neither be
damaged nor taken until full compliance
with the constitution.
The corporation may be delayed in
the prosecution of the enterprise con
templated ; but such delay is not so
serious as a construction which would
fritter away the constitution and jeopar
dize private property.
When it is declared that private prop
erty shall not be damaged for public use
without just compensation, to be ascer
tained by a jury, it is meant to secure it
from intrusion until the conditions of
possession are fulfilled. The property
must be regarded as sacred and inviola
ble until there is a full compliance with
the obvious sense of the constitution.
Subject to the views expressed in this
opinion, the commissioners may right
fully act, and we are of opinion that a
peremptory mandamus should be award
ed for their appointment.
It is therefore ordered that a peremp
tory writ issue.
Mandamus awarded.
Sheldon, J. I concur in the conclusion
that a writ of mandamus should issue in
this case, but do not concur in all the
views expressed in the opinion of the
majority of the court in arriving at such
conclusion.
George C. Campbell for Relators.
G. D. A. Parks for Respondent.
Through the kindness of Hon.Wa. H.
Underwood, of the Belleville Bar, we
have- received the following opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed April 1872.
Aram Primm et al. v. The City of Belleville
etal.
Appealfrom St. Clair.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS POWER TO
LEVY AND COLLECT SPFCIAL TAXMUST
BE UNIFORM AS TO PROPERTY.
1. Power to Levy Special Tax.Held that
that portion of the charter of the city of Bellville
authorizing the city council to lay off the city
into districts for the construction of sewers, and
to levy and collect a special tax on the real estate
within any district to be drained, is in violation of
the constitution.
2. Equality and Uniformity of Taxation.
That equality and uniformity of taxation have
been repeatedly recognized and enforced by this
court; that they must be applied not only to the
rate of taxation and to the district to be taxed,
but also to all the property subject to taxation;
that any lixed ana permanent buildings upon
land form a part of it, and should be estimated in
assessing its value.
3. The term Property.That the term prop
erty in the constitution includes both real and
personal estate, and the authority granted to levy
taxes for corporate purposes upon one species of
property to the exclusion of another transcends
the limitation imposed upon the power of taxa
tion.Ed. Legal News.
Opinion of the court by Thornton, J.
Appellants filed a bill to enjoin the
collection of certain taxes, assessed
against their real estate, and to remove
certain judgments as clouds upon their
title.
Sections two and three of Article eight
of the charter of the city of Belleville
authorized the city council to lay off the
city into districts, for the construction of
sewers, and to levy and collect a special
tax on the real estate within any district
to be drained. (Private laws of 1867,
Vol. I., p. 551.)
Numerous objections have been urged
to the decree of the Circuit Court, dis
solving the injunction and dismissing
the bill ; but we propose to consider only
the power of the council, and the con
stitutionality of the sections cited,
All the proceedings show, not a special
assessment, but a tax ; and the power of
the Legislature to enact the sections un
der consideration, confronts us at the
threshold of the argument. In the re
cord the amounts assessed are called
taxes ; and the act grants power " to levy
and collect a special tax on the real es
tate within the district drained," to be
Continued on page 230.

228

Chicago

Legal

News.

Chicago Legal News. printed on the first and second pages of note, and her separate property applied fraud if such indemnity exists, whether
this issue.
known to the creditors or not. And this
in payment of the same.
The rules of this tribunal before the
ground of defense for the surety goes
IUi Vintit.
the supposed basis of fraud. 1
revision were scattered through many
Our thanks are due the law firm of upon Eq.
I 327. In such a case the surety
volumes of the reports, some had been Dye & Harris, of Indianapolis, for the Story
is the virtual principal, and ought to be
CHICAGO, APRIL 27, 1872.
rescinded and again revived, making it following opinion :
bound by every enlargement of the time
very difficult to tell which of the rules INDIANAPOLIS SUPERIOR COURT. of payment, quite as much, perhaps more,
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
than one joint principal, by such a con
were really in force.
General Term, March, 1872.
tract made by one of their number and
The Chicago Legal News Co.
Ephraim Bohrinq v. Deloss Root.
the creditors, ofwhich there is no doubt"
Appeal
from
Special
Term.
AT 161 AND 163 LASALLE STREET.
See also Moore & Barney v. Paine, 12th,
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
RELEASE OF SURETYEXTENSION OF TIME Wendell, 123 ; Cushing v. Gore et al., IS
INDEMNIFIED INDORSER.
Ejecting
Passenger
for
Talking
to
69 ; Eastman et al. v. Foster et al.,
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
1. Agreement to Extend Time.That an agree 8Mass.,
Driver.Judge Allison, of Philadelphia, ment
Metcalf, 19; 1 Parsons on Bills and
to extend the time of payment made with
out a valid consideration does not release a surety. Notes, 241.
in the recent case of Commonwealth
Terms :
2. Extension Without Consent ok Indemnified
In the light of these authorities we
rwo Dollars per annum, in adrance. Single cop Mansfield, held that a passenger on the Surety.That an indemnified surety or indorser think
the ruling of the judge at special
on
a note is not released by an extension of payies Ten Cents.
front platform of a street railway car mentmade
without his consent.Ed. Legal News. term was correct.
persisting in talking to the driver in
The sixth paragraph of the reply set
Opinion of the court by Newcomb, J.
Bohringsued Mahlen B. Pentecost and up, that after the payment of the note
We have removed our office from the violation of the company's rules, may be
Deloss Root on a promissory note for had been extended, as alleged in Root's
West Side, and are again in the burnt ejected by the conductor, and that he $800, dated Feb. 17, 1870, due eight answer, the same was duly made known
has the right to use the necessary force months after date. The face of the note to him, and that he " consented to and
district, at Nos. 161 and 163 LaSalle for that purpose.29 Legal Int., 124.
showed that Root executed it as surety ratified, approved, and confirmed such
street, just north of Monroe, in the
extension." A demurrer to this para
Resisting an Officer.Held by the for Pentecost. There was a verdict and graph
was overruled, which presents the
building now being fitted up for the same judge, in Commonwealth v. Bryant, judgment against Root alone, Pentecost next question
to be considered.
having been adjudicated a bankrupt by
United States Circuit and District that it is not an assault and battery to the United States District Court.
Without stopping to discuss the propo
Root's answer Bet up. among other de sition, whether a subsequent ratification
Courts. We are only one block north resist an officer making an arrest with
fenses, that on Jan. 31, 1871, after the by the surety of an extension of time,
out
a
warrant
for
misdemeanor
not
of the place where the State courts are
maturity of the note, and without his given for a consideration, and without
committed in view of the officer.lb. knowledge
or consent, the plaintiff, in is knowledge, by the creditor, to the
held.
125.
consideration of the sum of twelve dol principal debtor, is sufficient to revive
liability of the surety, it is enough
Our present location will enable attor
Privileged Communication. The lars to him paid by Pentecost, extended thesay
that in the case at bar the jury,
neys, without inconvenience while at judge held, in Commonwealth v. Feath- the time of payment of the note for the to
period of six months from said last- in answer to a proper interrogatory
tending the courts, to send us their legal erston et al., that an advertisement in a mentioned day ; whereby he, as such found against the plaintiff, on the issue
made by this paragraph of his reply,
notices for publication, and leave their newspaper, warning the public against surety, was discharged, etc.
Several replies were filed to this an consequently the ruling of the court on
the
negotiation
of
notes,
etc.,
alleged
to
orders for job printing.
only three of whichthe second, the demurrer could not possibly have
have been stolen, is a privileged com swer,
worked any injury to the defendant.
third and sixthneed be noticed.
munication, and express malice must be
After the verdict the defendant. Root,
The second paragraph of the reply
We call attention to the following shown to make it a libel.lb. 125.
was, that the extension set up in the an moved in arrest of judgment, the follow
was given without any considera ing causes:
opinions, reported at length in this issue
Shipped in Apparent Good Order. swer
1. That the complaint was notsufficient
tion whatever. A demurrer to this reply
Release of SuretyIndemnified In The admission in the bill of lading was overruled, which is the first error to entitle the plaintiff to judgment.
That the court erred in overruling
dorser.The opinion of the Superior " shipped in apparent good order and assigned. We think the demurrer was the2. demurrer
to the third paragraph of
properly overruled. If the agreement
Court of Indianapolis, delivered by condition five cases of merchandise, to
extend the time for payment was the reply.
value
and
contents
unknown,"
have
Newcomb, J., holding that an indemni
3. That the third paragraph of the re
made without any valid consideration it
fied surety or indorser on a note is not reference to the external condition of did not release the surety. Halsted v. ply was a departure from the complaint.
4. That it was shown by the special
released by non-extension of the time such cases; and it excludes the infer Brown, 17 Ind., 202; Kirby v. Stude- findings
of the jury that the plaintiff was
15 Ind., 45.
ence that the carrier thereby admits baker,
of payment made without his consent.
The third paragraph of the reply al entitled to a verdict only on the mat
ters set forth in the third paragraph of
Municipal Corporations Power to anything as to quantity and quality of leged that Root, on April 1, 1870, before the
reply, and that said paragraph was
maturity of the note, demanded and re
levy Special Tax.The opinion of the the contents of the cases at the time of ceived
from Pentecost, to indemnify the a departure from the complaint and did
delivery,
beyond
what
is
visible
to
the
Supreme Court of Illinois, by Thornton,
former against loss as surety on this and not entitle the plaintiff to a judgment.
J., holding that portion of the charter of eye, or apparent from handling the other liabilities of the latter, the nego There is nothing in the objection to the
sufficiency of the complaint, and we
the city of Belleville which authorizes same. U. S. Didrict Court of Oregon, in tiable note of Pentecost for the sum of have
already decided that the court com
payable ten months after date
the city council to lay off the city into The California, 5 Am. Law Times Rep., $7,000,
with interest, and attorney's fees if suit mitted no error in overruling the demur
132.
districts for the construction of sewers
be instituted, etc., and at the rer to the third paragraph of the reply.
Liability of Express Company.The should
The reply was not, as we think, a de
same time took from Pentecost a mort
and to levy and collect a special tax on
but if it had been, the error
the real estate within any district to be Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in an gage on real estate in Marion county, of parture;
the value of $16,000, to secure the pay could not be reached by a motion in ar
drained, to be in violation of the Con opinion delivered by Sharswood, J., in ment
of said note. It was further averred rest. In McAvoy v. Wright, 25 Ind., 22,
Am. Ex. Co. v. 2d N. B. of Titusville,
stitution.
that the note for $7,000 more than it was held that an objection to a depar
held that an express company which equalled
all the liabilities of Root as ture in pleading can be taken advantage
The right of Eminent Domain under contracts to carry goods to the point surety of Pentecost, including the note of only by motion or demurrer, and that
the New Constitution.The opinion of nearest to destination is to be considered sued on, and any expenses he might be it is not a cause for arresting judgment.
The judgment at special term is af
the Supreme Court of this State, by only as a forwarder, if it assumes to subjected to in connection therewith;
and that it was sufficient and ample to firmed, with costs.
Thornton, J., holding that a portion of carry the goods beyond the point agreed fully
Dye & Harris for plaintiff.
indemnify him. That Root still
the law of 1852, providing for the con upon.lb. 13.
N. B. & E. Taylor for defendant.
held said note and mortgage, and re
demnation of land by virtue of the ex
Notes given for Slaves.The Su fused to assign the same to plaintiff or
XXXIV. INDIANA REPORTS.
ercise of the right of eminent domain, preme Court of the United States on in any way give him the benefit thereof.
A demurrer to this paragraph was
became a nullity by the adoption of the Monday last rendered a decision, from overruled,
Our thanks are due James B. Black,
and the ruling thereon is as
Reporter of the Supreme Court of Indi
present Constitution, and that private which Chief Justice Chase dissents, signed for error.
property cannot be taken or damaged holding that the provisions in the con
Was the demurrer correctly overruled ? ana, for advance sheets of the 34th vol
for public use without just compensation, stitutions of several of the reconstructed In Chilton et al. v. Price et al., 4 Ala., ume of his Reports, from which we take
which was a case Bimilar, in its es
which compensation must be fixed by a States, declaring null and void all con 224,
sential features, to the present, it was the following head-notes :
jury. The court pays Mr. Parks a de tracts based on the sale of slaves before held that " the taking by the sureties of
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
served compliment for the manner in the war, are in conflict with the Consti
deed of trust, or a mortgage, from the
1 . Contract Pleading Evidence.A
which he presented and illustrated his tution of the United States. Under this principal debtor to secure them from lia promissory note was executed by A. and
and ample for that purpose, is in B., the latter styling himself "collateral
views of the section of the Constitution decision notes given before 1861 for bility,
effect an appropriation by them of that security." Suit on the note by the payee
under consideration. This is one of the slaves and not paid can be legally col portion of the effects of the principal to against B., A. being deceased,
most important opinions that has been lected. The Supreme Court of this the payment of the debt, and they will
Held, That a parol agreement between
delivered by our Supreme Court since its State, in Roundtree, adm'r, v. Baker, not be permitted to urge that they are the payee and B. that the latter should
pay the note only in case it could
responsible."
reorganization, and while we fully agree adm'r, reported 3 Chicago Legal News, notThis
Alabama case was followed and not be made of A., if contemporaneous
with the court in the construction of this 361, laid down the law as now announced approved in Smith v. Steele, 25 Vt., 451. with the making of the note, could not
portion of the Constitution, that private by the highest court of the nation, so We quote the following portion of the be shown in defense because of the rule
property cannot be taken for the pur far as to hold that an action could be opinion delivered by Chief Justice Red- against the admission of parol evidence
to vary or contradict a written instru
in the latter case :
pose named until the compensation has sustained on a note given for a slave field
" Upon general principles, it seems to ment, and if subsequent to the note,
been ascertained by a jury, we fail to see before the war.
us that so long as the surety was fully could not be sustained without a consid
secured by property in his hands, he eration therefor beingshown.(Opinion
the wisdom of compelling the court be
Married Woman's Note. The Su should be estopped from objecting to by Downey, J.)Brush v. Ranney,p. 416.
low, by mandamus, to appoint commis
enlargement of the time of payment
8TATUTE CONSTRUED.
sioners, whose report of the assessment preme Court of Kansas in an elaborate any
made by arrangement between the credi
opinion,
delivered
in
the
case
of
Sarah
2. The statute (2 G. & H. 308, sec. 674)
of damages binds no one.
tor
and
principal.
If
this
fact
is
known
P. Deering against Frank R. Bayle, citing to the creditor, it would certainly place which enables a surety to have an order
all the leading authorities, held that his conduct in a very different light from of the court that execution shall be first
levied upon the property of his princi
Revised Rules of the Supreme when a married woman executes a what it is when no such indemnity ex pal,
is not applicable in such an action
ists.
We
can
all
see
that
in
such
a
case
CourtWe call the special attention of promissory note in payment and satis
brought against a single defendant.lb.
there
can
probably
be
no
fraud
in
fact.
our Illinois readers to the Revised Rules faction of her husband's debt, an action And in equity (and in law, we think,
PLEADING.
of the Supreme Court of this 8tate, may be maintained against her on said the rule should be the same), there is no
3. Consideration.To show a considers-

Chicago
ation for an agreement, in a pleading, it
is not sufficient to allege that the agree
ment was for a valuable consideration ;
but the facts with reference to the con
sideration must be set out.
PROMISSORY NOTE.
4. Without Dale.In a suit on a prom
issory note without date, but having
seven months from its execution to run,
the complaint Bet forth the note and al
leged that it was made at a certain date,
being more than seven months prior to
the commencement of the action.
Held, that the complaint sufficiently
showed that the note was due when the
suit was commenced.lb.
GUARDIAN AND WARD.
Guardian's BondRemoval of Guardian.
The failure of a guardian to give a
bond sufficient to secure to his ward,
when the period of his wardship shall
terminate, the amount of a pension com
ing to the ward from the government, is
a sufficient cause for the removal of the
guardian, without regard to the fact that
the amount of the pension may be need
ed for the maintenance and education of
the ward.(Opinion by Worden, J.)
Wett v. Forsyth, p. 418.
Will Attestation. It is not neces
sary to the due execution of a will that
the testator should in any manner indi
cate to the witnesses who attest it that
the instrument is the will of the person
executing it.(Opinion by Worden, J.)
Brown et al. v. McAllister et al. p. 375.
1. Promissory NotePayable in Bank
Indorsee.In a suit on a promissory note
made payable to order or bearer in a
bank in this State, brought by an indor
see against the maker, the fact that the
note was procured by fraud does not con
stitute a good defense, if the plaintiff
purchased the note for a valuable
consideration, in the usual course of
business, before it was due, and without
notice of the fraud.(Opinion by Dow
ney, J.)Heret et al. v. Merchant N. Bank,
p. 380.
PATENT right.
2. The words, "this note is given for
patent right," written on the margin of
such a note will not authorize the jury
in such action on said note to infer that
any indorsee thereof had knowledge or
notice that the patent for which the note
was given was of no value, or that the
note was procured by fraud.16.
PURCHASER WITH NOTICE.
3. Where such a note has been pro
cured of the maker by the fraud of the
payee, by whom it has been indorsed to
a third person, another person who has
purchased the note of such indorsee with
actual knowledge that it was so pro
cured, or with notice of any facts indi
cating to a reasonably prudent man that
it was so procured, cannot recover in a
suit on the note against the maker, un
less said third person of whom he pur
chased it was an innocent holder for
value.lb.
PURCHASER FROM INNOCENT HOLDER.
4. A person to whom a promissory note
governed by the law merchant has been
transferred or indorsed, for a valuable
consideration, before it was due, by an
innocent holder thereof for value, may
recover on it against the maker, though
he knew at the time he purchased it that
it had been procured of the maker by
the fraud of the payee.lb.
HOLDER IN GOOD FAITH.
6. One who purchases a promissory
note negotiable by the law merchant, for
a valuable consideration, before matu
rity, without notice ofany equities exist
ing between the original parties to the
note, or of any fraud having been used to
procure the execution of the note, is to
beideemed a holder in good faith.lb.
NOTICE.
6. Inadequacy of Price.Whether inad
equacy of the price asked for a note of
fered for sale is a circumstance indicat
ing to the purchaserthat it was procured
by fraud, is a question for the jury.lb.
MINOR.
1. Suit for ServicesSet-Off.In an ac
tion to recover for work and labor done
by the plaintiff for the defendant at the
request of the latter while the former
was a minor, he may recover whatever
such services were reasonably worth, not
being bound by any special contract aB
to the time he was to work or the
amount to be paid him for his services;
and the defendant may set off against
toe amount so recovered, the reasonable

Legal

value of necessaries furnished the plain

tiff during the period of such service,
such as food, clothing, schooling, etc.
(Opinion by Downey, J.)Meredith v.
Crawford, p. 399.
EVIDENCE.
2. On the trial of such an action, the
value of clothing furnished by the de
fendant to the plaintiff being in issue,
the defendant asked a witness the fol
lowing question: "Are you acquainted
with the cost of furnishing necessary
clothing per year for a girl of the age
and size of the plaintiff, during the years
she resided at the defendant's house ?"
And the court refused to allow the ques
tion to be answered. Held, that this
was not error.lb.
INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.
3. Written-- Verbal explanations.Where,
upon the trial of a cause by a jury, the
court is requested, at the proper time, to
instruct the jury in writing, if the court
accompanies its instructions with any
verbal explanations, comments and re
marks, though not inconsistent with the
law as set forth in the written instruc
tions, and in no way rehearsing the evi
dence, this will constitute a good cause
for granting a new trial, on the motion
of the party making such request.lb.
JUDGMENT.
Review ofEvidenceDivorce.In an
action by a wife for a divorce, the plain
tiff was granted a divorce, and it was
also adjudged that she should pay to her
husband a certain sum, and that he
should at a certain date leave certain
land owned by her on which he was re
siding. Afterwards, suit by her against
him to review and correct said decree,
so as to omit that portion thereof relat
ing to the payment of money by her and
to his leaving said land, as having been
entered by the mistake of the clerk and
without the order of the courts. Upon
the evidence, showing that the pleadings
in Baid action for a divorce involved no
issue except the question of the wife's
right to a divorce, and showing that in
the minutes of the judge on the court
docket, which fully showed the various
steps taken in the cause, the only minute
of the decree was "divorce decreed"
(though it appeared from the record in
the suit for a divorce that the jury
found, in answer to an interrogatory,
that before the suit there was an agree
ment to a separation, that the wife
agreed to pay the husband said sum, that
the defendant was therefore entitled to
said amount, and that he should leave
said land at the date fixed by said de
cree), together with the fact that on gen
eral principles such an agreement could
not be enforced, and such a decree could
not be rendered in a suit for a divorce :
Held, that it was proper to so correct the
decree. (Opinion by Worden, J.)
Hardy v. Kortland, p. 365.
VI. KANSAS REPORTS.
Our thanks are due JW. C. Webb, Re
porter of the Supreme Court of Kansas,
for advance sheets of the 6th volume of
his Reports, from which we take the fol
lowing head-notes :
VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF FORGED PAPER.
1. Effect of.Where a bank, without
instructions, pays a forged acceptance,
and sends the same by mail to the firm
whose names are forged as acceptors, it
does not hecome thereby entitled to
a credit for the amount thereof against
the said firm.(Opinion by Kingman, C.
J.)National Bank v. Tappan et al.
DILIGENCE.
2. When not necessary.Such firm is
under no legal obligation to the bank to
immediately examine such acceptance
upon its reception, with a view to ascer
tain whether it is genuine or not, and is
not chargeable with negligence for not
discovering the forgery immediately.
16.
WHEN SUFFICIENT.
3. It is sufficient in such case to give
notice when the forgery is discovered.
16.
loss.
4. By whom to be borne.In cases where
a loss occurs, and the loss can be traced
to the fault or negligence of a particular
party, the loss should be fixed upon such
party.16.
AMENDMENT.
5. New parties.Where the district

News.

court permits an amendment to the pe

tition, after trial, by making an addi
tional party plaintiff, and it is apparent
from the record that the defendant had
not been misled, it is not error to enter
judgment immediately.16.
TERMS OF AMENDMENT.
6. Where such an amendment was
permitted without imposing terms on
the plaintiff, this court will not modify
the order (although it may seem that
some terms might properly have been
imposed), unless it is apparent that ma
terial injury has been done the other
party.16.
DISTANCE COVENANT NOT TO CARRY ON
BUSINESS.
Uouftet v. Cble, Ex. 20 W. R. 339, L. R. 7 Ex.
This case investigates at great length
the question of the proper mode of de
termining distance under a covenant not
to carry on business within a specified
limit. Of the two methods of measure
ment, that by the nearest practicable
mode of access, and that by the map
or as the crow flies, the court pronounced
in favor of the latter, but from their
judgment Cleasby, B. dissented. In such
a matter what is chiefly of importance
is that the point should be settled, and
that we fear it cannot be said to be, as
the case is on its way to the Exchequer
Chamher. But it is also of importance
that it should be settled in such a way
as will be most convenient and intelhble, and will leave the least uncertainty
to the contracting parties ; and it may
be further said that if one way is more
convenient and intelligible than another,
there is a fair probability that that is
what the parties intended. There can,
we think, be no reasonable doubt that
the straight-line measurement is the
simplest and easiest, at any rate in the
present day ; it is likely, therefore, to be
what the parties meant. The other plan
is open to the obvious objection, that by
the opening of a new road, what was no
breach of covenant one day may become
such on the next. There is no doubt
that in some of the earlier cases, when
maps were less common and less accu
rate, this mode was followed, but it is
equally clear that the current of recent
decisions has been in favor of the
straight-line measurement. Several of
these later cases turned no doubt on the
construction of Acts of Parliament, but
it is impossible to understand the pro
cess of reasoning by which Cleasby, B.
arrives at the conclusion that they nave
no bearing on the present question. The
Legislature speaks of a distance, without
saying how it is to be measured, and the
conrts say it is to be measured in a
straight line. Why? Because when one
speaks of a distance absolutely, that is
the natural construction. Why is not
this conclusion as good when two men
say it, as when a number of men called
the Legislature say it? Indeed, the
learned judge .does not favor us with
any reason for the distinction, except
the extraordinary one that in construing
a contract the intention of the parties is
to be considered. Doubtless ; as also in
construing an Act of Parliament ; but if
the parties have given no evidence of
their intention but by the use of words
which naturally mean a straight-line
measurement, and are always so under
stood in public documents, why is some
thing different to be supposed? We
trust that in the interest of common
sense [and certainty this judgment may
be affirmed.Journal.
Supreme Court Clerk.So far as we
have heard, there are three candidates
for the office of Clerk of the Supreme
Court for this Division : Woodbury M.
Taylor, of Ottawa, the present efficient
incumbent ; D. L. Hough, of the LaSalle
bar, an old and well-known citizen ; and
H. M. Trimble, of Princeton, who is also
forming his friends in line of battle.
Rounds' Printer's Cabinet.We have
received the April number of this artis
tic journal, and it really seems like gold
refined by fire, for it is more beautiful
than in the palmy days before tho fire,
and is one of the finest specimens of
"the art preservative" we have ever
seen. To behold it, fills a printer's heart

229
with joy. Mr. Rounds supplies printers
throughout the Northwest with every
thing they need in the way of presses,
type, material and machinery. It was
Mr. Rounds who immediately after the
fire, when we were almost consumed,
supplied the Legal News with an entire
new dress, as well as an outfit for its job
office, and did not exact the ready cash.
We shall never forget his kindness on
that occasion, and now take pleasure in
paying a deserved tribute to S. P. Rounds
and his Cabinet.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
PROCEEDINGS OF.
Wednesday, April 17.
No. 827. William H. Warner, appellant, v. James
F. Joy. No. 328. William H. Warner, plaintiff in
error, v. James F. Joy. No. 360. Peter F. Holden,
appellant, v. James F. Joy. The argument of
these cases was continued by Mr. B. R. Curtis, of
counsel for appellees, and concluded by Mr. Ben
jamin F. Butler for the appellants.
Thursday, April 18.
On motion of Mr. R. H. Duell, Warren Barnum,
Esq., of New York, was admitted to practice as an
attorney and counselor of this court.
On motion of Mr. Solicitor General Bristow,
Eugene B. Wight, Esq., of Illinois, was admitted
to practice as an attorney and counselor of this
court
No. 429. Wm. S. Huntington et al., plaintiff in
error, v. The 8tate of Texas ; No. 430. The State of
Texas, plaintiff in error, v. Wm. S. Huntington
et al. These causes were argued by Mr. W. 8.
Cox and Mr. J. H. Ashton for Huntington et al. ;
and by Mr. T. J. Durant and Mr. R. T. Merrick for
the State of Texas.
No. 623. The First National Bank, of Washing
ton, et al., plaintlffin error, v. The State of Texas.
This cause was argued by Mr. J. H. Ashton and
Mr. W. 8. Cox, of counsel for the plaintiff in error,
and by Mr. T. J. Durant and Mr. R. T. Merrick for
the defendant in error.
No. 6t. Ira G. French, plaintiff in error, v.
Thomas Edwards et al. The argument of this
cause was commenced by Mr. S. O. Houghton, of
counsel for the plaintiff in error, and continued
by Mr. E. Casserly for the defendants in error.
Friday, April 19.
On motion of Hon. E. Casserly, James M. Gitchell, Esq., of California, was admitted to practice
as an attorney and counselor of this court
No. 393. Hannah H. Samson, widow, etc., plain
tiff in error, v. M. Oillis and S. G. Furguson. In>
error to the Supreme Court of the 8tate of Louisi
ana. On motion of Mr. P. Phillips, ordered by
the court that the writ of error in this cause bo
dismissed, with costs.
No. 11. Original. Ex parte The United States.
The motion for a writ of mandamus in this causa
was argued by Mr. Assistant Attorney General
Hill in support of the same, and by Mr. W. P.
Clarke in opposition thereto.
No. 12. Original. Ex parte Max Newman et al.
The petition and motion for a writ of mandamus
in this cause was argued by Mr. D. McMahon in
support of the same, and by Mr. Edward Salomon
in opposition thereto.
Adjourned until Monday morning at eleven
o'clock.
Tuesday, April 23.
On motion of Mr. R. M. Corwlne, R. W. Russell,
Esq., of New York, was admitted to practice as an
attorney and counselor of this court
No. 69. Ira G. French, plaintiff In error, v.
Thomas Edwards et al. The argument of this
cause was concluded by Mr. 8. O. Houghton, of
counsel for the plaintiff in error.
No. 204. The United States, appellants, v. George
H. Miller; No. 207. The United States, appellants,
v. Chas.H. Manning: No. 208. The United States,
appellants, v. Thos. A. Fitzpatrick ; No. 209. The
United States, appellants, v. George W. Hall ; No.
210. The United States, appellants, v. John Bobn ;
No. 211. The United States, appellants, v. Thos. E.
Lytle; No. 212. The United States, appellants, v.
Chas. F. Holbrook : No. 213. The United States, ap
pellants, v. Lorenzo D. La Rien; No. 214. The
United States, appellants, v. John G. Richards;
No. 216. The United States, appellants, v. William.
A. Newman.
These cases were argued by Mr. Assistant Attor
ney-General Hill, of counsel for the appellants,
and by Mr. N. P. Chipman for appellee in No. 2M,
and by Mr. L. P. Poland for the appellees in the
other cases.
No. 150. The Phoenix Insurance Company, plain
tiff in error, v. Vincent Hamilton and John D:
Cook. The argument of this cause was com
menced by Mr. A. C. Bradley, of counsel for the
plaintiff in error.
No. 457. Frederick J. Knapp, plaintiff in error,
v.Henry Hart. In errorto the Circuit Courtof the
United States for the District of Louisiana. On
motion of Mr. Con Robinson, ordered by the
court that the writ of error in this cause be dis
missed, with costs.

230
Continued from page 227.
annually levied and collected as other
city taxes.
Sections ^wo and five of Article nine
of the Constitution of 1848 expiessly
provide, that all taxes shall be levied by
valuation, so that every person and cor
poration shall pay a tax in proportion to
the value of his or her property ; and
that all the property within the limits of
municipal corporations shall be taxed
for the payment of debts contracted un
der authority of law ; that all taxes shall
be uniform in respect to persons and
property, within the jurisdiction of the
body imposing the same; and that cor
porate authorities shall have power to
assess and collect taxes for corporate
purposes.
Tne bill alleges, and the answer ad
mits, that the personal property of appel
lants, and all improvements upon the
real estate, were exempt from the taxes
sought to be enjoined.
Equality and uniformity of taxation
have been repeatedly recognized and en
forced by this court. They must be ap
plied, not only to the rate of taxation,
and to the district to be taxed, but also
to all the property subject to taxation.
The ordinance in exempting improve
ments upon the real estate, was a viola
tion of the charter. Fixed and perma
nent buildings upon land form a part of
it, and should be estimated in assessing
its value. Fitch v. Pinckard, 4 Scam.,
70. A palatial residence upon a lot
greatly enhances its value ; and thus im
proved it should bear a heavier burden
of taxation than one with an humble
and less costly building. The council
had no right to make the discrimination,
and exclude from taxation valuable and
permanent improvements.
t It was likewise beyond the constitu
tional power of the Legislature to make
the discrimination in favor of personal
property. If the sewerage was proper,
and the taxes assessed to effectuate it
were for a corporate purpose, then they
must be uniform as to persons and prop
erty. The burden must be imposed upon
all the property within the limits to be
taxed. Any other rule would utterly
destroy the equality and uniformity con
templated by the Constitution. With as
much propriety and justice the law
might compel one-half of the real estate
within the district to sustain the burden
of the improvement. The termprop
ertyin the Constitution includes both
real and personal estate, and the author
ity granted to levy taxes, for corporate
purposes, upon one species of property,
to the exclusion of other, transcends the
limitation imposed upon the power of
taxation.
The section of the charter under con
sideration, empowers the city council to
levy the taxes, necessary for the pur
poses of drainage, upon real estate. This
municipal corporation is the mere crea
ture of the law, and can only exercise
-such powers as are conferred by the law
making power.
The limitation of the power to real
estate excludes the power to tax personal
property ; and we must hold the power
granted in violation of the Constitution.
Trustees v.McConnel, 12 111., 138; Hunsaker v. Wright, 30 111., 147.
The authority conferred is, that the
city council may levy the tax in a parti
cular district in "the city. This gives the
power to the council to tax only a por
tion of the property in the city. If the
tax is for a corporate purpose, it must be
uniform, and co-extensive with the
boundaries of the municipality. It must
be a burden upon all the property. It
can be assessed and collected for corpor
ate purposes only.
It was held in Harward v. St. Clair
Drain Co., 51 111., 130; that Section 5 of
Article 9 was a limitation upon the
power of the Legislature. It must, there
for, follow, that the Legislature cannot
clothe the corporate authorities of the
municipality with power to assess and
collect taxes from only a part of the
municipality for a corporate purpose.
The corporate purpose must extend to
the entire city, and in the apportion
ment of the tax to effectuate the purpose,
the principal of equality and uniformity
must be observed. City of Chicago v.
Larned, 34 111., 203.
The decree of the court is reversed,
and the cause remanded, with directions
to make the injunction perpetual, and to
grant the relief prayed for.
Decree reversed.
Wm. H. Underwood, for appellants.
Koernkrs & Niles, for appellees.

Chicago

Legal

MATTHEW MARX,
Attorney, 92 S. Detptaines direct.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. May
Term, A.D. 1472. Lena Brolius t. August Brolius.
In Chancery.
AffldaTit of the non-residence of August Brolius, de
fendant above named, having been Died in the office
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice Is heroby given to the said August Brolius that
the complainant heretofore filed her bill of complaint
in
said court,
on the issued
chancery side
thereof,
andagainst
that a
summons
thereupon
saidMonday
court
said defendant,
returnable onout
the of
third
ofMay
next, (1*72.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the Haid August Brolius, shall
personally be and appear before said Circuit court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day of May. 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, tho same, and Lhe
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Matthew Marx,NOBMAN
Compl'ta SolV.
28-31
W. W. PERKINS,
Attorney, 386 Wabash Avemie.
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR RE-ENTEBING
of Becordof a Judgment. State of Illinois, county
of
Cook,Willis
ss. Superior
of Cook
county.andMayJohn
Term,
1*72.
H. Esty court
v. Samuel
Bodgers
D.
Fee.Application for restoration of judgment.
Affidavit of the non-residence of John I). Fee, one of
the above named defendants, having been filed in the
office ofis tinclerkgiven
ofsaidtoSuperior
courtD.ofFee,
Cookthat
county,
notice
herebv
said John
said
Willis H. Esty lias tiled bis petition for the re-entering
of
record
a
certain
judgment
heretofore
obtained
him against said John 1). Fee and one Samuel Bodby
gers, in said Superior court of Cook county, as set
forth by said Esty in his said petition, and that a sum
mons thereupon issued out of said court against said
defendants, returnable on the first Monday of May
next (1672), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, said John D, Fee, shall personally
be and appear before said Superior court of Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
at Chicago, in said county, on tho tirst Monday of May,
1*72, and plead, answer, or demur to the said petition,
the
same,
the matters
things
therein charged,
stated,
andand
alleged,
will beand
taken
as confe^ed
by you,
and an order entered in accordance with the prayer of
said petition.
AUGUSTUS JAC0BS0N, Clerk.
W. W. Pebkins, Att'y for Petitioner.
38-31
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook,
Superior
court
of Cook
county.
To May
Term,
A.D.ss. 1872.
Ruben
Rubel
v. John
L.tCampbeli.
In
chancery.
Affidavit of the non - residence of John L. Camp
bell, defendant above named, having been filed in
the office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook
county, notice is hereby given to the said John L.
Campbell, that the complainant heretofore filed his
bill of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out
of said court against said defendant, returnable on
the first Monday of May next (1*72,) as is by law re
quired.
Now, unless you, the said John L. Campbell, shall
personally he and appear before said Superior court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to
be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Mon
day of May, 1*72. and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
hilltherein
of complaint,
the stated,
same, will
and
the matters
and things
charged and
be taken as confessed, and a decree entered agai n - 1 you
according to the prayer of said bill.
* AUGUSTUS JACOBS0N, Clerk.
Rosenthal, Pence Sl Moses, Compl't's Sol'r. 28-31
SAMUEL STRAUS,
Attorney-ai-Law, 562 Wabash Avenue.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-8tate of Illinois, County of
^ Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To June
Term, A.D., 1872. Michael Schmidt v. Louise Schmidt.
In
Chancery.
Affidavit
of the non - residence of Louise Schmidt,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Louise Schmidt that
the complainant neretofore hied his bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
a summons thereupon issued out ofsaid court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday ofJune
next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Louise Schmidt, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Mon
day of June, 1672. and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill ofcomplaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
Samuel Straus, Compl't's Sol'r.
26-31
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County
of Cook as. Superior Court of Cook County.
May Term, A.D. lt>72, James Carter v. The Washing
ton Insurance Company of New York, George Satterlee, Charles V. Dyer, and F. H. Winston.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the uon-resideuce of George Satterlcc,
one of the defendants above named, having been filed
In the office of the Clerk of said Superior court of Cook
county, notice is hereby given to the said George Satterlee, that the complainant heretofore filed his hill of
complaint
said court,thereupon
on the chancery
and
that ain summons
issued side
out thereof,
of said
court against said defendant, returnable on the first
Monday of May next (1672), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said George Setterlee, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county , on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
Chicago,
in saidanswer
county,orondemur
the firstto Monday
of May,at1*72,
and plead,
the said
complainant
s
bill
of
complaint,
the
matters and things therein charged andsame,
stated,and
will the
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
24-31
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Charles II. Lawrence, Compl't's Sol'r.
MONROE, BISBEE & GIBBS,
Attorneys. 523 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE OF JAMES N. FERGUSON, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Jamas N.
Ferguson, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of theiCounty
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house,
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June,
A.D.
1672. being
day thereof.
Chicago.
Aprilthe
2n. third
A.D. 1*72."
CAROLINE G. FERGUSON. Administratrix.
28-33
With will annexed.
JOSEPH WRIGHT,
Attorney, Room 43. Central Union Block.
ESTATE OF JOHN HOLLAND. DEOEASEDNotice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of John
Holland, deceased, to present tho same for adjudi
cation
at a regular
term of
the
County and
courtsettlement
of Cook county,
to he holden
at the
court house fn the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
day of June. A. D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
WINIFREDA HOLLAND, Administratrix.
Chicago. April 23, 1872.
Joseph Wuiuut, Attorney.
19-34

News.

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney.
TN TIIE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
J. States, for the Northern District of Illinois. In
the matter of John Phillip Mueller and Hieronymus
Mueller, bankrupts.In bankruptcy.
This is to give notice, that I have filed ray final ac
counts
as assignee
of said
in
said court,
and thatofonthetheestate
twentieth
daybaukrupts,
of May, 1872,
I shall apply to said court for the settlement of my
said
accounts,
for a discharge
from with
all liability
assignee
of saidandestate,
in accordance
the proas
visions of the 26th section of the Bankrupt Act of
March 2nd, 1667.
RODERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
Chicago, April 19, 1672.
28-29
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
States, for the Northern District of Illinois. In
the matter of Sand's Ale Brewing Company, bankrupt.In
Notice isbankruptcy.
hereby given, that a third general meeting
the purposes named in the 28th section of the Bankrupt
Act of March 2, 16*7.
Chicago, April 17th. 1872.
26-29
ROBEBT E. JENKINS. Assignee.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the yth
dayTheof undersigned
April. A. D. 1*72.
hereby gives notice of his appoint
ment as assignee of Arthur Scholz and John N.
Young,
of
Racine,
Wisconsin,
andDupage,
William P. Wright,
of
Naperville,
in the lately
countydoing
of
Statecity
of
Illineis,
co-partners,
businessand
in the
of
Chicago,
county
of
Cook,
and
Stato
of
Illinois,
in
saiti district, under the firm name and style of Schohe,
Young & Co., and who have been adjudged bankrupt,
upon their own petition, by the District court of tne
United States in and for the naid District.
27-2y
ROBERT E. JENKINS. Assignee.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the 15th
day of April, A. D. 1672.
The
hereby
gives11.notice
his appoint
ment undersigned
as assignee of
Edward
Perryof and
Orlando
8. Perry,
Chicago,
the adjudged
county ofbankrupts,
Cook, and State
of
Illinois,ofwho
haveinbeen
upon
creditors'
petition,
by District.
tho District court of the United
States,
in and
for said
28-30
ROBEBT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
TVTOTICE
FOR
il tice, that on PUBLICATION.Thia
the loth day of April, isA.toD.give
1872,noa
warrant in bankruptcy was isxucd against the estate of
Daniel P. Newell, of the city ofChicago. In the county
of Cook, and State of Illinois, who has been adjudged
a bankrupt on his own petit'on, that the payment of
any debts and the delivery of any property belonging
to such bankrupt, to him or for his use, and the trans
fer of any property by him are forbidden by law ; that
aprove
meeting
of the and
creditor*
of the
saidmore
bankrupt
to
their debts,
to choose
one or
assignees
of
his
estate,
will
be
held
at
a
court
of
bankruptcy
to
be holden at tho office of Homer N. Hibbard, in said
city
of
Chicago,
before
Homer
N.
Hibbard.
Esq.,
Reg
ister, on the fifteenth day of May, A. D. 1*72, at 10
o'clock a. m.
CAMPBELL,
U. B.S. H.
Marshal,
Moswenger.
28-30
By 8. n. TOURTELLOTTE, Deputy.
IN States,
THE for
DISTRICT
COURT
OF THE
UNITED
the Northern
District
of Illinois.In
the matter of Eli N. Small, a bankrupt.
Notice is hereby given that the undersigned will, on
in., at
Saturday,
the 11thavenue,
of May,in1872,
a. sell
No. 386 Wabash
the at
city10 ofo'clock
Chicago,
at
public
auction
to
the
highest
bidder
for
cash,
any
all interest which the said bankrupt may have in and
the
estate of his mother, Evelina Small, deceased.
28-31
S. S. MERRILL, Assignee.
NOTICE FOR PUBLICATION.-This is to give no
tice, that on the 13th day of April, A D. 1872, a
warrant in bankruptcy was issued against the estate
of William C. Clark, of the city of Chicago, in the
county of Cook, and State of Illinois, who has been
adjudged a bankrupt on his own petition, that the pay
ment of any
debtsbankrupt,
and the delivery
belonging
to such
to him orofforany
his property
use, and
the transfer of any property by him are forbidden by
law
:
that
a
meeting
ofthe
creditors
ofthe
said
bankrupt
to prove their debts, and to choose one or more assignees
of
estate,at will
heldofatHomer
a courtN.ofHibbard,
bankruptcy,
to
be nis
holden
the beoffice
in the
city of Chicago, before Homer N. Hibbard, Register,
on
A.D. 1672, at 10 o'clock
a.m.the sixteenth day
B. ofH. May,
CAMPBELL,
U. 8. Marshal. Messenger.
28-30
By 8. H. TOURTELLOTTE, Deputy.
H. H. ANDERSON,
Attorney, Nixon's Building.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the
19th
of April, A.D.
1672.gives notice of hlB appointThedayundersigned
hereby
mentas assignee ofthe estate ofA. H. Davis, ofChicago,
in the county of Cook, and State of Illinois, who has
been adjudged a bankrupt, upon his own petition, by
the
District court of the United
in and for said
District.
H. H.States
ANDERSON,
26-36
Assignee.
H. A. WHITE,
Attorney, No. 165 West Washington St.
ESTATE
OF
GEORGE
A.toBIGELOW,
DECEASED.
is hereby
all of
persons
claims
and Notice
demands
againstgiven
the estate
Georgehaving
A. Bigelow,
deceased,
for County
adjudication
set
tlement attoa present
regular the
termsame
of the
court and
of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A.D. 1672, being
theChicago.
third day
thereof.
April
huh. A.D.G.1872.
LOUISA
BIGELOW, Executrix.
H. A. White, Attorney.
z*-:i'la
JAMES FRAKE,
Attorney, 115 W. Madison St.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, COOK COUNTY, ss.-To
the May term of the County court of Cook county,
A. D. 1672. In the matter of tho guardianship of MarSret
tto Born
Muller(formerly
and LouisMargret
Muller.Mailer).
minors. Amelia Muller,
To all persons concerned: Take notice, that the un
dersigned,
guardian
of
Margret
Born
(formerly
Mar
gret Muller), Amelia Muller. Otto
Muller
and Louis
Muller, minors, will, at the May term of said court, to
be holden at the court house, in the city of Chicago, In
said county, on the first Monday of May next, present
to
saidof court,
for ofacceptance,
his resignation
of the
office
guardian
the above-named
minors, accord
ing to the statute in such case made and provided.
MEDARD M. LOCHNER, Guardian, etc.
Dated Chicago, April 8, 1672.
27-30
ESTATE
OF given
LEMUEL
Deceased.-Notice
is hereby
to allFOSTER,
persons having
claims and
demands
against
the
estate
of
Lemuel
de
ceased, to present the same for adjudicationFoster,
and settle
ment, at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to he holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, being
the third day thereof.
LYDIA 0. FOSTER, Executrix.
Chicago, April 17, A. D. 1872.

RUNYAN. AVERT, LOOMIB & COMBTOCT,

Attorneys. 141 W. Washington Si.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
Cook, ss. SuperiorcourtofCook county. To Mar
term, A. D. 1872. Edward Williston v. Christina WUllston.In
Affidavit olChancery.
the nun-residence of Christina Williston,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
of the Clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Christina Williston. that
the complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
said court,
on the chancery
thereof,
that
__insummons
thereupon
issued outside
of said
courtand
against
said
defendant,
returnable
on
tho
first
Monday
of
May
nextunless
(1872),you,
as istheby said
law Christina
required. Williston. shall
Now,
8arsonally be and appear before said Superior Court of
ook county,
on the
first county,
day of aonterm
to be
holden
at Chicago,
in said
the thereof,
first Monday
of May, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the said
complainant's
bill therein
of complaint,
matters and things
chargedtheandsame,
stated,and
willthe
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Rcnyan, Avert, Loomis k Comstock,
26-2^
Comp't's SoPrs.
GUARDIAN'S
OFss.REAL
ESTATE.-State
of
Illinois, CookSALE
county,
In the
Circuit Court of
Cook county. In the matter of the application of Eliza
H. Ton ne, guardian of Edward P. .Towne, to sell real
estate of the said minor.
By virtue ofa decree entered in said cause, on the fifth
day of April, A.D. 1672, at the March term ofsaid court,
I shall on Monday, the twenty-ninth (29th) day ofApril,
A.D. 1672, at 10 o clock, In the forenoon of said day,
at
the east
doorcityofofthe
Court State
House,ofonIllinois,
South sell
Clark
street,
in the
Chicago,
at
public auction to the highest and best bidder, upon
the following terms, viz : One-third cash, and the
balance in three equal payments, payable in one, two
and three years, respectively, bearing interest at the
rate of eight per cent, per annum, and to be secured
by mortgage or trust deed upon said premises all the
right, title and interest of the said minor in the
following
estate, situated
in the
of
Illinois, todescribed
wit .: Onerealundivided
one-half
(H)State
of east
_inois,
w
one-half t'i) of the west one-half.1(f-i)
of
lot
number
;itial town of
three (3) in block fifty-seven (57)ZAof H.(ori__
fbWNE,
Chicago.
Guardian of Edward P. Towne.
26-29
Chicago, April 5, 1872.
A. B. JENKS,
Attorney.
TESTATE OF LEWIS P. HILL. DECEASED.Xj Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Lewis P. Hill, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to he holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, be
ing the thirdJOHN
day thereof.
L. WOODCOCK, Administrator.
ISABELLA HILL, Administratrix.
Chicago, April 9, A. D. 1872.
A. B. Jenks, Att'y.
27-32a
HOWE & RUSSELL,
Attorneys, 475 Wabash Avenue,
ESTATE
SENECA
Notice 1bOF
hereby
given toWRIGHT,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Seneca Wright, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago,
Monday of June, A. D. 1872,
being tho on
thirdthedayfirst
thereof.
ADALINE C. WRIGHT.'Administratrix.
Chicago, April 13, A. D. 1672.
Howe & Russell, Attorneys.
28-33
ESTATE
OF
SOPHIA
B.
WHITING,
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Sophia B. Whit
ing, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
ofCook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D.
1872, being the third day thereof.
JOSEPH T. JANES,
HELEN S. JANES.
Chicago,
April
13,
A.
D.
1872.
Executors.
Howe & Ruhseli-, Attorneys.
28-33
EDWIN GREENE,
Attorney, 4b Hubbard Court.
ESTATE
OF
JOSEPH
Notice is hereby
given toMEEKER,
all persousDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Joseph Meeker, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago,
on the
Monday of June, A. D. 1872, be
day first
thereof.
ing the third
ELIZABETH MEEKER, Executrix.
Chicago, April 10 A. D. 1672.
Edwin Greene, Att'y.
27-30
MAGRtTDER & KERR.
Attorneys, 40 Central Union Block.
ESTATE
LOUIS
DECEASED.
Notice OF
is hereby
givenBELTZ,
to all persons
having
claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of Louis
Beltz, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and
settlement
County
Court
of Cook
county,atja
to beregular
holdenterra
at ofthetheCourt
House,
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
ofJune,
A. D.
1872, being the third day thereof.
LYNE S. DAVISON. Administrator.
Chicago. March 25. A. D. 1872.
Magbuder & Kerr, Attorneys.
26-30
ESTATE
OF
MICHAEL
FELTEN
[alias]
FILTEN, deceased. Notice is hereby given to all per
sons having claims and demands against the estate of
Michael
[alias] Filten,
deceased, toat present
the
same for Felten
adjudication
and settlement
a regular
term of the County court of Cook county, to be nolden at the court house in the city of Chicago, on the
first Monday of May, A. D. 1672, being the sixth day
thereof. HUBERT KEIPINGER, Administrator.
Chicago, March 18, A. D. 1872.
Theo. Schintz, Att'y.
24-29
ESTATE OF ARTHUR G. MORVAN. DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Arthur G.
Mandorvan,
deceased,
present:the
adjudication
settlement
at atoregular
termsame
of theforCounty
court
of
Cook
county,
to
be
holden
at
the
court
house.
In
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May,
A. D.
1872, being the sixth day thereof.
MARY MORVAN. Administratrix.
Chicago, March 22, A. D. 1872.
26-30p
NOTICE Is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Lucius A. Griswcld, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to be nolden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D.
1872, being the first day thereof.
MARIA GR1SW0LD, Administratrix,
Chicago,
3. A. D. 1872.
26-31
Bennett April
& Sherburne,
Atty's for Administratrix.
0. R. BR0USE,
Attorney, 400 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE
OF
MARY
MoNULTY,
DECEASED.Notlce is hereby given
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Mary
McNulty, deceased, to present the same for adjudi
cation and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court
house,
citybeing
of Chicago,
first Monday of
July, A.inD.the1872,
the Firstondavthethereof.
FANNY McNULTY, Executrix.
Chicago, March 30, A. D. 1S72.
0. R. Brouse, Attorney.
26-30

Chicago
CLARKSOTS * Y.AJ* SCHAACK,
Attorney*, 4^4 fwttttiwiw;
CHANCERY
Illinois,
County
of
Cook, ss. NOTICE.e
Circuit court of of
Cook
county,
March
term, A. D. 172. Catherine McKay and Hector McKay
t. George W. Hill, Sarah J. Hill, Adam 8. Baiuter,
Luke R. McMurray. George W. Ferrall. John F.
Heaney, Sarah J. Wheeler. Nancy M. OoddarcL Mel
ville C. Eames. Catherine Gallagher, Meyer Newbergcr, J. W. Turner, Gilbert Cleveland. Albert C.
Cleveland, Aaron N. Hart, A. N. Nugent Horace
Allen. George F. Oram and Robert H. Walker.In
Chancery.
Cross-Bill.
Affidavit that
upon due inquiry Sarah J. Hill, Adam
8. Baiuter, Luke R. McMurray, George W. Ferrall,
Nancy M. Goddard Catherine Gallagher, J. W. Tur
ner, Gilbert
Cleveland.
A. N. Nugent
Horace
Allen,
defendanta
above named,
cannot beandfound,
so
that process cannot be served upon them, having been
filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said Sarah
J. Hill,
AdamNancy
S. Bainter,
Luke R.
McMurray.
George
W.
Ferrall,
M. Goddard,
Catherine
Gallagher,
J. W. Turner, Gilbert Cleveland, A. N. Nugeut and
Horace Alleu, that the complainants heretofore hied
their
cross-bill
uf complaint
said court,
on the
chancery
side thereof,
and that ina summons
thereupon
issued out of said court against said defendants, re
turnable
on thewhich
thirdsummons
Monday of
is byof
law
required,
was.March
on the(1872),
If<thasday
March, A. D. lw72, duly returned by the sheriff of said
county, notandserved
upon diligent
you, theinquiry
last above-named
fendants,
that upon
and search dehe
was
unable
to
find
you
in
his
county,
so
that he could
not serve said summons upon you.
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
Sarah
J.
Hill,
Bainter, Luke R. McMurray, George W. Adam
Ferrall,S.
Nancy M. Goddard. Catherine Gallagher. J. W. Tur
ner, Gilbert Cleveland, A. N. Nugent and Horace
Allen, shall personally be and appear before said
Circuitthereof,
court toot beCook
county,
on the infirst
of a
term
holden
at Chicago,
saidday
county,
on the third Monday of May, 1*72. and plead, answer
or demur to the said complainants* cross-bill of com
plaint, the same, and the matters and tilings therein
charged and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a
decree entered against yon according to the prayer of
said cross-bill. NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Clarkson A Van Schaace, Compl'ts' Sol'rs. 27-30
JOHNES & SUTHERLAND,
Attorney.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County
ofCook, ss.Superior court ofCook county. April
term, A. D. 1872. Joseph Kipley v. Catharine Kipley.
In
Chancery.
Affidavit
that the defendant, Catharine Kipley, on
due inquiry, cannot be found or is concealed within
this State, so that process cannot be served upon her,
having Court
been filed
in thecounty,
office ofthe
of saidgiven
Su
perior
of Cook
noticeClerk
is hereby
to the said Catharine Kipley, that the complainant
heretofore filed his bill of complaint In safd court,
on the chancery side thereof, and that a summons
thereupon issued out of said court against said defend
ant,
the first Monday of April next
(1S72),returnable
as is by lawonrequired.
Now, unless you, the said Catharine Kipley, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court ot
Cook county, on the first day of the term thereof, to be
holden
said county,
first Monday
of
April,at Chicago,
1872, and inplead,
answeronorthedemur
to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters
things therein
charged
and against
stated,
will
be taken and
as confessed,
and a decree
entered
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON,
J0HNE8 A SUTHKBLAND,
Compl't's
Sol'rs. Clerk.
26"29p
THOMAS SHIRLEY,
Attorney, 213 dark St. Cor. Adams St.
PUBLICATION
NOTICE
ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois,
countyINof Cook,
ss. Superior
court
of
Cook
county.
April
term,
A.
D. 1872. Charles
Meyer v. JohYl F. Marx.
Publicthat
notice
is hereby
given to the issued
said John
Marx,
a writ
of atttachment
out F.of
the office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook
county,
datedofthethe28th
of Meyer,
iJarch, and
A. D.against
1872,
at the suit
said day
Charles
the estate of John F. Marx, for the sum of one hun
dred
thirty-five
dollars
the sheriff
Cook and
county,
which said
writdirected
has beentoreturned
execuof
ted.Now, therefore, unless you, the said John T.
Marx, shall personally be and appear before the
said Superior court ofCook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the Court
House,A.inD.the1872,
citygive
of Chicago,
on and
the plead
first Monday
April,
special bail
to the saidot
plaintiffs action, judgment will be entered against
you, and in favor of the said Charles Meyer, and so
much of the property attached as may be sufficient
to satisfy the said judgment and costs will be sold to
satisfy the same.
JACOBSON. Clerk.
Thomas Shirley,AUGUSTUS
Att'y.
26-2S
ROSENTHAL, PENCE ft HOSES,
Ai
ADMINISTRATORS SALE.-Loulsa Heller, ad
ministratrix
of
the
estateHess,
of Israel
de
ceased, v. Rosa Hess. Abraham
FannyHeller,
McCreary,
Robert McCreary Caroline Schram, Benedict Schram,
Theresa Porges, Henry Porges, Esther Schram, Jacob
Schram and Elizabeth Heller. Superior court of Cook
county.notice
Petition
to sell
estate
to pay debts.
Public
is hereby
givenrealthat
in pursuance
of the
decree ofsaid court In said cause, I heretofore entered,
I shall , on Saturday, the 18th day of May, A. D.
1872, at 10 o.clock, a. m. , sell at public auction, for cash,
to the highest bidder, at the north end of the new City
Hall, corner of LaSalle and Adams streets, in Chicago,
Illinois, the following described premises, viz : Lot
six (6) in block three (3) in Quick's subdivision ol
Harlem,
being(12.)partin oftown
the thirty-nine
northeast quarter
ofsecof
tion
twelve
(39,) north
range twelve (12) east of 3rd p. m., in Cook county,
Illinois.
LOUISA HELLER,
April 5, 1S72.
Administratrix of estate of Israel Heller, deed.
Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, Pl'ffs Atty's. 26-31
ESTATE
NoticeOFis KATHARINA
hereby given ROSE.
to all DKCEASED.persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Katharina Rose, deceased, to present the same for ad
judication
and
settlement
at
a
regular
term ofat the
County court of Cook county, to be holden
the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
day of June, A. D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
Chicago. March 29, A. D.HENRY
1872. ROSE, Executor.
Rosenthal. Pence & Mobes. Compl't's SoPra. 25-30
DUNNING & EASTON,
Attorneys, 479 Wabash Avenue.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. May
term, A. D. 1872. Edmund J. Hooper v. Emma
Hooper.In Chancery.
Affidavitabove
of thenamed,
non-residence
of Emma
de
fendant
having been
filed Hooper,
In the office
of the clerk ofsaid Superior court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Emma Hooper that
the complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of May
next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Emma Hooper, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the firstMonday
of May,
1872, and hill
plead,
answer or the
demur
the
said
complainant's
of complaint,
same,to and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered
against you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Dunning & Easton, Compl't's Sol'rs.
27-30

Legal

MTJNN & HAMILTON,

Attorney*. 114 IJalvtcd Street.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. May
term, A. I). 1872. Charles S. Thompson v. Harriet L.
Stewart
andofJames
P. Stewart.Mechanic's
Affidavit
the non-residence
of Harriet L.Lien.
Stewart
and James P. Stewart, defendant above named, having
been filed In the office of the clerk ol said Circuit
court of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the
said Harriet L. Stewart and James P. Stewart that the
complainant heretofore filed his petition for me
chanic's
lieu out
in said
court,
andagainst
that a summons
there
upon
issued
of said
court
said defendants,
returnable on the third Monday of May next (1S72J,
asNow,
is by unless
law required.
you, the said Harriet L. Stewart and
James P. Stewart, shall personally be and appear be
fore said Circuit court of Cook county, on the first day
of a termon thereof,
be holden
at Chicago,
said
county,
the thirdtoMonday
of May,
1K72, andinplead,
answer or demur to the said petition, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered agoinBt you
according to the prayer of said petition.
NORMAN
T. Sol'rs.
GASHKTTK, Clerk.
Munn & Hamilton.
Compl't's
^7-.Ki
rpRUSTEE'S SALE.Whereas, on the first day of
A. August, a. D. )70, Vesper Dorneck, of Chicago.
Cook county. State of Illinois, executed his trust deed
of that date, which was recorded on the said first day
of August, A. l>. \fuO, in the Recorder's office of said
Cook county, in Book 599 of Deeds, at page 215, thereby
conveying to me, David G. Hamilton, or said Chicago,
trustee, lots one 1.1). two (2). three (3), four (4) and five
('>), in block twelve ( 12) of Winner's subdivision of the
northeast
one-fourth(25),
(.'4) of
the northeast
quarter(37),of
sectiou twenty-five
township
thirty-seven
north
range
fourteen
(14),
east
of
3d
P
M.,
truBt to
secure the payment at maturity of a certainin promis
sory note of said Vesper Dorneck, of even date with
said trust deed, payable to the order of 0. R. Brouae,
for the sum of one hundred and thirty dollars, with
interest at eight per cent, per annum, said note being
payable in one year after date, and being given for
part of theauM,
purchase
.money
ihe deed
above-described
piemises;
whereas,
in saidfortrust
it was pro
vided that in case of default in payment of said note
and interest, or either or any part thereof, It should be
lawful
saidnote,
trustee,
on thetheapplication
of the legal
holder for
of said
to sell
premises therein
and
above
described
in mass
or in parcels,
as said door
trustee
might prefer,
at public
auction,
at the north
of
the
city thirty
of Chicago,
the highest
and court
best house,
bidder inforsaidcosh,
days tonotice
oi said
sale having been first given, in one of the newspapers
published in said city of Chicago, and to adjourn said
sale from time to lime, as might be thought expedient
by
said trustee,
and to make
and sufficient
or deeds
of conveyance
for thegood
premises
sold, anddeed
to
pay
out
of
the
proceeds
of
such
sale,
first,
costs exof
advertising and sale and commission and allall other
penses of said trust and secondly, the principal and
interest due on said note, rendering the overplus if
any, to said party of the first part, upon reasonable re
quest ; and, whereas, the principal and interest due on
said note inhave
been deed;
paid, nor
part thereof,
as
provided
saidnottrust
and,any
whereas,
the legal
holder of said note has requested me, as such trustee,
to make sale of said premises to pay said note and in
terest :
Now, therefore, notice is hereby given that on Sat
urday, a.thern.,eighth
June,of A.
1872,house,
at ten
o'clock
at the day
northof door
the D.court
in
said city of Chicago, I will proceed to sell the abovedescribed premises at public auction, to the highest
bidder
cash, toApril
pay safd
note and interest.
DatedforChicago,
Iu, 1*72.
DAVID G. HAMILTON, Trustee.
0. R. Beoube, Att'y.
27-29
HARDING & McCOY,
Attorneys. 368 Wabash Ave.
pHANCERY
NOTICE.court
State
of Illinois,
County
of
Cook,
ss.
of Cook
term. A. D. 1S72. Circuit
Hector V. Loving
v. county.
Mary Q. June
Mor
ton, Henry C. Morton, Eugenia Q. Young. John C.
Young, Corinue 6. Watson, George C. Watson, Laura
Bell Quigley, Hallie
'^^-S*
E. ^Si*^*/-,
Quigley, k,uclan,
Lucian -.,Quif1(^<
G. Qi ' '
Mary
Quigley,
Eliza M.
Quigley,
MarthaE
Quigley,H. Eliza
G. Quigley,
Maria
E. Quigley,
Edward
P. Quigley,
ligley, Fannie Quigley,
(Quigley, and the Connectici
Connecticut
Mu
tual Lite Insurance Company.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of all the defendants
above named, having been filed In the office of the
clerk
of said
of Cook county,
is hereby
givenCircuit
to the court
said defendants
that thenotice
complaimintlheretofore filed his bill of complaint in said
court,
on
the
chancery
side
thereof,
and
that
a
mons thereupon issued out of said court againstsum
said
defendants, returnable on the third Monday of June
next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Mary Q. Morton, Henry C.
Morton, Eugenia Q. Young, John C. Young, Corinne
Q. Watson, George C. Watson, Laura Bell Quigley,
Hallie E. Quigley, Lucfan G. Quigley, Mary H. Quig
ley,
ElizaMaria
M. Quigley.
Martha
V. H.P.Quigley,
G.
Quigley,
E. Quigley.
Edward
Quigley,Eliza
Fannie
Quigley, and the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance
Company, shall personally be and appear before said
Circuit court of Cook county, on the first day of a
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
on
the third
Monday
of June, 1872, and
answer
or demur
to the
said complainant's
bill plead,
of complaint,
the same, and the matters and things therein charged
and stated, will be taken as confesseo, and a decree en
tered against you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Harding & McCoy,Compl't's Sol'rs.
27-30
THOMPSON & BISHOP,
Attorneys, 17 Congress Street
1HANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county of
CJ Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook county. To
May
A. D.D. 1872.
Kutter
v. James
Blake,Term,
Elizabeth
Blake.Gustavus
Ellen Lacy
McFee.
Wil
liam C. Holway, Elliott C. V. Blake, Isabella M. Honley,
Simeon
H.
Smith,
Ezekiel
8.
Smith,
and
Joseph
E.
DeHaven.In
Affidavit of theChancery.
non-residence of Jamefl Blake, Eliza
beth D. Blake, Elliott C. V. Blake. Isabella M. Moseley,
Simeon H.above
Smith,named,
and having
Ezekiel been
8. Smith,
of
the defendants
filed insixthe
office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook
county, notice is hereby given to the said James Blake,
Elizabeth D. Blake, Elliott C. V. Blake, Isablella M.
M. Moseley. Simeon H. Smith and Ezekiel 8. Smith,
that the complainants heretofore filed hie amcndedbill
of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof,
that aRaid
summons
thereupon
issuedonoutthe
of
said courtandagainst
defendants,
returnable
first Monday of May next (1872), as is by law re
quired.
Now, unless you, the said James Blake Elizabeth D.
Blake, Elliott C. V. Blake, Isabella M. Moseley, Sim
eon H. Smith and Ezekiel S. Smith, shall personally
be and appear before said Superior court of Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday ofMay,
1872, and plead, answer or demur to the said com
plainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the matters
and things therein charged and stated, will be taken
as confessed, and a decree entered against you accord
ing to the prayer ofsaid bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Thompson & Bishop, Compl't's Sol'rs.
26-29
ESTATE OF GEORGE JEFFRES. DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demands
against
of George and
Jeffres,
deceased,
to present
the the
sameestate
for adjudication
set
tlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
court
of
Cookof
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city
Chicago,
Monday of June, A. 1). 1872,
being the on
thirdthedayfirstthereof.
GURDON S. HUBBARD and
GEORGE J. JEFFRES,
Administrators.
Chicago, April 8, A. D. 1872.
27-32a

News.

SANF0RD B. PERRY,
Attorney, 479 Wabash Avenue.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Superior
of Cookv.county.
Term,Cook,
A. D.ss. 1872.
Mariacourt
A. Kidder
GardinerMay
G.
Kidder and Daniel A. Gleason.In Chancery.
Affidavit ofthe non-residence of said Gardiner G. Kid
der and Daniel A. Gleason, defendants above named,
having
beenof filed
the office
of the
clerk ofgiven
said toSupe
rior court
Cookincounty,
notice
is hereby
the
said Gardiner G. Kidder and Daniel A. Gleason that
the
.
complainant
heretofore
filed
her
bill
of
com
plaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and
that a summons
thereupon
issuedonoutthefirst
of saidMonday
court
against
said defendants,
returnable
of May next, (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Gardiner G. Kidder and
Daniel A. Gleason, shall personally be and appear be
fore
Superior
court
Cook county,
on the
day ofsaid
a term
therool,
to beof holden
at Chicago,
in first
said
county,
on
the
first
Monday
of
May.
A.
D.
1872,
plead, answer or demur to the said complainant's billandof
complaint, the same, and the mattersaud things there
in charged and stated, will be taken as confessed, and
a decree entered against you according to the prayer
of said bill.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Sanfori> B. Perky, Comp't's soPr.
2-31
%
D. S. PRIDE,
Attorney.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
^ Cook, ss. Superior Court of Cook county. To
May Term,v. A.F. D. 1*72. Real Estate Lean and Trust
Company a . A. Soule and M. R. Jefterds.In Chaffeery
Affidavit of the non-residence of F. A. Soule and M.
R. Jeflerds, defendants above named, having been filed
in the office ot the clerk of said Superior court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said F. A.
Soule and M. R. Jefferds that the complainant hereto
fore
filed side
Its bill
of complaint
said court,
on the
chancery
thereof,
aud that ainsummons
thereupon
issued out of said court against said defendants, re
turnable
on the hrst Monday of May next, (1872,} as is
by law required.
Now, unless you, the said F. A. Soule and M. R.
Jefferds, shall personally be and appear before said
Superior court ot Cook county, on the first day of a
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, In said county,
on the first Monday of May, 1872, and plead, answer
or
to thethesaid
complainant's
of complaint,
the demur
same, and
matters
and thingsbilltherein
charged
and
stated,
will
be
taken
as
confessed,
and
decree
tered againt you according to the prayer ofasaid
bill.euAUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
D. S. Pride, Compl't's Sol'r.
28-31
8. W. OSGOOD,
Attorney, 128 West Washington Street.
MICHAEL
DECEASED,
Ei STATE
Notice OF
is hereby
given to8CHAFFEK,
all persons having
claims
and demands against the estate of Michael bchafier,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the Couuty court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago,
on the
Monday of June, A. D. 1872, be
ing the third
day first
thereof.
CATIK'RINE SCUAFFER, Administratrix.
Chicago, April 15, A. D. lo72.
S. W. Osooon, Attorney lor Estate.
28-33
WM. H. HOLDEN,
Attorney, Central Union Block.
ESTATE OF MAURICE CONLEY, DECEASED.is hereby
all persons
havingConley.
claims
and Notice
demands
againstgiven
the toestate
of Maurice
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court ol
Cookofeonnty,
the courtofhouse.
city
Chicago,to be
onholden
the firstat Monday
June,InA.the
D.
1872, being the third day thereof.
ELLEN CONLEY, Administratrix.
Ohicsga^April 16, A.D. 1872.
Wm. loLnEN, Att'y,
SN0WH00E & ORAT,
AUoriieys, Ho West Monroe Street
INSTATE
OF
DANIEL
Notice is hereby
given REARDON,
to all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Daniel Reardon,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, toonbethe
holden
at the court
house,A.inD.the
of
Chicago,
first Monday
of June
1872,city
being
the third day thereof. MATHEW REARDON and
WILLIAM JOY,
Chicago, April 17, A. D. 1872.
Executors.
Snowhook & Grat, Att'ys.
28-33a
BARKER & WAITE,
Attorneys, 46 East Harrison Street.
ESTATE
JAMES
Notice isOF
hereby
givenROBINSON,
to all personsDECEASEDhaving claims
and demands against the estate of Jam-s Robinson,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, being
the tlurd day thereof.
Chicago, April Ifi,MYRON
A. D. 1872.L. PEARCE, Executor.
Barker & Waite, Att'ys.
28-33a
MORAN & ENGLISH,
Attorneys, 102 West Ranoolph street.
ESTATE OF NICHOLAS KRAEMER, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Nicholas Kraemer,
deceased, to present the same lor adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, be
ing the third day thereof.
JOHN KRAEMER, Administrator.
Chicago. April 16 A. D. 1872,
Mohan h English, Att'ys.
2S-33a
rpo WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.-We, the underX signed, have formed a limited partnership, to be
carriedCook
on under
name offrom
H. April
M. Haight,
Chi
cago,
countytheIllinois,
l, 1872, toin April
1, 1874, to carry oo the retail grocery business, and the
business of selling groceries, provisions, produce, and
those things incident to retail grocery trade. The
said undersigned, H, M. Haight, in the general partner,
of said Chicago, and has put Into the common stock
groceries and property of the cash value of $1,000. and
Oscar C. Chase ia the special partner, of said Chicago,
and has put into the common stock $2,000 in cash.
H. M. HAIGHT.
27-32
OSCAR C. CHASE.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ;ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois. Cook county, ss. Superior court
of Cook county. To May Term, A. D. 1&72. Benoit
Briard
George
W. Roll.given to the said George W.
Publicvs.notice
is hereby
Roll, that a writ of attachment Issued out of the office
of the clerk of the Superior court of Cookcounty, dated
the
13th Briard,
day of April,
A.D. 1872,
the Buit
of the said
Benoit
and againBt
the atestate
of George
W.
Roll, for the sum of four hundred and sixty-two dol
lars and forty cents, directed to the sheriff of Cook
county, which said writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said George W. Roll,
shall personally be and appear before the said Superior
court of Cook county, on or before the first day of the
next term thereof, to be holden at the court house, in
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A.D.
1-7::. give
special T>ail
plead toagainst
the saidyou,
plaintiffa
action,
judgment
will and
be entered
and in
favor of the said Benoit Briard, and so much of the
property attached as may be sufficient to satisfy the
said
costs will beJACOBSON.
sold to satisfy
same.judgment andAUGUSTUS
Clerk.the
Elbert H. Gart & Sau'l W. Smith, Attorneys. 2s-3{

E. F. ALLEN,
Attorney, S. W. cor. Randolph and Canal Sts.
ESTATE
OF
ARISTAKCRUS
DEceased.Notice is hereby given toBULKLEY,
all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Aristarchus Bulkley, deceased, to present the same for adju
dication and settlement at a regular term of the
County county of Cook county, io be holden at the
court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
day of June. A. D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
ROBERT H. BULKLEY, Administrator. Z
Chicago. April 8, A. D. 1&72.
E. fTaLLEN. Att'y.
27-32a
DENT & BLACK,
Attorney*. Boone Block.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, county '.ot
^
Cook,
ss.
court
Cook county.
June
term, A. D. 1872.Circuit
Barbara
AnnofHarlem
aud Thomas
Henry Harless v. Marion G. Harless. Ella Nora Harless,
Charles
Frank B. Harless, W'illie W.
Harless,
and D.AsaHarless,
D. Reed, guardian, etc.. George E.
Halsey, Tappen Halsey. Mrs. Mary Coleiuan, Mrs.
Elizabeth A. Warren and Lambert Eliel.In Chan
cery.
Affidavit
non-residence
of Marion
G. Har
less.
one of ofthethe
defendants
above named,
having
been
filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said Marion
G. Harless that the complainants heretofore filed their
bill of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof,
that asaid
summons
thereupon
issued on
outthe
of
said courtandagainst
defendants,
returnable
third Monday of May next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, uuless you, the said Marion G. Harless,
shall personally be and appear before said Circuit
court
county, aton Chicago,
the firstindaysaidof county,
a term
thereof,of toCook
be holden
on the third Monday of June, 1872, and plead, answer
or demur to the said complainants1 bill of complaint,
the Banie,
things therein
and
stated,andwillthebematters
taken and
as confessed,
and acharged
decree
entered against you according to the prayer of said
bill.
NORMAN T, GASSETTE, Clerk.
Dent A Black. Compl'ts' Sol'rs.
22-30
BARBER ft LACKNER,
Attornet/s, 64 West Lake Street.
ESTATE
OF
HENRY
Notice is hereby
given toAPPEL,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Henry Appel, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A.D. 1872, be
ing the 3d day thereof.
APPEL, Administratrix.
Chicago, April 4, A.MARE
D. 1872.
Barber <k Lackner, Attys.
2&-31a
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
G.
GINDELE,
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of John G.
Gindele, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and Bettlenit.it at a regular term of the County
courVof Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June,
A.D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
FRANZ GINDELE, Administrator.
Chicago, April 4. 1872.
2t>-31a
Baruer A Lackner, Attys.
WM. T. BU _ _
Attonney, 371 State
ESTATE
OF
D ECEASED.-Notice is herebyJOHN
given toPFUND.
all persons
having claims
and demands against the estate of John Pfund, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication ana set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D., 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
ANNA B. PFUND, Executrix.
Chicago, April 2, A. D. 1872.
Wm. T. Butler, Atty.
26-31 a
HOMER COOK,
Attorney, 135 W. Monroe St.
ESTATE
THOMPSON,
DECEASED.
Notice OF
is JAMES
hereby given
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of James
Thompson, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court
county, toonbethe
holden
the court
In the ofcityCook
of Chicago,
first atMonday
of house
June,.
A.D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
ELLEN
EN
MARIA
STRONG,
Administratrix.
Chicago, April 6, A.D. 1872.
Homer Cook, Att'y.
26-31
ELDRXDOE
&
TOURTELLOTTE,
401 Wabash Avenue.
MICHAEL
XANG,
JESTATE
J Notice isOFhereby
given to all
personsDECEASED.having claims
and demands against the estate of Michael Lang, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county,
holden
the court of
house,
of
Chicago,toonbe the
firstat Monday
June,In A.the D.city1872,
being the third day thereof.
CHARLES JORN, Administrator.
Chicago, April 4, A. D. 1872.
Eldridge & Tobrtellotte, Atty's for estate. 26-31
WAITE ft CLARK,
Attorneys, 21 East Van Buren Street.
ESTATE OF MARY BEERS, DECEASED. Notice Is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Mary
Beers,
deceased,
to present
the same
fortheadjudica
tion
settlement
at a toregular
term at
of
Courtand
of Cook
County,
be holden
theCouuty
Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
June, A. D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
Chicago, March, 2C,CYRENIUS
A. D. 1872, BEERS, Executor.
Waits & Clark, Attorneys.
BATES & HODGES,
Attorney, 113 W. Madison Street.
MaBon, Sr., deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court
Cook
county, toonbethe
holden
the court
bouse
In theofcity
of Chicago,
first atMonday
of June,
A. D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
L.
P.
HILLIARD,
Administrator.
Chicago. March 25. 1872.
Bates & Hodg.es, Attorneys.
25-30
S. M. DAVIS,
Attorney. 50 W. Randolph St.
ESTATE
JOHN
is herebyOFgiven
to allHOPP,
personsDECEASED.Notice
having claims and
demands against the estate of John Hopp, deceased.
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
andCook
settlement
a{
a regular term of the County court of
county,
to be holden at the court house, in the city of Chicago,
on
thedayfirstthereof.
Monday of June A. D. 1872, being the
third
Chicago, March 30, A. D. 1872.
WILLIAM WENDLAND, Executor.
S. M. Davis. Att'y.
36-31
BENNETT & SHERBURNE,
Atfy, Masonic Tern., cor. Hoisted and Randolph sts.
NOTICE
Is hereby
giventhe
to all
persons
having
claims
and demands
against
estate
of Ann
McDonald,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county,
holden
the courtofhouse,
city beof
Chicago,toonbethe
firstatMonday
July, in
A. the
D. 1872,
ing the first day thereof.
HENRY
Administrator,
Chicago, April
3, A. D.MCDONALD,
1872.
Bennett &. Sherburne,
Atty's for Administrator.
26-31

Chicago
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
CHA9. M. HARRIS,
8. E. cur. Clark and Adams.
jyjILLER, WILLIAMSON[ * MILLER,
13 W. Randolph itreet.
JACKSONVILLE (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
J^ETCHAM, I. J.
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
PEPPER. WILSON A MARTIN,
Room 2 Bank Building.

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.

MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.

SANFORD, E. Special attention given to Collec
tions and Real Estate.
52*

LEGAL NEWS PRINTING DEPARTMENT

t
Briefs

Legal

& Abstracts.

The attention of Attorneys is called to our superior

acUities for printing BRIEFS and ABSTRACTS.
Onr prices are:
era.
1.75
Orders left either at the office of the Legal News,
115 W. Madison St., or at the Printing Office, 13 North
Jefferson St., will be promptly executed.

PARTNER WANTED.
The advertiser, of some years' practice and experi
ence
as an office
andsome
business
lawyer,
de
sires toprincipally
form a partnership
with
lawyer
or firm
with a well-established reputation. Can give and will
require satisfactory references.
Address "PARTNERSHIP," at this office, for three
weeks.
29
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county ot
Cook. es. Superior court of Cook couuty. To
May Term, A.D. 172. Ellen Keefe. Edward Keefe and
Johanna Sullivan, t. Catharine McCann, Patrick
MeCauu, Patrick Sullivan, Honora Sullivan, Christian
Frazier, Diedrich Frazier aud Mary Spankeuberger.
InAffidavit
Chancery.
of the non-residence of Catharine McCann,
Patrick Sullivan and Honora Sullivan, defendants
above named, having been filed in the office of the
-clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, eotiee
is herebyand
given
to the Sullivan,
said Catharine
McCann,
Patrick
Sullivan
Honora
that the
complainants
heretofore
filed their
of complaint
court,
on
the chancery
sidebill
thereof,
and thatin a said
summons
thereupon issued out of said court against said
defendants, returnable on the first Monday of May
next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now. unless
said Sullivan,
Catharine shall
McCann,
Patrick
Sullivanyou,
and the
Honora
per
sonally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to
be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of
May,
1872,
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
the
said complainant's nil) of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken asconfessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Bnowhoob. k Gray. Comp'ts Sol'rs.
JOHN LYLE KING,
Attorney.
/CHANCERY
NOTICE.State
Illinois,
County
\J Cook, ss. Circuit court ofofCook
county.
Juneof
term, A. D. 1872. Christian Wilhelm v. Franz Urbain,
Maria Urbain, Peter Staffer and John Gusraus.In
i liancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of John Guamus, one of
the defendants above named, having been filed In the
office
clerk ofgiven
said Circuit
Cook Gusmus
county,
aoticeof isthehereby
to thecourt
milofJohn
that the comrlainaut heretofore filed his bill of
complaint in said court, on ihe chancery side thereof,
and that a summon* thereupon issued out of said
court
against
saidnext
defendant,
on the third
Monday
of June
(1672), asreturnable
is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said John Gusmus, shall
personally be and appear before said Circuit court
of Cook
county,
on the first
daycounty,
of a term
thereof,
to
be holden
at Chicago,
in said
on the
third
Monday
of
June,
1872.
and
plead,
answer
or
demur
to
the said complainant's bill ofcomplaint, the Bame, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will
be
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
eutered
against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
John Ltls Kiwq, Coniprta' SoPr.
:*y-32
EDWARD J. HILL,
Masonic Temple, cor. Randolph and Hoisted Sts.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
8tate of Illinois, Cook County, ss. Superior court
of Cook county. May Term, A. D., 1872. Harford J.
Perkins
Nathaniel
B. Coder.
Public v.notice
is hereby
given to the said Nathaniel
B.
Coder
a writ
ot Superior
attachment
outcounty,
of the
office
of thethatclerk
of the
courtissued
of Cook
dated
the
filth
day
of
April,
A.l).
1872,
at
the
suit
of the
said Harford J. Perkins, and against the estate
of
Nathaniel B. Coder, for the sum of three hundred and
forty-five dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook couniy. which said writ has been returned executed.
unless you,
said before
Nathaniel
B.Now,
Coder,therefore,
shall personally
be andtheappear
the
aid Superior court of Cook county, on or before
the
first
day
of
the
next
term
thereof,
to
be
holden
atMonday
th* court
in D.the 1872,
city give
of Chicago,
the first
Bpecialonbail
and
of bouse,
May, A.
plead to the Bald plaintiff's action, judgment will be
entered against you, and in favor of the said Harford
J. Perkins, and so much of the property attached as
may be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and costs
will be sold to satisfy the same.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Edward J. Hill, Attorney.
29-32
JOHNSTON & ROGERS,
Attorneys, 143 West Madiaon St.
ESTATE OF WILLIAM EBERT, DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of William Ebert,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication aud
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city
Chicago,
on the
first Monday of Juno, A. D.
1872, of
being
the third
day thereof.
JOHANNA POSTHOFF, Administratrix.
Chicago.
18. A. Attorneys.
D. 1872.
JohnstonApril
& Rogers.
W-34

ASSIGNEE S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi

nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the 25th
day of April. A. D. 1872.
The undersigned hereby gives notice of his appoint
ment
as assignee
Alfone
Chicago,
ia
the county
of Cook,of and
StateL.ofMandel,
Illinois,ofwho
has been
adjudged
a
bankrupt,
upon
creditors'
petition,
by
the
District court of the United States in and for said Dis
trict.
ROBEBT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
29-31
TN
THE
DISTRICT
COURT
OF THE
UNITED
X States, for the Northern
District
of Illinois.
In
the matter of Joseph J. Siddall, bankrupt.In Bank
ruptcy.
This is to give notice that I have filed my final ac
counts as assignee of tne estate of said bankrupt, in
said court, and that on the 2Uth day of May, 1872, 1
shall apply to said court for the settlement of my said
accounts and for a discharge from all liability as
assignee of said estate, in accordance with the provi
sions of the 2-Sth section of the bankrupt act of March
2, 1*17.
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
2V-30
TN
THEforDISTRICT
COURT
X States,
the Northern
DistrictOFof THE
Illinois.UNITED
In the
matter ef George W. Stevens, bankrupt.In Bank
ruptcy.
This Ibastoassignee
give notice
I haveoffiled
final acin
counts
of that
the estate
said my
bankrupt,
said
court,
and
that
on
the
2uth
day
of
May.
shall apply to said court for the settlement of my1*72,
said1
accounts and for a discharge from all liability as
assignee of said estate, in accordance with the provi
sions of the 28th section of the bankrupt act of March
2, 1967,
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
2V-30
U t in OF
ur THE
i iii. UNITED
i it i k r.u
TN THE DISTRICT COURT
1 States, for the Northerna District of Illinois. In the
matter of Charles A. Hull1 and George 11. Bunt, bankrupts.In
This is toBankruptcy.
give notice that I have filed my final ac
counts as assignee of the estate of said bankrupts. In
said court, and that on the 20th day of May. 1672, 1
shall
applyand
to said
for the settlement
of my said
accounts
for court
a discharge
from all liability
as
assignee of said estate, in accordance with the provi
sions of the 2nth Bectlon of the bankrupt act of March
2, 1867.
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.

JAMES

News.

COCKCROFT & CO.,

HAVE IN PREPARATION, AND WILL SOON

PUBLISH. THI
FIRST

VOLUME

ATTORNEYS.
FRANK J. CRAWFORD,
ATTORNEY
A'o. 338 AND
Waixuk
COUNSKLOR-AT-LAW,
Ammu, Ckieaf.
It
GEORGE 0. FRY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
34 Clinton Street, Room 5, Chicago.

4*

Of a proposed Series of
8. A. GOODWIN.
K. C LARNED.
H. S. TOWLB.
GOODWIN, LARNED & TOWLE,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
No. 376 Wabath Avenue, Chicago.
M

American
Railway
Reports.

It is the intention of the Editor of these Reports to

furnish all the current
Decisions of the American Courts
On questions of
RAILWAY LAW,

With references and notes of recent English Cases,

and to make of the series a compendium of all the
NORMAN C. PERKINS,
LATEST
DECISIONS on matters arising in litiga
Attorney, No. 479 Wabash avenue.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE. - District Court of the tion for or against Railway Companies.
United States, Northern District of Illinois, ss.
The undersigned hereby gives notice of his appoint
ment as assignee of the estate of the State Insurance
Company, of Chicago, in the county of Cook and State
of Illinois, which has been adjudicated a bankrupt,
upon
by theDistrict
Districtofcourt
of tne
Unitedcreditors'
States for petition,
the Northern
Illinois.
Price $6.00 per Vol.
NORMAN C. PERKINS, Assignee.
Dated Chicago, April 26, A. D. 1&72.
29-31
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi
nois, as. At Chicago in said District, on the luth
dayTheof undersigned
April. A.D. 1*72.
hereby gives notice of his appoint
ment as assignee of The Home Insurance Company of JAMES COCKCROFT & Co.,
Chicago, in the County of Cook and State of Illinois,
which has been adjudged a bankrupt upon its own
petition by the District Court of the United States in
499 WABASH AVENUE,
and for the said District.
THOMAS BUCKLEY, Assignee.
Wm. H. Holden, Attorney.
20-31
CHICAGO, III.
aOOKINS ft ROBERTS,
Attorneyf.
A D VEIi TISEMENT.
PUBLICATION
NOTICE
IN ss.
ATTACHMENT.State
of
Illinois,
Cook
county,
Circuit
court
of
Cook county. May term, A. D. 1K72. Samuel B.
Gookins and James H. Roberts v. Sanderson R. Posey.
Public notice Is hereby given to the said Sanderson
R. Posey that a writ of attachment issued out of the STEVENS &HAYNES
office of the clerk of the Circuit court of Cook county,
dated the 20th day of April, A. D. 1872, at the suit of
the said Samuel B. Gookins and James H. Roberts,
Law Publishers,
and against the estate of Sanderson R. Posey, for the
aum of two thousand dollars, directed to the sheriff
of Cook couuty, which said writ has been returued
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Sanderson
R, Posey, shall personally bo and appear before
the said Circuit court of Cook county, on or be AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS,
fore the first day of the next term thereof, to be
holden
the Monday
Court House,
the 1672,
city give
of Chicago,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
on
the at
third
of May,inA.D.
special
LONDON.
bail and plead to the said ^plaintiffs' action, judgment
will be entered against you, and in favor of the said
Samuel B. Gookins and James H. Roberts, and bo
much of the property attached as may be sufficient to
satisfy the aid judgment and costs will be sold to sat Worts in all Classes of Literature
isfy the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
SUPPLIED TO ORDER.
Gookins k Roberts, Attorney!.
29-32
E. VAN BUREN,
Attorney.
GUARDIAN'S
OFss.REAL
of Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and
Illinois, CookSALE
county,
In theESTATE.-State
Circuit court of
Orders Promptly Filled.
Cook county. In thu matter of the application of Tlie Trustees
and Officers of
Eliza H. Towne, guardian of Edward P. Towne, minor,
brstrles may rely upon the
to sell real estate of said minor.
By virtue of a decree entered in said cause on the
curei'u 1 Attention to their
25th day
of April,
A. D. 1872.
the April(30th)
term ofdaysaidof
C'OlUllliMMlOUft.
court,
I shall,
on Menday,
theattwentieth
May, A. D. 1872, at ten (10) o'clock of the forenoon of
saiu day, at the east door of the old court house, in the By importing DIRECT from England a considercity of Chicago, county of Cook, and State of Illinois, able saving is effected, especially in Vie Customs duty,
sell at public auction to the highest and best bidder,
upon tne following terms, viz. : One-third cash on the from which Public Institutions in the United States are
day
the balance
in three
payments,
pay exempt
able ofIn sale;
one, two,
and three
years equal
respectively,
bearing
interest at the rate of eight per cent, per annum, and SUNDRY mistakes have been made by our Foreign
to
be secured
by right,
mortgage
deed ofupon
said
Colonial Correspondents in addressing their let
premises,
title orandtrust
interest
said and
ters, we beg to notify that the members of our firm are
minor
in all
the the
following
described
real
estate,the
to wit:
Henry G. Stevenb and Robert W. Haynes, the son
An undivided one-sixth (1-6J of undivided four-fifths and
of theSince
late Valentine
thehave
eminent
(4-5) of west ten (10) acres of northeast oue-quarter Lawstepson
Publisher.
our father'sStevens,
death we
con
(>4)
northwest
one-quarter(UK),
(\) range
of section
twentyto carry on the business of Law Publishers,
threeof(23),
town thirty-eight
fourteen
(14). tinued
Booksellers
and
Exporters,
at
the
above
ad
Also, an undivided one-sixth (1-6) of undivided four- dress.
fifths (4-6) of east one-half Oi) of northwest one- During his recent visits to the United States and
quarter ('.0 of northwest one-quarter ()) of section Canada,
Robert W. Haynrb secured many Friends
twenty-three (23), town thirty-eight (38), range four and Correspondents
are thus enabled to give ref
teen
(14).the undivided two-fifths (2-5) of lot number erences of the highest; we
character in most of the princi
Also,
cities.
four (4), in block number nineteen (19), in the Assess palWeAmerican
no connection whatever with any other
or's division of the northwest fractional quarter (H) house have
business, and to prevent delay and miscar
of section number twenty-two (23), town thirty-nine riage, of
abroad are respectfully re*
(39) north, range fourteen (14), east of the third questedourto Correspondents
plainly address their lettera to us aa fol
principal meridian.
ELIZA H. TOWNE,
Guardian of Edward P. Towne. lows:
E. Van Buren, Attorney of said Guardian.
29-31
STEVENS & HAYNES,
ANDREW H. DOLTON,
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
Attorney.
ESTATE
OF
TEUNIS
SWETS.
DECEASED.NoLONDON,
tico is hereby given to all peraona having claims
ENGLAND.
and demands against the estate of Teunls Swots de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County court of Cook Extract from " Report of Julius Rosenthal, Esq.,
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Librarian to the President and Members of
Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D. 1872, be
the Chicago Law Institute." November, 1870.
ing the first day thereof.ANDREW H. DOLTON,
" To our collection of English Reports a valuable
has been made by the Importation of a
Administrator, with will annexed. addition
full and well preserved set of the House of Lords
Ckicago. April 26, A. D. 1872.
Andrew H. Dolton, Attorney.
29 Cases, Including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58
volumes.
" English books were imported directly free of
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the
SHORT -HAND WRITER,
firm
of Stevens and Haynes In London, whose
And U. S. Commissioner.
diligence, promptness, and care in Ailing our or
Western Union Telegraph Office, 654 Wabash Ave ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."

Attorneys at Law, 113 W. Madison Sr.

GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Lam, Utah.
ROGERS & ROGERS,
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS.
SI Paul, Minnw
JAMES B. BRADWELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
No. 161 and 163 LaSalle Street, Chicago.
Special Attention Given to Probate Matters.
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
ESTATES SETTLED.
" 8et thine house in order ; for thou Shalt die,
and not live."2 Kings ix. l.
HENRY HAYDEN,
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW,
Kinffiton, Mo.
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
Barker k Waite, 46 East Harrison.
Bates k Hodges. 131 La LaSalle street.
Beattie, C. J., 45 South Canal.
BRADWELL, J. B., 115 West Madison strest.
Bonney, Fay k Griggs, 120 West Washington street
Bentley, Bennett, Ullman k Ives. 376 Wabash are.
Brouse, 0. R., 400 Wabash avenue.
Carmichael, D. I... 845 Prairie avenue.
Chase, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue.
Clarkson k Van Schaack, 454 Wabash avenne.
Deane k Cahill, room 7, Lind's Block.
Dent k Black, 131 LaSalle, Room 22.
Eldridge k Tourtalotte, 401 Wabash avenue.
Ewing k Leonard, 487 Wabash avenue.
Ellis, B. W., 115 West MadiBon street.
Felker, Wm. S., 92 Desplaines street
Goodwin, D., jr., n. e. corner Monroe and La Salle,
Goudy & Chandler, Union Central Block.
Graham, Geo. T., GO South Canal.
Herbert k Quick, 61 Union Contral Building, and 549
State street.
Hoyne, Phil. A., Congress Hall,
and Wabash aveuues.
Hoyne, Horton k Hoyne, 267 Michigan avenue.
Hitchcock, Dupee k Evarts, corner Wells and Mon
roe streets.
Howe k Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
Ingersoll, 0. P., 92 South Green street.
Jenkins, Robert E., 18 East Harrison street.
Knickerbocker. J. C. k J. J., 163 West Washington
Leary, D, James, 95 West Madison.
Magruder, B. D., 181 West Madison.
McClelland, Thos. S.t 45 South Canal, room 6.
Miller, M. M., Room 1, Masonic Temple.
Moore & Caulfietd, 54 Central Union Block.
Monroe, Blsbee k Gibbs, 523 Wabash avenue.
Norton, JeBsie 0., 386 Wabash avenue.
Nissen k Barnum, 109 Fifth avenue.
Otis. E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Perkfnfl, N. C, 479 Wabash av., cor. Eldridge court.
Reynolds, W. C, 176 West Washington st.
Roberts, R. Biddle. room 7, 43 South Canal.
Rorke, M. A. k Son, Room 57, Contral Union Block.
Rosenthal, Pence k Mobos, 328 Wabash avenue.
Sawln k Wells, 79 West Madison St.
Scammon, McCagg k Fuller, 369 Wabash avi
Scoville, Geo., 30 South Clinton.
Small k ingalls, 481 Wabash Ave.
Smith, Upton k Waterman, 135 West Monroe s
Tenny, McClellan k Tcnny, 454 Wabash avenue.
Thomas, Sidney, 79 Dearborn street.
Waughop, J. W., 401 Wahash^avenue.
Williams k Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
Walker, Dexter k Smith, 562 Wabash avenue.
Wilson. Perry k Sturges, 479 Wabash avenns.
J. II. BATTEN,
STATIOIVER,
185 LA SALLE STREET,
Law Stationery and Legal Blanks.
19-30
Scale of Advertising Mates.
Space. 1 w. 2 w. 8 w. 4W. ; m. 6 m. iy1 sq SLOO 77o &50 $3725 ~$87oo msM IdbTob
2.00 3.50 4.75 6.00 15.75 30.00 59.00
2 sq
2.80 5.00 6.50 8.00 23.00 44.00 87.00
8 sq
4 col.... 4.68 8.75 12.87 15.00 37.50 73.75 137JO
% col.... 8.75 14.37 21.50 27.50 72.50 135.00 262.50
1 col 15.00 27.50 38.75|52.50| 135.001 262.S& 43730
Ten lines of Agate make a Square.
Advertisements must be paid for In advance,
and when not so paid. 50 per cent, will be added.
Legal Notices not included in the above.
Printed at the (Jhicaqo Leoal News
North Jefferson street, Chicago.

Qhicago

Jegal

^ews.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by^he^CHlCAQO Legal News Company, in.the^office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Vol. IV.No. 30.

tfje (Courts.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
December Term, 1871.
Noel Bryon et al. v. The United States.
In error to the Circuit Court of the United State*for Ihc
District of Witconrin.
LIABILITY OF A RECEIVER AND HIS SURE
TIES FOR MONEY STOLEN.
1. That where a receiver of public moneys, who
has given bond for the faithful performance of
his duties as required by law, a mere ordinary
bailee, it might be that he would be relieved by
proof that the money had been destroyed or stolen
from him, or taken by irresistible force ; that he
would then be bound only to the exorcise of ordin
ary care, even though a bailee for hire ; that the
duty of a receiver, virtiite officii, is to bring to the
discharge of his trust that prudence, caution and
attention which careful men usually bring to the
conduct of their own affairs.
2. That a receiver may make himself an insurer
by express contract, and this he does when he
binds himself in a penal bond to perform the
duties of his office without exception, that there
is an established difference between a duty crea
ted merely by law and one to which is added the
obligation of an express undertaking.
3. That the evidence offered by the defendants
tending to prove the receiver had been robbed of
the public moneys received by him was rightly
rejected as constituting no defense to the suit on
his bond ; that his liability is to be measured by his
bond, and that binds him to pay the money, and
any cause which renders it impossible for him to
pay it is of no Importance, for he lias assumed the
risk of it.Ed. Leuai. News.
Mr. Justice Strong delivered the
opinion of the court.
Were a receiver of public moneys,
who has given bond for the faithful per
formance of his duties as required by
law, a mere ordinary bailee, it might be
that he would be relieved by proof that
the money had been" destroyed by fire,
or stolen from him, or taken by irresis
tible force. He would then be bound
only to the exercise of ordinary care,
even though a bailee for hire. The con
tract of bailment implies no more ex
cept in the case of common carriers,
and the duty of a receiver, virtute of
ficii, is to bring to the discharge of his
trust that prudence, caution, and atten- '
tion which careful men usually bring to
the conduct of their own affairs. He is
to pay over the money in his hands as
required by law, but he is not an in
surer. He may, however, make himself
an insurer by express contract, and this
he does when he binds himself in a pe
nal bond to perform the duties of his of
fice without exception. There is an es
tablished difference between a duty
created merely by law and one to which
is added the obligation of an express
undertaking. The law does not compel
to impossibilities, but it is a settled rule
that if performance of an express en
gagement becomes impossible by reason
of anything occurring after the contract
was made, though unforeseen by the
contracting party, and not within ,his
control, he will not be excused. (Metcalf on Contracts, 213 ; The Harriman,
9 Wallace, 161.) The rule has been ap
plied rigidly to bonds of public officers
entrusted with the care of public mo
ney. Such bonds have almost invariably
been construed as binding the obligors
to pa}r the money in their hands when
required by law, even though the mo
ney may have been lost without fault on
their part. It is true that in the case of
the Supervisors of Albany v. Dorr et al.
(25 Wendell, 440), in the Supreme Court
of New York, it was decided in a suit on
a bond of a county treasurer, condi
tioned for the payment of all money
that should come into his hands as
treasurer, that he was not responsible
for the public money feloniously stolen
from his office without any negligence,
want of due care, or other blame or
fault whatever on his part ; and this de
cision was affirmed in the Court of Ap
peals of that State, only, however, by an
equal division (7 Hill, 583). It was
rested upon the supposed liability of the
officer, virtute officii, which it was
thought his bond did not increase, and
it was supposed to be sustained by Lane
v. Cotton (1 Ld. Raym., G4G), and Whit
field v. De Spencer (Cowper, 754). It is

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, MAY 4, 1872.

quite plain, however, that those cases
do not sustain it. They were actions
upon the case against the PostmasterGeneral, brought not by the govern
ment, but by private individuals to re
cover damages for the negligent failure
to deliver letters, and the defendants
were he'd not liable for monev stolen,
even by their subordinates in office. At
most the Postmaster-General was a mere
bailee, and no question was raised re
specting the effect of a bond to secure
the performance of his duties. But,
whatever may have been the ruling in
the case of the Supervisors of Albany v.
Dorr, it is no longer authority, even in
the State of New York. Muzzy, Super
visor, v. Shattuck et al. (1 I)enio, 233),
subsequently decided, mid affirmed
unanimously in the Court of Appeals, is
utterly irreconcilable with it, and it has
settled the law otherwise in that State.
So in Pennsylvania, in Commonwealth
v. County (3 Penn. State, 372), it was
ruled that the responsibility of a public
receiver depends on his contract, when
there is one, and not on the law of bail
ments.
There the condition of the bond was
to account and pay over, and it was held
no defense by tne surety of the receiver
that the money was stolen, though it
was kept as a prudent man would keep
his own funds. It was said by Chief
Justice Gibson in delivering the judg
ment of the court, after referring to the
fact that a lessee is not relieved from
payment of rent by destruction of the
demised premises by fire : "A loss by a
visitation of Providence, which no vigi
lance could prevent, would present a
more meritorious claim for relief, one
would think, than a loss by robbery,
which is always preceded by a greater
or less degree of negligence. A receiver,
or his surety, would come before his
chancellor with an ill grace on that
ground, even if there was a power to re
lieve him. The keepers of the public
moneys, or their sponsors, are to be held
strictly to the contract, for if they were
to be let off on shallow pretenses,"delinquencies, which are fearfully frequent
already, would be incessant. A chan
cellor is not bound to control the legal
effect of a contract in any case ; and his
discretion, were he at liberty to use it,
would be influenced by considerations
of general policy." State v. Harper, (6
Ohio St., 607) is to the same effect. This
is precisely the ground which this court
has taken. In the United States v. Prescott, (3 How., 578,) it was decided that
the felonious taking, stealing, and car
rying away the public money in the
hands of the receiver of public money,
without any fault or negligence on his
part, does not discharge him or his sure
ties, and that it cannot be set up as a
defense to an action on his official bond.
The condition of the receiver's bond in
that case, it is true, was that the recei ar
should pay promptly when orders for
payment should be received, while the
bond in the' case before us is condition
ed that Boyden, the receiver, had truly
executed and discharged, and should
continue truly and faithfully to execute
and discharge, all the duties of said office
according to law. But the acts of Con
gress respecting receievrs made it their
duty to pay the public money received
by them when ordered by the Treasury
Department, and that department, by
its general orders of 1854, required pay
ment to be made before this suit was
brought. No exception was made, no
contingency was contemplated. The
bond, therefore, was an absolute obliga
tion to pay the money, and differing not
at all, in legal effect, from the bond in
Prescott's case. A similar ruling was
made in United States v. Dashiel (4 Wal
lace, 182.) What the condition of the
bond on which suit was brought in that
case was, does not appear in the report,
but it was for the discharge of the pay
master's official duty. The doctrine of
Prescott's case was also recognized in
United States v. Keeler, (9 Wallace, 83.)

and it must be considered as settled law.

Applying it to the case now in hand, it
makes it clear that the evidence offered
by the defendants, tending to prove that
the receiver had been robbed of the
public money received by him, was
rightly rejected as constituting no de
fense to the suit on the receiver's bond.
It is true that in Prescott's case the de
fense set up was that the money had
been stolen, while the defense set up
here is robbery. But that can make no
difference, unless it be held that the re
ceiver is a mere bailee. If, as we have
seen, his liability is to be measured by
his bond, and that binds him to pay the
money, then the cause which renders it
impossible for him to pay is of no im
portance, for lie has assumed the risk of
it.
There is nothing in the second error
assigned. Though under the acts of
Congress of August 6, 1846, (9 Stat., 59,
sec. 6,) and the amendatory act of March
3, 1857, (11 Stat., 249), receiversare requir
ed to pay'when required by the Secre
tary of the Treasury, there were gen
eral orders made for all receivers re
quiring payments to be made at stated
times, which were in existence when
this receiver's bond was given. The
declaration avers a request, and this is
enough after verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.
Our thanks are due the law firm of
Dent & Black, of this city, for the fol
lowing opinion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed April 11, 1872.
Paschal P. Matiiews et al. v. George Cowan
et al.
Appeal from Cook.
SALE OF GOODS FOR CASHFRAUD FOR
FAILURE TO PAY ON DELIVERYLIABIL
ITY OF INFANTS FOR TORTS.
Opinion of the court by Sheldon, J.
, This was an action on the case with
a count in trover, brought by the appel
lants against the appellees for the con
version of three hundred barrels of flour
delivered to the latter by the former
December 3, 1870, as upon a sale for
cash, but not paid for; the appellees
having given therefor a check for $1,473
on the Manufacturers' National Bank of
Chicago, which check was dishonored,
and by reason of such dishonor and the
insolvency of the appellees the flour
being lost to appellants.
The special count in the declaration
alleges in substance, that on the 3d day
of December, 1870, the defendants,
knowing themselves to be insolvent, but
wrongfully intending to defraud the
plaintiffs of the flour, fraudulently
induced the plaintiffs to deliver the
same to defendants, on the false and
fraudulent pretense of the latter that
they would pay therefor on delivery ;
in pursuance of which false and fraudu
lent pretense, defendants drew said
check payable on demand, and fraudu
lently and deceitfully delivered it to
plaintiffs, as and for a good check, the
defendants knowing that it was not good
and would not be honored, that the
check was dishonored, defendants hav
ing no funds in bank to meet it, and was
worthless, whereby the flour became
lost to plaintiffs, etc.
On the trial evidence was introduced
of the delivery of three hundred barrels
of flour to the defendants on December
3, 1870, being Saturday ; that the sale was
for cash ; that this delivery completed
the delivery of five hundred barrels sold
by plaintiffs to defendants November 23,
1870, two hundred of which had been
previously delivered and paid for; that
on the delivery, Haven, one of the de
fendants, promised to give a check for
the three hundred barrels on 'Change
(lasting from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.), but that
the check was delivered at plaintiff's
office at 2.30 to 2.40 that afternoon ; that

Whole No. 188.

it was dishonored ; and on suing Cowan,
the other defendant, the next Monday
morning, the latter said Haven knew
their checks were thrown out at 1 p.m.
Saturday. Cowan and Haven were in
partnership, and there was evidence
that no assets could be found, and tend
ing to show the insolvency of the de
fendants.
The following instruction was given
for the defendants and excepted to :
" 8. The jury are instructed that it is the
intention of the defendant, Haven, when
he bought this flour of the plaintiffs,
on the 23rd day of November, that is,
whether he expected or intended to pay
for the flour when he bought it, or
whether he intended to cheat the plain
tiffs out of it, which is to determine the
defendant, Haven's, liability in this case,
and not what transpired on the third
day of December, when this check was
given ; and if the jury find from the ev
idence that Haven was a minor and
bought this flour in good faith, and in
the usual course of business, and with a
reasonable expectation of paying for the
same, then the jury should find the de
fendant, Haven, not guilty ; and in de
termining the question of interest, it is
proper the jury should take into consid
eration what transpired subsequently in
said Haven's business, between the pur
chase of this flour and the day this check
was given ; and if the jury should find
from the evidence, that the defendant,
Haven, bought a large amount of flour
from other parties after he bought this
of plaintiffs, and before this check was
given, and that he paid for the same,
and that he paid for 200 barrels of this
same purchase, for the balance of which
this suit is brought, the jury have a right
to take this into consideration in deter
mining whether the defendant, Haven,
expected and intended to pay for this
flour when ^ie bought it of the plain
tiffs."
The following instruction, without the
italicized words in it, was asked for by
the plaintiffs and refused, which was ex
cepted to, and thereupon the court, of its
own motion, inserted in it the words
italicized, and as thus modified, gave it
to the jury, to which the plaintiffs ex
cepted :
1. There are two issues presented in
this case. One relates to the merits of
the suit, and upon it the verdict should
be for the plaintiffs ; if the jury believe
from the evidence, that the plaintiffs
were in possession of the 300 barrels of
flour in question, as of their own prop
erty, and that the defendants, Cowan
and Haven, being insolvent, and pre
senting themselves to be insolvent, with
the fraudulent intention, at the time, of
cheating the defendants out of said four, con
tracted with the defendantsfor theflour, and
procured plaintiffs to deliver said flour
to them on the false pretense that the
defendants would pay for the same on
delivery ; and that if the jury further
believe^ from the evidence, that the
defendants, in pursuance of such fraudu
lent intention, gave to the plaintiffs in
payment for the same, the check in
question, as and for a good check, know
ing the same to be drawn without funds
in bank to meet the same, and without
any reasonable or well-grounded expec
tation that the same would be paid ; and
if the jury further believe, from the ev
idence, that the defendants wrongfully
or under such circumstances as are
above stated, converted the property to
their own use, so that the same became
lost to the plaintiffs."
Among the errors assigned are the
giving of the foregoing instructions, with
others of like import. They are errone
ous in requiring that the supposed fraud
should have been meditated at the time
of the contract for the purchase of the
flour, on the 23rd day of November.
That is not the case made by the declar
ation.
It complains of no fraud as practiced
or intended at the time of making the
contract of purchase, but only charges

234
Our thanks are due the law firm of sonable and ordinary care. Courts have ice, or other unavoidable obstruction to
that, on the 3rd day of December, the
delivery of the flour was obtained by Rosenthal, Pence & Moses, of this city, often had occasion to express their re navigation ; but in no case shall there
gret that common carriers have been be permitted any breaking of the orig
fraudulent contrivance. There might for the following opinion :
have been entire fairness in the mak SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. permitted, even by contract, to discharge inal packages of such merchandise.
Approved, April 5, 1872.
themselves from the obligations imposed
ing of the contract to purchase, on the
by the salutary rules of the common
Opinion filed April 11. 1872.
23rd of November, and an honest pur
NatureNo. 41.]
The Adams Exi-bess Co. v. Louis Stettauers. law. Practical monopolies, as they often AN ACT[General
pose then to pay for the flour on deliv
defining the rights of part owners of
are, under the modern system of railway
Appeal from Superior Court of Cook County.
ery, and yet, on the 3rd day of Decem
vessels
in
certain cases.
transportation they seek to impose their
LIABILITY OF COMMON CARRIER.
ber, a gross and actionable fraud might
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
have been practiced in getting poeses- 1. Limitation in Bill of Lading.Where the own terms upon the public, and compel Representatives of the United States of
of lading contained a stipulation printed un the shipper to accept such bills of lading America in Congress assembled, That any
sion of the flour without paying for it, bill
the receipt lor the goods, that " the com
they may choose to issue, or not to person or persons or body corporate,
under a fraudulent pretense of doing so. derneath
pany shall not be liable beyond the sum of $50, at as
The position is taken by the appellees' which the goods forwarded are to be valued, un ship at nil. The exemption relied upon having more than one-half ownership of
therein expressed, etc.," such provision does by the defendant in the present case any vessel shall have the same power to
counsel, that the basis of the action was less release
the carrier from his common law lia
a contract, and that as Haven was an in not
bility without the shippers' assent, and such assent furnishes an illustration. It is very un remove a captain, who is also part own
fant, he is exempt from liability ; and a is not necessarily to be presumed from the accep reasonable in the carrier to say that " it er of such vessel, as such majority own
of the bill of lading.
will in no event be liable beyond the ers now have to remove a captain not
class of authorities is cited to the effect tance
2. Even notwithstanding such assent or con sum
of fifty dollars, in the absence of a an owner : I'rovided, That this act shall
that though for mere torts an infant is tract,
the carrier cannot be held excused from the
special contract, though it may have re not apply where there is a valid written
legally liable as an adult is, the fraudu exercise of reasonable and ordinary care.
of Hoods to Arrive.
lent act to charge him must be wholly 3. PresumptionFailure
the goods fail to arrive at their destina ceived much more than that sum merely agreement subsisting, by virtue of which
tortious; and a matter arising ex con Where
tion, and the carrier docs not snow the manner of in the way of freight." If common car such captain would be entitled to pos
tractu, though infected with fraud, can thi ir loss, the presumption arises against him of riers desired to deal fairly with the pub session, nor in any case where a captain
lic, it would be very easy for them to has possession as part owner, obtained
not be changed into a tort, in order to want of ordinary care.
Opinion of the court by Lawrence, C.J. require the shipper to specify the value before the passage of this act.
charge the infant in trover or case, by a
This was an action brought by the of the merchandise, and insert the
change in the form of the action.
Approved, April 9, 1872.
But we do not regard this case as one appellee against the Adams Express Co., amount in the receipt, making their
at all embraced within those authorities. to recover the value of certain merchan charges in proportion to their liability.
[General NatureNo. 42.]
Although it arose in the carrying into dise shipped from New York to Chicago. If the shipper should falsely state the AX ACT
to change the time for holding the
value,
he
could
not
complain
at
being
The
case
was
submitted
to
the
court
spring
term of the United States circuit and
execution a contract, the transaction, as
district courts at Harrisonburg, Virginia.
here complained of, was not really a con upon the following agreement as to the held to his own valuation.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
In order to prevent the carrier from
tract, but we must regard it as a mere facts, with liberty to both parties to
releasing himself, by contract, from all Representatives of the United States of Amer
tort ; and so long as an infant is held re introduce other testimony :
It is hereby stipulated and agreed, liability, courts have laid down the rule ica in Congress assembled, That instead of
sponsible for his torts and frauds, we
must hold him responsible in damages that the merchandise in controversy was above stated, that he cannot, even by the time now provided for in the act ap
upon the facts set out in the special ordered by plaintiffs, merchants in contract, exempt himself from the ex proved February first, eighteen hundred
Chicago, Illinois, of Kutter Luckemeyer ercise of reasonable care. 111. Central and seventy-two, " to change the times
count of the declaration.
Error in giving the above instructions, & Co., merchants in the city of New R. R. Co. v. Morrison, 19 111., 136 ; Adam's for holding circuit and district courts of
we deem sufficient ground for revers York, in the usual course of trade, and Express Co. v. Haynes, 42 111., 90 ; N. J. the United States for Western District
that plaintiffs ordered said New Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 of Virginia," for holding the spring term
ing the judgment.
The instructions in the case given and York merchants to ship said merchan How. (U. S.) 382 ; York Co. v. Cent. R. at Harrisonburg, in that State, said
refused are voluminous, which it is not dise to them at Chicago by the defend R. Co., 3 Wallace, 1 13 ; Farnham v. Cam courts shall be held thereat on the Tues
day after the first Monday in May in
thought worth while to consider sever ant, which is an Express Co. and com den & Amboy R. R. Co., 55 Penn., 58.
They have also established the fur each year.
mon carrier. The value of the goods at
ally.
Approved, April 13, 1872.
In particularizing the above, however, the time of loss, September 13th, A. D. ther principle that where the goods fail
we would not be understood as impliedly 1870, was $415.50. The consignors, said to arrive at their destination, and the
[General NatureNo. 43.]
sanctioning the others that were given New York merchants, shipped said goods carrier does not show the manner of
for the relief of the officers and crew of
for the defendants, or the refusal of by defendants' company, and received their loss, the presumption arises against AN ACT
the United States Steamer " Kearsarge."
from defendant the paper hereto an him of want of ordinary care. Adams
other ones asked by the plaintiffs.
Be
it
enacted
by the Senate and House of
For instance, those asked by the plain nexed. The goods were not delivered Express Co v. Haynes, 42 111., 89 ; Amer Representatives of
the United States of Amer
ican
Express
Co
v.
Sands,
55
Penn.
St.,
to
plaintiffs,
but
were
lost
in
transit.
No
tiffs asserting the right of recovery in
ica
in
Congress
assembled,
That the Secre
140;
Davidson
v.
Graham,
2
Ohio
St.
statement
of
the
value
of
the
goods
was
case the check was given, knowing it
tary
of
the
Navy
be,
and
he hereby is,
Rep.,
131.
made
at
time
of
shipment.
The
same
not to be good, we think should have
This rule is reasonable and just. The authorized and directed to pay, out of
been given. Such conduct would have consignors a short time before this ship
money
hereafter
to
be
appropriated,
to
amounted to a fraud and imposition ment, shipped a package by same com carrier alone has it in his power to show Rear Admiral John A. Wmslow, and thewhat
has
become
of
the
goods,
or
why
pany,
of
greater
value
than
$50,
to
other
upon the plaintiffs, which the defend
and crew belonging to the United
ants should not take advantage of, to parties (not plaintiffs). Those goods they were not duly delivered. He has officers
steamer " Kearsarge," while en
hold the property as against the plain were also lost. A receipt similar to one the means of tracing them from the mo States
in the capture and destruction of
tiffs, on the plea of infancy in Haven, above was given to consignors at time of ment of their shipment ; the shipper has gaged
vessel called the " Alabama," on thewho gave the check, or that Cowan did shipment. The consignors claimed the not. He can only show that he deliv the
nineteenth day of June, eighteen hun
not participate in it, the flour having full value of goods lost, which *vas at ered them safely to the carrier, and un dred
and sixty-four, the sum of one
first refused, on the ground that com less the rule in question is applied, the hundred
gone to the use of the partnership.
ninety thousand dollars,
And we perceive no substantial objec pany claimed not to be liable for more shipper would practically have no rem the same and
being trie estimated value
tion to the instruction asked by plain than $50, but was finally paid by the edy even though his goods had been thereof, to be
distributed to the officers
tiffs, allowing a right of recovery under company. At the time of payment, plundered by the very servants of the and crew attached
to the " Kearsarge "
the count in trover, without reference to which was before the goods in contro carrier. It would very rarely be in his at the date above named
according to
any intentional fraud, in case the sale versy were shipped, the company in power to make the necessary proof.
In the case before us the defendant the pay-roll of the ship at the time, and
was for cash, and the defendants' appro formed the consignors that in all ship
in lieu of the bounty authorized
priated to their own use the flour, with ments thereafter, if they wished to hold made no proof whatever, showing why to be
the eleventh section of the act of
out payment of the price, and without the company liable for more than $50, the goods have not arrived. The pre by
thirtieth, eighteen hundred and
any waiver by plaintiffs of the condi they must, at time of shipment, state the sumption, then, must be indulged that June
entitled " An act to regulatereal value of package shipped. That there was the absence of reasonable care, sixty-four,
tion of payment on delivery.
proceedings, and so forth : " Pro
In the case of a sale for cash, the pay plaintiffs did not know at the time of and in that event the defendant cannot prize
vided, That no money shall be paid toment of the price is a condition prece the shipment to them of the foregoing excuse itself, even by contract.
the assignee of any of said officers or
Judgment affirmed.
dent, implied in the contract of sale. If information by defendant to consignors.
crew, entitled to receive the same, but
the seller does deliver freely and abso Both parties may introduce other legal
only to himself in person, or to his wife,,
lutely, and without any fraudulent con testimony on hearing.
or to his personal representatives, ex
OFFICIAL.
The bill of lading which was intro
trivance on the part of the buyer to ob
cluding any such assignee: And pro
tain possession, and without exacting or duced in connection with the foregoing LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. vided
further, That if any of the officers
expecting simultaneous payment, the agreement contains various stipulations Passed at the Second Session of the Forty- or crew
of said United States steamer
precedent condition of payment is printed underneath the receipt for the
" Kearsarge " shall have received the
Second Congress.
waived, and the right of property passes. goods, one of which is, that the company
bounty provided for by the said sec
[General NatureNo. 40.]
But Mr. Chancellor Kent says : " This shall not be liable beyond the sum of
to amend the thirty-second section of an tion eleven of the act of June thir
rule is understood not to apply to cases fifty dollars, at which the goods for ANactACT
entitled "An act to reduce internal taxes, and tieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-four,
where payment is effected simultane warded are to be valued, unless other
for other purposes," approved July fourteenth, the same shall be deducted from the
ously with delivery, and is omitted, wise therein expressed,or unless specially eighteen hundred and seventy.
to be paid to such officer or i
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of amount
evaded, or refused by the vendee on insured and so specified in the receipt.
under this act.
The defendant claimed it was liable Representatives of the United States of man
getting the goods under his control ; for
Approved, April 17, 1872.
the delivery in such case is merely condi under this provision only to a judgment America in Congress assembled, That sec
tional, and the non-payment would be for fifty dollars. The court held other tion thirty-two of an act entitled " An
NatureNo. 44.]
an act of fraud, entering into the orig wise, and gave judgment for the value of act to reduce internal taxes, and for AN ACT[General
to change the boundaries of the collec
inal agreement, which would render the the goods. This court has several times other purposes," approved July four
tion district of Brazos de Santiago, in the State
whole contract void, and the seller would held that provisions like the one under teenth, eighteen 'hundred and seventy, of Texas.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
have a right instantly to reclaim the consideration, annexed to the receipt in be, and the same is hereby, amended to
a bill of lading, do not release the car read as follows : Section 32. And be it Representatives of the United States of Amer
goods." 2 Kent Com., 666.
A check is always supposed to be rier from his common law liability, un further enacted, That merchandise trans ica in Congress assembled, That the county
drawn upon a previous deposit of funds ; less the assent of the shipper to such ported under the provisions of this act of Starr, now forming a part of the col
the giving of the check was not pay limitation is shown, and that such assent shall be conveyed in cars, vessels, or lection district of Corpus Christi, in the
ment of the money ; the taking of it is not necessarily to be presumed from vehicles, securely fastened with locks or State of Texas, shall be detached there
was but as a means of obtaining the the acceptance of the bill of lading. seals, under the exclusive control of the from and annexed to the collection dis
money, and being utterly futile to that Adams Express Co. v. Hines, 42 111., 90. officers of customs ; and inspectors shall trict of Brazos de Santiago, and form a
end, the purchase price was not paid, Northern Transportation Co. v.Newhall, be stationed at proper points along the part of said district in said State.
and we are of opinion the precedent 24 111., 466. Buckland v. Adams Exp. designated routes, or upon any car, ves
Approved, April 17, 1872.
condition of its payment was not waived Co., 97 Mass., 125. It is urged that the sel, vehicle, or train, at the discretion of
by the delivery under such circumstan evidence in this case shows what must the said Secretary, and at the expense
[General Nature.No. 45.]
ACT to authorize William C. Jardine to make
ces, and that as between buyer and sel be considered as an assent. It is not of the said companies respectively. And ANapplication
Commissioner of Patents for
ler the property never passed from the necessary to discuss that question, as the such merchandise shall not be unladen the issue oftoa the
patent for his improvement in
plaintiffs to the defendants, and the ap judgment must be affirmed upon another or transhipped between the ports of first brake and rest for carts.
propriation of the flour by the defend ground.
Whereas William C. Jardine's appli
arrival and final destination, unless au
ants to their own use was a conversion
Even if it should be conceded that thorized by the regulations of the Sec cation for improvement in brake and
of the plaintiffs' property. Tyler v. the shipper in this case must be consid retary of the Treasury, in cases which rest for carts was passed for issue Sep
Freeman, 3 Crnch., 261.
ered as having assented to the terms of may arise from a difference in the gauge tember eleventh, eighteen hundred and
The judgment is reversed, and the the bill of lading, we cannot hold the of railroads, or from accidents, or from sixty-nine, but by the neglect of his
cause remanded. Judgment reversed. , carrier excused from the exercise of
legal intervention, or from low water, agent application and payment for the

Chicago
issue of the same, "was not made within
the time required by law ; Therefore,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That Wil
liam C. Jardine be authorized to make
application to the Commissioner of Pa
tents for the issue of a patent for his
improvement in brake and rest for carts,
and that the Commissioner of Patents
be authorized to issue a patent for the
flame if he should deem it right and
proper ; Provided, That such application
be made and the proper fees be paid
within one year from the passage of this
act, anything in the proviso contained
in the thirty-fifth section of the act en
titled 14 An act to revise, consolidate and
amend the statutes relating to patents
and copyrights," approved July eighth,
eighteen hundred and seventy, to the
contrary notwithstanding: Provided, That
the issue of such patent shall not affect
the right to use said patented improve
ment of any person who, since the
eleventh day of September, eighteen
hundred and sixty-nine, ami prior to
the approval of this act, may have pro
cured, and at the time of sucli approval
shall be U3ing, said patented improve
ment.
Approved, April 17, 1872.
[General Nature.No. 40.]
AN ACT to erect two new land districts in the
State of Nebraska.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Hepresetatives of the United States of Ameri
ca in Congress assembled, That all that
part of the State of Nebraska which lies
west of range twenty-eight west of the
sixth principal meridian, in the State of
Nebraska, be, and the same is hereby,
constituted and erected into a new land
district, to be named and called the
Western district.
Sec. 2. That all those parts of the pres
ent South Platte and Nemaha districts,
in the State of Nebraska, which lie west
of range four and east of range twentyeight west of the sixth principal meridi
an be, and the same are hereby, erected
into and constituted a new land district,
to be named and called the Kepublican
Valley district.
Sec. 3. That the President be, and he
is hereby, authorized and' directed to
appoint, "by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, a register and a
receiver for each of said land districts,
who shall be required to reside at the
site of the land-office in each case, re
spectively, and shall perform like duties
and be entitled to receive the same
amount of compensation, respectively,
as are now prescribed by law for other
land-offices in said State.
Approved, April 22, 1872.
[General NatureNo. 47.]
AN ACT to extend the time for filing claims for
additional bounty, under the act of July twentyeight, eighteen hundred and sixty-six.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
time for filing claims for additional
bounty, under the act of July twentyeight, eighteen hundred and sixty-six,
and which expired by limitation January
thirteenth, eighteen hundred and
seventy-one, be, and the same is hereby,
revived and extended until the thirtieth
day of January, eighteen hundred and
seventy three; and that all claims for such
bounties filed in the proper department
after the thirteenth day of January,
eighteen hundred and seventy-one, and
before the passage of this act, shall be
deemed to have been filed in due time,
and shall be considered and decided
without filing.
Approved, April 22, 1872.
[Generan NatureNo. 48.]
AN ACT in relation to bounties.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer
ica in Congress assembled, That every vol
unteer, non-commissioned officer, pri
vate, musician and artificer who enlisted
into the military service of the United
States prior to July twenty-second,
eighteen hundred and sixty-one, under
the proclamation of the President of the
United States of May third, eighteen
hundred and sixty-one, and the orders
of the War Department issued in pursu
ance thereof, and was actually mustered
before August sixth, eighteen hundred
and sixty-one, into any regiment, com
pany or battery, which was accepted by
the War Department under such procla
mation and orders, shall be paid the full

Legal

bounty of one hundred dollars, under

and by virtue of the said proclamation
and orders of the War Department, in
force at the time of such enlistment and
prior to July twenty-second, eighteen
hundred and sixty-one : Provided, That
the same has not already been paid.
Approved, April 22, 1872.
ESTATE
DECEASED.
Notice OFis ELIZABETH
hereby given CARSON,
to all persona
bavins
claims and demands against the estate of Elizabeth
Canton, deceased, to present tlio same for adjudication
andsettlement
the County
Cook
county, toatbea regular
lioldeu term
at theof court
house,court
in theof
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D.
1872, being the first day thereof.
JOHN
T. PIRIE. Administrator.
Chicago, May 1, A.
1>. 1872.
aiKJja
WALKER, DEXTEK & SMITH,
Attorneys, ;><2 IVabtmh Avenue.
PUBLICATION 'NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois, Cook county, as. Circuit Court
of Cook county. May term. A. D. 1872. Charles M.
Clark
v. Signiar
& Co.
Public
notice isColin
hereby
given to the said Sigmar Cohn
& Co. that a writ of attachment issued out of the of
fice ofthe clerk of the Circuit court of Cook county,
dated the l'Jth day of April. A. D. 1*72, at the suit of
the said Charles M. Clark, and against the estate of
Sigmar Cohn & Co., for the sum of one hundred and
four dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook county,
Which said writ has beeu returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Sigmar Cohn
&Oo..BhalI personally be and appear before the Buld
Circuit
Cook
county,
on holden
or before
first
day of thecourt
nextofterm
thereof,
to be
at thetheCourt
House, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday
of May,
A. D. 1872,
givejudgment
special bail
andentered
plead against
to the
said
plaintiffs'
action,
will be
you, and in favor of the said Charles M. Clark, and
so much of the property attached as may be suffi
cient to satiHfy the said judgment and costs will be
sold to satisfy the same.
NORMAN T. GASSETTK, Clerk.
Walker, Dexter & Smith, Attorneys.
30-33
GRANT
GOODRICH,
Attorney, Room 17. 34 .S. Clinton Street.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.X State of Illinois, Cook county, ss. Superior court
of Cook county. Juno term, A. 1). ts72. Ignatz Bos
kowitz aud Adolph Boskowitz v. The Adams Express
Com
puny.notice is hereby given to the said Adams Ex
Public
press
Company
a writ
ofattachment
issuedofout
the office
of thethat
clerk
of the
Superior court
Cookof
county, dated the 26th day of April, A. D. 1872, at the
suit of the said Ignatz Boskowitz and Adolph Boskowitz, and against the estate of The Adams Express
Company, for the sum of eight thousand dollars, di
rected to the sheriff of Cook county, which said writ
hasNow,
been therefore,
returned executed.
unless you, the said Adams Express
Company, shall personally bo and appear before the said
Superior court of Cook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the court
house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
June, A. D. 1872, give special hail and plead to the said
plaintifTs action, judgment will le entered against
you, and in favor of the said Ignatz Boskowitz and
Adolph Boskowitz. and so much of the property at
tached as may be sufficient tosatisfy the said judgment
and costs will be sold to satisfy the same.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Grant GoODBIOH, Attorney.
3033
HERVEY, ANTHONY & GALT,
Attorneys. 77 Dearborn St.
pHANCEBY
Illinois,
^ of Cook, ss. NOTICE.State
Superior court ofofCook
county,Couuiy
June
term, A.D. 1*72. Harriet M. Buell v. George B. Buell.
In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of George B. Buell.
defendant
named,
havingcourt
been of
filedCook
in thecounty,
office
of
the clerkabove
of said
Superior
notice is hereby given to the said George B. Buell that
the complainant Heretofore filed her bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the fin>t Monday of June
next, (1872,1 as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said George B. Buell, shall
personally bo and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
Chicago,
in said answer
county,orondemur
the firstto Monday
of
June,at1872.
and plead,
the said
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer
of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Hervet, Anthony & Oalt, Compl't's Sol'rs. 30-33
C1HANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county ot
J Cook. ss. Superior court of Cook county. To
May Term, A.D. 1872. Ellen Koefe. Edward Keefe and
Johanna
Sullivan,Sullivan,
v. Catharine
McOann, Christian
Patrick
McCanu, Patrick
Honora Sullivan,
Frazier, Diodrich Frazier and Mary Spaukenbergor.
IuAffidavit
Chancery.
of the non-residence of Catharine McOann,
Patrick Sullivan and Honora Sullivan, defendants
above named, having been filed in the office of the
clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, notice
is herebyaud
givenHonora
to the Sullivan,
said Catharine
McCann,
Patrick
Sullivan
that the
complainants
heretofore filed their bill of complaint in said court,
on the chancery side thereof, and that a summons
thereupon issued out of said court against said
defendants, returnable on the first Monday of May
next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now. unless you, the paid Catharine McCann,
Patrick Sullivan and Honora Sullivan, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
Chicago,
said county,
first Monday
of
May,at 1K72.
and inplead,
answeronorthedemur
to the
said complainant's lull of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the praver of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Snowhook & Gray, Coinp'ts Sol'rs.
29-32
GOOKINS & ROBERTS,
Attorneys.
PUBLICATION
IN ss.
ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois,NOTICE
Cook county,
Circuit court of
Cook county. May term, A. D. 1872. Samuel B.
Gookins and James H. Roberts v. Sanderson R. Posey.
Public notice is hereby given to the said Sanderson
R. Posey that a writ of attachment issued out of the
office of the clerk of the Circuit court of Cook county,
dated the 20th day of April, A. D. IS72, at the suit of
the said Samuel B. Gookins and James H. Roberts,
and against the estate of Sanderson R. Posey, for the
sum of two thousand dollars, directed to the sheriff
of Cook county, which said writ has been returned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Sanderson
R. Posey, shall personally be and appear before
the said Circuit court of Cook county, on or be
fore theatfirst
the next
termcitythereof,
to be
holden
the day
Courtof House,
in the
of Chicago,
on
the
third
Monday
of
May,
A.D.
ls72,
give
special
bait and plead to the said "plaintiffs' action, judgment
will be entered
againstandyou,James
and inII. favor
of the
Samuel
B. Gookins
Roberts,
andsaid
so
much
of
the
property
attached
as
may
he
sufficient
satisfy the said judgment and costs will be sold to satto
isfy the same.
BfORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Gookins & Roberts. Attorneys.
29-32

News.

E. F. ALLEN,
Attorney, S. W. cor. Randolph and Canal Sis.
ESTATE
OK
ARI>TARCHOS
BULKUEY,
DEceased.Notice is hereby given to
all persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Ariftar
chils Buikley, deceased, to present the same for adju
dication and settlement at a regular term of the
County county of Cook county, to be holden at the
court
city of
Chicago,
on the
Mon
D. 1872,
being
the third
day first
thereof.
day ofhouse,
June, inA. the
ROBERT
H.
BULKLEY,
Administrator.
Chicago, April 8, A. D. 1872.
E. F. ALLEN, Att'y.
27-32a
DENT & BLACK,
Attorneys, Boone Block.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, county "of
Cook,
ss.
court
Cook county.
June
term, A. I). 1S72.Circuit
Barbara
AnnofHarless
and Thomas
Henry Harleee v. Marlon G. Harless. Ella Nora Har
less, Charles D. Harless, Frank B. Hurless, Willie W.
Harless, Tappen
and AsaHalsoy,
D. Reed,Mrs.guardian,
etc.. GeorgeMrs.
E.
Halsey,
Mary Coleman,
Elizabeth A. Warren and Lambert Eliel.In Chan
cery.
Affidavit
non-residence
Marion
G. Har
less,
one of of
thethe
defendants
above of
named,
having
been
filed
in
the
office
of
the
clerk
of
said
Circuit
court
Cook county, notice is hereby given to thesuid Marionof
G. Harless
that theincomplainants
heretofore
filed their
bill
of complaint
said court, on
the chancery
side
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out o
said court against said defendants, returnable on the
third Monday of May next (1872), as Is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Marion G. Harless,
shall personally be and appear before said Circuit
court
county, aton Chicago,
the first indaysaidof county,
a term
thereof,of toCook
be holden
on
the
third
Monday
of
June,
1872,
and
plead,
answer
or demur to the said complainants' bill of complaint,
the same, and the matters aud things thereiu charged
and stated, will bo taken as confessed, and a decree
entered against you according to the prayer of said
bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Dent & Black, Compl'ts' Sol'rs.
22-30
BARBER & LACKNER,
Attorntm. bM West Uike Street.
ESTATE OF HENRY APPEL, DECEASED.
Notice
is
to all persons
having
claims
and demands hereby
againstgiven
the estate
of Henry
Appel,
de
ceased,
to
present
the
same
for
adjudication
and
set
tlement at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, toonbe the
holden
the court
house,A.In D.the1872,
citybeof
Chicago,
first atMonday
of June,
ing the 3d day thereof.
APPEL, Administratrix.
Chicago, April 4, A.MARE
D. 1372.
Barber & Lacknkr. Attys.
26-31 a
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
G.
GINDELE,
DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of John G.
Gindele, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
courtof Cook county, to beholden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June,
A.D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
GINDELE, Administrator.
Chicago. A prilFRANZ
4. 1372.
Bakuf.r & Lacknkb, Attys
WM. T. BUTLER,
Attonneu. 371 State Street.
INSTATE
OF
DECEASED.-NoJ tice is herebyJOHN
given toPFUND.
all persons
having claims
and demands against the estute ot John Pfund, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city ol
Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D., 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
Chicago,
April 2. Atty.
A.ANNA
D. 1672.B. PFUND, Executrix.
Wm. T. Butler,
26-31a
HOSIER COOK,
Attorney, 135 II'. Monroe St.
ESTATE OF JAMES THOMPSON, DECEASED.
Notice
is
hereby against
given totheall estate
personsof having
claims and demands
James
Thompson, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June,
A.D. 1872. being the third day thereof.
ELLEN
STRONG, Administratrix.
Chicago,
April MARIA
ri, A.D. 1872.
Homlr Cook, Att'y.
26-31
ELDRIDGE & TOURTELXOTTE,
401 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE
OFhereby
MICHAELto all
,LANG, DECEASED.Notico
is
having
claims
and demands against given
the estate persons
of Michael
Lang,
de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication ana set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to bo holden at the court house, in the city ol
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872,
being the third day thereof.
Chicago, April 4.CHARLES
A. D. 1872. J0RN, Administrator.
Eldtlidge & Tourtellotte, Atty's for estate. 26-31
WAITE & CLARK,
Attorneys, 21 East Van Buren Street.
ESTATE OF MARY BEERS, DECEASED. Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Mary
Beers, deceased, to presuut the same for adjudica
tion
settlement
at1 a toregular
term at
of the
Courtand
of Cook
County,
be holden
theCounty
Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
June, A. D. 1372, being the third day thereof.
Chicago, March. 26.CYRENIUS
A. D. 1372. BEERS. Executor.
Waite & Clark. Attorneys.
25-30a
BATES & HODGES,
Attorney, 113 W. Madison Street.
ESTATE OF RICHARD MASON Sr., DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Richard
Mason, Sr., deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion uud settlement at a regular term of the County
court
Cook
county, toonbethe
holden
the court
in theofcity
of Chicago,
first atMonday
of house
June,
A. D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
L.
P.
HILLIARD,
Administrator.
Chicago. March 25. 1872.
Bates A Hodges, Attorneys.
25-30
S. M. DAVIS.
Attorney, 50 W. Randolph St.
ESTATE OF JOHN HOPP, DECEASED.-Notlce
is hereby given to all persons having claims and
demands against the estate of John Hopp, deceased,
to present the same for adjudication and settlement at
a regular term of the County court of Cook county,
to
at the court
the city
Chicago,
on betheholden
first Monday
of house,
Juno A.in D.
1872, otbeing
the
third
day thereof.
Chicago,
March 3n, A. D. 1872.
WILLIAM WENDLAND, Executor.
S. M. Davis. Att'y.
26-31
BENNETT & SHERBURNE,
Atl'y, Masonit Tern., cor. Hateted and Randolph sts,
"M'OTICE
is hereby
giventhe
to all
persons
having
claims
Xl
and demands
against
estate
of Aun
McDonald,
deceased, to present the same lor adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
HENRY
Administrator,
:o, April
3, A. D.McDONALD,
IS72.
&SUERUURNE.
Atty's for Administrator.
35-31

235
SANFORD B. PERRY,
Attorney. 4~y Wabash Avenue.
CHANCERY NOTICE.State of Illinois, County of
Superior
of Cookv.county.
Term,Cook,
A. p.ss. 1872.
Mariacourt
A. Kidder
GardinerMay
G.
Kidder and Daniel A. Cleason.In Chancery.
Affidavit ofthe non-residence of said Gardiner G. Kid
der aud Daniel A. Gleuson, defendants above named,
having been filed iu the office ot the clerk of said Supe
rior court of Cook county, uotice is hereby given to the
said Gardiner G. Kidder and Duuicl A. Gleasou that
the
.complainant
filed her
of com
plaint
in said court,heretofore
on the chancery
side bill
thereof,
and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendants, returnable ou the first Monday
ofNow,
May next,
by lawGardiner
required.G. Kidder and
unless(1872),
you, astheis said
Daniel A. Qleaeon, shall personally be and appear be
fore
Superior
court
Cook county,
on the
first
day ofsaid
a term
thereof,
to beof holden
at Chicago,
in said
county, on the first Monday of May, A. D. is"2, and
plead, answer or demur to the said complainant's bill of
complaint,
the same,
things there
in charged and
stated,and
willthebematters
taken asandconfessed,
and
a decree entered against you according to the prayer
of said bill.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Sakfobd B. Perry. Comp't's sol'r.
28-31
D. S. PRIDE,
Attorney.
pIIANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
^
Cook,
ss.
Superior
CourtEstate
of Cook
To
May Term, A. D. 1872. Real
Loancounty.
and Trust
Company v. F. A. Soule aud M. R. Jeffords.In Chan
cery.
'
Affidavit of the non-residence of F. A. Soule and M.
R. Jeffords, defendants above named, having been filed
in the office of the clerk of said Superior court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said F. A.
Soule and M. R. Jefierds that the complainant hereto
fore filed its bill of complaint iu said court, on the
chancery
thereof,
that a said
summons
thereupon
issued outside
of said
courtaudagainst
defendants,
re
turnable on the first Monday of May next, (1872,) as ie
by law required.
Now, unless
the saidbe F.andA.appear
Soule before
and M.said
R.
Jefferds,
shall you.
personally
Superior court ol Cook county, on the first day of a
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
on the first Monday of May, 1872- and plead, answer
or demur to the said complainant's bill of complaint,
the same, and the mutters and things therein charged
and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree en
tered againt you according
to theJACOBSON,
prayer of saidClerk.
bill.
AUGUSTUS
D. S. Pride, Compl' a aoi'r.
28-31
S. W. OSGOOD,
Attorney, l'2b West Washington Street.
INSTATE
OF
MICHAEL
DECEASED.
J-J Notice is hereby given toSCHAFFER,
ail persons having
claims
and demands against the estate of Michael Schaffer,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago,
on the
Monday of J une, A. D. 1872, be
ing the third
day first
thereof.
CATHOKINE
SCHAFFER,
Administratrix.
Chicago, April 15, A. D. 1872.
S. W . Osgood, Attorney for Estate.
28-33
WM. H. HOLDEN,
Attorney, Ventral Union Block.
ESTATE OF MAURICE DONLEY, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demands
againstthe
thesame
estateforof adjudication
Maurice Conley.
deceased,
to present
ana
settlement at a regular term of the County court ot
Cook
county,
to
be
uolden
at
the
court
house,
in
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A.the
D.
1*72, being the third day thereof.
ELLEN
CONLEY,
Administratrix.
Chicago,
April 16,Att'y.
A.D. 1872.
Wm. H. Holden,
SN0WH00K & GRAY,
Attorneys, 85 West Monroe Street.
FSTATE
OF
DANIEL
~LJ Notice is hereby
given REARDON,
to all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and
demands
against
the
of Daniel lieardon,
deceased, to present the sameestate
for adjudication
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, ou the first Monday of June A. D. 1872, being
the third day thereof.
MATHEW REARDON and
WILLIAM JOY,
Chicago, April 17, A. D. 1872.
Executors.
Snowuook *fc Gray, Att'yi.
28-33a
BARKER & WAITE,
Attorneys, 46 East Harrison Street.
ESTATE
OF
JAMES
Notice is hereby
givenROBINSON,
to all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and
demands
against
the
estate
of Janit-s Robinson,
deceased, to present the same
for adjudication
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of Juno, A. D. 1872, being
the third day thereof.
Chicago, April 16.MYRON
A. D. 1872.L. PEARCE, Executor.
Barker & Wait. Att'ys.
MORAN & ENGLISH,
Attorneys, 102 West Randolph street.
ESTATE OF NICHOLAS KRAEMER, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Nicholas Kraemer,
deceased, to present the some tor adjudication and set
tlement toat be
a regular
the County
Cook
county,
holden term
at theofcourt
house, court
in theofcity
of
Chicago, on the first Monday of J unc, A. D. 1872, be
ing the third day thereof.
JOHN KRAEMER, Administrator.
Chicago, April 16 A. D. 1872.
Moran & English. Att'ys.
TOsigned,
WHOMhave
IT formed
MAY CONCERN.-We,
the under
a limited partnership,
to be
carried on under the name of H. M. Height, in Chi
cago, Cook county Illinois, from April 1, 1872, to April
1, 1874, to carry on the retail grocery business, and the
business of selling groceries, provisions, produce, and
those
things incident
retail isgrocery
trade.partner,
The
said undersigned,
11, M.toHaight,
the general
of Baid Chicago, and has put into the common block
groceries and property of the cash valuo of $L000. and
Oscar C. Chase is the special partner, of said Chicago,
and has put into the common stock $2,uw in cash.
H. M. HAIGHT.
27-32
OSCAR C. CHASE.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.
State of Illinois. Cook county, ss. Superior court
of Cook county. To May Term, A. D. 1872. Benoit
Briard vs. George W. Roll.
Public notice ib hereby given to tho said George W.
Roll, that a writ of attachment issued out of the office
of
Superior
thethe13thclerk
day ofofthe
April,
A.D. court
1872, atolCookcouuty,
the suit of thedated
said
Benoit Briard, and against the estate of George W.
Roll, for the sum of four hundred and sixty-two dollnrs
andwhich
forty said
cents,
the sheriff
of Cook
county,
writdirected
has beento returned
executed.
Now.
therefore,
unless
you,
the
said
George
W.
Roll,
shall personally be and appear before the said Superior
court
of
Cook
county,
on
or
before
the
first
day
of
next term thereof, to be holden at the court house,tho
in
the
Chicago,
first Monday
of May.
A.D.
1S72,city
giveofspecial
liailonandtheplead
to the said
plaintifTs
action, judgment will be entered against you, and in
favor
of the
said Benoit
and so tomuch
of the
property
attached
as mayBriard,
be sufficient
satisfy
the
said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the
same.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
Eldkrt H. Gary & Sam 'l W. Suitu, Attornoys. 28-31

Chicago

236

Chicago Legal News.

2.ex Ufactt.
CHICAGO, MAY 4, 1872.
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
The Chicago Legal News Co.,
AT 161 AND 163 LASALLE STREET.
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
Terms :
fwo Dollars per annum, in advance. Single cop
ies Ten Cents.
The Legal News and its book and job
printing establishment are now at Nos.
161 and 163 La Salle street, in the Re
public Life Building, just north of Mon
roe street. We hope our readers will
not forget that we are prepared to do all
kinds of job printing in the finest style
of the art, without delay.
We call attention to the following
opinions reported at length in this issue :
Liability of a Receiver.The opinion
of the Supreme Court of the United
States by Srtong J. as, to the liability of
a receiver and his sureties on his official
bond for money stolen from such re
ceiver.
Sale of GoodsTortsInfanis.
An interesting opinion of the Supreme
Court of Illinois, by Sheldon J., as to
what acts will amount to a fraud for a
failure to pay for goods on delivery and
the liabilities of infants for torts.
Liability of Common Carrier.The
opinion of the Supreme Court of this
State, by Lawrence, C. L, upon the right
of a common carrier to limit his liability
to a given sum by a printed clause in a
bill of lading, and holding that when
goods fail to arrive at their destination
the presumption arises against him of
want of ordinary care.
Satisfactory Abstract of Title.The
opinion of the Circuit Court ofthis county
by Williams, C. J., as to the construction
to be given to the words satisfactory
abstract of title in a land contract. This
class of cases are of unusual interest at
this time to our Chicago lawyers, as
abstracts fsince the fire are almost the
only evidence we have left of connected
chains of title.
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
Wife as Witness.The Supreme Court
of Arkansas, in Magness v. Walker, cit
ing a number of authorities from several
States, held, where the wife was agent
for the husband, in making a contract,
that she is competent to testify when
called by the husband.26 Ark. 471.
Bottomry BondLiability of Mas
ter.Judge Benedict, in re the Bark
Jrma, held, in the absence of any spe
cial agreement to that effect, the master
of a ship does not incur any personal
liability to repay to the bottomry lenders
money borrowed by him on bottomry,
wheii the bond becomes due, by the safe
arrival of the ship, and the proceeds of
the ship and freight prove insufficient to
discharge it in full.15 Int. Rev. Rec. 130.
Abandonment.The Supreme Court
of the United States, in the case of Norcross v. The Steamboat " Laura," held
that, where a master of a distressed ves
sel on the coast abandoned her in great
fear of his own personal safety, the re
mark that he designs to get a tug to
bring his boat in, unattended by corro
borative acts, is no evidence that the
vessel is not really abandoned, and can

Legal

not of itself operate to prevent the

master of another vessel from proceed
ing upon the assumption of an entire
abandonment.
Charitarle GiftInaccurate Des
cription of the ObjectAdmissibility
of Extrinsic Evidence.A testatrix, by
her will, gave a legacy to " the treasurer
for the time being of the fund for the
relief of the widows and orphans of the
clergy of the diocese of Worcester." At
the date of the will there was no
society accurately answering this des
cription, but there was a society which
had formerly fulfilled that office for the
whole diocese, but had lately been re
stricted, both in its name and in its opera
tions, to the archdeaconry of Worcester.
To this society the testatrix and her
parents had subscribed both before and
after it changed its name and restricted
its operations. There was also a similar
society, to which the testatrix had not
been a subscriber, in the archdeaconry
of Coventry, which formed part of the
diocese of Worcester : Held (reversing
the decision of Muling, V. C.,) that the
evidence as to the subscriptions by the
testatrix, which was admissible, proved
that she intended to benefit the Worces
ter society, and that that society was,
therefore, entitled to the whole legacy :
(Re Kilvert's Trusts, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S.
221. L. JJ.)
WiilShare of ResidueIntestacy.
A testator gave the residue of his real
and personal estate to trustees upon trust
to convert the same, and pay two-fourths
of the proceeds to A. and M., and to
stand possessed of the two remaining
fourth parts upon trust to invest the
same, and to stand possessed thereof
when invested, and of the income there
of in trust as to one moiety for the ben
efit of J. and her children ; and as to the
other moiety in trust for the benefit of
E. and her children. And he declared
that in the event of either or both J. and
E. dying without issue, the share or
shares of either so dying should sink into
and form part of his residuary estate,
and be paid and divided accordingly,
but so that the husband of the one so
dying should take no share therein as
representing his wife. J. died, after the
testator, without issue, and leaving a
husband surviving her : Held, that there
was an intestacy as to her share. (Re
Beviss's Trusts, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 239. V.
C. W.)
Continuing Trespass. Mitchell, J.,
of the District Court, at Philadelphia,
held, in Dill v. McCloskey, that the
building of a wall upon another's land,
is a continuing trespass, as long as the
watt is unlawfully maintained there; and
where a recovery has been had in an
action of trespass for the erection of it, a
new action of trespass may be brought
for its maintenance, and the former
recovery and satisfaction will be no
defense as to any damages accruing
after the issue of the writ in Buch action.
29 Leg. Int. 132.
Mrs. Belva A. Lockwood.We had
the pleasure this week of welcoming
Mrs. Belva A. Lockwood, the woman
lawyer of Washington to our sanctum.
She has received from the Supreme
Court of the District what has been
denied to the women of Illinois the
legal right to earn an honest living by
the practise of the law. Mrs. Lockwood
delivered a lecture on Thursday evening
at the Congregational church on the
subject, " Woman and Her Relations to
the Law." She spoke ofthe disabilities of
woman under the common law as only

News.

one can who has suffered by them. Mrs.

Lockwood is a finely educated lady, a
pleasant, able speaker, possessed of great
energy and determination, yet perfectly
womanly, and has the , ability to make a
successful practitioner at the bar. We
shall, in a future number, give a short
sketch of Mrs. Lockwood.
tirrmt publications.
Laws of the State of Illinois passed
at the Twenty-seventh Session of
the General Assembly, 1871-72. Pub
lished in pursuance of law. Chicago :
Published by E. B. Myers, Law Book
seller, 393 Wabash Avenue. 1872.
Some weeks ago we stated that three
different publishing houses were en
gaged in printing the laws of last ses
sion, and advised them all to hurry up
their compositors. We presume Mr.
Myers has followed our advice, for on
last evening he presented us with a well
bound and neatly printed volume of
600 pages, containing the laws passed by
our present General Assembly. Con
sidering the short time that has inter
vened since the adjournment of the
legislature, the enterprise and energy
displayed by Mr. Myers in producing
this volume ahead of all others is truly
commendable, for some of these laws
were only signed by the Governor on
the 18th of last month. The price of
this volume is $4.00.
Reports of Cases at Law and in
Chancery, Argued and Determined
in the Supreme Court ok Arkansas.
By Norval W. CoX; Official Reporter.
Vol. XXVI. Containing Cases Decided
at the December Term, 1870, and June
Term, 1871. Little Rock, Arkansas:
Price & McClure, Public Printers.
1872.
Mr. Cox, the reporter, has performed
his duty faithfully. We wish we could
say.as much of the State Printer. The
head-notes are short, and from the exa
mination we have been able to give
them, appear to be well and carefully
drawn. The small cap side-heads enable
the reader at a glance to see what points
have been determined in the opinions.
We are decidedly in favor of Mr. Cox's
plan of giving briefly the points made
and authorities cited by counsel. The
paper upon which this volume is printed
is not good, and the binding is not well
done and will not be durable. The
XXVIth, notwithstanding the short
comings of the Public Printer, will be
valuable to the profession, as it contains
several important opinions delivered in
cases growing out of the late rebellion
and the recent changes made in the
organic laws of that State. Among them
is the case of Pillow v. Brown & Child
less, Ex., etc., holding the clause in the
State Constitution that " all contracts for
the sale or purchase of slaves are null
and void, and no court in this State shall
take cognizance of any suit founded on
such contracts," etc., is in violation of
the Feudal Constitution. The Supreme
Court of the United States have recently
sustained the doctrine laid down in this
opinion.
Pamphlets, Abstracts, and Briefs.
In arriving at a correct decision in cases,
courts are often greatly aided by a his
tory of the case presented to them in a
carefully prepared and neatly-printed
pamphlet, brief, or abstract. We are led
to these remarks by the examination of
a pamphlet just printed by the Legal
News Co. for N. P. Iglehart & Co., which
is said to be one of the finest specimens
of pamphlet work ever printed in this
city. It comprises an abstract, copies of
bills pending, and is, in itself, a kind of
running brief in the case of N. P. Igle

hart v. Walker, Stinson, et al, concern

ing the title to the W. J of S.W.} 2, 38, 14.
Mr. Iglehart has prepared this pamphlet
in a style peculiarly his own. If clients
would generally prepare their cases with
the same ability, there would be but
little left for the attorneys to attend to.
We are informed by N. P. Iglehart & Co.,
of 52 East Van Buren Street, that this
pamphlet will be sent gratuitously to all
who desire it.
The U. S. Supreme Court.This Court
adjourned on Friday, the 26th of April,
to the 6th of May, to confer in regard to
delayed cases, and for the preparation of
opinions.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN.
January Term, 1872.
warehouse receiptsnegotiability of.
1. Ch. 340, Laws of 1860, as amended
by Sec. l,Ch. 73, Laws of 1863, (2 Tay
lor's Stats., pp. 1846, 1847, Sees. 42, 45, 46,>
does not render warehouse receipts ne
gotiable in the sense in which bills of ex
change aie negotiable by the law mer
chant, nor estop the warehouseman from
denying, as against an innocent trans
feree for value, that the property (there
in described according to its external
appearance and the representations of
the original bailor) was really such as
represented.(Opinion by Dixon, C. J.)
Hale et al. v. Milwaukee Dock Co. (On
motion for a re-hearing.)
2. The object of the statute was sim
ply to give validity to any pledge or
transfer of the property, or any lien cre
ated thereon, by any person holding the
warehouse receipt, and thus invested
with apparent authority to make an ab
solute disposal thereof, although, as be
tween him and a third party who is the
real owner, he may have only a special
property in the goods or a special author
ity in regard to disposing of them ; and
the receipt is negotiable only in the
sense that a transfer thereof op
erates as a transfer of the title to theproperty for which it was given.lb.
June Term, 1871.
intent in signing.
1, In an action on a promissory note,
by one who claimed as a purchaser in
good faith, for value, before maturity, it
was error to refuse evidence tending toshow that defendant (being ignorant of
the English language, in which the note
was written) signed it supposing it to be
a contract of an entirely different char
acter, and that he never delivered the
instrument in suit to any one.(Opinioa
by Dixon, C. J.) Walker v. Ebert.
2. Defendant, never having intended
to sign such an instrument as the one in
suit, must be regarded (at least in theabsence of any negligence on his part)
as never having executed it.
defective bridge liability of town.
1. The absence of any guards or rail
ing at the side of a bridge forming part
of a highway, is a fact From which thejury may find that the bridge was de
fective, within the meaning of the
statute rendering towns liable for injur
ies resulting from defective highways.
Opinion by Dixon, C. J.Haufe v.
Town of Fulton.
2. Where, beside the defect in the
highway, there is another proximatecause contributing directly to produce
the injury, which cause is not attributa
ble to the plaintiff's negligence nor that
of any third person, the town is still
liable* in case the jury shall find that the
damage would not have been sustained
but for the defect in the way. So held
in a case where plaintiff's horse, passing
over a bridge without guards, suddenly
stopped, staggered, fell sidewise, ana
went over the side of the bridge intothe riverthere being no want of care
or prudence on plaintiff's part.lb.
3. Whether the same rule would apply
where the horse, at time of the injury,,
was in a condition of flight or unmanageableness, not itself caused by any
defect in the highway, is not decided.
But if there is an exception of that kind,
it does not include cases where a horse
merely shies or starts, or is momentarily
not controlled by the driver.lb.

Chicago

Legal

News.

CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY. allegation under the " abstract clause " respect, the case at bar is also to be dis
tinguished from all those cases cited by
of the contract.
Opinion Filed April, 1872.
The first construction would leave the the counsel for the defendant, in which
Alooto J. 8awyir et al. v. Frederick A. Weage- question of the satisfactory character of a question is referred by the argument
the abstract solely to the determination of the contracting parties to the arbitra
In Chancery.
CONTRACT TO FURNISH SATISFACTORY of the defendant or his attorney, the ment ofan unprejudiced umpire.
This view is not only .supported by
latter, would leave it as a question of law
AB8TRACT OF TITLE.
reason but by authority.
A vendor contracted to furnish an abstract of for the court.
It is a rule of construction that a
In the case of Brannstein v Accidental
title, and if the title should not prove satisfactory
to the vendee or his attorney, then all moneys stipulation in a contract should, where death Insurance Co., it was decided that
paid on the contract were to be refunded ; held, the language will admit of it, receive a clause in the deed of settlement to the
that the complainants under this contract are not such an interpretation as shall make it effect " that before payment, proof satis
bound to allege and prove that the defendant or consistent with an intention upon the factory to the directors of the company,
his attorney were satisfied with the abstract ol part of the person claiming advantage of should be furnished " etc., must be con
title, but only that the title shown in such ab it to secure by it only what is reasonable sidered to have the word " reasonably "
stract was one to which no valid or reasonable and just. But where the terms of the interpolated into it, and that the direc
agreement are plain and by its whole tors could not capriciously and unreason
objection existed.Ed. Legal News.
tenor it is apparent that it was the in ably demand proof. 1 Best & Smith, 782.
The opinion of the court was delivered tention of the parties to the instrument Hilliard.says : ' In case of an agreement
by Williams, C. J.
to give to one of them an advantage, to convey land, the title to be ' good and
The bill in this case was filed to com courts have no right so to construe the satisfactory to the party to receive it '
pel the specific performance of a con instrument as to deprive him of tho the purchaser is bound to accept a title
tract, entered into between the defendant right so given, even though it may ap free from any reasonable objection.
and the complainants, for the sale of pear to be an unreasonable advantage. Hilliard on Vendors (2nd Ed) p 215.
certain lands, in the bill described, for
In the case of Fagen v Davidson, 2
3. Best & Smith, (113 Eng., C. L.) 170.
the sum of $70 000.00 ; five hundred dol One construction of the clause, above Duer 159. Chief Justice Oakley, in de
lars to be paid on the delivery of the cited from the agreement, would give to livering the opinion of the court, says:
contract, one thousand on the delivery the defendant alone the power caprici " A title, satisfactory to the party to
of the deed, and the rest at different ously and arbitrarily to annul it, while wliom it is to be given, means a title to
times, as in the contract provided. The at his option he could enforce it against which there is no reasonable objection
contract was dated September 8, 1871, complainants. If the property appreci and with which therefore the party to
and provided for the conveyance of the ated he could claim the benefit of such whom it is tendered ought to be satisfied.
property by good and sufficient warranty appreciation, if it depreciated he could When such is its nature, so far from
deed, with release of dower, clear of all throw the loss upon complainants. Such having a discretion to reject, he is bound
incumbrances, except a certain McNab a construction would make the contract to accept it." See also Dart on Vendors
claim, as thereafter in the said agree unilateral, making the defendant the vol 1, p 145, and the case of Lord v
ment noted. It also contained this umpire in his own case, and putting it Stephens, 1 Y & C, 222.
clause : " The said party of the first in his power to annul the contract of I am cited by the counsel of the de
part, in consideration of these presents, his own mere volition whatever loss fendant to the case of Williams v
also agrees to furnish an abstract of title might accrue to complainants however Edwards, 2 Simons 82. I have not
to the premises hereinbefore described, faithfully it might have been adhered to been able to examine the case, as the
and if tne title to the said described land by them.
report is not in the law library or acces
shall not prove satisfactory to the said
No such interpretationjshould be re sible to me. From the citation of the
party of the second part, or his attorney, sorted to in any case, unless the lan case in the brief of counsel it would
except the said McNab claim, as before guage of the instrument clearly shows seem to be a case in which a stipulation
stated, then all moneys paid upon this such to have been the intention. I see had been inserted in the contract that
contract shall be refunded to the party no such intent manifested in the lan if the counsel of the vendee should
of the second part, and he shall be re guage used by the contracting parties. " be of opinion that a marketable
leased from all further liability under The contract contains no unusual propo title cannot be made by the time
this contract, which shall be delivered sition. It is the ordinary contract for a hereby appointed for the completion
up and canceled ; or, if recorded, the conveyance of land by warranty deed, of said purchase, this agreement
party of the second part, in considera with a covenant against incumbrances, shall be void," etc. The court held
tion of all moneys paid by him being re with the addition of a stipulation that that there was nothing unreasonable
funded, hereby agrees for himself and the complainant shall furnish to the de in the contract, and inasmuch as the
his heirs, executors, or assigns, to ex fendant an abstract in which the title counsel had been of the opinion that the
ecute and deliver to the said party of shall be shown to be satisfactory to him proper title could not be made by the
the first part, a quit-claim deed of the or his attorney.
time fixed by the contract, the bill filed
premises hereinbefore described."
The complainants have averred in for a specific performance of the contract
The complainants in their bill have their bill that the abstract which thev was dismissed.
made this allegation in reference to did furnish to defendant, disclosed a ti
That case is to be distinguished from
their performance of this clause of their tle to which no sufficient, valid or rea the one at bar for the reason that by the
agreement ; " that immediately upon sonable objection existed, and such a agreement of the parties in the first case,
the making of said contract, they took title as the parties meant to sell and buy, a third party was constituted sole umpire,
the necessary steps to procure an ab and such as they had a right to ask while in the latter case the satisfactory
stract of their title to said premises, and should prove satisfactory to defendant character of the title is left as well to the
that as soon as said abstract could be and his attorney. Such an interpreta party interested as to his attorney.
procured, on September 15, 1871, your tion as complainants have given to the
Even if it is to be regarded as a de
orators did procure said abstract and contract in their bill, imparts to it mutu cision of the express question raised by
furnish the same to the said Weage ; ally, and it makes the court, and not an tli is demurrer, the weight of authority
that at the date of said contract, your interested party, the umpire in deter is on the other side.
orators were seized, and ever since have mining what is' a good title in case the
It was insisted in argument by the
been and now are, seized of a good and contracting parties differ in reference counsel for the complainants that in no
marketable title to said premises, to thereto.
event was the exhibition of the title a
which no sufficient, valid or reasonable
No violence need be done to the lan consideration precedent upon which the
objection existed or exists, and that said guage in attaching to it an import which right to a specific performance of the
title was and is such a title as the par would divest it of its unilateral charac agreement depended. Inasmuch as the
ties to said agreement meant, respect ter. The "abstract clause" will not have decision of this question is unnecessary
ively, to sell and to buy, and such as been made inoperative, inasmuch as it in the view I have taken, I withhold the
your orators have the right to ask, shall will have had the effect of compelling expression of any opinion upon this
Srove satisfactory to said Weage and the complainant to furnish to tne de point. The demurrer to the bill is over
is attorney, as was shown by said ab fendant an abstract which upon its face ruled.
stract and by evidence of said title ex should exhibit a good title, to which no
George C. Campbell, for defendant.
hibited to said Weage."
Harding & McCoy, for complainants.
reasonable objection could be made, be
The defendant claims that this allega fore the defendant should be compelled
tion of complainants' bill is insufficient ; to make any but the first payment of five
FROM XXXIV. INDIANA.
that complainants were, under the clause hundred dollars.
above quoted from the contract, bound
PRACTICE.
To compel the complainants to do
to furnish a title, in fact, satisfactory to more would be unreasonable, in that it
1.
Relief
from
Judgment Taken Through
the defendant or his attorney, who had would oblige them to assume an usual
a right to reject the same or accept it burden and place themselves entirely in Mistake.A proceeding to correct an al
at their election, upon their inspection the power of the defendant.
leged mistake in a partition suit must be
of the abstract, and that inasmuch as
This case is to be distinguished from commenced within two years after final
by complainants' bill, they have not al all those in which vendors of machines judgment in the partition suit.(Opinion
leged that the title presented by the ab or other manufactured articles sell to
stract was, in fact, satisfactory to the de their vendees, with the understanding by Worden, J.) Temple et al. v. Irvinet
fendant or his attorney, and that they that if the thing sold does not suit the al. p. 412.
fraudulently declared it to be unsatisfac purchaser it may be returned. Among
COMMENCEMENT OF SUIT.
tory ; they have not, in their bill, shown the numberless new inventions, it is not
2.
The
commencement of a suit or the
themselves entitled to a specific per unreasonable that a purchaser should
formance of the agreement.
buy with the understanding that the institution of proceedings on motion in
The main question raised by the de thing bought shall not only be good, but cludes the issuing of process or notice to
murrer is this : are the complainants so good that he shall prefer it to any bring the defendant into court.lb.
under this contract bound to allege and other.
PRACTICE.
prove that the defendant or his attorney
But a'title is not to be tested like a ma
1. Claim Against Decedent's Estate.
were in truth and in fact satisfied with chine. Its goodness depends not upon
the abstract ofthe title; or isthe averment the fact whether it suits or does not suit Where, a complaint shows on its face
that the title shown in such abstract was the vendee, but whether it is legally that the action is to recover a claim
one to which no valid or reasonable valid. It surely cannot be held to be against the estate [of decedent, and the
objection existed and such as the parties anything but unreasonable that the de proceeding has been commenced, not by
respectively meant to sell and buy and cision of a legal question, requiring not filing a claim, but as an ordinary action,
such as the complainants had a right only great professional knowledge ^but the suit should be dismissed on motion.
to ask should prove satisfactory to the clearness of discrimination, should be (Opinion by Pettit, C. J.)Hyatt Adm'r
defendant and his attorney, a sufficient confided to an interested party. In this v. Mority Ex. p. 415.

237
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
PROCEEDINGS OF.
Wednesday, April 24.
On motion of Mr. T. D. Lincoln, James Moore,
Esq., of Ohio, was admitted to practice as an
attorney and counselor of this court.
No. ISO. The Phoenix Insurance Company, of
Brooklyn. New York, plaintiff in error, v. Vincent
Hamilton and John D. Cook. The argument of
this cause was continued by Mr. A. C. Bradley, of
counsel for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. P.
Phillip, for the defendants in error, and concluded
by Mr. Bradley for the plaintiff in error.
No. 168. The Gorham Manufacturing Company,
appellant, v. George C. White. This cause was
argued by Mr. C. F. Blake and Mr. C. M. Keller, of
counsel for the appellant, and by Mr. George
Gifford, for the appellee.
Thursday, April 25.
No. 168. The Gorham Manufacturing Company,
appellant, v. George C. White. The argument of
this cause was concluded by Mr. C. M. Keller, of
Counsel for the appellant.
No. 16a. The Republic Fire Insurance Company
plaintiff in error, v. Charles and Joseph R. Weide ;
No. 170. The Hanover Fire Insurance Company,
plaintiff in error, v. Charles and Joseph R. Weide ;
No. 171. The Germania Fire Insurance Com
pany, plaintiff in error, v. Charles and Joseph R.
Weide; and
No. 172. The Niagara Fire Insurance Company,
plaintiff in error v. Charles and Joseph R. Weide,
These causes were argued by Mr. J. D. McPherson
and Mr. J. M. Carlisle, of counsel for the plaintiff
in error, and submitted on printed arguments by
Mr. w. H. Peckam, ofcounsel for the defendant in
error.
No. 173. The Steam Tug R. L. Mabey, etc., appel
lants, v. Joshua Atkins et al., and
No. 174. The ship Helen R. Cooper, etc,, appel
lant, v. Joshua Atkins, et al. These causes were
argued by Mr. C. Donohuc, of counsel for the
appellants, and by R. D. Benedict of counsel for
the appellees.
Friday, April 26.
On motion of Mr. Solicitor General Bristow,
Wm. D. Todd, Esq., of Washington, D. C, was
admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor
of this court
No. 627. The United States, appellants, v. Tha
steam ferry boat Neustra Senora de Regla, etc.
The motion to dismiss this cause was submitted
on printed arguments by Mr. C. Donohue, in favor
of the motion, and by Mr. Assistant Attorney
General Hill In opposition thereto.
No. 571. Jacob H. Cockcroft, plaintiff in error, v
Walter S. Vose and James F. Joyce. The motion
to dismiss this cause was submitted on printed
arguments by Mr. R. D. Benedict, in support of
the same, and by Mr. J. M. Carlisle and Mr. J. D.
McPherson in opposition thereto.
No. 11. Original. Ex parte. The United States.
Return to the rule on the Judges of the Court of
Claims to show cause why a writ of mandamus
should not issue, etc., was argued by Mr. Assistant
Attorney Generals Hill and McMlchael in support
thereof, and by Mr. William P. Clark in opposition
thereto.
No. 440. The Phoenix Insurance Company, plain
tiff in error, v. Charles Kramarath. In error to
the Circuit Court or the United States for the dis
trict of Minnesota. On motion of Mr. P. Phillips,
in behalf of the respective counsel, ordered by
the court that this writ of error be dismissed with
costs.
No. 616. Ex parte. Robert H. Mitchell. No. 61.
Ex parte. T. Jefferson Greer. No. 618. Ex parte.
John Lyttle. Appeals from the Circuit Court of
the United States forthe district ofSouth Carolina.
On motion of Mr. Reverdy Johnson, ordered by
the court that these appeals be dismissed with
costs.
Adjourned until the 6th of May next for con
ference on delayed coses and for the preparation
of opinions.
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney.
ASSIGNEE'S
District
of Illi
nois, ss. AtNOTICE.-Northern
Chicago, in said District,
on the
29th
day of"April,
April, A. D. 1872.
The undersigned hereby
hen gives notice of his appoint
ment as assignee of Christian Kassing, or Chlcai
Chicago,
in the county or Cook, and State or Illinois, who has
been adjudged a bankrupt, upon creditors' petition, by
the District court or the United States in and for the.
said District.
30-32
ROBERT E. JENKIN8. Assignee.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District or Illi
nois, bb. At Chicago, in said District, on the 1st
day of May, A. D. 1872.
The undersigned hereby gives notice or his appoint
ment as assignee or Charles Waite. Jr., or Chicago, in
the county or Cook, and State or Illinois, who has been,
adjudged a bankrupt, upon his own petition, by the
District court or the United States in and for said. District,
30-32
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District or nilnois. bb. At Chicago, in said District, on the 3d
dayTheor undersigned
May, A. D. 1872.
hereby givetB notice
. or his appointment as assignee or Ralph W. Hill, or Chicago, in the
county
or
Cook,
and
State
or
Illinois,
who hasbybeen
budged a bankrupt, upon his own petition,
the
t court or the United States in and for said Dis
trict.
30-32
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.

238
FRANCIS ADAMS & H. LINCOLN,
Alto1 nrys.
pHANCERY
County, km. NOTICE.-State
< in uit court of ofCookIllinois.
county, Conk
Hay
Term, A.I>. 1872, The Trustee* of Schools of Township
Thirty-nine (.110 North, Range Thirtouu (13), East of
Principal
Meridian,
in Cook
county.Matthews.
Illinois,
v.Third
.1 .tin.-N. Matthew
s and
Catharine
Petition to restore record.In Chancery.
Affidavit
' of having
the nonbeen
-residence
the office
defendants
above
mimed,
filed inof the
of the
clerk
of
daid
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
noticeandiu
hereby given to the said James S. Matthews
Catherine
Matthewsto that
the destroyed
complainants
heretofore
filed
their petition
restore
record,
on the
chancery
side
of
said
court,
and
that
anumm'ons
there
upon i*wued out of said court against said defendant*,
returnable
on
the
third
Monday
of
Hay
next,
(18*3),
as is by law required.
Now, unless
you. the
.lames N.beMatthews
and
Catherine
Matthews,
shallsaidpersonally
and appear
before said Circuit court of Cook county, on the first
day of a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, iu said
comity, oron demur
'he thirdto Monday
May, 1<72, and
plead,
answer
the saidofcomplainants'
petition,
the same, and the matters and things therein charged
and slated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree
entered against you according to the prayer of said
petition.
NORMAN T CASSETTE. Clerk.
Francis Adams A H. Lincoln, Comprts' Sol'rs. 80-33
rjHANGERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Cook
^ County,
as. Circuit
court .ofSchools
Cook county,
May
Term,
A.D. 1872.
Trustees
of(13)Township
Thirty-nine
(3y) The
North.
RangeofThirteen
East of
the
Third Principal
Meridian,
in CookHelen
county,
Illinois,
v. Sherman
N. Aspinwall
and Sarah
Aspinwall.
Petition to restore record.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence, of Sherman N.
Aspinwall and Sarah Helen Aspinwall, defendants
above named, having been tiled in the office of the
said
ol Cook county,
notice
is hereby
givenCircuit
to the court
said defendants
that the
complainants
eretofore tiled their petition to restore destroyed
record,
the chancery
side out
of said
court,
andagainst
that a
summonson thereupon
issued
of said
court
said
defendants,
returnable
on
the
third
Monday
of
May next, (1*7;.',) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Sherman N. Aspinwall
and Sarah
Helensaid
Aspinwall.
shall ofpersonally
oe nnd
appear
before
Circuit court
Cook county,
on
the first day of a term thereof, to be holden ut Chicago,
in said county, on the third Monday of May, 1ST2. and
plead, answer or demur to the said coiuplainantH'
petition, the same, and the matters and things therein
charged and state*!, will be taken as confessed, and a
decree entered against you according to the praver of
said petition.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
_ Francis Adams A II. Lincoln, Comprts' Sol'rs. iWt-Al
(pHANCERY
of Illinois.
v county, ss. NOTICE.-State
Circuit court of Cook
county. Cook
May
term,
A.
D.
1872.
Tho
Trustees
of
Schools
of township
thirty-nine (39) north, rauge thirteen (13). east
of third
principal meridian, in Cook county, Illinois, v. Jo
sephine B. Little and William A. Little. Petition to
restore record.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-resiu- nce of Josephine B, Little
and
William
defendants
above named, hav
ing been
filedA.in Little,
the office
of the clerk
of Baid Circuit
court of Cook county, notice is hereby given to tho
said Josephine B. Little and William A. Little that the
complainants
heretofore
filed their
to restore
destroyed
record,
on the chancery
sidepetition
of said court,
and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendants, returnable on the third Mon
day of May next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the Baid Josephine B. Little and
William A. Little, shall personally be and appear before
said Circuit court of Cook county, on the first day of a
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
on the third Monday of May, 1872, and plead,
answer
or demur to the said complainant's petition, the I.
same,
and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree
entered against you according to the prayer of said
petition.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clork.
Fbascib Vdamb&H. Lincoln, Compl'ts' Sol'rs. 3o-33
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Cook
couuty, ss. Circuit court of Cook county, Blay
term, A. D. 1872. Albert G. Lane, County Superin
tendent of Schools of Cook county, Illinois, for the use
of the inhabitants of township thirty-nine (39) north,
rangecounty,
thirteenv. William
(13), eastTate
of 3dandprincipal
said
Sarah F.meridian,
Tate. Petiin
tion to restore record.In Chancery.
Affidavit that said defendants, or either of
them, on due inquiry, cannot bo found, having been
filed in tho office of the clerk of said Circuit court
of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said Wil
liam Tate ana Sarah F. Tate, that tho complainant
heretofore filed his petition to restore destroyed record,
on the chancery Bide of said court, and that a summons
thereupon issued out of said court against said defend
ants,
the third Monday of May next
(1872),returnable
as is by lawonrequired.
Now. unless you, the said William Tate and Sarah F.
Tate,
personally
appear
saidthereof,
Circuit
court shall
ot Cook
county, be
on and
the first
daybefore
of a term
to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third
Monday of May, 1872, and plead, answer or demur
to the said complainants1 petition, the same, and
the matters
things therein
charged
and against
stated,
will
be taken and
as confessed,
and a decree
entered
you according to the prayer of said petition.
GASSETTE,
_ Francis Adams fcNORMAN
H. Lincoln,T. Compl'ls'
Sol'rs.Clerk.
ri i-33
pHANCERY"
of Illinois,
ook
\y county, ss. NOTICE.State
Circuit court of Cook
county. t May
term, A. D. 1872. Albert G. Lane, Couuty'Superinteudent of Schools of Cook county, Illinois, for the use of
the inhabitants of township thirty-nine (3V) north,
range
thirteen
(13),v.east
of 3dL. principal
in
said Cook
county,
John
Root andmeridian,
Francis E.
Morso. Petition to restore record.In Chaucery.
Affidavit that the above-named defendants, or either
of them, on due inquiry, cannot be found, hav
ing
filedcounty,
in the office
clerkgiven
of said
Circuit
courtbeen
of Cook
noticeofisthe
hereby
to the
said
John L. Root and Francis E. Morse that the complain
ant heretofore filed his petition to restore destroyed
record, on the chancery side of said court, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendants, returnable on the third Monday of
May next (1872), as is by law required.
the said beJohn
Root and
Francis
E.Now,
Morse,unless
shallyou,
personally
andL.appear
be lore
said
Circuit court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the
third Monday ofMay, 1872, and plead, answer or demur
to
the said
petition,and
the stated,
same, and
matters
and complainant's
things therein charged
willthe
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said petition.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
Francis Adams Jell Lincoln, Compl't'sSol rs. 30-33
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Cook
courtofofSchools
Cook county.
May
term,county,
A. D.ss.1872.Circuit
Trustees
of township
thirty-nine
(39)
north,
range
thirteen
(13),
east
of
third principal meridian. In Cook county, Illinois,thev.
Ira W. Buell, The unknown heirs or devisees of Benjnmln C. Thompson, deceased.and Tho unknown heirs
or devisees of Sylvester 0. Post, deceased, and Marga
ret E. Thompson. Petition to restore record.1 11
Chancery.
Affidavit that above-named defendants. The un
known heirs or devisees of Benjamin C. Thompson,
deceased, and The unknown heirs or devisees of Syl
vester
Post, deceased,
Thumpson, orO. either
of them,and
on said
due Margaret
inquiry, E.cannot
be
found, having been filed in the office of the clerk of
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
notice
is
hereby
given to tho said The unknown heirs or devisees of
Benjamin
The unknown
heirs
or deviseesC.ofThompson,
Sylvester 0.deceased.
Post, deceased,
and Marga
ret E. Thompson, that the complainants heretofore
filed
their side
petition
to restore
on the
chancery
of said
court,destroyed
and thatrecord,
a summons
thereupon issued out of said court against said de

Chicago
fendants, returnable on the third Monday of May next
(1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said The. unknown heirs or
devisees of Benjamin C. Thompson, deceased. The
unknown
or devisees
of Sylvestershall
0. Post,
de
ceased, andheirs
Margaret
E. Thompson,
person
ally
be
and
appear
before
said
Circuit
court
ot
Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
day of May, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainants pel ii ion. the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
taken as confessed, ami a decree entered against you
according to the prayer
of saidT. peGASSETTE.
tition.
NoRMAN
Clerk.
Francis Adams An. Lincoln, Comprts' Sol'rs. 30-33
CCHANCER NOTICE. - State" of" IllVnoisT Cook
J couuty, ss. Circuit e-urt of Cook county. May
term, A. I). 1872. Trustees of Schools of township
thirty-nine
(39) north,iurange
east ofv. third
firincipal mieridian,
Cookthirteen
county,(13),
Illinois,
WHiam A. Sneathen,
A. record.In
Sneathen and
John
McMurtry.
PetitionSarah
to restore
Chancery.
Affidavit that the above-named defendants, on due
inquiry.
cannot
be found,
filed county,
iu the office
of
the clerk
of said
Circuithaving
courtbeen
of Cook
no
tice is hereby given to the said William A. Sneathen,
Sarah A. Sneathen and John McMurtry that the com
plainants heretofore filed their petition to restore de
stroyed record, on the chancery side of said court, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendants, returnable on the third Mon
day of May next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you. the said William A. Sneatheu,
Sarah A. Sneathen and John McMurtry, shall person
ally bo and appear before said Circuit court, of Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to he holden
at Chicago, in said county, on the third Monday of
May, W2, and plead, answer or demur to the said
complainants' petition, the same, and the matters and
things therein charged and stated, will be taken as
confessed, and a decree entered against you according
to the prayer of said petition.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
Francis Adams A H. Lincoln, Oompl'ts'.Sol'rs. 30-33
"Chancerynotice,
-state
of ImWisT
of Cook
county. cook
May
C1J county, ss. Circuit court
term, A. D. 1*72. Trustees of Schools of township
thirty-nine
(39) meridian,
north, range
thirteen
(13), east
of thev.
third principal
in Cook
coun'y,
Illinois,
Margaret E. Thompson, ira W. Buell. The unknown
heirs or devisees of Sylvester O. Post, deceased, and
The unknown heirs or devisees of Benjamin 0. Thomp
son, deceased. Petition to restore record.In Chan
cery.
Affidavit
thatheirs
tho said
Margaretof ESylvester
Thompson,
and
The
unknown
or devisees
0. Post,
deceased, anil The unknown heirs or devisees of Ben
jamin
C. Thompson,
or either
on
duo inquiry,
cannot bedeceased,
found, having
been offiledthem,
in the
office of the clerk of said Circuit court ot Cook county,
noticeThe
is hereby
givenheirs
to theorsaid
Margaret
E. Thomp0.
son,
unknown
'evisees
of Sylvester
Post, deceased, and Tho unUnovn heirs or devisees of
Benjamin C. Thompson, deceased, that the complain
ants heretofore filed their petition to restore destroyed
record,
on thereupon
the chancery
side out
of said
court,
andagainst
that a
summon?
issued
of said
court
said defendants, returnable on the third Monday of
May
nextunless
(1*72),you,
as istheby said
law required.
Now.
Margaret E. Thompson,
The unknown heirs or devisees of Sylvester 0. Post,
deceased, and The unknown heirs or devisees of Ben
jamin C. Thompson, deceased, shall personally be and
appear
Cook atconnty.
on
the first before
day of asaid
termCircuit
thereof,court
to beofholden
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
third
Monday
of
May,
1872.
and
plead, answer or demur to the said complainants' peti
tion, the same, and the matters and things therein
charged and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a
decree entered against von ncconling to The praver of
said petition.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
FrancibAdambAH. Lincoln, Compl'ts' Sol'rs. 30-33
pHANCERY"
NOTICET^State~of
^ county, ss. Circuit Court of Cook Illinois,
county. Cook
May
term, A. D. 1872. The Trustees of Schools of township
thirty-nine (39) north, range thirteen (13), oast of the
third principal meridian, in Cook county. Illinois, v.
Bezer KeithChancery.
and Anna P. Keith. Petition to restore
record.In
Affidavit that said Bezer Keith and Anna P. Keith,
or either of then^ on due inquirv, cannot bo found,
having been filed in the office of the clerk of said Cir
cuitsaid
courtIte/i-r
of Cook
notice
is hereby
the
Keithcounty,
and Anna
P. Keith
that given
the comto
plainants heretofore filed their petition to restore de
stroyed record, on the chancery side of said court, and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendants, returnable on the third Mon
day of Mav next (187:2). as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Bezer Keith and Anna P.
Keith, shall personally be and appear before said Cir
cuit court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
thereof,
to be holden
Chicago,
in said answer
county, or
on the
third Monday
of May.at187?,
and plead,
de
mur to the said complainants' petition, the same, and
will
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
he taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the praver of said petition.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
Francis AdamsAH. Lincoln, Comprts' Sol'rs. 30-33
pHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois,
v^ county, ss. Circuit court of Cook
county. Cook
Mav
term, A. D. '872. The Trustees of Schools of township
thirty-nine
(39)
north,
range
thirteen
(13),
east
of
third principal meridian, in Cook connty, Illinois,thev.
Anna Keith and Bezer Keith. Petition to restore
record.In
Chancery.
Affidavit that
said Anna Koith and Bozer Keith, or
either
of
them,
inquiry,
be said
found,
hav
ing been tiled inontheduo
office
of thocannot
clerk of
Circuit
court of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the
said Anna Keith and Bezer Keith that the complain
ants heretofore filed their petition to restore destroyed
record,
the chancery
saidsaid
court,
andagainst
that a
summonson thereupon
issuedsideoutof of
court
said defendants, returnable on the third Monday of
May next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, shall
unlesspersonally
you. thobesaid
Keith,
and Anna
appearKeith
beforeand
saidBezer
Cir
cuit court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the
third Monday of May, 1&72, and plead, answer or de
mur to the said complainants' petition, the same, and
the
matters
and thingsand
therein
charged
and against
stated, will
be tnken
as confessed,
a decree
entered
you
according to the praver of said petition.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
_Francib AdambAH. Lincoln, CompPts' SoPrs. 30-33
nHANCERY NOTlOEi^State of "Illinois, Cook
^ county, ss. Circuit court of Cook county, Mav
term. A.I). Iv72. The Trustees of Schools of township
thirty-nine
(39) meridian,
north, range
thirteen
(13), Illinois,
*nst of thev.
third principal
in Cook
county,
The
unknown
hoirs
or
devisees
of
Samuel
D. Pearce,
deceased.Petition to restore record in chancery.
Affidavit that the unknown heirs or devisees of
Samuel
Pearce.having
or any
them,in on
cannot beD.found,
beenoffiled
the due
officeinquiry
of tho
clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county, notice is
hereby given to the said The unknown heirs or devi
sees of ramuel D. Pearce, deceased, that the complain
ants heretofore filed theirpetition to restore destroyed
record on the chancery side of said court, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendants, returnable on the third Monday of
May uext, (1872,) as is by law required.
Now.
unless you,thesaid
The unknown
heirs or devibo
sees
of Samuel
1), Pearce, deceased,
shall personally
and appear before said Circuit court of Cook countv, on
the
first county,
day of aonterra
hereof,Monday
to be holden
Chicago,
in said
thet third
of May.at 1872,
and
plead, answer or demur to the said complainants' peti
tion, the same, and the matters and things therein
charged and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a
decree entered against you according to the prayer of
said petition,
GASSETTE,
Francis Adams ANORMAN
H. Lincoln,T. Comprts'
Sol'rs.Clerk.
30-33

Legal

News.

pHANCERY
MATTHEW MARX,
v-'
county, ss. NOTICE.-State
Circuit court of ofCookIllinois,
county, Cook
May
Attorney, 92 & Detptaines Street.
term, A.D. 1872. Tho Trustees of Schools of township C1HANCERY
NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
thirty-nine (39) north, range thirteen (13), east of the .- Cook, ss. Circuit
court of Cook county. May
third
principal
meridian,
in
Cook
county,
Illinois,
v.
Terra,
A.D.
li~2.
John C. Parks and Mary Parks. John W, Humphrey In Chancery. Lena Rrolius v. August Broliua.
and Mary F. Humphrey.Petition to restore record Affidavit of the non-residence of August Rrolius, de
in chancery.
fendant above named, hsving been filed in the office
Affidavit that John C. Parks, John W. Humphrey of
tho clerk of said Circuit, court of Cook county,
and
Mary F. orHumphrey,
three onof due
the inquiry
above cannot
named notice
is hereby given to the said August Rrolius that
defendants,
either of them,
the complainant Heretofore filed her bill of complaint
be found, having been filed in the office of the clerk of in
said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
notice
Is
heroby
summons tbereupon
issuedon out
of saidMonday
court against
given to the said John C. Parks, John W. Humphrey said
returnable
the third
ofMay
and Mary F. Humphrey, that the complainants here next,defendant,
as is by law required.
tofore filed their petition to restore destroyed record, Now,(1872,)
unless
you,
the
said
August
Rrolius,
shaU
on
the
chancery
side
of
said
court,
and
that
asummons
bo and appear before sold Circuit court
of
thereupon issued out of said court against said defend personally
Cook county,
on thein first
day
of a on
termthethereof,
to be
ants, returnable on the third Monday of May next, holden
at
Chicago,
said
county,
thu
d
Mon
(1872,) as is by law required.
May, bs72, and plead, answer or demur to the
Now, unless von, the said John T. Parks, John W. day ofcomplainant's
bill of complaint, the same, and the
Humphrey and Mary F. Humphrey, shall personally said
and things therein charged and stated, will be
be. and appear before said Circuit court of Cook coun matters
taken us confessed, and a decree entered against yon
tv,
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to
be
holden
at
of said bill.
Chicago in said county, on the third Monday of May, according to the prayer
T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
IS72, and plead, answer or demur to the said complain
Matthew Marx,NORMAN
Corapl'cs Sol'r.
28-31
ants'
petition,
the
same,
and
the
matters
and
things
therein charged and stated, will he taken as confessed,
and a decree entered against you according to the
W.
W.
PERKINS,
prayer of said petition.
Attorney, 386 Wabash Avenue.
T. Comprts'
GASSETTE.
OF APPLICATION FOR RE-ENTERING
Fmanots'Adams ANORMAN
H. Lincoln,
Sol'rs.Clerk.
30-33 NOTICE
of
Recordof
a Judgment. Suite of Illinois, county
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Cook of Cook.ss. Superior court of Cook county. May Term,
1872. Willis H. Esty v. Samuel Rodgers und John D.
^
county,
ss.
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county.
May
term. A, D. 1872. Albert G. Lane, County Superintend Fee.Application for restoration of judgment.
ent of Schools of Cook county, Illinois, for the use of Affidavit of the non-residenco of John D. Fee, one of
the inhabitants of township thirty-nine (39) north, the above named defendants, having been filed in the
range thirteen (13), east of M principal meridian, in office of the clerk ofsaid Superior court of Cook county,
said
countv, Chancery.
v. William Ludgate. Petition to notice is hereby given to said John D. Fee, that said
restoreCook
record,In
Willis H. Esty has filed his petition for the re-entering
Affidavit that said defendant, on due inquiry, cannot of record a certain judgment heretofore obtained by
him againHt said John 1>. Fee and one Samuel Rod
be
having
the office
of theis clerk
saidfound,
Circuit
courtbeen
of filed
Cook incounty,
notice
herebyof gers, in said Superior court of Cook county, as set
forth by i*aid Esty in his said petition, and that a sum
given
to the saidfiledWilliam
Ludgute,to that
the complain
ant heretofore
his petition
restore
destroyed mons thereupon issued out of said court against said
record, on the chancery side of said court, and that a defendants, returnable on the first Monday of May
summons
thereupon
issued out
of said
against
as isyou,
by said
law required.
f-aid defendant,
returnable
on the
thirdcourt
Monday
of next
Now,(1872),
unless
John I). Fee. shall personally
bo and appear before said Superior court of Cook
May next (1472), as is by law required.
county,
on
the
first
day
of
thereof, to be holden
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
William
Ludgate,
shall
personally be and appear before said Circuit court of at Chicago, in said county, aonterm
tho first Monday of May,
1872, ana plead, answer, or demur to the said petition,
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
term
thereof,
to
be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Monday the same, and the matters and things therein charged,
of Hay. 1672, and pb*ad, anewer or'demur to the said staled, and alleged, will bo taken as confessed by yon,
complainant's petition, the same, and the matters and and au order entered in accordance with the prayer of
things
therein
and stated,
willyoube according
taken as said rpetition.
AUGUSTUS JAC0BSON, Clerk.
confessed,
and'acharged
decree entered
against
W. W. Pcbxins, Att'y for Petitioner.
28-31
to the prayer of said petition.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
Francis Adams A H. Lincoln. Com pl't's Sol'rs. 30-33
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois,
of
HANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Cook plHANCERY
\j Cook, ss. Superior
court of Cook
county.County
To May
county,
ss.
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county.
May
Term,
A.D.
1872.
Ruben
Rubelv.
Johu
L.^Campbell.
term, A. I>. 1*72.. The Trustees of Schools of township
chancery.
thirty-nine (39) north, range thirteen (13), east of the In
Affidavit
of theabove
non-named,
residencehaving
of John
Campin
third principal meridian, in Cook countv, Illinois, v. bell,
defendant
beenL. filed
Charles J. Stolbrand and M. Sophie Stolbrand. Peti the office
of
the
clerk
of
said
Superior
court
of
Cook
tion to restore record In Chancery.
county, notice is hereby given to the said John L.
Affidavit
that
said
Charles
J.
Stolbrand
and
M.
Sophie
Cam
pool1,
that
the
complainant
heretofore
filed
his
Stolbrand. or either of them, on due inquiry, cannot 1
of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
bo found, having been filed in the office of the clerk of bill
thereof,
and
that
a
summons
thereupon
issued
out
said Circuit court of Cook county, notice is hereby of said court against said defendant, returnable on
given
to the saidthoCharles
J. Stolbrand
and filed
M. Sophie
i the first Monday of May next (1872,) as is by law re
Stolbrand
complainants
petition tothat
restore record,
on the heretofore
chancery Bide
oftheir
said ( quired.
you, the said John L. Campbell, shall
court, and that a summons thereuqon issued out of I Now, unless
bo and appear before said Superior court
said court against said defendants, returnable on the. personally
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to
third
Monday
of
May
next
(Ji>72).
as
is
by
law
required.
\
at Chicago, in said county, on the first Mon
Now, unless you. the said Charles J. Stolbrand and be holden
of May, 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the
M. Sophie Stolbrand, shall personally be and appear day
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
before said Circuit court of Cook county, on tho first said
thetaken
matters
and thingsand
therein
charged
andagainst
stated, will
day of a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said be
as confessed,
a decree
entered
you
county,
on demur
the third
May, \612, andpetition,
plead, according
to the prayer of said bill.
answer or
to Monday
tho said ofcomplainants'
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
the samo, and the matters and things therein charged
and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree en Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, Couipl't's Sol'r. 26-31
tered against you according to tho prayer of said peti
SAMUEL STRAUS,
tion.
NoRMaN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
Attorney-at'Law, b&2 Wabash Avenue.
Francis'AdamsAH. Lincoln, Comprts' Sol'rs. 3n-33
NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
pHANCERY-NOTICE." - State of Illinois, ~Cook pHANCERY
^ Cook.ss. Superior court of Cook couuty. To June
^ county,
ss. Circuit
court of
May Term,
A.D., 1872. Michael Schmidt v. Louise Schmidt.
term,
A. D. 1*72.
The Trustees
of Cook
Schoolscounty.
of township
Chancery.
thirty-nine (3y) north, range thirteen (13), east of third In
of the non - residence of Louise Schmidt,
principal meridian, in Cook county, Illinois, v. Eli/.a Affidavit above
named, having been filed in the office
A. Crocker and The unknown heirs or devisees of defendant
the
clerk
of said
court
of Cook
county,
George F. ('rocker, deceased. Petition to restore of
notice is hereby
givenSuperior
to the said
Louiso
Schmidt
that
record,In Chancery.
the complainant neretofore liled his bill of complaint
Affidavit
that
the
above-named
defendants,
on
duo
said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
inquiry, cannot be found, having been filed in tho office ainsummons
thereupon issued out ofsaid court against
of
clerk ofgiven
said Circuit
courtEliza
of Cook
couuty, and
no said defendant,
returnable on tho first Monday 01 June
ticetheis hereby
to the said
A. Crocker
next,
(1872.)
is bythe
lawsaid
required.
Tho
unknown
heirs
or
devisees
of
George
F.
Crocker,
Now, unlessas you,
Louise Schmidt, shall perdeceased, that tho complainants heretofore filed their sonally
be and appear before said Superior court of
petition to restore destroyed record, on the chancery Cook couuty,
on
tho
first
of a term thereof, to be
side of said court, and that a summons thereupon is holden at Chicago, in saiddaycounty,
on the first Mon
sued out
of said
against
return
able
on the
thirdcourt
Monday
of said
May defendants,
next (1372). as
is by day of June. 1*72, and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
bill
of
complaint,
the
same, and
the
law required.
and things therein charged and stated,
will^be
Now, unless you. the said Eliza A. Crocker and The matters
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
unknown heirs or devisees of George F. Crocker, de according
to the prayer of said bill.
ceased, shall personally bo and appear before said Cir
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
cuit
courtto ofbe Cook
on theinfirst
of aonterm
28-31
thereof,
holdencounty,
at Chicttgo,
said day
county,
the Samuel Straus, Compl't's Sol'r.
third Monday of May, 1*72, and plead, answer or de
mur to the said complainants' petition, the same, and pHANCERY NOTICE. -State of Illinois, County
tho matters and things therein charged and stated,
Cook ss. Superior Court of Cook County.
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against May ofTerra,
A.D. 1872. James Carter v. The Washing
you according to tho prayer of said petition.
ton Insurance Company of New York, George SatterNORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk. lee,
Charles V. Dyer, and F. H. Winston. In Chancery.
Francis Adams AH. Lincoln; CompPu' Sorrs. 30-33 Affidavit
of the non-residence
of George
Satterlee.
one of the defendants
above named,
liaving been
filed
E. VAN BUREN,
in the office of the Clerk of said Superior court of Cook
Attorney.
couuty,
notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
George
GiUARDIAN'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE.-Stute of terlee, that the complainant heretofore filed his billSatof
r Illinois, Cook county, ss. In the Circuit court of
said court,thereupon
on the chancery
Cook county. Iu the matter of the application of complaint
and that aiu summons
issued sido
out thereof,
of said
Eliza
of Edward P. Towno, minor, court
against said defendant, returnable on the first
to sell H.realTowne,
estateguardian
of said minor.
of May next (1872), as is by law required.
By Virtue of a decree entered in said cause on the Monday
Now, unless you, the said George Satterlee, shall
25th day
of April,
A. D. 1672.
the April(20th)
terra ofdaysaidof personally
be and appear before said Superior court of
court,
I shall,
on Monday,
theattwentieth
county , on the first day ol a terra thereof, to be
May. A. D. is~2, at ten (10) o'clock of the forenoon of Cook
at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
said day, at the east door of the old court house, in tho holden
of May, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the said
city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State of Illinois, complainant's
bill of complaint, the Barae, and the
sell
public
auctionterms,
to tho
and best
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
uponat the
following
viz.highest
: One-third
cash bidder,
on tho taken
as confessed, and a decree entered against you
day of Bale; the balance in three equal payments, pay according
to tho prayer of saidA.bill.
able in one,
two,rateandof throe
respectively,
bearing
JACOBSON, Clerk.
interest
at the
eight years
per cent,
per annum,
ana 2S-31
to be secured by mortgage or trust deed upon said Charlks H. Lawrence, Compl't's Sol'r.
promises,
all
the
right,
title
and
interest
of
tho
said
minor in the following doscribed real estate, to wit:
MONROE, BISBEE & GIBBS,
An
one-sixth
(1-tl) ofofnortheast
undividedone-quarter
four-fifths
Attorneys. 523 Wabash Avenue.
(4-ft)undivided
of west ten
(10) acres
(H) of northwest one-quiirter O4) of section twenty- ESTATE OF JAMES N. FERGUSON, DECEASED.
three (23), town thirty-eight (38), range fourteen (14),
Notice
is hereby given to all persons having
Also, an undivided ono-sixth f 1-6) of undivided fourand demands against the estate of James N.
fifths (4-5) of east one-half (*i) of northwest one- claims
Ferguson,
deceased,
the same for adjudica
ijuarter (HO of northwest one-quarter ('4) of section tion and settlement toat present
term of the [County
twenty-three
thirty-eight (3tf), range four- court of Cook county, toa beregular
holden at the court house,
teen (14). (23), town
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
of June,
Also, tho undivided two-fifths (2-5) of lot number A.D. 1872, being the third day thereof.Monday
'
four
U), in block
number
ninoteen
(19), inquarter
the Assess
April 20, A.D. 1*72.:
or's division
of tho
northwest
fractional
(li) Chicago.
Administratrix.
of section number twenty-two (22), town thirty-nine 28-33CAROLINE G. FERG US0N.
With will annexed.
(39) north, range fourteen (14), east of the third
principal meridian.
ELIZA H. TOWNE,
Guardian
of Edward
P. Towne.
JOSEPH WRIGHT,
E. Van Bures, Attorney
of said
Guardian.
29-31
Attorney, Room 43. Central Union BloeJc.
E~STATE~W*WiLLlASi-EBERT,
DECEASED.STATE
OF
JOHN HOLLAND, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims E1 Notice is hereby
given
all estate
personsofhaving
and demands against the estate of William Ebert, claims
and
demands
againstto the
John
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and Holland, deceased, to present
the same for adjudi
settlement at a regular term of the County court of cation and settlement at a regular
term
of
the
Cook county, to be holden at tho court house, in the County court of Cook county, to bo holden at the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of Juno, A.D. court house in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
1672, being the third day thereof.
A. D. 1872. being the third day thereof.
JOHANNA POSTHOFF, Administratrix. day of June,
WINIKREDA
Chicago. April 18, A. D. 1872.
Chicago,
April
1872.HOLLAND, Administratrix.
Johnston A Rogers, Attorneys.
29-34 Josepb Wright,23,Attorney.
29-34

Chicago
iS"^-,iw U^cd Street.
(CHANCERY NOTICE.MM* 01 Illinois, County of
J Cook, 8. Circuit court 01 Look county. May
term, A. D. 1872. Charles S. Thompson v. Harriet L.
Stewart and James P. Stewart.Mechanic's Lien.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Harriet L. Stewart
and James P. Stewart, defendant above named, having
been tiled in the office of the clerk of said Circuit
court of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the
said
Harriet L.heretofore
Stewart andfiledJames
Stewart for
that me
the
complainant
his P.petition
chanic's lien in paid court, and that a summons there
upon
issuedonouttheof third
said court
against
said next
defendants,
returnable
Monday
of May
(1872),
as is by law required.
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
Harriet
L.
Stewart
James P. Stewart, shall personally bo and appearand
be
forea said
of Cook
on the first
day
of
termCircuit
thereof,court
to lie
boldeucounty,
at Chicago,
in said
county, on the third Monday of May, 1*72, and plead,
answer or demur to the said petition, the same, aud the
matters and things therein charged and Htated, will be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said petition.
NORMAN
CASSETTE, Clerk.
Munk & Hamilton,
Compl't'sT. Sol'rs.
27-30
HARDING & McCOY,
Attorney*, ;W8 Wabash Ave.
CHANCERY
State
of llliuols,
of Cook, ss. NOTICE.
Circuit court
of Cook
county.County
June
term, A. t>. 1*72, Hector V. Loving v. Mary Q. Mor
ton, Henry C. Morton, Eugenia Q. Young, John C.
Young, Corinne U. Watson, George C. Watson, Laura
Bell Quigley. Hallie E. Quigley, LuciHii G. Quiglev,
Mary H. Quigley. Eliza M. Quigky, Martha P. JL
Quigley, Eliza G. Quigley, Maria E. Quigley, Edward
P. Quigley, Fannie Quigley, and the Connecticut Mu
tual Lite Insurance Company.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of all the defendants
above named, having been filed in the office of the
elerk of said Circuit court of Cook county, notice
is hereby given to the said defendants that the coinplainanvteretofore
filed his
of complaint
said
court, on the chancery
sidebill
thereof,
aud thatina sum
mons thereupon issued out of said court against said
defendants, returnable on the third Monday of Juno
next
(1872),
as isyou,
by the
lawsaid
required.
Now,
unless
Mary Q. Morton, Henry C.
Morton, Eugenia Q. Young, John 0. Young, Corinne
Q. Watson, George C. Watson, Laura Bell Quigley,
Hallie
E. Quigley,
Lucian
G. Quigley,
Mary H.Eli/a
QuigG.
ley,
Eliza
M. Quigley,
Martha
P. H. Quigley,
"uigley,
Maria
E.
Quigley.
Edward
P.
Quigley,
Kmmie
.ulgley, and' the
" ~ Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance
OQipany, shall personally be and appear before said
Qpl
Circuit
court of Cook county, on the first day of a
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
on the third Monday of June, 1872, and plead, answer
or demur to the said complainant's bill of complaint,
the
mattersasand
things and
therein
charged
and same,
stated,and
willthe
be taken
confessed,
a decree
en
tered against you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Harding & McCoy,Compl't's Sol'rs.
27-30
A. B. JENKS,
Attorney.
ESTATE OF LEWIS P. HILL. DECEASED Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Lewis P. Hill, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, In the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, be
ing the third day thereof.
JOHN L. W'OODCOCK, Administrator.
ISABELLA HILL, Administratrix.
Chicago, April 9, A. D. 1872.
A. B. JENK8, Att'y.
27-32a
HOWE ft RUSSELL,
Attorneys, 475 Wabash Avenue.
TESTATE
SENECA
X~J Notice isOF
hereby
given toWRIGHT,
all personsDECEASED.having claims
and demands against the estate of Seneca Wright, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement
a regular
the County
Cookof
county, toat be
holdenterm
at theofcourt
house, court
in theofcity
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
June,
A.
D.
1872,
being the third day thereof.
ADALINE C. WRIGHT, Administratrix.
Chicago, April 13, A. D. 1872.
Howe A Russell. Attorneys.
28-33
E8TATE OF SOPHIA B. WHITING, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Sophia B. Whit
ing, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D.
1872, being the third day thereof.
JOSEPH T. JANES,
HELEN S. JANES,
Chicago, April 13, A. D. 1872.
Executors.
Howe A Rubskll, Attorneys.
2s-33
EDWIN GREENE.
Attorney, 4b Hubbard Court
ESTATE OF JOSEPH MEEKER, DECEASED.Notice
is
to all persous
claims
and demandshereby
againstgiven
the estate
of Josephhaving
Meeker,
doceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, be
ing the third day thereof.
ELIZABETH MEEKER, Executrix.
Chicago, April 10. A. D. 1872.
Edwin Greene, Att'y.
27-30
MAGRUDER & KERR,
Attorneys, 40 Central Union Block.
ESTATE
LOUIS
DECEASED.
Notice OF
is hereby
givenBELTZ
to all persons
having
claims and demands against the estate of Louis
Beltz,settlement
deceased,t>
to regular
present term
the same
adjudication
and
ot theforCounty
Court
of Cook county, to be holden at the Conrt House, in
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday ofJune, A. D.
1872, being the third day thereof.
LYNE S. DAVISON, Administrator.
Chicago, March 25. A. D. 1872.
HaqbvdebA Kebb, Attorneys.
25-30
ESTATE OF ARTHUR G. MORVAN. DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Arthur G.
Morvan.
deceased,
present^the
forCounty
adjudication
and
settlement
at atoregular
termsame
of the
court
of Cook county, to be holden at the court honse, in
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A. D.
1872, being the Bixth
day thereof. Administratrix.
Chicago, MarchMARY
22, A. D.MORVAN.
1872.
2.v:wp
NOTICE is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Lucius A. Griswold, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County conrt
of Cook county, to beholden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D.
1873, being theMARIA
first dayGRISWOLD,
thereof. Administratrix.
Chicago,
April
3,
A.
D.
26-31
Bennett A Sherburne,1872.
Atty's for Administratrix.
0. R. BR0USE,
Attorney, 400 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE OF MARY McNULTY, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of Mary
McNulty, deceased, to present the same for adjudi
cation and settlement at a regular term ofthe County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court
houBe,
citybeing
of Chicago,
first Monday of
July, A.inD.the1872,
the firstondaythethereof.
FANNY McNULTY, Executrix.
Chicago, March 30, A. D. 1872.
O. R. Brotjbe, Attorney.
25-30

Legal

CLARKS0N & VAN SCHAACK,

Attorneys, 4o4 Wabash Axenue.
fJHANCERY
Illinois,
v Cook, bs. NOTICE.-State
Circuit court of of
Cook
county,County
Marchof
term, A. D. 1872. Catherine McKay and Hector McKay
v. George W. Hill, Sarah J. Hill, Adam S. Bainter,
Luke
ft. McMurray.
George
W. M.
Ferrall.
JohnMelF.
Heauey,
Wheeler,
Nancy
Goddard
ville
0. Sarah
Eaincs.J. Catherine
Gallagher,
Mever Newbejrger, J. W. Turner, Gilbert Cleveland. Albert C.
Cleveland, Aaron N. Hart, A. N. Nugent Horace
Allen. George F. Cram and Robert 11. Walker.In
Chancery.
CrossBill.due inquiry Sarah J. Hill, Adam
Affidavit that
upon
S. Bainter, Luke It. McMurray. George W. Kerrall,
NaucyGilbert
M. Goddard
Catherine
J. W.Horace
Tur
ner,
Cleveland,
A. N. Gallagher,
Nugent and
Allen,
defendants
above
named,
cannot
be
found,
so
that process cannot be served upon them, having been
filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit court of
Cook county, uotice is hereby given to the said Sarah
J.
AdamNancy
S. Bainter,
Luke R.Catherine
McMurray,
George
W.Hill,
Ferrall,
M. Goddard,
Gallagher,
J. W. Turner, Gill>ert Cleveland, A. N. Nugent and
Horace
Allent thatof the
complainants
court, on filed
the
their cross-bill
complaint
in saidheretofore
chancery side thereof. aud that a summons thereupon
issued out of said court ajrainst said defendants, re
turnable
on the 1 In nisummons
Monday of March ( 1872).
is byof
law
required,
18th asofday
March,
A. D. which
Itffl. duly returnedwas.by onIhethesheriff
taid
county, not served upon yon, the la.-t above-named de
fendants,
and
that
upon
diligent
inquiry
and
search
he
was unable to find you in his county, so that he could
not serve said summons upon you.
Now, unless you, the said Sarah J. Hill. Adam S.
Bainter. Luke K. McMurray, George W. Ferrall,
Nancy M. Goddard. Catherine Gallagher. J. W. Turuer, Gilbert Cleveland, A, N. Nugent aud Horace
Allen, stialt personally le and appear before said
Circuit court ot Cook county, on the first day of a
term thereof, to le holden at Chicago, in said county,
on the third Monday of May, 1S72, and plead, answer
or demur to the said complainants cross-bill of com
plaint, the same, and the matters and things therein
charged and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a
decree entered against yon according to the prayer of
said
cross-bill.A VanNoKMAN
T. GASSETTE.
Clarkson
Schaack. Comprta'
Sol'rs. Clerk.
Z7-30
ROSENTHAL, PENCE & MOSES,
Attorneys.
ADMINISTRATORS SALE.- Louisa Heller, ad
ministratrix
of
the
estateHess,
of Israel
de
ceased, v, Rosa Hess, Abraham
FannyHeller,
McCreary,
Robert
McCrcary
Caroline
Schram,
Benedict
Schram.
Theresa Purges, Henry Porges. Esther Schram, Jacob
Schram and Elizabeth Heller. Superior court of Cook
county. Petition to sell real estate to pay debts.
Public notice is hereby given that in pursuance of the
decree
court in said
heretofore
I shaliof, said
on Saturday,
thecause,
)Sth Iday
of May,entered,
A. D.
1872. at 10 o.cloek, n. m., sell at public auction, for cash,
to the highest bidder, at the north end of the new City
Hall, corner of LaSalle and Adams streets, in Chicago,
Illinois, the following described premises, viz: Lot
six in block three (3) in Quick's subdivision o'
Harlem, being part of the northeast quarter of sec
tion twelve (12,) in town thirty-nine (39,) north of
range twelve (12) east of 3rd p. m., in Cook county,
Illinois.
LOUISA HELLER,
April 5,Administratrix
1872.
of estate of Israel Heller, deed.
Rosenthal, Pence A Moses, Pl'ffs Arty's. 2R-31
STATE
NoticeOFis KATHARiNA~ROSE.
hereby given to all DFCEASED.persons hav
ing claims and demands against the estate of Katharina Rose, deceased, to present the same for adindication and settlement at a regular term of the
Countyhouse,
courtin oftheCook
to on
be the
holden
the
court
city ofcounty,
Chicago,
firstatMon
day of June, A. D. 1672, being the third day thereof.
Chicago. March 29, A. D.HENRY
1M72. ROSE, Executor.
Rosenthal. Pence A Moses, Compl't's Sol'rs. 25-30
DUNNING & EASTON,
Attorneys, 479 Wabash Avenue.
CHANCERY
NOTICE.-8tate
Illinois,
CountyMay
of
Cook.ss. Superior
court ofofCook
county.
term,
A.
D.
1872.
Edmund
J.
Hooper
v.
Emma
Hooper.In Chancery.
Affidavitabove
of thenamed,
non-residence
of Emma
de
fendant
having been
filed Hooper,
in the office
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, no
tice is hereby given to the said Emma Hooper thai
the complainant heretofore filed his bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of May
next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Emma Hooper, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior court ot
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday
of May, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be you
taken
as confessed,
and a ofdecree
entered
against
according
to the prayer
said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
Dunnino A Kaston, Compl't's Sol'rs.
27-30
JAMES FRAKE,
Attorney, 115 W. Madison St.
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
COOK
bs.-To
the May term of the County
courtCOUNTY,
of Cook county,
A. D. 1*72. In the matter of the guardianship of Margret Born (formerly Margret Muller). Amelia Muller,
Otto Muller and Louis Muller. minors.
To all persons concerned : Take notice, that the un
dersigned, guardian of Margret Born (formerly Mar
gret Muller), Amelia Muller, Otto Muller and Louis
Muller, minors, will, at the May term of said conrt, to
be holden at the court house, in the city of Chicago, in
said county, on the first Monday of May next, present
to
saidof court,
for ofacceptance,
his resignation
of the
office
guardian
the above-named
minors, accord
ing to the statute in such case made and provided.
MEDAKD M. LOCHNER, Guardian, etc.
Dated Chicago, April 8, 1872.
27-30
ESTATE OF LEMUEL FOSTER. Deceased.-Notice
is hereby
giventheto estate
all persons
having Foster,
claims and
demands
against
of Lemuel
de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment, at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be nolden at the Court House, In the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, being
the third day thereof.
LYDIA C. FOSTER, Executrix.
Chicago, April 17. A. D. 1872,
28-33a
ESTATE
OF
GEORGE
JEFFRES,
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having ctaims
and
demands
against
of George and
Jeffres,
deceased,
to present
the the
sameestate
for adjudication
set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872,
being the third day thereof.
GURDON
HUBBARD and
GEORGE J.S. JEFFRES,
Administrators.
Chicago, April 8. A. D. 1872,
27-32a
ANDREW H. D0LT0N,
Attorney.
ESTATE
OF TEUNIS
DECEASED.-Notice is hereby
given toSWET8,
all persons
having claims
and demands against the estate of Tennis Swets de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D. 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
ANDREW H. DOLTON,
Administrator, with will annexed.
Chicago. April 26, A. D. 1872.
Andbkw H. Dolton, Attorney.
29-34

News.

H0YNE, HORTON ft HOTNE,

Attvritei/s.
fiHANCERY NOTICE.
- State of Illinois, Cook
^ county, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. June
term,
A.
D.
1
-7j.
Margaret
WalshTimothy
and JohnBrickley,
Walsh,
ber husband, v. John Brickley,
Ciitheriue Potter. Daniel Potter. Mary L. Brickley.
John Brickiev and Mary Brickley. In Chancery.
Affidavit of the noii-r-si'.- n> of John Brickley,
Catherine abort*
Potternauiod.
and Daniel
of the
defendants
having Potter,
been Hidthree
in theoftice
of the clerk of said Circuit court n| Cook county, notice
Is hereby given 10 the said John Brickiev, Catherine
Potter filed
and Daniel
that theincomplainants
tofore
their billPotter
of complaint
said court, onhere
the
chuncery
side
thereof,
and
that
a
summons
thereupon
issued out oi said court against said defendants,
return
able on the third Monday of June (ks7^), as is by law
required.
Now, unless you, the said John Brickley. Catherine
Potter and Daniel Potter, shall personally be and ap
pear
before
Cook county,
on the
first duy
ot asaid
termCircuit
thereof,court
to tieofholden
nt Chicago,
in
said
thirdto Monday
of June, ls72, ami
plead,county,
answeronor the
demur
tho mud complainants'
bill
of complaint, the num. end the matters and things
tnerein charged and stated, will be taken as confessed,
aud a decree entered against you according to the
prayer of said bill.
T. GASSETTE,
Horn, Horton ANORMAN
Hoyne, Compl'ls'
Sol'rs. Clerk.
30-33
pHANCEUY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Cook
county, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. May'
term.
A. D.
M. Marshall
and Susan
C.
Marshall
v. 1872.
John James
Slepicka.
Rosa Slepicka,
Wenzel
Bchulderand Franz Horal.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Franz Horal, one of
the defendants ubove named, having beeti filed In the
office of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said Franz Horal
that the complainanis
filed side
theirthereof,
bill of
complaint
in said court, heretofore
on the chancery
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
against said defendant, returnable on the third Monday
of May next (1872). 11s is by law required.
Now. unless yon, the said Franz Horal, shall
personally
be andonappear
before
court
of Cook county,
the first
day said
of aCircuit
term there
of,
to
be
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
third
Monday of May, 1372. and plead, answer or demur
to
the
said
complainants'
bill
of
complaint,
the
same,
and the matters aud things thereincharged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Hoyne, Horton k Hoyne, Compl'ts' Sol'rs.
30-33
(MIANOERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Cook
j county, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. May
term, A. D. 1872. George W. Norton v. Nimrod Long,
AmandaLong
F. Long.
John P.Long,
Long,
com G.ofLong.
Mattie
and Nimrod
as Ma
guardian
said
Malcom G. Long and Mattie Long.In Chancery.
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of
all
the
defendants
above mimed, having been filed in the office of the
clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county, notice is
hereby given to the said defendants that the complain
ant
heretofore
bill of and
complaint
said court,
on the
chanceryfiled
sidehisthereof,
that anin alias
sum
mons thereupon issued out of said court against Maid
defendants, returnable on the third Monday of May
next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Nimrod Long Amanda F.
Long, John
P. Long,
G. LongG.andLong
Nimrod
Long,
as guardian
of Malcom
said Maalcoin
aud
Mattie Long, shall personally be and appear before
Baid Circuit court ot Cook county, on the first day of a
term thereof, to be holdeu at Chicago, in said county,
on the third Monday of May, 1872, and plead, answer
or demur to the said complainants bill of complaint,
the same, and the matters and things therein charged
and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree
entered against you according to the prayer of said
bill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Hoyne, Horton & Hoyne, Compl't's Sol'rs. 30-33
C~mAN0ERY
of~Iliinois,
J county, ss. NOTICE.-State
Circuit court of Cook
county. Cook
May
lerm. A. D. 1872. Hugh Barclay aud George W.Nor
ton v. Nimrod Long, Amanda F. Long, John P. Long,
Malcom G. Long, Mattie Long and Nimrod Long, as
guardian of said Malcom G. Long aud Mattie Long.
InAffidavit
Chancery.
of the non-residence of all the defendants
above named, having been filed in the offlco of the
clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county, notice is
hereby given to the Baid defendants that the com
plainants heretofore filed their bill of complaint in
said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that an
alias Btimmons thereupon issued out of said conrt
againBtsaid defendants, returnable on the third Mon
day of May next (I872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Nimrod Long, Amanda F.
Long, John P. Long.Malconi G. Long. Mattie Long and
Nimrod Long, as guardian of said Malcom G. Long and
Mattie Long, shall personally be and appear before said
Circuit court of Cook county, on the first day of aterm
thereof to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the
third Monday of May, 1872, and plead, answer ordemur
to the said complainants' bill of complaint, the same,
ana the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the
prayer ofT.said
bill.
NORMAN
GASSETTE,
Clerk.
Hoyne, Horton & Hoyne, Compl'ts' Sol'rs. 30-33
JOHN LYLE KING,
Attorney.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois. County of
courtWrilhelm
of Cookv. Franz
county.Urbain,
June
term,Cook,
A. D. ss.
1872.Circuit
Christian
Maria Urbain, Peter Sleffer and John Gusmus.In
Chancery.
Alfidavit of the non -residence of John Gusmus. one of
the defendants above named, having been filed in the
office
clerk ofgiven
said Circuit
Cook Gusmus
county,
noticeof isthehereby
to thecourt
saidofJohn
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of
complaint in said court, on the chancery Bide thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said
court against Baid defendant, returnable on the third
Mondny of June next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said John Gusmus, shall
personally be and appear before said Circuit court
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof,
to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third
Monday of June, 1872. and plead, answer or demur to
the said complainant's bill ofcomplaint, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will
be taken astoconfessed,
decree
you according
the prayerandofasaid
bill.entered against
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
John Lyle Kino, Comprts' Sol'r.
29-32
EDWARD J. HILL,
Masonic Temple, NOTICE
cor. Randolph
and Hoisted Sis.
PUBLICATION
IN ATTACHMENT.X State of Illinois, Cook County, ss. Superior court
of Cook county. May Term, A. D., 1872. Harford J.
Perkins
Nathaniel
B. Coder.
Public v.notice
is hereby
given to the said Nathaniel
B. Coder that a writ of attachment issued out of the
office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook county,
dated the filth day of April, A.D. 1872, at the suit of the
said Harford J. Perkins, and against the estate of
Nathanieldollars,
B. Coder,
for thetosum
threeofhundred
and
forty-five
directed
the of
sheriff
Cook coun
ty,Now,
whichtherefore,
said writ has
been
returned
executed.
unless you, the said Nathaniel
B. Coder, shall personally be and appear before the
said
Superior
court
of Cook
or holden
before
the first day of the next
termcounty,
thereof, on
to be
at the court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first
Monday of May, A. D. 1872, give special bail and
plead to the said plaintiffs action, judgment will be
entered against you, and in favor of the said Harford
J. Perkins, and so much of the property attached as
may be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and costs
will be sold to satisfy the same.
Edward J. Hill, Attorney.A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
29-32

239
BANKR UPTCY NOTICES.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
1 ttomcy.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi
nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the 15th
dayTheoi"undersigned
April, A. D. hereby
1*7-'. gives notice of his appoint
ment as assignee of Edward H. Perry and Orlando
S. Perry, of Chicago, in the county of Cook, and State
of Illinois, who have been adjudged bankrupts, upon
creditors' petition, by the District court of the United
States, iu aud lor said District.
28-3
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi- \ nois, ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the 23th
duyTheof undersigned
April. A. D. hereby
1872. gives notice of his appoint
ment as assignee of AlfoiiKe L. Mandel, of Chicago, In
the
countyaofbankrupt,
Cook, andupon
Statecreditors'
of Illinois,petition,
who hasbybeen
adjudged
the
District court of the United Stat**H in and for said Dis
trict.
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
29-31
TN
THE for
DISTRICT
COURT
OF THE
UNITED
I States,
the Northern
District
of Illinois.
In
the matter of Joseph J. Siddall, bankrupt.In Bank
ruptcy.
This is to give notice that I have filed my final ac
counts as assignee of tne estate of said bankrupt, in
said court, and that on the 20th day of May, 1872, 1
shall apply to said court for the settlement of my said
accounts
a discharge
from with
all liability
assignee ofandsaidforestate,
in accordance
the provias
sions of the -Mh section of the bankrupt act of March
2, 18*7.
ROBERT E. JENKINS. Assignee.
2H-3Q
TN
THEforDISTRICT
COURT
X States,
the Northern
DistrictOFof THE
Illinois.UNITED
In the
matter of George W. Stevens, bankrupt.In Baukruptey.
This is to give notice that I have filed my final ac
count*
as assignee
saidofbankrupt,
said court,
and thatof onthetheestMte
2nthofday
May. 1872,in1
shall apply to said court for the settlement of my said
accounts
and
for
a
discharge
from
all
liability
assignee
ot said
withactthe
provias
28th estate,
sectioninofaccordance
the bankrupt
of March
sions of the
2, 18*7.
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
29-3(J
TN THE DISTRICT COURT OK THE UNITED
X States, for the Northern District of Illinois. In the
matter of Charles A. Hall and George H. Bunt, bank
rupts.In
This is toBankruptcy.
give notice that I have filed my final ac
counts
as assignee
estate
said ofbankrupts,
said court,
and thatofonthethe
2nthofday
May. 1872,in1
shall apply to said court for the settlement of my said
accounts
a discbame
from with
all liability
assignee ofand
saidforestate,
in accordance
the provias
sions of the 28th section of the bankrupt act of March
2, 1867.
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
2">3u
NORMAN C. PERKINS,
Attorney, Aw. 47i> Wabash avenue,
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE. District Court of the
United States, Northern District of Illinois, ss.
The asundersigned
givesofnotice
of hisInsurance
appoint
ment
assignee ofhereby
the estate
the State
Company, of Chicago, inn the county of Cook and State
bankrupt.
of Illinois, which has been adjudicated a bankrupt,
upon
by theDistrict
Districtofcourt
of the
Unitedcreditors'
States forpetition,
the Northern
Illinois.
NORMAN C. PERKINS, Assignee.
Dated Chicago, April 26, A. D. ls-72.
29-31
A SSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of IlliJ\ nois. ss. At Chicago in said District, on the luth
dayTheof undersigned
April, A.D. 1872.
' gives notice of his appoint
hereby
ment as assignee of The Home Insurance Company of
Chicago,
the County
of Cook
and State
of Illinois,
which hasin been
adjudged
a bankrupt
upon
its own
petition by the District Court of the United States in
and for the said District.
THOMAS BUCKLEY. Assignee.
Wm, H. Holden, Attorney.
29-31
A.T0TICE FOR PUBLICATION.-This is to give no
il tice, inthat
on the 10th
April, A.
1872,ofa
warrant
bankruptcy
was day
issuedof against
theD.estate
Daniel
P.
Newell,
of
the
city
of
Chicago,
in
the
county
Cook, and on
Statebisofown
Illinois,
whothat
has the
beenpayment
adjudged
aof bankrupt
petition,
of
any debts and the delivery of any property belonging
to such bankrupt, to him or for his use. and the trans
fer ot any property by him are forbidden by law; that
a meeting of the creditors of the said bankrupt to
prove their debts, and to choose one or more assignees
of his estate, will be held at a court'of bankruptcy to
be holden at the office of Homer N. Hibbard, in said?
city of Chicago, before Homer N. Hibbard, Esq., Reg
ister, on the fifteenth day of May, A. D. 1872, at 10o'clock a. m.
B. H. CAMPBELL,
U. S. Marshal. Messenger.
28-30
By S. H. T0URTELL0TTE, Deputy.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
States, for the Northern District of Illinois.In
the matter of Ell N. Small, a bankrupt.
Notice is hereby given that the undersigned will, on
Saturday,
the llthavenue,
of May,in1872,
a. sell
m., at
No. 386 Wabash
the at
city10ofo'clock
Chicago,
at
public auction to the highett bidder for cash, any and
all interest which the said bankrupt may have in the
estate of his mother, Evelina Small, deceased.
2>-:ti
S. S. MERRILL, Assignee.
NOTICE FOR PUBLICATION.-This is to give no
tice, that on the 13th day of April A.D. 1872, a
warrant in bankruptcy was issued against the estate
of William C. Clark, of the city of Chicago, in the
connty of Cook, and State of Illinois, who has been
adjudged
abankrupt
on his
petition,
thatproperty
the pay
ment
of any
debts and
theown
delivery
of any
belonging to such bankrupt, to him or for his use, and
forbidden
by
the transfer
of any ofthe
property
by himofthe
are said
law
: that a meeting
creditors
bankrupt
to prove'their debts, and to choose oneor more assignees
of niB estate, will be held at a court of bankruptcy, to
be holden at the office of Homer N. Hibbard, in the
city of Chicago, before Homer N. Hibbard, Register,
on the sixteenth day of May, A.D. 1872, at 10 o'clock
a.m.
B. H. CAMPBELL,
U. S. Marshal. Messenger.
28-30
By S. H. TOURTELLOTTE, Deputy.
H. H. ANDERSON,
Attorney, Nixon's Building.
A SSIGNEE'S
NOTICE.Northern
District of
nois, ss. At
Chicago, in said District,
on I1Hthe
I The
thdayundersigned
of April, A.D.
1872.
hereby gives notice of his appoints
rr ^nt as assignee ofthe estate ofA. H. Davis, ofChicago,
th
he county ofa bankrupt,
Cook, and upon
State his
of Illinois,
who has
beenladjudged
ownin petition,
by
the
District court
of the United States
and for said
District.
H. H. ANDERSON,
28-38
Assignee.
H. 16.r>
A. WHITE,
Attorney. No.
West Washington St,
ESTATE OF GEORGE A. BIGELOW, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of George A. Bigelow.
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A.D. 1872, being
theChicago,
third day
thereof.
April
19th. A.D.G.1872.
LOUISA
BIGELOW, Executrix.
H. A. Wain, Attorney.
28-33*

240
ATTORNEYS.
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
STATUTES OF ILLINOIS, JAMES COCKCROFT & CO.,
M. HARRIS,
FRANK J. CRAWFORD,
Vol. II. 1871-72.
33*
VV
g. K. cor. Clark and Adams.
HAVE IN PREPARATION, AND WILL SOON
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AT-LAW,
MILLER, WILLIAMSON A MILLER,
Viiihori/rd Edition.
PUBLISH, THE
No. 32S Wabanh Avmws, Chicago.
1% W. Randolph street^
GEORGE C. FRY,
JACKSONVILLE (ILL.> ATTORNEYS.
I Publish To-Day, May 4, FIRST VOLUME
ATTORNEY AT LAW.
'ETCHAM, I. J.
LAWS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
34 Clinton Street, Room 5, Chicago.
39* THE
ptissud by the Twenty-Seventh Session of the
Of a proposed Series of
General
Assembly,
1871-7*2.
8. A. GOODWIN.
K. C. LARNF.D.
H. ft. TOWU.
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
Numerous chapters of the Revised Statutes have
PEPPER.
WILSON
4
MARTIN,
been
changed,
or
repealed,
or
new
laws
enacted
to
GOODWIN,
LARNED
&
TOWLE.
Room 2 Bank Building.
take radical,
their place.
and
hence The
thechanges
necessityareotgeneral,
at oncematerial
having American
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
these
laws
for
Immediate
use.
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
K. B. Myers' edition is published in pursuance of
No. 376 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.
11
law. and in udvauce uf the State or any other edition,
is^not usually
six niontlm.
and any
SANFORD, E. Special attention given to Collec- which
Railway
other edition,
withoutready
the under
certificate
of the Secretary
tiona and Real Estate.
M* of
BATES
A
HODCIE*,
State, is not evidence in auy Court.See Laws of
ld67.
Attorneys at Law, 113 W. Madison Sr.
One
large octavo volume of 680 pages, full law sheep.
HURD AND HOUGHTON, 13 Astor Place,
GEORGE C. BATES, Salt Laks, Utah.
Reports.
New York;
II.
ROGERS & ROGERS,
THE RIVERSIDE PRESS, Cambridge;
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS,
Have now ready :
WITHROW'S CORPORATION CASES.
8t Paul, Minn
THE AMERICAN CORPORATION CASES. Em It Is the intention of the Editor of these Reports to
HENRY
HAYDEN,
bracing the decisions of the Supreme Court of
FIRE INSURANCE CASES;
furnish all the current
the United States, the Circuit Courts of the
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW.
United States, and the courts of hist resort in
Kingston, Mo.
Embracing all the reported cawes in Great Britain and the
several States, of questions peculiar to the
America, including Canada and the British Prov
law of corporations, announced since Jan. 1, Decisions of the American Courts
inces. With Notes and Reference*. By Edmund H. 1868. By Thomas F. With row, Esq., lute Re
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
Bbnmf.tt. Vol. I. 8vo, law sheep, 825 pages. Price, porter of the Supreme Court of low a.
On questions of
The volumes,
Americanand
Reports
now number
overrote
twoofthou
tjo.
sand
are increasing
at the
one
Barker
St Waite, 46 East Harrison.
hundred volumes per pear. The expense of acquiring
Bates St Hodges, 131 La LaSalle street.
a full set of them, aud of keeping them complete, is
BAIL
WAY
LAW,
Beattie, C. J.. 45 South Canal.
beyond the ability of a large majority of the Bars of
Other Important Insurance Law Books. the
United States, and of a much larger majority of
individual members of the Bar. This precludes With references and notes of recent English Cases, BRA DWELL, J. B., 161 and 163 LaSalle street.
lilFK AND ACCIDENT INSrRABfCE the
exhaustive uxamination of questions in many parts of
Bonney, Fay & Griggs, 120 WeBt Washington street
REPORTS. Report* of all the published Lifeand the
country. Even at the central points where libra
ries are collected, either public or private, embracing and to make of the series a compendium of all the Bentley, Bennett, Ullman St Ives. 376 Wabash aw.
Accident Insurance Cases determined in thd Amer complete
collections,
the
labor
of
such
examinations
Brouse,
O. R., 400 Wabash avenue.
ican Courts prior to January, Uffl. With notes to is immense. The Law of Corporations con LATEST DECISIONS on matters arising in litiga
Carmichael, D. L,, 845 Prairie avenue.
English Cases. By Mki.villk M. Biof.low. of the stitutes a new field in the domain of jurisprudence.
Chase, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue.
Its boundaries are being enlarged, and every portion tion for or against Railway Companies.
Boston Bar. In one volume, 8vo, law sheep, $7,00. of
it is and
beingarguments
more thoroughly
by day.
Clarkson St Van Schaack, 464 Wabash avenue.
designeddeveloped
to aid theday
Courts
in
Briefs
From the Chicago Legal News.
Deane St Cahill, room 7, Llnd's Block.
this great work should be as nearly exhaustive as pos
"
This
is
one
of
the
most
valuable
volumes
of
Reports
to the end that the lav may be well and perma
Dent & Black, 131 LaSalle, Room 22.
we ever had occasion to iiotirt-. The opinions are re sible,
settled.
Durham,
W.. J., 159 La Salle street.
ported verbatim, and. with a single exception, in full. nently
enable every Lawyer to acquire all of
The head-notes* are nearly all rewritten, and matters theToAmerican
EJdridge St Tourtalotte, 401 Wabash avenue.
$6.00
per
Vol.
Price
Corporation
Cases
recently
decided,
and
not relating to insurance have been omitted. We com to reduce the labor of investigation in the argument
Swing St Leonard, 487 Wabash avenue.
mend the head-notes in this volume to other reporters ofcauses, has been the leading purpose in the prepara
as
models
Reports should
in per
the tion of these volumes, which will be continued as
Ellis, B. W., 115 West Madison street.
hands
of every lawyerThese
of extensive
practice,beand
Felker, Wm. S.. 92 Desplaines street.
as the we
material
will permit.to rely, in the main,
sons engaged in the business of Life or Accident In rapidly
At
present
are
compelled
Goodwin, D., jr., n. e. corner Monroe and La Salle.
surance."
upon the regular reports as sources from which to col
Goudy
& Chandler, Union Central Block.
but arrangements are being made to JAMES COCKCROFT & Co.,
OF THE LIFE AND ACCI lect material,
copies of opinions, arguments, etc.. Imme
Graham, Geo. T., 60 South Canal.
DENT INSURANCE CASES determined in securo
diately afler the dec*lilon of tbe eases,
Herbert & Quick, 61 Union Central Building, and 9tt
the Courts of America, England and Ireland, be with a view to their presentation to the profession in
State street.
499 WABASH AVENUE,
tween January, 1871, and January, 1872; together advance of the regular reports.
Hoyne, Phil. A., CongresB nail, between Michigan
-with most of the prior English Cases. With Notes Vol. I. Private Corporation Corporations, now
Wabash avenues.
CHICAGO, III. andHoyne,
and References. By Melville M. Bigklow, of the ready. $vo. 700 pp. $7.50.
Horton St Hoyne, 267 Michigan avenue.
Boston Bar. 8vo, law sheep, 816 pages. Price, $7.50. Vol.11. Municipal Corporations. In July.
Hitchcock,
Dupee & Evarts, corner Wells and MoaE. B. MYERS, Publisher,
PHILLIPS ON INSURANCE. A Treatise on
roe streets.
AD VERTISEMENT.
the Law of Insurance. By Willard Phillips.
393 Wabash avenue, Chicago.
Howe St Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
Fifth Edition, In two volumes, Sro. Price, $15.00.
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
A
I
THENTICA
TED
EDITION.
Jenkins,
Robert K., 18 East Harrison street.
WOOD & GARTER,
Knickerbocker. J. C. St J. J.. 163 West Washington
Attorney*. 202 W. Madison Street
STEVENS
&HAYNES
Leary. D. James, 95 West Madison.
GROSS'
TRUSTEE'S SALEWhereas. John Schmith and
Pauline Schmitt. his wife, by their trust deed,
Magruder, B. P.. 161 West Madison.
Law Publishers,
dated
the
sixteenth
(16)
day
of
May,
in
the
year
one
McClelland, Thos. S., 45 South Canal, room 6.
thousand eight hundred and seventy-one (1871), and STATUTES OF ILLINOIS.
Miller, M. M., Room 1, Masonic Temple.
duly recorded in the Recorder's office of Cook county,
BOOKSELLERS
AND
EXPORTERS,
in
the
State
of
Illinois,
in
Book
6t2of
Deeds.
pacre54,
Moore & Caulfleld, 54 Central Union Block.
Volume 2.
conveyed to tbe undersigned, Frank B. Marshall, as
Monroe, Bisbee St Gibbs, 523 Wabash avenue.
trustee, the following described lands and premises,
situated in the city of Chicago, In the county of Cook,
ACTS OF 1871 AND 1872.
AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS, Norton, Jessie 0., 386 Wabash avenue.
and State of Illinois, to wit : Lot number twenty-five
Nissen St Barnum, 109 Fifth avenue.
(25), iu (12).
Runtz'
subdivision
of tothethe
north
(S) of lot
the laws passed by the 27th General Assembly, of
Otis. E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
twelve
fn north
addition
city half
ofChicago,
in Allgeneral
and permanent interest, arranged, classi
the county of Cook, and State of Illinois, to securo the
PerkinB,
>'. C, 479 Wabash av., cor. Eld ridge court.
fied and indexed to correspond with our
LONDON.
payment of said John Schmith1! four certain promis
first volume of STATUTES.
Reynolds, W. C, 176 West Washington at.
sory notes given to secure a part of the purchase
Roberts, R. Riddle, room 7, 43 South Canal.
money of the aforesaid described premises, bearing
Jtt one handtome Royal Octavo Volume.
even date with said trust deed, payable to the order of
M. A. Si Son, Room 57, Central Union Block,
Jacob Heurieh, each of said promissory notes being Half Leather Binding, $3. Full Lkatiikr, $t. forts in all Classes of Literature Rorke,
Rosenthal, Pence Sc Moses, 328 Wabash avenue.
for the sum of two hundred dollars ($200), due and
SUPPLIED
TO
ORDER.
payable on the first day of November, 1871, 172, 1*73
Sawin & Wells, 79 West Madison St.
and cent,
1874, respectively,
with interest
atthe rate
eight Tbe same arrangement and classification is observed
Scammon, McCagg St Fuller, 389 Wabash avenue.
per
per annum, payable
annuallv.
And,ofwhere
Scoville, Geo., 30 South Clinton.
this ;volume
as init the
of our STAT
as, it was provided in said trust deed that in case de in
UTES
and while
is in First
every Volume
respect complete
with Catalogue* and Estimates Furnished, and Small St ingalls, 481 Wabash Ave.
fault should be made in tbe payment of either of the in
itself, it will be found especially useful to all who
Orders Promptly Filled.
indebtednesses
or
moneys
aforesaid,
secured
by
said
Smith, Upton St Waterman, 135 West Monroe s
possess our former work. Frequent notes of explana The Trustees and Officers of Public Li
instrument, whether lor principal or interest, on the tion
Tenny, McClellan St Tenny, 454 Wabash avenue
and reference are introduced to aid tbe reader
day on which the same or either thereof became due
braries may rely upon Uie most
and payable, then all and each of the moneys secured where otherwise ho might be in doubt, especially in
Thomas, Sidney, 79 Dearborn street.
by said trust deed should, upon such default, become noting
repeals
and
the
like.
careful
attention
to
their
Waughop, J. W., 401 Wabash>venue.
of the pane, type, quality of paper and
immediately due and payable, and also in case of The sizestyle
of binding and in ail minor details this
such default, said trustee might sell and dispose of the printing,
Williams St Thompson, Ki Wabash avenue.
work
is
uniform
with
our
First
Volume
:
bo
that
those
said premises, and all the right, title, benefit and equity
Dexter St Smith, 562 Wabash avenue.
are familiar with that work will know instantly By importing DIRECT from England a consider Walker,
of redemption of said party of the first part, their who
whore to look for what they want in the new. For able saving is effected, especially in the Customs duty, Wilson, Perry St Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
heirs or assigns therein, at public auction, at the north general
use
a
careful
index
is
provided.
door of the court house, in the city of Chicago, in the The same care has been used to make the text accu from which Public Institutions in the United States are
State of Illiuols, or on said premises, as may he speci rate as in former publicationseach section having
fied in the notice of such sale, for the highest and l>est been twice carefully compared with the enrolled law, exempt
J. II. BATTK9T,
price
samenotice
will having
bring inbeen
cash,
at least given
twentyof (20)
days* the
public
previously
the and the whole, authenticated by the certificate of the Secre
STATIONER,
SUNDRY mistakes have been made by our Foreign
of
titatf.
time and place of such sale by advertisement in one of tary
and Colonial
addressing
185 LA SALLE STREET,
the newspapers at that time published in the city of Orders solicited. Address
ters,
we beg toCorrespondents
notify that the in
members
of ourtheir
firm let
are
E. L it W. L OR4MM.
19-30
Chicago, and make, execute and deliver to the pur
Henbt O. Stevens and Robert W. Hayneb, the son Law Stationery and Legal Blanks.
Publishers. Springfield, Illinois. and
chaser or purchasers at such sale, good and sufficient *%Ready for delivery
ol theSince
late our
Valentine
S^evenB,
thohave
eminent
hfth May, 187a.
30 Lawstepson
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
deed or deeds ofconveyance for the premises sold ; and.
con
Publisher.
father's
death
we
whereas, default has been made in the payment of sud
tinued to carry on the business of Law K*ubllnhera,
SHORT-HAND WRITER,
first-mentioned
forday
theofNovember,
sum of two
Booksellers and Export-en, at the above ad
BROWN & RICKETTS,
And U. S. Commissioner.
hundred dollars,promissory
and due on note
the first
dress.
AVorneys.
Booms
1
and
2,
116
\V.
Madison
St
1871; and,
said four
notes,
During Ills recent visits to the United States and Western Union Telegraph Office, 554 Wabash Ave
NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of Canada,
gether
with whereas,
interest thereon
sincepromissory
the sixteenth
daytoof UAKCERY
Robert W. Havnes secured many Friends
sb. Superior court of Cook county. June
May,
D. 1*71, are unpaid:
and, whereas,
holder term,
c Cook.
; we are thus enabled to give ref
A.D. 1S72. Ellon E. Smith v. Henry A. Smith and Correspondents
H. S. & F. S. OSBORNE,
of
saidA.first-mentioned
promissory
note hasthe
requested
of the highest character in most of the princi
Chancery.of the non-residence of Henry A. Smith, erences
the undersigned to make sale of said described land InAffidavit
Attorneys, Room 52, Arcade Building.
cities.
and premises: now, therefore, public notice is hereby defendant above named, having been filed iu the office palWeAmerican
no connection whatever with any other
NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.given that in pursuance of the provisions of said trust ot the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, house have
of business, and to prevent delay and miscar PUBLICATION
X State ofIllinois, Cook county, ss. Superior court
deed,
by virtue
the power
andon
authority
granted
our Correspondents abroad are respectfully re of
Cook
county.
May
term, A. D. 1872. Samuel K.
is hereby given to the said Henry A. Smith that riage,
to me and
in and
by the ofsame,
I shall,
Thursday,
the notice
to plainly address their letters to us as fol Martin v. William Payne.Action
the complainant heretofore filed ker bill of complaint quested
thirtieth
day and
of May.
I>. 1872,
at eleven
o'clockproin in
Public notice is herehy given to oftheassumpsit.
said William
said court, on the chancery side thoreof, and that a lows:
the
forenoon,
uponA. the
premises
aforesaid,
Payne, defendant in the above entitled cause, that the
thereupon issued out of said court against
ceed to sell said described land and premises, and all summons
same
is
now
pending
in
waid
court,
and
that
a writ of
STEVENS
&
HAYNES,
said
defendant,
returnable
on
the
first
Monday
of
Juno
the right, title, benefit and equity of redemption of the
atttachment in aid of said suit at law, issued out of
by law
said John Schmith and Pauline Schmitt, their heirs or next.
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
the office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook
Now,(1S72.)
unlessas isyou,
the required.
said Henry A. Smith, shall
assigns
therein,
at
public
auction,
for
the
highest
and
county,
day ofK. Martin,
iday, A.andD.against
1872,
be and appear before said Superior court of
best price the same will bring in cash, to pay said four personally
LONDON,
at
tho suitdated
of thethenaid2dSamuel
Cook county,
on thein first
of a on
termthe thereof,
to be
promi"ory notes and accrued interest.
the estate ot William Payne, for the sum ofsix hun
holden
at Chicago,
said day
county,
first Monday
ENGLAND.
Dated May 4, 1872.
w

m
dred and sixty-four dollars and fifty-two cents, directed
of June, Is, 2. and plead, answer or demur to tbe sard
FRANK B. MARSHALL, Trustee. complainant
s bill of complaint, the same, and the Extract from " Report of Julius Rosenthal, Esq., to the sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
Wood & Carter, Attorneys.
30-3.1 matters and things
therein charged and stated, will be
executed.
Librarian to the President and Members of returned
Now, shall
therefore,
unlessbeyou.
saidbefore
William
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
M. A. R0REE & SON,
Payne,
personally
and the
appear
tho
the Chicago Law Institute." November, 1870.
according to the prayer of said
bill.
Attorney*. 57 Central Union Block.
said
Superior
ofCook county, on or before tho first
" To our collection of English Reports a valuable day oT the nextcourt
A.
JACOBSON,
Clerk.
term
thereof,
to
be
holden
at
the
court
"INSTATE
OF
CARL
BRUMMER.
DECEASED.
Browk
4
Ricketts,
Compl't's
Sol'rs.
30-33
addition
has
been
made
by
the
importation
of
a
Aj Notice is hereby (riven to all persona having claims
in the city ot'Chicago, on tho first Monday of
full and well preserved set of the House of Lords house,
A. P, action,
1872, givejudgment
special bail
to tho
said
and demands againxt the estate of Carl Brummer, de
Cases, including Clark's Digest, consisting of 58 May.
plaintitTB
willandbeplead
entered
against
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
WANTED.
volumes.
you,
and
in
favor
of
the
said
Samuel
K.
Martin,
and
so
tlement at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
" English books were imported directly free of much of the property attached as may be sufficient
couuty. to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D. lo72, being Situation, by a young attorney, in a law or real estate duty, and their purchase was attended to by the to satisfy the Kaid judgment and costs will be sold to
firm of Stevens and Haynks in London, whose the
the first dayFRIEDR1CH
thereof.
. same. AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
WENZKL. Administrator. office in this city. Can give good references, etc. Ad diligence, promptness, and care in tilling our or satiuly
Chicago, May 2, A D. 1K72.
H.
S.
St
F. S. Osbohnk, Attorneys.
30-3
ders,
I
have
thankfully
to
acknowledge."
30
30-35 dress " 0," at this office.
M. A. ROUS & Son, Attorneys.

HICAGO

EGAL

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by,,the"CHiCAOO Legal N;

Vol. IV.No. 31.

Wbe Courts.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
December Term, 1871.
Albert L. Mowby, Appellant, v. Asa Whitney.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
" 1. The ancient mode of annulling or repealing
the king's patent was by scire facias generally
brought in the chancery where the record of the
instrument was found.
2. In modern times the court of chancery, sit
ting In equity, entertained a similar jurisdiction
by bill when the ground of relief is fraud in ob
taining the patent, and In this country it la the
usual mode in all cases, because better'adapted to
the investigation
and to the relief to be auminisnvest;
tered.
S. But scire facias could only be sued out In the
English courts by the king or his attorney-gen
eral, except in cases where two patents had been
granted for the same thing to different individuals,
and the sixteenth section of the act of July 4,
1836, concerning patents for inventions, Is based
upon analogous principles.
4. Both upon this authority and upon sound
principle no suit can be brought to set aside, an
nui, or declare void, a patent issued by the gov
ernment, except in the class of cases above men
tioned, unless brought in the name of the govern
ment or by the authority or permission of the
attorney-general, so as to be under his control.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the
opinion of the court.
This is a bill in chancery brought to
set aside and annul a patent for an in
vention, which was renewed in the of
fice of Commissioner of Patents, on the
ground that, in making the extension,
the commissioner was deceived and im
posed on by the fraud and false swearing
of the patentee.
The suit was brought in the Circuit
Court for the Eastern District of Penn
sylvania, in which the defendant re
sided, by Albert L. Mowry.
The patent was for an improvement
in the process of annealing car wheels,
and the interest of the plaintiff in the
matter is that, before the time of
the first issue of defendant's pat
ent had expired, plaintiff had been en
gaged in the same business, and that he
is now sued by the patentee for infringe
ment of his extended patent in an action
still pending ; and that in the progress
of the investigations necessary to his de
fense of that suit, he discovered the
fraud by which the extension was ob
tained.
The bill was demurred to, and the de
murrer sustained, on t>vo grounds : first,
that the extended patent had expired,
by its own limitation, before the bill was
filed ; and secondly, that plaintiff could
not, in his own right, sustain such a
suit.
As regards the first of these proposi
tions we do not deem it necessary to
make any decision. When a case arises
in which the United States, or the At
torney General, shall initiate a suit to
have a patent declared null, ab initio,
which, though no longer in force as to
present or future infringements, is used
to sustain suits for infringements during
its vitality, the question will be consid
ered : for we are of opinion that no
one but the government, either in its
own name or the name of its appropri
ate officer, or by some form of proceed
ing which gives official assurance of the
sanction of the proper authority, can in
stitute judicial proceedings for the pur
pose of vacating or rescinding the pat
ent which the government has issued to
an individual, except in the cases pro
vided for in section 16 of the act of July
4, 1836.
The ancient mode of doing this in the
English courts was by scire facias, and
three classes of cases are laid down in
which this may be done : 1. When the
king by his letters patent has by different
patents granted the same thing to several
persons, the first patentee shall have a
scire facias to repeal the second. 2. When
the king has granted a thing by false
suggestion, he may by scire facins repeal
his own grant. 3. When he has granted
that which by law he cannot grant, he
jure regis, and for the advancement of

EWS.

, in,the^ffice of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

CHICAGO, SATURDAY, MAY 11, 1872.

justice and right, may have a scire facias the title which the government grants
to repeal his own letters patent. (4 after regular proceedings before officers
Coke's Institutes, 88 ; Dyer R., 197-8, and appointed for the purpose, if the validity
276, 279.) The scire facias to repeal a of the instrument Dy which the grant is
patent was brought in chancery where made, can be impeached by any one
the patent was of record. And though whose interest may be affected by
in this country the writ of scire facias is it, and would tend to discredit the au
not in use as a chancery proceeding, the thority of the government in such mat
nature of the chancery jurisdiction and ters.
The decree of the Circuit court, sus
its mode of proceeding have established
it as the appropriate tribunal for the an- taining the demurrer and dismissing the
nuling of a grant or patent from the gov bill, is therfore affirmed.
ernment.
This is settled so far as this court is
U. S. DISTRICT COURT,' E. D. OF
concerned by the case of the United
MICHIGAN. '
States v. Stone, 2 Wallace, 525, in which In Admiralty.The Schooner Marql'btti.De
it is said that the bill in chancery is
cided Feb. 13, 1872.
found a more convenient remedy. A LIBEL BY rETER E. FALCON FOR SALVAGE.
A
wrecking
company
which had undertaken to
bill of this character was also sustained
a sunken schooner and deliver her at Detroit
in the English chancery in the case of raise
for
six-tenths
of
her
value
so delivered,
the Attorney General v. Vernon, 1 Ver hired of libellant, for a fixedwhen
compensation, cer
tain
divers,
diving
armor
and
wrecking
apparatus.
non R., 277, on the ground of the equita
Held, that libellant, having knowledge or the con
ble jurisdiction in matters of fraud. And tract
between
the
wrecking
company
the
in the case of Jackson v. Lawton, 10 owners of the schooner, could not maintainanda libel
in
rem.
Held,
that
the
subsequent
ownership
Johnson, 24, Chancellor Kent says that six-tenths of the schooner by the wrecking comof
in addition to the writ of scire facias pany could not relate back to the time of Its con
which has ceased to be applicable with tract with the owners so as to affect their interests.
salvor by contract is not an agent of the own
us, there is another remedy by bill in ers,A and
cannot create against them or the prop
the equity side of the court of chancery. erty saved
any liability beyond the contract price.
It will be observed that in the case of A contract for a compensation to be paid at all
events,
whether
the property is saved or not, cre
a conflict under two patents granting the ates a mere personal
same right, the scire facias may, accord taches on account of it.obligation, and no lien at
ing to the authorities cited, be brought
Opinion of the court by Lonoyear, J.
in the name of one of the patentees, but
Marquette was sunk in the Straits
in the other cases, when the patent was ofThe
Mackinaw, by a collision, and aban
obtained by fraud upon the king, by doned
her owners to the under
false suggestion, or where it was issued writers, by
and there lay then sunken in
without authority, and for the good of about fifteen
fathoms of water. The
the public and right and justice it should underwriters contracted
with the North
be repealed, the writ is to issue in the western
Wrecking Company, a corpora
king's name or his attorney general. It tion organized
under the laws of Ohio
is also said that when a patent is granted
the raising of sunken vessels, to raise
to the prejudice of the subject, the king for
the Marquette and place her in Clark's
of right is to permit him upon his peti dry
dock in the city of Detroit, for sixtion to use his name for the repeal of it, tentns
of the vessel. The Northwestern
in scire facias, at the king's suit. (The Wrecking
Company entered upon the
King v. Sir Oliver Butler, 3 Levinz,220.) performance
of their contract, under the
The sixteenth section of the patent charge and supervision of Milo Osborne,
act of 1836, seems to have in view the 1 and after working at the wreck for sev
same distinction made by the common eral days found that on account of the
law in regard to annuling patents, for great depth of water in which the wreck
while it authorizes individuals claiming lay, the services of a diver were neces
under conflicting patents, or one whose sary. The libellant, who was also in the
claim to a patent has been rejected be wrecking business, was then engaged in
cause his invention was covered by a raising a wreck in Beaver Harbor, near
patent already issued, to try the con Beaver Island, a few miles distant from
flicting claim in chancery, and author the wreck of the Marquette. He had
izes the court to annul or set aside a pat divers in his employ, and owned and
ent so far as may be found necessary to had in use the necessary diving armor
protect the right, the suit by individuals and apparatus, a hand pump, a steam
is limited to that class of cases. And it pump, etc., adapted to the purposes of
is provided that the decree shall be of wrecking. He was also the patentee of
no validity except between the parties a new invention for raising sunken ves
to the suit. The general public is left sels, which consisted mainly in sinking
to the protection of the government and casks filled with water, and then after
its officers.
being fastened to the vessel, inflating
It seems reasonable that the remedy them with air by the use of a steam
by bill in chancery, which is substituted pump and connecting tubes or pipes,
for the scire facias, should have the like and thus expelling the water and giving
limitation in its use. The reasons for the casks a lifting power. Osborne, who
requiring official authority for such a was in charge of the work for the North
proceeding are obvious: 1. The fraud, western Wrecking Company, applied to
if one exists, has been practiced on the and obtained of the libellant a diver and
government, and as the party injured, it the necessary armor and apparatus, in
is the appropriate party to assert the cluding a hand pump. After working a
remedy or seek relief. 2. A suit by an short time it was found that the hand
individual could only be conclusive in pump was not sufficient for the divers to
result as between the patentee and the operate with safety in so great depth of
party suing, and it would remain a valid water, and Osborne returned the hand
instrument as to all others. 3. The pat pump and obtained libellant's steam
entee would or might be subjected to in pump. After working a few days longer
numerable vexatious suits to set aside and not making much progress, Osborne
his patent, since a decree in his favor in returned to libellant with the diver, ap
one suit would be no bar to a suit by an paratus and pump, and had a settlement
other party. If on the other hand an with him up to that time, and paid libel
individual finds himself injured either lant what was then found to be his due
specially or as a part of the general pub at the rate of $50 per day with the hand
lic, it is no hardship to require him to pump and $75 per day with the steam
satisfy the Attorney General that the pump, less a small deduction made by
case is one in which the government libellant at the request of Osborne.
ought to interfere either directly by in Osborne desired the use of the diver,
stituting the suit, or indirectly by au etc., longer, but complained that they
thorizing the use of its name, by which could not afford it at the price charged
the Attorney General would retain such by libellant. A new arrangement was
control of the matter as would enable then entered into, and Osborne returned
him to prevent oppression and abuse in to the Marquette with two divers who
the exercise of the right to prosecute were in the employ of the libellant, the
such a suit.
necessory armor and apparatus, and the
It would seriously impair the value of steam pump, and taking with him also

Whole No. 189.

some of libellant's casks to be used on
his patented plan, and had the same for
use in raising the wreck thirty-four con
secutive days, and until the vessel was
finally raised. The divers, etc., were
actually used twentv-eight, and were
idle six out of the thirty-four days. It
is for this use, under the new arrange
ment, that the libellant brings this suit
against the vessel.
During this time the libellant came
along where the company were at work,
on his way to Cleveland/with the vessel
he had been raising, and left a small
vessel, called the Barbour, and his
chains, anchors, additional casks, etc.,
and the same were used by the compa
ny to some extent, but no additional
claim is made for such use. On the Mar
quette being raised she was taken to
Detroit by the Northwestern Wrecking
Company and placed in Clark's dry
dock, in complete fulfillment of their
contract with the underwriters, and its
interest of six-tenths in the vessel, her
boats, etc., thereupon accrued to them,
and the company has intervened and
put in its claim and answer for the pro
tection of that interest. The libellant
and Osborne, both of whom were sworn
as witnesses and testified in the case,
agree that the divers were in the em
ploy of the libellant, and that he was to
be paid for their services, as well as for
the use of the armor, apparatus, pump,
etc. They also agree that libellant's
compensation was not dependent upon
success, but that he was to be paid at all
events, whether the vessel was raised or
not. It is true they do not say this in so
many words, but the version which each
gives of what the contract was under
the new arrangement admits of no other
construction. They are also agreed as
to the time, viz., thirty-four days, and
that twenty-eight of those were working
days, and six of them they were idle.
The main facts upon which there is any
disagreement, are, as to whether there
was a fixed rate of compensation agreed
upon, or whether it was left to a quantum
meruit, and as to whether the libellant
knew, or was informed of the character
or capacity in which the company was
operating, that is, that they were oper
ating as contractors, and not as owners.
The libellant claims that the rate of
compensation agreed upon was $75 per
day when working, and half price, or
$37.50 per day, when idle. On this basis,
he claims as follows:
28 working days, at $75
$2,100
6 idle
" " $37.50
225
Total
$2,325
Less payment conceded
310
Balance
$2,015
Total
$2,325
Payments claimed and conceded, .... 310
Leaving a balance of,
$2,015
for which, with interest from October 1st
1870, libellant claims a decree in his
favor against the vessel. On the other
hand, the company claims that no fixed
rate of compensation was agreed upon,
but on the contrary that when Osborne
complained that they could not afford
to pay $75 per day, that libellant told
him to take the divers, etc., and use them,
and he would be reasonable with them,
or words to that effect, and that that
was the agreement as to compensation.
But without pursuing this disputed
point further now, I will proceed to the
other disputed fact. Ana here I must
hold that libellant had notice of the
character or capacity in which the com
pany was operating. Libellant in his
testimony says : " I understood the North
Western Wrecking Company had taken
the job to raise the vessel and had failed.
I did not know how much they had
taken the job for." He understood then
that the company was not operating as
owner, but had undertaken the raising
of the vessel as a "job," and the only
point as to which he professes not to
have been informed, was, how much they
were to receive for the service. This is

242
sufficient alone to settle this point. But
there is further testimony which I think
places it beyond aJl doubt that libellant
knew, not only that the company was
operating as contractor, but also the
terms of the contract. Osborne, after
producing in evidence the contract,
(which was in writing) between the
North Western Wrecking Company and
the underwriters, testifies positively and
explicitly, as follows: " I made known
to Captain Falcon that we had such a
contract; that I deemed it a good one,
and that I wished him to go in with me
and share in the results, etc. That was
at the time we were at Beaver Harbor.
He replied that 'he wanted nothing to do
with the wreckthat he wanted the money.
He said they were slow things to realise
from. I told him that we weretohavesixtenths, and that she ought to be raised
in a very short time we deemed it a
good contract," In this Osborne is
not contradicted. On the libellant being
recalled to the witness stand and asked
if any such conversation took place,
says, " none that I recollect " ; and this is
all the denial he makes, which in fact is
no denial.
,
But it is contended on behalf of
libellant, that the North Western Wreck
ing Company were in fact part owners
of the vessel to the extent of the sixtenths which they were to have under
their contract with the underwriters, in
case of success, and which finally
accrued to it. I cannot agree to this.
The company was operating precisely
the same as any salvors under a contract,
and the agreement as to the six-tenths
was simply fixing the quantum of com
pensation, in lieu of leaving it for after
consideration between the parties or to
be determined by the court. Besides
that it was wholly conditional upon suc
cess, and it accrued to it only from the
time the contract was fully performed.
By no known principle of law or in
reason, can it be held to relate back to
any previous period bo as to affect the
interests of those who were owners of
the vessel at the time the contract was
entered into. The company must there
fore be held to have sustained the re
lation of contractor merely, at the time
the agreement between libellant and
Osborne was entered into.
The case, then, is that ofa person hav
ing rendered a service to salvors for a
compensation to be paid at all events,
who were themselves operating under a
contract with the owners, known to
such person, claiming and seeking to
enforce a lien upon the vessel saved,
independently and irrespectively ofsuch
latter contract, and of the compensation
as fixed by it.
The learned advocate for the libellant
has referred the court to no adjudicated
case in which this was allowed to be
done, and to no authority or even dictum
to that effect ; and after a most careful
and searching investigation the court
has been able to find none. On the con
trary the authorities are all the other
way. The case of the Whittaker,
(Sprague decision, 229, and same case
at page 282,) and that of one hundred
tons of iron, (2 Benedict's D. C. Reports,
21,) are quite analagous to the present
case. Both cases were in fact more
favorable to the libellant than the present.
In the case of the Whittaker, Holbrook,
the original contractor, after vain efforts
to get the vessel off, gave the job over
entirely to one Otis, at an expense
largely beyond the contract price, suc
ceeded in getting the vessel off and then
libeled her for his pay. Judge Sprague
dismissed the libel, for the reason that
Holbrook, the original contractor, was
not made a party. Afterwards upon
a new libel, in which Holbrook was
joined, the court granted a decree to
Holbrook and Otis, jointly limiting them
to the original contract price, although
it was less than half what Otis had ex
pended. In that case also, Otis' com
pensation was dependent upon success,
w-hich in the present case, as we have
seen, libellant was to be compensated at
all events.
In the case of one hundred tons of
iron, libellant had hired to the owners
seven large blocks, to be used by them
in endeavoring to get their vessel offthe
beach, at $5 per day, with an express
stipulation that the vessel should be
responsible for hire and damage and for
the return of the blocks. The hire not
having been paid, and the blocks having
been lost, libellant brought his suit, in
rem, against 100 tons of iron which was

Chicago

Legal

of the cargo ;md had been recovered

from the vessel. Judge Blatchford dis
missed the libel, not only on the ground
that a pledging of the vessel was not ,i
pledging of the cargo, but mainly en the
broad ground that the libellant had 110
chain whatever as a salvor, giving as a
reason that the hire of the blocks was
Yor a fixed compensation which was to
be paid at all events whether the vessel
was saved or not, which is exactly the
present case according to the libelants,
own theory. In that ease also, it is to be
observed, the contract was made with
the master of the vessel, and it purported
to pledge the vessel fpr its fulfillment,
and yet the court held that the libellant'
could not recover in the admiralty, either
in rem or in personam. In this case, not
only was the contract not made with
master or owner, but the libellant ex
pressly refused to have anything to do
with the wreck.
I think both of these cases are sus
tained by authority as well as on princi
ple. The case of the Whittaker was
decided on the principle that a salvor by
contract, like the North Western Wreck
ing Company in this case, is not an agent
for the owners and cannot create against
the owners or the property saved,
any obligation or liability beyond the
contract price, or, it may be added as
applicable to this case, a different mode
of payment than that expressed in the
contract ; and I think there can be no
dispute as to the soundness of that
doctrine. The most that the court could
do in any event, would be to let the
libellant in to share the contract price
with the original contractor. But the
court cannot do that in this case without
making a new contract for the parties,
because, as we have seen, libellant ex
pressly refused to share the contract
price "or have anything to do with the
wreck at the time the agreement between
him and the company was made.
The case of one hundred tons of
iron, was decided on the principle that
the hiring, as in the present case, was
for a compensation to be paid at all
events, whether the vessel was saved or
not. The same principle was also stated
and acted on by Judge Sprague in the
case of the Whittaker in deciding
another branch of the case than that
above alluded to. See also The Indepen
dence, (2 Curtis Circuit Court Reports, 350,
355,) where the same doctrine is enunci
ated by Judge Curtis in the following
language : In my judgment, a contract
to be paid at all events, either a sum
certain, or a reasonable sum, for work,
labor, and the hire of a steamer or other
vessel in attempting to relieve a vessel
in distress, without regard to the success
or failure of the efforts thus procured; is
inconsistent with a claim for salvage,
and when such a contract has been fairlymade, it must be held binding by a court
of admiralty, and any claim for salvage
disallowed.
It must be understood that the nature
of the claim as a salvage claim is not
changed simply because the service was
rendered by contract. It is well settled
tha* the nature of the service as a salvage
service is not changed for that reason
alone, (see the opinion of the Court in
the case of " The Two Steam Boilers,"
decided by this court at the present term,
and the cases then cited.) It is because
that by the contract the compensation
is to be paid at all events, whether the
property is saved or not, that a claim for
salvage" cannot be maintained; such a
contract creates a mere personal obliga
tion, and no lien attaches on account of
it.
I hold, therefore, that the libellant in
this case cannot maintain a suit in rem in
this court, for the reasons, 1st. That the
services having been so rendered under
an agreement with a contract, itself
operating for a specific compensation,
and not with the master or owner of the
vessel, he cannot, in any event, maintain
a suit against the vessel except by join
ing with such original contractor and
sharing with it the compensation so
agreed upon between it and the owners.
2nd. That he could not maintain such
suit in this case because by the veryterms of his agreement he was not so to
share. 3rd. That he was to be paid at
all events, whether the vessel was saved
or not. The libellant undoubtedly has
a remedy against the North Western
Wrecking Company, in some form of
action, but not in this.
Having arrived at these conclusions,
it is unnecessary to determine the

News.

specific compensation the libellant was

to receive, whether a per diem, or a
quantum meruit, or how much.' The
libel must be dismissed with costs ; but,
inasmuch as the .merits of. the case as
between the libellant and the North
Western Wrecking Company are not
decided, it must be without prejudice as
between them.
Mr. Moore, (Moore k Griffin,) for
libellant.
Mb. Brown, (Newbury, Pond ifc
Brown.) for claimant.
We are indebted to George O. Ide, of
the Chicago bar, for the following opin
ion :
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion Filed April 11. 1872.
Daniel S. Blbsen et al. v. M. L. Goopspeed,
Adm'r, etc.
PROCEEDINGS BY AN ADMINISTRATOR UN
DER THE ACT OF 1857 TO SELL LAND
WHAT IS A BAR BY LAPSE OF TIMEAP
POINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM
FEMALES OVER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE
NOT MINORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THIS ACT.
1. As a general rule, the lapse of seven vears be
tween the death of an intestate and the 'tiling of
the administrator's petition for teave to sell lands,
will create a bar to the application. But if the
delay is satisfactorily explained, the mere lapse of
time is not fatal. Held, in this case, that though
thirteen years had intervened beiwcen the death
and the application, the circumstances excused
the delay.
2. Descent of the title to the land from one heir
to another by operation of law, is not such an
alienation of the land as creates intervening
rights in innocent or bona fide holders,
3. Ill this ease, the existence of a homestead and
the dower right in the widow of deceased, consti
tuted a sufficient excuse for not sooner selling the
land, it appearing that a sale subject to these
rights would have been at a sacrifice.
4. Neither the County nor the Circuit Court has
jurisdiction to settle equities in this proceeding,
notwithstanding the language of the act of 1857.
5. Gt'ARMAN ad litem.The act of 1807, requir
ing the appointment of a guardian ad litem for
minors under the age of 21 years, is not to be con
strued as requiring such a guardian for females of
the age of 18, but under 21 years. In Illinois, a
female at the age of 18 is an adult for all purposes.
6. On appeal from the County to the Circuit
Court, it is improper to allow a demurrer to the
petition to be filed after answers have been filed
in the County Court. The trial in the Circuit
Court, though de novo, is upon the written plead
ings and issues as formed in the County Court.
Opinion of the court by Sheldon, J.
This was an application by an admin
istrator for leave to sell an eighty acres
of land for the payment of debts. "
The intestate died January 1, 1856,
letters of administration on his estate
were granted February 5, 1856. This pe
tition by the administrator was not pre
sented until September 27, 1869.
The main question in the case is,
whether the lien which creditors have
upon the real estate of their deceased
debtors, for. satisfaction of their debts,
and which they may enforce through
administration, has not been lost by the
lapse of time between the intestate's
death and the filing of the administra
tor's petition in the County court.
It is insisted that the lapse ofmore than
seven years has barred the proceeding.
There being no statutory period of lim
itation within which the lien must be
enforced, this court has held that in an
alogy to our statute of limitation, relat
ing to the lien of judgments, and, under
certain circumstances, to the action of
ejectment, the period of seven years
should be adopted by the courts as the
time within which the application should
be made. But while this is the general
rule, where the delay is unexplained,
every case depends much upon its own
circumstances, and if the delay is satis
factorily explained, the mere' lapse of
time is not a reason why the order of
sale should not be made. McCoy v. Mor
row, 18 111., 519 ; Rosenthal v. Renick,
44 111., 203 ; Moore v. Ellsworth, 51 Ills.,
309.
We are brought then to the inquiry,
whether the circumstances of the case
afford a justification for this delay on the
part of the administrator.
The land described in the petition
comprised only eighty acres. It was oc
cupied by the intestate at the time of
his death as his homestead, and appears,
from the evidence, at that time to have
been worth not to exceed SI ,200. The
intestate left surviving him his widow
and eight children, four of whom were
minors, the youngest of whom attained
the age of 18 years in April, 1869. The
widow continued to reside upon the
land from the death of the intestate up
to the first day of July, 1869, the date of
her death, occupying it all this time un
der her right of homestead and of
dower, her children living with her un
til they married or went off to care for

themselves, except Samuel S. Smith, who

was of age at the time of his father's
death, and never until after his moth
er's death resided on the landhis oc
cupancy appearing to be that of a tenant
under her.
Judgments in favor of the creditors of
the decedent, were rendered by the
County court against the estate, amounting in all, with the unpaid part of the
widow's allowance, to the sum of $1,914,14, all rendered within two years from
tiie grant of letters of administration,
except two, rendered September 19,
1859, and these were before any inven
tory of the real estate had been fi'ed by
the administrator. There was a defi
ciency of personal assets to pay any part
of this indebtedness. On the 1st of
March, 1S5S, the administrator rendered
to the County court an account current
of his administration of the estate, show
ing an entire exhaustion of the person
alty, and that the estate was indeDted to
him in a balance of $321.74, which was ap
proved by the court. The estate being
wholly unable to pay the judgments al
lowed, the administrator, on Dec. 6, 1858,
petitioned the County court for leave to
sell the land, for the purpose of paying
the indebtedness ; the widow answered
the petition, setting up her rights of
dower and homestead, asking the court
to reserve from sale for the payment of
debts a homestead of the value of $1,000
and her dower.
On the 9th day of February, 1859, twoof the creditors "of the estate presented
and filed in the County court, their pe
tition in writing, asking the court not to
grant the leave asked by the administra
tor to sell the land, for the reasons that
if the land should be sold then, in their
opinion it would not sell for more than
$2,000 ; that of that the widow would be
entitled to 81,000 in lieu of homestead
exemption and her dower besides, so
that after paying these claims, nothing;
would be left to satisfy the debts, and
that, in their opinion, it would be for
the interest of the heirs as well as the
creditors, not to have the land sold, es
pecially at that time, as by such sale, the
heirs would lose the lands and the cred
itors their debts.
The opinion which might here be in
ferred, that the land would sell for $2,000, was a mistaken one as appears from
the testimony of witnesses, none of them
fixing the value of the land, at that timeas higher than $1,600, or thinking that
it would realize on sale at public auction
more than $100 or $200 over or above
these incumbrances.
This application was regularly con
tinued from term to term, until the
March term, 1859, and then seems to
have become discontinued, as the rec
ord of the County court shows nothing
more in regard to it.
On the 7th of March, 1859, Blake, the
administrator, was removed from office
on account of the insufficiency of his se
curity and inability to give further secu
rity, and Goodspeed, the appellee, was
appointed administrator in his stead.
On the 28th of June, 1867, at the in
stance of two of the creditors, a citation
was issue 1 by the County court against
Goodspeed, to compel him to make the
settlement of the estate, in answer towhich he made a written statement, set
ting forth substantially the same facta
and reasons for not proceeding to have
the land sold for payment of the debts
as in the above petition of creditors
against selling the land, which the court
approved and dismissed the citation.
The land still remains in the hands of
the heirs ; nothing deserving the name
of valuable improvements has been put
upon it since the decease of the intestate.
It is contended by appellant's counsel
that to constitute a sufficient reason for
the delay, there should have been some
obstacle in the way of selling the land ;
that here it might have been sold sub
ject to the incumbrances upon it, and
would have been sold but for the inter
ference of the creditors themselves, and
that regard for their interests affords no
excuse for delay.
There were here both the rights of a
homestead and of dower in the land,
(Walsh v. Reise, 20 111., 478) the former
to continue, if there was occupancy of
the premises, until the youngest child
should become 21 years of age and until
the death of the widow, unless extin
guished by the payment of $1,000, and
by virtue of the latter right, the widow
was, by the statute, entitled to retainpossession of the land until her dower

Chicago

Legal

should be assigned, which appears never a proceeding under its provisions, all
to have been done.
beyond is unauthorized.
The land descended to the heirs, subNeither the County Court nor the
ject to the debts; the amount of the Circuit Court could exercise any other
indebtedness was so large, in compari jurisdiction than that conferred by the
son with the value of the lands, that it | Statute, and that does not confer chan
may be said, aside from the homestead cery powrs, or enable the court to
right and the enjoyment of the rents settle equities. Bennett v Whitman, i'l 111.,
and profits, until the land might be sold 440; Cutter v Thompson, 51 III., 300.
Wealthy M. Gordon, one of the de
to pay debts, the heirs had no substan
tial interest in the property ; and as it fendants, was under the age of twentywas no interference with the full enjoy one years, and it is claimed there was
ment of the rights of homestead and error in not appointing a guardian ad
dower, and of the rents and profits, it is litem for her, under the statute, under
not perceived wherein there was injus which this proceeding is had, which
tice to any one, in consulting the inter provides, "When it shall appear that
ests of the creditors, by delaying to en any of the persons required to be made
force a sale until those rights might be parties defendants are minors under the
come extinct. It is quite evident that age of twenty-one years without a
forcing the land to a sale at public auc guardian, etc., the court shall appoint a
tion, encumDered as it was with the guardian ad Ixtem, who shall be required
claims of homestead and dower, would to appear and defend in behalf of the
have been a palpable sacrifice of the minors aforesaid."
But this defendant, although under
creditors' rights in the land ; that they
would not have derived any appreciable twenty-one years of age, was not a mi
benefit from the sale as expressed in the nor, she being upward of the age of,
petition of the creditors against it ; eighteeu years, when the minority of fe
the heirs would have lost the land and males, under our law, ceases.
It was not the meaning of this statute
tile creditors their debts. What just
cause of complaint have the heirs, that that a guardian a/1 litem, should be ap
that result was not precipitated? We pointed for b female defendant who had
think it unreasonable to hold the credit attained the age of eighteen years.
It is claimed there was error in strik
ors bound to resort to a fruitless and de
ing the demurrer of the defendants from
structive sale.
No one appears to have been misled the files of the Circuit court. They de
by the delay to his injury. The heirs murred in the County court and their
did not go on and make valuable improve demurrer was overruled, and then, in
ments under the belief that the estate stead of abiding by the demurrer, or ap
was settled and that there were no un pealing upon that, they filed theiranswer
paid demands against it to be enforced upon which the issue was founded and
against the land. The debts all appeared hearing had. This statute provides for
established in due time upon the records written pleadings, by filing answer and
replications, and forming issues as in
of the county court.
An early application had been made chancery proceedings, and on appeal the
to have the land sold for their payment, Circuit court takes up and disposes of
to which the heirs were made parties, the issues as they were formed in the
and was discontinued under circum County court, and the defendants in this
stances such as to apprise them that case could not claim the right to file a
resort to the land was not finally aban demurrer in the Circuit court.
Perceiving no error in the record, the
doned, but suspended only to be renewed
at a future time.
decree of the court below must be af
There has been no alienation of the firmed.
land to strangers nor anv as among the
Decree affirmed.
heirs themselves, whereby intervening
S. M. Knox for appellants.
rights have been innocently acquired,
Geo. 0. Ide for appellee.
"which might be injuriously affected.
We do not recognise as such the agree
0. P. INOERSOLL,
ment testified to by Samuel Smith, that
Attorney.
at the time of his buying the notes and fJHANCERT NOTICE.
-State
of Illinois,
of Cook
county. Cook
July
trust on the land from Dodge, which will v county, M. Circuit court
A. D. 1*72. Harriet Footman v. William Foot
hereafter be adverted to, the heirs who term,
man.In
Chancery.
Affidavit of theabove
non-residence
of William
"were then of age agreed that he should man,
uamed, having
been Foot
filed
have the land, after the death of the in the defendant
office of the clerk of said Circuit court of
county, notice is hereby given to the said William
widow, if he would secure the home- Cook
Footman that the complainant heretofore filed her
stead for her. We do not perceive what bill
of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
and that a summons thereupon Issued out of
the purchase of the notes and trust deed thereof,
against
saidnext
defendants,
on the
had to do with securing the homestead, said
thirdcourt
Monday
of July
(l.S72),as isreturnable
by law ruuuired.
Now, unless you, the Biiid William Footmen,
or how he did so secure it for the widow. shall
be and onappear
before
The deed of trust does not appear in court personally
of Cook county,
the first
daysaid
of aCircuit
term
thereof,
to
be
holden
at
Chicago,
in
Baid
county,
.the record, and we do not know whether ou
the thirdto the
Monday
of July, 1872, and
answer
the homestead was released by it or not. or demur
an id complainants'
bill plead,
of complaint,
same, and the matters and things therein charged
Samuel Smith, at the time of giving the
and stated, will be taken as confessod, and a decree
against you according to the prayer of said
his testimony, a year after the petition entered
NORMAN T. GASSET""'
TE, Clerk.
was filed, testifies to having bought out ' Ul.
O. P. Inoersoll, Comprt'a Sol'r.
31-34
some of the heirs, without stating the
SMITH
&
K0HLSAAT.
time or for what consideration, and
Attorneys.
also testifies to some uncompleted CHANCERY NOTICE.-State
of Illinois, County of
ss. Superior court of Cook county. To June
arrangement for disposing of his interest term,Cook,
A.
D.
1872.
Alexander
W.
Copland
andEdward
Peter
to the husband of one of the heirs. But Lee. Jr., v. John Ebbert. Lizzie May
Ebbert,
Ellsworth Ebbert, William Ebbert, Charles L. Wood
we cannot perceive from the record, man,
guardian of said John, Lizzie May, Edward and
that at the time this proceeding was William
Ebbert, Rosella M. Ebbert Luckey, nee Eb
and Luckey, her husband.In Chancery.
commenced, even as among the heirs bert.
Affidavit
of the nnn-residence ofJohn Ebbert, Lizzie
themselves in any dealing in regard to May Ebbert.
William Ebbert,
M. Ebbert
nee Ebbert.
Luckey,Rosella
her husband,
five
the land, any valuable consideration had Luckey,
of
the
defendants
above
named,
having
been filed
been parted with, from one to another, in the office of the clerk of said Superior court
of
Cook
notice is hereby given to the said John Ebbert.
on the faith of their ownership of the county,
Lizzie May Ebbert. William Ebbert. Rosella M. Eb
property. We are of the opinion, that bert Luckey, nee Ebbert, Luckey, her husband, that
complainants heretofore filed their bill of complaint
the state of facts existing in this case, the
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
furnishes a satisfactory excuse for the summons
thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendants, returnable on the first Monday ofJ une
delay in making this application.
next (1872,) as la by law required.
Now, unless you, the said John Ebbert, Lizzie May
It appears that the decedent in his Ebbert,
William Ebbert, Rosella M. Ebbert Luckey,
lifetime had made a deed of trust on the nee
Ebbert.
Luckey, her husband, shall per
be and appear before said Superior court ot
land to one John Dodge, to secure the sonally
Cook
countr,
on
the
first day of a term thereof, to b
payment of his notes to the latter for holden at Chicago, in said
county, on the first Monday
June, 1872, and plead, answer or demur to the
$360 and interest, and Samuel S. Smith, of
said
complainant's
bill
of
complaint, the same, and
one of the heirs, sets up that after the the matters and things therein
charged and stated,
will be you
takenaccording
a* confessed,
and a nfdecree
entered
death of the intestate he purchased from against
to the prayer
said bill.
Dodge the notes and deed of trust, and
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
31-34
claims that such purchase money should Smith & Kohlsaat, Comprts1 Sol'rs.
OF
SAN FORD
CASE.
DECEASED.
be first paid, and that he should be sub T7STATE
JCi
Notice
la
hereby
giren
to
alt
persons
having
rogated to the rights of Dodge in the claims and demands against the estate of Sanford
Case, and
deceased,
to present
the same
fortheadjudica
premises, and that it was error not to tion
settlement
at a regular
term of
County
allow such claim.
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court
house,
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
on
the
first
Monday
of
The court had no jurisdiction to settle July, A. D. 1872, being the first day thereof.
JEROME B. JENKINS.
the priority of equities in this proceed
SYLVANUS B. BYRAM,
ing.
ALMIRA CASE,
Executors.
It is a statutory and not a chancery Chicago, May 6, A. D. 1872.
31-36
proceeding. Moline Water-power v. Web
ster, 26 111., 233.
CHARLES DRIESSLEIN,
Under the Statute, the court is only
SHORT -HAND WRITER,
authorized to license the executor or
And U. S. Commissioner.
administrator to sell real estate, and in Western Union Telegraph Office, 554 Wabash Ave

News.

E. S. JOSLYN, MADDEN fic BYFORD,

Attorneys, 7'J Dearborn Street, Rice's BuUding.
riHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Cook
\J county,
ss. Circuit
of Cook
county.
July
term,
A. D. 1*72.
Isabellacourt
W'ilbern
and Am
on W. Wilberu v. Robert R. Stone, William K. Stone, Susan Scoville, Mareniu* A. Scoville, Eliza Davis, Mary A. Ger
man, Louis Gorman, Arthur F. Stone, Nettie Lazinby,
Ada Lazinby, Jane Stone, Richard Stone, Ambrose
Lazinby, Lysander Beverly and Frederick Hoffman.
InAffidavit
Chancery.of the nou-residence of Eliza Davis, John
Davis. Nettie Lazinby, Ada Lazinby. William R.
Stone and Ambrose Lazinby. six of the defendant*
above named, having been filed in the ofiico of the
clerk
of said
Circuit
ooart
Cook
county,
notice
isNettle
hereby
to the
said of
Eliza
Davis.
I . given
' ' Ada
Lasinby.
William
It.John
StoneDavis,
and
Ambrose
thatsidetheofcomplainants
filed, on theLazinby
chancery
said conrt, byheretofore
leave of
court,
copied
of theandbillthatof acomplaint
all pleadings
destroyed
by fire,
summonsand
thereupon
issuud
out the
of said
against
said next
defendants,
on
thirdcourt
Monday
of July
(1*72), asreturnable
is by law
required.
Now, unless you, the said Eliza Davis, John Davis,
Nettle Lazinby. Ada Lazinby, William R. Stone and
Ambrose Lazinby, shall personally be and appear before
said Circuit court of Cook county, on the first day of a
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
oa the third Monday of July, 1*72, and plead, answer
or demur to the said complainant's Uill of complaint,
the same, and the matters and things therein charged
and
willyou
be according
taken as confessed,
and aofdecree
en
teredstated,
against
to the prayer
said bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE. Clerk.
E. S. JdUTV, Maddin A BrrocD, Comprts1 Sol'rs.
31-34
BE. A.
Attorney*, 5'
V3TATE
CARL
Lj
Notice isOF
hereby
givenBRIMMER,
to all person*DECEASED.having claims
and demands agaiust the estate of Carl Brummer, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D. 1*72, being
the first dayFRIEDKICH
thereof.
WENZEL. Administrator.
Chicago, May 2, A.D. 1872.
M. A. Rorke A Son. Attorneys.
30-35
WALKER, DEXTER & SMITH,
Attorneys, 562 Wabash Avenue.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois, Cook county, ss. Circuit Court
of Cook county. May term, A. I). 1872. Charles M.
Clark
v. Slgmar
& Co.
Public
notice isCohu
hereby
given to the said Sigmar Cohn
A Co. that a writ of attachment issued out of the of
fice of the clerk of the Circuit court of Cook county,
dated the lvth day of April. A. D. 1872, at the suit of
the said Charles 31. Clark, and against the estate of
Sigmar Cohn A Co., for the sum of one hundred and
four dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook conuty,
which said writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Sigmar Cohn
ft Co.. shall personally be and appear before the said
Circuit court of Cook county, on or before tho first
day of tho next term thereof, to be holden at the Court
House, in the city of Chicago, on the third Monday
of May, A. D. 1872, give special bail and plead to the
said plaintifiV action, judgment will be entered against
you, and in favor of the said Charles M. Clark, and
so much of the property attached as may be suffi
cient to satisfy the said judgment and costs will be
sold to satisfy the NoRMAN
same.
T. CASSETTE, Clerk.
Walker, Dexter A Smith, Attorneys.
30-33
GRANT GOODRICH.
Attorney, Room 17, 54 S. Clinton Street.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.i State of Illinois, Cook county, ss. Superior court
of Cook county. June term, A. D. 1872. Ignatz Boskowitz and Adolph Boskowitz v. The Adams Express
Company.
Public notice is hereby given to the said Adams Ex
press Company thai a writ of attachment issued out of
the office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook
county,
datedsaidtheIgnatz
Mu day
of AprU,andA.Adolph
D. 1872,Bosko
at the
suit
of the
Boskowitz
witz. and against the estate of Tho Adams Express
Company, for the sum of eight thousand dollars, di
rected to the sheriff of Cook county, which said writ
hasNow,
beentherefore,
returned executed.
unless you, the said Adams Express
Company, shall personally be and appear before the said
Superior court of Cook county, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the court
house. In the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of
June,
A. D.action,
1 '72, give
special bail
to the
said
plaintitles
judgment
willand
be plead
entered
against
you, and in favor of the said Ignatz Boskowitz and
Adolph Boskowitz, and so much of the property at
tached as may be sufficient to satisfy the mm judgment
and costs will be sold to satisfy the same.
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
Grant Goodrich, Attorney.
30-33
HERVEY, ANTHONY & GALT,
Attorneys, 11 Dearborn St.
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County
' TCook county, June
^ of Cook,
v. George B. Buell.
term, A.D. 1872.
InAffidavit
Chancery.oftt
i-residence of George B. Buell,
d, having been filed in the office
defendant abc
of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice is hereby given to the said George B. Buell that
the complainant neretofore filed her bill of complaint
In said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon Issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnable on the first Monday of J une
next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now, unless
you,appear
the said
B. Buell,
shall
personally
be and
beforeGeorge
said Superior
court
of
Cook countv, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden at Chicago, In said county, on the first Monday
of June, 1872. and plead, answer or demur to the said
complainant's
bill therein
of complaint,
matters and things
chargedthe
andsame,
stated,and
willthe
be
taken
as
confessed,
and
a
decree
entered
against
you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Hervet, Anthony A Galt, Compl't's Sol'rs. 30-33
GOOKINS & ROBERTS,
Attorneys.
PUBLICATION
IN ss.
ATTACHMENT.X State of Illinois,NOTICE
Cook county,
Circuit court of
Cook
county.
May
terra,
A.
D.
1872. Samuel
B.
Gookins and James H. Roberts v. Sanderson
R. Posey.
Public notice is hereby giren to the said Sanderson
R. Posey that a writ of attachment issued out of the
office of the clerk of the Circuit court of Cook county,
dated the 20th day of April, A. D. 1872, at the suit of
the said Samuel B. Gookins and James H. Roberts,
and against
the estatedollars,
of Sanderson
the
sum
of two thousand
directedR. toPosey,
the for
sheriff
of Cook county, which said writ has been returned
executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said Sanderson
R. Posey, shall personally be and appear before
the
Circuit
of next
Cookterm
county,
on orto bebe
fore said
the first
daycourt
of the
thereof,
holden at the Court House, in the city of Chicago,
on
Ma/, A.D. action,
1872, give
special
bail the
and third
plead Monday
to the saidof'plaintiffs1
judgment
will be entered against you, and in favor of the said
Samuel B. Gookins and James H. Roberts, and so
much ofthethesaidproperty
attached
as may
bo sufficientsatto
satisfy
judgment
and costs
wjll_besold_to
isfy tne same. " UORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk,
Gookins v Roberts, Attorneys.
29-32

243
SANFORD B. PERRY,
Attorney, 47i Wabash Avenue.
/"1HANCERY NOTICE.-State or Illinois, County of
\J Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. May
Term, A. D. 1872. Maria A. Kidder v. Gardiner G.
Kidder and Daniel A.
In Chancery.
ofthe non-residence
of said Gardiner
Kid
derAffidavit
and Daniel
A. Gleason, defendants
above G.
named,
having
been
filed
in
the
office
of
the
clerk
of
said
Supe
rior court of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the
said Gardiner G. Kidder and Daniel A. Gleason
that
the
.complainant
filed her
of com
plaint
in said court,heretofore
on the chancery
sido bill
thereof,
and
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
a^aiiiitt safd defendants, returnable on the first Monday
of May next, (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Gardiner G. Ki ider and
Daniel
Gleason, shall
be and on
appear
be
fore saidA. Superior
courtpersonally
of Cook county,
the first
day of a term thereof, to be holden at Ctiicago, in said
county,
on theor first
of May,
A. D. 1*72.billand
plead, answer
demurMonday
to the said
complainant's
of
complaint, the same, and the matters and things there
in charged and stated, will be taken as confessed, and
a decree entered against you acconlingto the prayer
JACOBSON. Clerk.
ofSanford
said bill. B. Perry, Comp't'sA.sol'r.
28-31
D. S. PRIDE,
Attorney.
nilANCERY
Illinois,
County To
of
v Cook, ss. NOTICE.-State
Superior Court ofof Cook
county.
Blay
Term,
A.
D.
r
"
Company v. F. A. i
eery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of F. A. Soule and M.
R. Jeffords, defendants above named, having been filed
in the office ol the clerk of said Superior court of
Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said F. A.
Soule and M. R. Jefferds that the complainant hereto
fore
filed side
its bill
of complaint
said court,
on the
chancery
thereof,
and that in
u summons
thereupon
issued out of said cuurt against said defendants, re
turnable on the first Monday of Muy next, (.1872,; as la
by law required.
Now, unless
the saidbe F.andA.appear
Soule before
and M.said
R.
Jefferds,
shall you.
personally
Superior
court
of
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
termthethereof,
to be holden
at Chicago,
said county,
on
first Monday
of May,
1872, andinplead,
answer
or demur to the said complainant*! bill of complaint,
the same, and the matters and things therein charged
and stated, will be taken as confessed, and ~ '
tered.agaiut you aceordingto tl "
AUGUSTUS
D. S. Pride. Compl't's Sol'r.
28-31
S. W. OSGOOD,
Attorney, 12S Wert Washington Street
ESTATE OF MICHAEL SCHAFFER, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demands
againstthethesame
estate
of Michael Schaffer,
deceased,
to present
for adjudication
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court bouse, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, Do
ing the third day thereof.
CATHERINE SCHAFFER, Administratrix.
Chicago. April 15, A. D. H72.
S. W. Osgood, Attorney for Estate.
28-33
WM. H. HOLDBN,
Attorney, Central Union Block,
9
ESTATE
MAURICE
Notice isOFhereby
given toCONLEY,
all personsDECEASED.
having claims
and demands against the estate of Maurice Conley,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication ana
settlement at a regular term of the County court ot
Cook connty, to be nolden at the courthouse. In the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D
1*72, being the third day thereof.
Chicago, April 16.
Wm. H. Holden. Atl
HOMER COOK,
Attorney, 1&~) W. Monroe St.
T7STATE
OF
JAMES
THOMPSON.
DECEASED.
I j Notice is hereby given
to all persons
baring
claims and demands against the estate of James
Thompson, deceased, to present the same for adjudica
tion and settlement at a regular term of the County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June,
A.D. 1872, being the third dav thereof.
STRUNG, Administratrix.
ELLEN
Chicago,
April MARIA
ti, A.D. 1872.
Homer Cook, Att'y.
26-31
BARKER & WAITE,
Attorneys, 46 East Harrison Street.
Estate of James robinson, dei-eased.Notlce is hereby given to a) 1 persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Jam*-* Robinson,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court huuse. in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, f '
the third day thereof.
MYRON L. PEARCE, ~
Chicago,
16. A.Att'ys.
D. 1872.
Barker AApril
Waite,
MORAN & ENGLISH,
Attorneys, 102 West Ranootph street.
STATE
OF
NICHOLAStoKRAEMER.
DECEASED.
is hereby'glven
all persons having
claims
E Notice
and
demands
againstthethesame
estatetorofadjudication
Nicholas Kraemer,
deceased,
to present
and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county,
the court
house,A.in D.the1872,
citybeof
Chicago,toonlietheholden
first atMonday
of June,
ing the third day thereof.
JOHN KRAEMER, Administrator.
Chicago. April 16 A. D. 1872.
Moran A English, Att'ys.
28-33*
rpo WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.-We, the underJL signed, have formed a limited partnership, to be
carriedCook
on under
name offrom
H. April
M. Height,
Chi
cago,
countytheIllinois,
1, 1872, toIn April
1, 1874, to carry on the retail grocery business, and the
business of selling groceries, provisions, produce, and
those things incident to retail grocery trade. The
said undersigned, U, M. Haight, is the general partner,
of said Chicago, and has put into the common stock
groceries and property ot the cash value of $1,000, and
Oscar C. Chase is the special partner, of said Chicago,
and has put into the common stock $2,000 in cash.
H. M. HAIGHT.
27-32
OSCAR C. CHASE.
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.X State of Illinois. Cook county, ss. Superior court
of
Cookvs.county.
To Roll.
May Term, A. D. 1872. Benoit
Brian!
George W.
Public notice is hereby given to tho said George W,
Roll, that a writ of attachment issued out of the office
of the clerk of the Superior court of Cookcounty, dated
the
13th Briard,
dav of April,
A.D. 1872,
the suit
of the said
Benoit
and against
the atestate
of George
W.
Roll,
for
the
sum
of
four
hundred
and
sixty-two
dol
lars and forty cents, directed to the sheriff of Cook
county, which Baid writ has been returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said George W. Roll,
shall personally be and appear before the said Superior
court of Cook county, on or before the first day of the
next term thereof, to be holden at the court house, in
the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of May, A.D.
1872, give
special bail
plead toagainst
the saidyou,
plaintiff's
action,
judgment
will and
be entered
and in
favor of the said Benoit briard, and so much of the
property
attached
as
may
be
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
said judgment and costs will be sold to satisfy the
same.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON. Clerk.
Elbert H. Gart A Sam'l W. Smith, Attorneys. 28-31

244

Chicago

Chicago Legal News.

ILei Ufoctt.
CHICAGO, MAY 11, 1872.
PUBLISHED EVERY SATX'KDAY BY
The Chicago Legal News Co.,
AT 161 AND 163 LABAIXI STREET.
MYRA BRADWELL, EDITOR.
Terms:
rwo Dollars per annum, in advance. Single cop
ies Ten Cents.

Legal

for the rent ; but when his occupancy is

for the benefit of the estate, he will be
credited by the rent he is obliged to pay.
6 N. B. R., 302.
Sale of Land to pay DebtsInterest
on Claims.Ross, P. J., in the Orphans'
Court of Montgomery county, Pennsyl
vania, in re Estate of P. O'Hara, held
that a sale under an order of the Or
phans' Court for the payment of debts,
is a judicial sale, and that interest upon
debts which were liens upon it can be
computed only to the return of sale and
the confirmation thereof; that the debts
are to be considered paid as of that date,
to the extent of the amount of money
raised by the sale ; that interest ceases
from the period when the law has raised
that money for the payment of debts by
a judicial sale, when that sale is con
firmed. 4 Leg. Gaz., 130.
Donatio Mortis Causa.V. C. Bacon,
in Beak v. Beak, held, that the delivery
of the donor's bank pass-book, together
with a check on his banker, which was
not presented until after the donor's
death, did not constitute a good donatio
mortis causa. The following cases were
cited in the argument : Amis v. Witt, 33
Beav. 619 ; Hewitt v. Kaye, L. Rep. 6 Eq.
198; Bromley v. Brunton, L. Rep. 6 Eq.
275 ; 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 628. The case is
reported 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 281.
Waiver.The mere occupation of a
building by the owner is not a waiver of
strict performance by the builder. The
question of waiver is one of intention,
depending on the circumstances. Wills
v. Salwood, 61 Barbour.

We are now located in our new offices

in the burnt district, Nob. 161 and 163
LaSalle street. We are the first and on
ly paper that has ventured to return into
the heart of the burnt district. On the
block adjoining, where once was heard
the constant " click " of the presses ofthe
Post, the Stoats Zeitung, and the Evening
Mail, all is now silent as the grave. To
the east of us, the walls of the Tribune
building are seen to increase in height
every day. The place where the Times
building stood, is still a mass of ruins.
One of the finest newspaper offices in
the West is being prepared for that
paper, in another and better location.
The lot on Dearborn street, occupied by
the Evening Journal for so many years,
is still without a tenant. The Tribune,
Times, Daily News, Evening Journal, and
Stoats Zeitung, are published and printed
over the river, in what is sometimes
called West Chicago. The Evening Post,
South of the burnt district. The InterOcean and the Evening Mail lead the
The Federal Courts. The United
advance of the dailies upon the burnt
States
Courts of this city, with all their
district, the former being located in the
attending
offices, have removed, and are
extreme South, and the latter upon the
now located, in the Arcade Building, in
extreme West of the burnt district.
the rear of the Republic Life, upon the
same floor with the Legal News Office.
We call attention to the following It is expected these Courts will be ready
opinions reported at length in this issue : for business next week.
Shit to Annul a Patent.The opin
ion of the Supreme Court of the United
Kecent publications.
States, delivered by Miller, J., as to
how and in whose name a suit should be The American Corporation Cases :
Embracing the Decisions of the Su
brought to set aside, annul, or declare
preme Court of the United States, the
void, a patent issued by the government.
Circuit Courts of the United States,
and the Courts of Last Resort in the
Salvage.The opinion of the U. S.
several States, since January 1, 1868, of
District Court for the Eastern District
Questions Peculiar to the Law of Cor
of Michigan, delivered by Longybab, J.,
porations. Edited by Thos. F. Withdeciding several interesting questions
row, late Reporter of the Supreme
Court of Iowa. Volume 1. Private
relating to salvage service.
Corporations. Chicago : E. B. Myers
Administrator's Sale of Real Estate
&Co. 1872.
to Pay Debts.The opinion of our
This volume is pleasing in appearance,
Supreme Court, delivered by Sheldon, J., and in mechanical execution it is supe
construing the act of 1857, providing for rior to any ever issued by this publish
the sale of the real estate of a deceased ing house. It is the design of the editor
person for the payment of his debts, to collect in this series all the American
will well repay a careful reading by the adjudications in courts of last resort of
Illinois practitioner. The court holds questions peculiar to the law of corpora
as a general rule the application must tions, and announced since the 1st of
be made within seven years from the January, 1868. The series will also em
death of the owner ; that each case brace the reported opinions of the Cir
must depend on its own circumstances ; cuit courts of the United States. The
but in the case before the court the cases will be classified into volumes by
administrator was not barred from mak the general divisions of the subject,
ing the application although thirteen Municipal Corporations and Private
years had intervened between the death Corporations and will be arranged
and the application. There are several in the alphabetical order of the
other questions of practice under this States, giving precedence to the Su
act settled by the opinion.
preme and Circuit Courts of the United
States. Mr. Withrow has done well,
NOTES TO RECENT CASES.
thus far, what he has undertaken, and
Bankrupt's Estate Distress for we hope his future volumes will bear
Rent.It was held by Ballard, J., in re the same evidence of careful prepara
Webb et al., in the U. S. District Court tion as the present. The head-notes
of Kentucky, that a landlord's right to have been re-written and systematically
rent, against the bankrupt's estate, ex arranged, and, in some instances, the
pires on the day of adjudication, and if case has been re-stated. It is intended
the assignee occupy the premises after that Volume II. Bhall embrace Munici
that day, he, and not the estate, is liable pal Corporation Cases alone, and the

News.

third volume all the Private Corporation

Cases announced at the date of its going
to press and not included in this. This
series of reports will certainly lessen
the labor of every lawyer engaged in lit
igation connected with corporations.
This volume will be sent to any address
upon receipt of the price, $7.50.
Fire Insurance Cases: Being a Collec
tion of all the Reported Cases on Fire
Insurance, in England, Ireland, Scot
land, and America, from the earliest
period to the present time. Chrono
logically arranged. Vol. I. Covering
the period from 1729 to 1839. With
Notes and References. By Edmund
H. Bennett.. New York : Published
bv Hurd & Houghton. Cambridge:
Riverside Press. 1872. Sold by Callaghan & Co., Law Booksellers, Chi
cago.
This is a large, finely executed, firmly
bound, and beautifully printed book. It
contains more fire insurance cases than
any other volume of reports, and will
consequently be more useful to the prac
titioner in this important branch of the
law. There seems to be a demand from
the profession for reports containing the
opinions of the courts upon the various
subjects usually treated by text-writers,
and editors and publishers are not slow
to respond to this demand. We are
sorry to see this tendency. The more
law a book contains the more useful will
it be to the profession. A good writer
will give more law in a single text-book
than can be found in any dozen volumes
of reported cases upon the same subject.
The opinions of our courts are usually en
cumbered with long statements of facts
and unimportant matter, much of which
has to be reproduced in the report, while
in the text-book the author can give the
point decided by the courtthe cream
of the decisionin a few words. In the
preparation of the volume before us, Mr.
Bennett has exercised care, and shown
himself to be a reporter of ability. The
head-notes are remarkably short and
clear; the volume commences with a
well-arranged table of cases reported and
cited, and closes with a full index, which
adds greatly to the value of the volume.
The author claims to have embraced in
this volume all the reported cases upon
fire insurance on land gleaned from the
English and American reports for a
period of one hundred and ten years,
commencing with 1729 and ending with
1839.
Reports of Cases decided in the Circuit
and District Courts of the United
States within the Southern District of
Ohio; Humphrey H. Leavitt, Judge.
By Lewis H. Bond, Counselor-at-Law.
Volume I. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke
& Co. 1872. For sale by E. B. Myers
& Co., Law Booksellers, Chicago.
We are glad to welcome the first vol
ume of the Reports of Judge Leavitt's
decisions. These volumes will preserve
in an enduring form the principal and
leading opinions of this upright and
able Judge, and enable the bench and
bar of the Federal courts to profit by his
many years of faithful judicial service.
The cases reported in the first volume
comprise the most important of the vast
number decided by Judge Leavitt, com
mencing with the February term, 1856,
and ending with the October term, 1865.
The cases arising under the Fugitive
Slave Law, and questions of a kindred
nature, are not reported. Mr. Bond,
considering that as the exigencies which
gave rise to them had passed away, and
the certainty that slavery could never
again have an existence in this country,
deemed the report of such cases alto
gether superfluous. Mr. Bond has pre
pared these cases for publication in a
very creditable manner. We have fre

quently spoken of the superior style of

the law books emanating from this pub
lishing-house, and are glad to be able to
say that the book before us is a model
volume of Reports.
A Treatise upon the Law Applicable;
to Negligence. By Thomas William
Saunders, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. With Notes or Ameri
can Cases. By Henry Hooper. Cin
cinnati : Robert Clarke & Co. 1872.
Sold by E. B. Myers, Law Bookseller,
Chicago. Price, $3.75.
This is a neat and useful little volume
of 264 pages. It states, in a clear and
concise manner, the principles of the
law of Negligence, and contains citations
to the leading English cases upon this
branch of the law. Mr. Hooper, the
American editor, has added to the work
a chapter on Telegraphs. In his notes
and references to the cases decided in
the American courts he has not attempt
ed to give all the numerous cases, but
only those leading ones which illustrate
or deny the doctrine laid down in the
text.
Limit of Police Power in the Con
trol of Corporations.We have read,
with some interest a pamphlet of over
forty pages, prepared by Wm. C. Rey
nolds, legal adviser of Graceland Ceme
tery, and printed by the Chicago Legal.
News Co., upon the limit of the police
power in the control of corporations.
This pamphlet was written in reply to
an argument of Henry Waller, Esq., and
with a view of showing that interments
in Graceland Cemetery can never be
prohibited by police regulation. It is a.
well written pamphlet, refers to many
authorities, and, to persons interested in.
the questions upon which it treats, wil
be valuable.
We have occasionally published letters
containing words of kindness and com
mendation. The following will furnish
a contrast :
Mrs. Bradwell : I don't wish to sub
scribe for the Legal News. You spoke
of your misfortune in the fire of Chicago,
etc.
Did any of you help us when you stole
all of our property? No, not one. I
would see everybody in h
1 before I
would subscribe for a paper north of
Mason & Dixon's Line. Pity but what
the whole of Chicago and everybody in
it had got burned up. You are getting
pay for what you stole from us. Hoping
these few lines may find you, and enjoy
ing the same blessing, I will close.
Yours respectfully,
B. H. A. D. Digger.
This man's name |should have been
spelled with an a instead of an i; then
there might have been " something in a
name."Ed. Legal News.
Our old friend, Hon. Geo. C. Hates,
District Attorney of Utah, called on usyesterday, en route to Salt Lake, Utah,
to resume his duties there. The official
acts of Mr. Bates in Utah have been,
fully indorsed by the Supreme Court of
the United States, and are in accordance
with the views of the large mass of the
Bench and Bar of the nation.
MARRIED WOMAN'S PROPERTY
RIGHTS INN. Y.
We clip the following head-notes to a.
very sensible opinion to appear in 61
Barbour, from the Albany Law Journal :
1. Power to contract: right to earnings..
By virtue of the statutes of 1860 and
1862, relative to the rights of married
women, a married woman may makebargains, carry on any trade mr business,,
and perform labor and services on her
own separate account, and for her own
exclusive benefit, the same as though,
she were unmarried, and all the earnings
and profits belonging to her exclusively^

Chicago
and are her sole an(l separate estate.
FoiUr et al. v. Conger.
2. Capacity to sue and be sued.She
may also sue and be sued upon any and
all bargains, obligations and liabilities
made or incurred in her business, the
same as though she were sole.Ib.
3. Actions and judgment* against.If an
action is brought against her, in refer
ence to her business, it is brought in the
same manner as against any other indi
vidual. The liability is personal ; and
ifjudgment is obtained upon it, it is a
personal judgment, to be enforced
against any property she may have,
liable to execution as in ordinary cases.
Ib.
4. If in any such action, the plaintiff
would be entitled to judgment were the
defendant a single woman, he is entitled
to it though she be married. The obli
gation and the liability of the wife, in
such a case, are the same precisely as
though she had never contracted mar
riage.lb.
5. In such an action it is not of the
slightest consequence, in respect to the
plaintiff's right of action, and to recover
a judgment against the defendant, that
she had no separate estate before engag
ing in the business in which the debt
was contracted ; nor that the debt was
not incurred for the benefit of a separate
estate afterward acquirejjliy her.lb.

Legal

News.

245

in the further development of the case; and thus have set the matter wholly
in such event the rejected evidence at rest.
2. In equityagainst a debt due to an should
5. It was error to suppose that the
be offered again, when, if exestate.A purchaser of land gave his eluded, an
cessation of hostilities was synonymous
exception would lie.Ib.
notes for a portion of the purchase
6. Whether relevant. Where the owner with the surrender of organized armies,
money, and simultaneously therewith,
and that peace meant the disbanding of
as a part of the same transaction, the of grain deposited the same in a ware military forces, instead of a full return
grantor executed to the purchaser a house, taking an ordinary warehouse re of the masses of the people to loyalty and
Bond to indemnify and save him harm ceipt therefor, the facts showing the good citizenship.
less as against certain outstanding notes transaction was a sale of the grain to the
6. Where cotton had been sold to the
given by him upon a prior purchase of warehouseman, in an action of trover by Confederate government upon the
the same premises from a third party the depositor against a purchaser from understanding that it should sell and
who had bought from the same grantor, the warehouseman, to recover the value divide the proceeds, no forfeiture of
but had forfeited his contract. After the of the grain, such warehouse receipt is such cotton will be incurred under
death of the grantor, the party thus not admissible in evidence in behalf of section 1, act of August 6, 1861, to con
sought to be indemnified was compelled the plaintiff.Ib.
fiscate property used for insurrectionary
to pay those outstanding notes: Held.
PAROL EVIDENCE.
purposes, where it appears that the
that in equity, the party so damnified
7. To vary the terms of a written contract. owners of the same were compelled by
could set off the sum paid by him,
force or bodily fear to make such sales ;
against his notes due to the estate of his The bill of sale for such grain, given but the mere existence of a law pre
grantor, it appearing the estate was by the warehouseman to the defendant, scribed by an insurrectionary govern
solvent and the interests of other credi could not be added to, varied or enlarged ment in itself is insufficient to justify
tors would not be affected thereby.lb. by parol evidence.Ib.
those who owe allegiance to a lawful
sovereignty. And therefore the charge
3. Nor would the fact that the debt
arising from a breach of the condition U. S. CIRCUIT COURT D. OF WEST to the jury that a mere law without
more was an excuse for obeying it was
of the bond of indemnity did not accrue
TENN.
erroneous.
and become fixed in the lifetime of the
We take the following head-notes to
7. The confederate government could
party executing it, at all affect the right
of set off in such case against his estate. an opinion delivered by Emmons J. from make no law. Its prescriptions imposed
no obligations, political or moral, and
lb.
the Internal Revenue Record of May 4 :
only justification for obedience
4. And the claim arising out of, a United States v. Fifteen Hundred Bales of the
which the citizen could make to his
breach of the condition of the bond of
Cotton.
rightful sovereign was deadly coercion
indemnity, should go in discharge of the
will take judicial cognizance by violence or threats.
notes given for the purchase money of of1.theCourts
public history of the country, and
the land, without reference to the claims
of other creditors of the estate, inasmuch in the modes of its ascertainment it is SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA.
as that indemnity appeared to be one of treated like a question of law, and investi
January Term, 1872.
ZJT. ILLINOIS- REPORTS.
the terms of purchase, and all being parts gated in the same manner in its own equity fraud condition of parties.
proper
sources
;
thus
public
documents
Our thanks are due the Hon. Norman of the same transaction.Ib.
and histories are to be consulted.
1. Equity will not only regard the na
L. Freeman, Reporter, for the following
CONTRACT.
ture of a bargain, but also the sex and
2.
Without
deciding
whether
the
court
head-notes to cases to appear in the 55th
1. Whether a sale or a bailment.When below should have taken judical cogniz circumstances of the parties to it, when
volume of Illinois Reports:
the identical thing delivered is to be re ance of the precise date when the sur the controversy involves a question of
stored, though in an altered form, the render of tne Rebel General Kirby fraud. A widow woman, in feeble health,
TAX TITLE.
is one of bailment, and the title Smith occurred, or whether, when such with a family of children, in helpless
1. Necessity of supporting the deed by a contract
to
the
property
not changed ; but accuracy becomes material, the proofs poverty, will not be treated as the equal
judgment and precept.In a suit in chan when there is no isobligation
restore which the parties desire to present must in a business transaction with a wellcery to foreclose a mortgage against the the specific article, and theto receiver
submitted to jury, this is certainly informed, influential, and prosperous
mortgagor and the grantee of the equity is at liberty to return another thing of be
clear
if the court assumes the duty merchant. (Opinion by Peters, J.)
of redemption, the latter relied upon a equal value, he becomes a debtor to of itsthat
determination
must decide it Balkum v. Breare.
tax title to prevent a foreclosure ; but on make the return, and the title to the correctly ; and it is as it
2. Mrs. B., a widow in feeble health,
much
an error for
the hearing produced only a tax deed, property is changedit is a sale. a court to make an historical
fact of with a family to provide for, in distress
without judgment or precept : Held, the (Opinion by Breese J.)Lonergan v. which it has taken cognizance as to
mis ing poverty, earned $446.00 in the year
court properly decreed a foreclosure. Stewart, p 44.
take a principle oflaw. Thus the charge 1867, as a teacher in a public school in
(Opinion dv Lawrence, C. J.)Buck v.
2. Of a deposit of grain in a warehouse. to the jury that the Rebel General Kirby this State, for which she filed her ac
Delafield, p. "31.
So where grain was deposited in a Smith surrendered on the 24th of May count in a proper manner with the su
FORECLOSURE.
warehouse, on the understanding be 1865, was error. The common histories perintendent of the public schools in the
2. Distribution of surplus.In a suit to tween the warehouseman and the owner ofthe country, the Annual Enclycopedia, proper county ; but the payment of the
foreclose a mortgage against the mort of the grain, not that the identical grain, and repeated judgments of the courts, claim thus filed was postponed, and not
gagor, who has parted with his interest or grain of like quality, was to be re show it to have taken place on the 20th made until April, 1870. Before it was
made, B., an influential and well-in
in the premises, it is error to order any turned, but the money value thereof, to of May, 1865.
surplus that may remain on a sale, after be ascertained by the market price on
3. It was conceded by the court below formed merchant of the county, came to
payment of the mortgage, to be paid the day the depositor should choose to that if the cotton in questionwhich see her for the purpose of buying her
over to the mortgagor. The surplus fix, the transaction was held to be sale, had been laden on a steamboat on the claim. He represented to her that all
should be ordered to be brought into not a mere bailment.Ib.
Red and other rivers in that portion of the other teachers of the county were
court, in order that its proper distribu
the State of Louisiana, then proclaimed selling their claims at fifty cents in the
USAGE.
tion may be directed.Ib.
to be in insurrection, and which was in dollar ; that the money to pay her claim
3. How far a contract is controlled there the actual military occupation of the had not been received by the superin
SALE UNDER TRU8T DEED.
and might not be received!
1. Notice to the debtorbad faithinad by.Although usages of trade cannot be Rebel military forces, commanded by tendent,
some months. Confiding in the truth
equacy of price.A party holding certain set up either to contravene an established General Kirby Smithhad started upon in
representations, she sold herreal estate under a contract of purchase, rule of law, or to vary the terms of an said steamboat, before the actual sur of these
for fifty cents in the dollar, and
sold the same, receiving from his vendee express contract, yet all contracts made render of General Smith, for transporta claim
the pay. Shortly afterwards shea part of the purchase price in cash, and in the ordinary course of business, with tion to Memphis, Tenn., which was received
learned that B.'s representations werefor the residue his promissory notes, out particular stipulations, expressed or within the lines of Federal military all
false, and that he had deceived and
which were transferred before their ma implied, are presumed to be made in occupation, then the same would be cheated
and that the money to pay
turity. Subsequently, this vendor for reference to any existing usage or custom forfeited under section 5, act July 13, her had her;
been received, and that B. had
feited his contract of purchase, and relating to such trade, and it is always 1861, and amendatory acts prohibiting opportunities
to know it. She went to
thereupon his vendee purchased from competent for a party to resort to such commercial intercourse between citizens him and proposed
to cancel the trade for
the original vendor, receiving a deed for usage to ascertain and fix the terms of of States in insurrection and citizens of her claim, and tendered
him back thethe rest of the United States. Thus
the premises, and executing a deed the contract.lb.
he had paid ; but he refused to
of trust thereon to secure a portion of 4. So where the owner of grain depos upon the theory of the learned judge money
this, and collected her claim and ap
the purchase money, and at the same ited the same in a warehouse, taking an himself, said cotton was forfeited, be do
the funds to his own use. In such,
time receiving from his grantor a bond ordinary warehouse receipt therefor, cause it had started on its transit before plied
chancery will take jurisdiction
to indemnify him against his outstand which did not explicitly state the char said surrender, it having left on May 25, aandcase
compel B., the merchant, to account
ing notes given on his former purchase. acter of the transactionwhether as a and said surrender taking place on the to the
widow for the proceeds of her
It was also agreed that steps should" be sale or a mere bailmentit is competent, 26th of May, 1865.
3. The legal consequence deduced claim so gotten possession of by him.Iti.
taken, at the expense of the grantee in in an action by the depositor against a
THE WORD SEAL WITH A SCROLL.
the trust deed, to restrain the collection purchaser from the warehouseman, for from the erroneous assumption as to the
1. A promissory note containing the of those outstandingnotes.andto recover the latter to show that, according to the time of the surrender of General Kirby
the money paid on the first purchase, usage in such cases, warehousemen do Smith, that trade and intercourse be word "seal," surrounded by a scroll,,
which was to inure to the benefit of the not keep the identical grain deposited, came lawful between Louisiana and appended to the signature of the maker,
vendor of the second sale. The trustee but ship and sell it without regard to the Tennessee and hostilities ceased upon is not a sealed instrument.(Opinion
in the trust deed also agreed, as the identity of the grain deposited by any the said surrender was no better by Saffold, J.)Blnckwett v. Hamilton.
2. The reason, whether good or bad , .
agent of the holder, that the residue of particular person, and that depositors at grounded in the law than was the fact
purchase money secured thereby should a warehouse do not expect to take their itself in the history of the country. The for the positive knowledge expressed by
not be demanded until the suit in grain away, but to get their money at proclamation of the President, or other a witness of a fact about which he is
respect to these notes should be de the market price on the day they de political recognition of the return of examined, may be stated by him, as it
termined, yet, pending that suit, and mand itand this, as tending to give peace, was necessary to work such a only affects the credibility of his testi
without any notice to the grantor in the character to the transaction as a sale consequence. The conditions of war mony.Ib.
NOTE GIVEN ON SUNDAY.
deed of trust, the trustee sold the prop rather than a bailment.16.
and peace, the political status of govern
3. In a suit on a promissory note, theerty, at a grossly inadequate price, the
ments and people in our system, are
EVIDENCE.
circumstances tending to show it was
purely of political, and not judicial de issue being whether it was executed on
5. Relevancy, when determinable.When termination. The entire legislative Sunday or not, evidence that the plain
not a fair and real transaction with any
of the parties to it, there was no money evidence is offered which, at the time, historv and public action of the country tiff was the superintendent of a Sabbath
paid, or deed made to the purchaser, for does not appear to have any relation to in reference to the late Rebellion con school, which he invariably attended,,
a period of two months after the sale. the case, and the offer to introduce it is clusively show that such has been the unless he was sick or absent from home,
It was held, the trustee's sale should be unaccompanied by a statement that its theory upon which our courts and the is not admissible.Ib.
set aside, on bill filed for that purpose, relevancy will appear in the progress of Government have proceeded in its sup
4. Where evidence irrelevant or illegal
in order to a more equitable adjustment the trial, it may properly be rejected, pression, and dealing with its conse is simply redundant or superfluous, the
of the rights of the parties.(Opinion and its exclusion under such circum quences. The Supreme Court of the judgment being fully sustained without
by Thornton J.)/Stone v. Fargo et al, stances will not become erroneous be United States in repeated and literally it, its admission is error, without injury.
cause it may afterwards become relevant applicable judgments have so decided, Ib.
P71.

246

Chicago

fendants, returnable on the third Monday of May next

FRANCIS ADAMS & H. LINCOLN,
11372).
is by law
Attorney,*.
Now,asunless
you,required.
the C.saidThompson,
The unknown
heirsThe
or
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Cook devisee*
Benjamin
deceased.
^ County, sw. 1 ircuit court of Cook county. May unknow n ofheirs
or devisees of Sylvester O. Post, de
Term,
A.
P.
187-j.
Tin?
Trusrees
of
Schools
of
Township
and Margaret E. Thompson, shall person
. Thirty-nine (3->J North, Range Thirteen (13), East of ceased,
be and appear before said Circuit court ot Cook
Third Principal Meridian, in Cook county, Illinois, ally
on the first day of a term thereof, to be
v. Janies X. Matthews ami Catherine Matthews. county,
holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Mon
Petition to restore record.In Chancrry.
of May, la72, and plead, answer or demur to the
Affidavit of the non-residence <f the defendants day
complainants' petition, the same, and the
above named, having been riled in tin- oihYo of the said
matters and things therein charged and stated, will be
clerk
said Circuit
of CookN.county,
noticeandis taken
as confessed, and a decree entered against you
herebyofgiven
to the court
said James
Matthews
according to the prayer of saidT.petition.
Catherine
Matthewsto that
the destroyed
complainants
heretofore
CASSETTE. Clerk.
filed
their petition
restore
record,
on the Francis Adams ANORMAN
II. Lincoln, Compl'ts' SoIt*. :-33
chancery side of said court, and that a summon* There
upon
issued
out
of
said
court
against
said
defendants,
Stateof Cook
of Illinois,
returnable on the third Monday of May next, (1372), pHANCERY
\J county, ss. NOTICE.
Circuit court
county. Cook
May
as is by law required.
term, A. D. 1*72, Trustees of Schools of township
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
James
N.
Matthews
and
thirty-nine
('''.*}
north,
ranue
thirteen
(
13>,
east
of
third
Catherine Matthews, shall personally he and appear principal 'meridian, iu Cook county, Illinois, v. Wil
before said Circuit court of Conk enmity, on the first liam A. Sneathen, Sarah A. Sneathen and John
day of a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said McMurtry.
Petitiou to restore record. In i'hancery.
county, on the third Monday ut May, 1S72. and plead, Affidavit that
above-named defendants, on due
answer or demur to the said complainants' petition, inquiry, cannot bethefound
having
tiled county,
in the office
the
same,
and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
the clerk of said Circuit
courtbeen
of Cook
no
and stated, will he taken a-* confessed, and a decree of
tice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
William
A.
entered against you according to the prayer of said Sarah A. Sneathen and John McMurtry t hatSneathen,
the com
petition.
NORMA X T GAZETTE. Clerk. plainants heretofore filed their petition to restore
de
Francis Adams & II. Lincoln. Compl'ts' Sol'rs. 30*3:* stroyed record, on the chancery side of said court, and
thata summons thereupon issued out nfsaid court
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, Cook against
said defendants, returnable on the third Mon
^ County, ss. Circuit court of Cook county, Mav day of May
next (1872), as is by law required.
Term,
A.D. 1*72.
Trustees
Schools of-Township
Now, unless you. the said William A. Sneathen.
Thirty-nine
(3>) The
North,
RangeofThirteen
< l i). East of Sarah
and John McMurtry, shall person
the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook county. Illinois, ally beA.andSneathen
appear
Cook
v. Sherman N. Aspiuwall and Sarah Helen Aspiuwall. county, on the
first before
day of said
a termCircuit
thereof,court
to beofholden
Petition to restore record;In Chancerj .
at
Chicago,
in
said
couuty, on the third Monday of
Affidavit of the non-residence of Sherman N. May, 1*72, and plead,
answer or domur to the said
Aspinwall
and having
.Sarah been
HelenfiledAspinwall,
defendants
petitiou. the same, and the matters and
above
named,
in the office
of the complainants'
things therein charged and stated, will be taken as
said Circuit court of Cook county, notice is hereby confessed,
and a decree entered against you according
given
to thefiledsaidtheir
defendants
the complainants
petition.
heretofore
petitionthat
to restore
destroyed to the prayer of saidNORMAN
T. CASSETTE. Clerk.
record,
on
the
chancery
side
of
said
court,
and
that
a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against Francis Adams & H. Lincoln, Com pl'ts'.Sol'rs. 30-33
said
defendants,
the third Monday of pHAN(lEUY~~NOTICE.
-State
of Illinois,
v' county, bs. Circuit court
of Cook
county. Cook
May
May next,
(1872,) returnable
as is by law onrequired.
Now, unless you, the said Sherman N. Aspiuwall term, A. I). 1872, Trustees of Schools of township
thirty-nine (39) north, rantfe thirteen (13). east of the
and
Sarah
Helen
Aspinwall.
shall
personally
l>e
and
appear before said Circuit court of Cook county, on third principal meridiau, in Cook county. Illinois, v.
the first day of a term thereof, to be holden at Chiougo, Margaret E. Thompson, Ira W. Buell. The unknown
in said answer
county, on
thirdtoMonday
187*. and heirs or devisees of Sylvester 0. Post, deceased, and
plead,
or the
demur
the saidof May,
complainants'
The unknown heirs or devisees of Benjamin C. Thomp
petition, the same, and the matters and things therein son, deceased. Petition to restore record.In Chan
charged and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a cery.
decree entered against you according to the prayer of Affidavit that the said Margaret E Thompson, and
said petition.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE. Clerk. The unknown heirs or devisees of Sylvester 0. Post,
FhancisApams &H. Lincoln'. Compl'ts' Sol'rs. :jj>-33 deceased, and The unknown heirs or devisees of Ben
or either
on
C. Thompson,
pHANCERY NOTICE. -State of Illinois. Cook jamin
due inquiry,
cannot bedeceased,
found, having
been offiledthem,
in the
^
county,
83.
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county.
May
office
of
the
clerk
of
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
. term, A. D. 1872. The Trustees of Schools of township notice is hereby given to the said Margaret E. Thomp
thirty-nine (39) north, range thirteen t l3). east of third son, The unknown heirs or Hevisees of Sylvester O.
principal meridian, in Cook county, Illinois, v. Jo Post, deceased, and The unkn. .tri heirs or devisees of
sephine B. Little and William A. Little. Petition to Benjamin
C. Thompson, deceased, that the complain
restore record.In Chancery.
heretofore filed their petition to restore destroyed
Affidavit of the nou-resiucuce of Josephine B. Little ants
record,
on
the chancery
side out
of said
court,
andagainst
thata
and William A. Little, defendants above named, hav summons thereupon
issued
of said
court
ing been filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit said
defendants,
returnable
on
the
third
Monday
of
court of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the
next (1872), as is by law required.
said Josephine B. Little and William A. Little that the May
Now,
unless
you.
the
said
Margaret
E.
Thompson,
complainants heretofore filed their petition to restore The unknown heirs or devisees of Sylvester O. Post,
destroyed record, on the chancery side of said court, and deceased,
and The unknown heirs or devisees of Benthat a summons
thereupon
issued onouttheofthird
said court
C.before
Thompson,
deceased,court
shallofpersonally
be and
against
said defendants,
returnable
Mon | jamin
appear
said Circuit
Cook county,
on
dayNow,
of May
as is by
law required.
the first day of a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago,
unlessnext
you,(1372),
the said
Josephine
B. Little and in
said
county,
on
the
third
Monday
of
May,
1872.
and
William A. Little, shall personally be and appear before plead, answ er or demur to the said complainants' peti
said Circuit court of Cook county, on the first day of a tion,
the same, and the matters and things therein
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, charged
and stated,
willyoube according
taken as toconfessed,
andofa
on the third Monday of May, 1872, and plead, answer decree
entered
against
the prayer
or demur to the said complainant's petition, the said petition.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
eame,
and
the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
Francis Adams A H. Lincoln. Com pl'ts' Sol'rs. 30-33
and stated,
will be
as confessed,
and a ofdecree
NOTICE.-State
of Illinois,
entered
against
youtaken
according
to the prayer
said pHANCERY
^ county, ss. Circuit
Court of Cook
county. Cook
May
petition.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE. Clerk. terra.
A. I). 1*72. The. Trustees of Schools of township
Francis Vpams&H. Lincoln, Compl'ts' Soi'rs. 3*^33 thirty-nine
(39) north, range thirteen C13), east of the
third principalandmeridian,
Cook county.
HANCERY
-State
of Illinois,
Anna P. inKeith.
PetitionIllinois,
to restorev.
couuty, sa. NOTICE.
Circuit court
of Cook
county. Cook
May Bezer KeithChancery.
term, A. D. 1372. Albert G. Lane, County Superin record.In
that said Bezer Keith and Anna P. Keith,
tendent of Schools of Cook county. Illinois, for the use Affidavit
eitherbe^n
of them.i
inquiry,
of the inhabitants of township thirty-nine (3H) north, or
having
filed inonthedue
office
of the cannot
clerk ofbesaidfound,
Cir
range
thirteen
(13),
east
of
3d
principal
meridian,
in
court of Cook county, notice is hereby given to
eaia county, v. William Tate and Sarah F. Tate. Peti cuit
the said Bezer Keith and Anna P. Keith that the com
tion to restore record.lu Chancery.
heretofore filed their petition to restore de
Affidavit that said defendants, or either of plainantsrecord,
on the chancery side of said court, and
them, on due inquiry, cannot be found, having been stroyed
that a summons thereupon issued out of said court
filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit court against
said defendants, returnable on the third Mon
of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said Wil day of May
as is Bezer
by lawKeith
required.
liam Tate and Sarah F. Tate, that the complainant Now, unlessnext
you,(1612),
the said
and Anna P.
heretofore filed his petition to restore destroyed record, Keith, shall personally
be and appear before said Cir
on the chancery side of said court, and thata summons cuit
court
of
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day of a term
thereupon
issued
out
of
said
court
against
said
defend
to be holden at Chicago, in said couuty. on the
ants, returnable on the third Monday of May next thereof,
thirdtoMonday
May. 1872, and petition,
plead, answer
or and
de
(1872), as is by law required.
mur
the saidof complainants'
the .same,
Now. unless you, the said William Tate and Sarah F. the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
will
Tate, shall personally be and appear before said Circuit be taken
decreeenterod
court of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, accordingastoconfessed,
the praverandof asaid
petition. against you
to be holden
at Chicago,
said county,
third
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
Monday
of May,
1872, andin plead,
answeronorthedemur
to the said complainants1 petition, the same, and Francis Adams AH. Lincoln, Compl'ts' Sol'rs. 30-33
the be
matters
things therein
charged
and against
stated, pHANCERY NOTICE. -State of Illinois. Cook
will
taken and
as confessed,
and a decree
entered
^ county,
ss. Circuit
court ofof Cook
May
you according to the prater of said petition.
term,
A. D. 1872.
The Trustees
Schoolscounty.
of township
NORMAN T. CASSETTE. Clerk. thirty-nine
(39) north, range thirteen (13). east of the
Francis Adams A H. Lincoln, Compl'ts' Sol'rs. 30-33 third
meridian, in Cook county, Illinois, v.
(ThANCERY NOTICE. State of Illinois, Cook Anna principal
Keith and Bezer Keith. Petition to restore
J county, hs. Circuit court of Cook county. May- record.In
Chancery.
term, A. D. 1372. Albert G. Lane, County Superintend
that said Anna Keith and Bezer Keith, or
ent of Schools of Cook county, Illinois, for the use of Affidavit
of them, on due inquiry, cannot be found, hav
the Inhabitants of township thirty-nine (39) north, either
ing been filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit
range
thirteen
(13).
east
of
3d
principal
meridian,
in
of Cook county, notice Is hereby given to the
said Cook county, v, John L. Root and Francis E. court
said Anna Keith and Bezer Keith that the complain
Morse. Petition to restore record.In Chancery.
ants heretofore filed their petition to restore destroyed
Affidavit
that
the
above-named
defendants,
or
either
record, on the chancery side of said court, and that a
of them, on due inquiry, cannot be found, hav summons
thereupon
issued out
of said
against
ing been filed in the office of the clerk of said Circuit
defendants,
returnable
on the
thirdcourt
Blonday
of
^ourt of Cook county, notice is hereby given to the said said
May
next
(1872),
as
is
by
law
required.
John L. Root and Francis E. Morse that the complain
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
Anna
Keith
and
Bezer
ant heretofore tiled his petition to restore destroyed Keith, shall personally be and appear before said Cir
record,
the chancery
sideoutof said
court,
andagainst
that a cuit court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
summonsonthereupon
issued
of said
court
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the
said defendants, returnable on the third Monday of third
Monday of May, 1*72. and plead, answer or de
May next (1872), as is by law required.
mur
to the said complainants' petition, the same, and
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
John
L.
Root
and
Francis
the
matters
and things therein charged and stated, will
E. Morse, shall personally be and appear before said be taken as confessed,
and a decree entered against you
Circuit court of Cook county, on the fi rst day of a term according
to
the prayer of said petition.
thereof,
to
be
holden
at
Chicago,
In
said
county,
on
the
NORMAN
T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
third Monday of Mar, 1872, and plead, answer or demur Francis Adams A H. Lincoln,
Compl'ts' Sol'rs. 30-33
to
the said
petition,and
the Btated,
same, and
NOTICE.-State
of
matters
and complainant's
things therein charged
willthe
be pHANCERY
^
county,
ss.
Circuit
court
of
CookIllinois,
county. Cook
May
taken
as confessed,
and aofdecree
entered against you term, A.D. 1872. The Trustees of Schools
of'township
according
to the prayer
said petition.
thirty-nine (39) north, range thirteen (13), east of the
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk. third
principal meridian, in Cook county. Illinois, v.
Francis A dams AH Lincoln, ComplTs Sol'rs. 30-33
unknown heirs toorrestore
devisees
of Samuel
D. Pearce,
CHANCERY NOTICE. - State of Illinois, Cook The
deceased.Petition
record
in chancery.
courtofofSchools
Cook county.
May Affidavit that the unknown heirs or devisees of
term,county,
A. D.ss.1872.Circuit
Trustees
of township
D. Pearce, or any of them, on due inquiry
thirty-nine (39) north, range thirteen (13), east of the Samuel
be found, having been filed in the office of the
third principal meridian. In Cook county, Illinois, v. cannot
of said Circuit court of Cook county, notice is
Ira W. Buell, The unknown heirs or devisees of Ben clerk
hereby
given
said The unknown heirs or devi
jamin 0. Thompson, deceased, and The unknown heirs sees of SamueltoD.the
Pearce, deceased, that the complain
or devisees of Sylvester 0. Post, deceased, ami Marga ants heretofore filed
their petition to restore destroyed
ret E. Thompson. Petition to restore record.In record on the chancery
side of
court,
andagainst
that a
summons
thereupon
issued
outsaid
of said
court
Chancery.
Affidavit
that
above-named
defendants.
The
un
said
defendants,
returnable
on
the
third
Monday
of
known heirs or devisees of Benjamin C. Thompson, May next, (1872.) as is by law required.
deceased, and The unknown heirs or devisees of Syl
Now.'unless
you,the
said
The
unknown
heirs
or
devi
vester 0. Post, deceased, and said Margaret E. Thomp sees of Samuel D. Pearce. deceased, shall personally be
son, or either of them, on due Inquiry, cannot be
appear before said Circuit court of Cook county, ou
found, having been filed In the office of the clerk of and
the first day of a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago,
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
notice
is
hereby
in
said
county, on the third Monday of May, 1872, and
given to the said The unknown heirs or devisees of plead, answer
demur to the said complainants' peti
Benjamin C. Thompson, deceased. The unknown heirs tion, the same,orand
the matters and things therein
or devisees of Sylvester 0. Post, deceased, and Marga charged and stated, will
taken as confessed, and a
ret E. Thompson, that the complainants heretofore decree entered against youbeaccording
to the prayer of
filed
their
petition
to
restore
destroyed
record,
on
the
said
petition.
chancery side of said court, and that a summons
NORMAN
T.
GASSETTE.
thereupon issued out of said court against said de- Francis Adams A H. Lincoln, Compl'ts' Sol'rs.Clerk.
30-33

Legal

News.

pHANCERY
^ county, ss. NOTICE.-State
Circuit court of of
CookIllinois.
county. Cook
May
term, A.D. 1-72. Th-1 Trustees of Schools of township
thirty-nine (39) north, range thirteen (13), east >f the
third principal meridian, in Cook county, Illinois, w
John C. Parks and Mary Parks, John W. Humphrey
and Mary F. Humphrey. Petition to restore record
inAffidavit
chancery.that John C. Parks, John W. ITumphrev
and
Mary F. orHumphrey,
three on
of due
the inquiry
above cannot
named
dcf-ndants.
eith'-r of them,
be found, having been filed in the office of the clerk of
said Circuit 'court of Cook county, notiee is hereby
given
to the
John C.that
Parks.
W. Humphrey
and Mary
F. said
Humphrey,
theJohn
complainants
here
tofore filed their petition to restore destroyed record,
on
th
chancery
side
of
said
court,
and
that
asumnions
thereupon issued our of said cum against said defend
ants, returnable on th" third Monday of May next,
(L<2,) as is by law required.
Now. unless you, flu- said John f. Parks, John W.
Humphrey and Mary K. Humphrey, shall personally
be and appear before said Circuit court of Cook coun
ty, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden at
Chicago,
saidanswer
county,orondemur
the third
of May,
IH72, and inplead,
to theMonday
said complain
ants'
petition,
the
same,
and
the
mutters
and
things
therein chained and stated, will he taken as confessed,
and a decree entered against you according to the
prayer of said petition.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
Francis'Adams & H. Lincoln, Compl'ts' Sol rs. 30-33
pHANCERY NOTICE. -State of Illinois. Cook
^ county, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. May
term. A. D. 1^72. Albert G. Lane. County Superintend
ent
Schools of ofCook
county, thirty-nine
Illinois, for (3it)
the use
the otinhabitants
township
north,of .
range thirteen ( 13), east of 3d priucipal meridian, in
said
county, Chancery.
v. William Ludgate. Petitiou to
restoreCook
r<vord.-In
Affidavit that said defendant, on due inquiry, cannot
be found, having been filed in the office of the clerk of
said
court.William
of CookLudgate
county,that
notice
is hereby
givenCircuit
to the said
the complain
ant heretofore filed his petition to restore destroyed
record, on the chancery side of said court, and that a
summons
thereupon
i**ued out
of said
againstof j
said
defendant,
returnable
on the
thirdcourt
Monday
May next (1372), as is by law required.
Now, unless you. the said William Ludgate, shall 1
personally be and appear before s.iid Circuit court of
Cook
on thein first
day of aonterm
thereof,
to be
holdencountv,
at Chicago,
said county,
the third
Monday
of May, 1872, and plead, answer or,' demur to the said
complainant's
andwill
the be
matters
things therein petitiou.
charged the
andsame,
stated,
takenand
as
confessed, and> decree entered agaiust you accordiug
to the prayer of said petition.
NORMAN
GASSETTE.
Francis Adams AH.
Lincoln,T. Compl't'a
Sol'rs.Clerk.
30-33
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois. Cook
^ county,
ss. Circuit
court of
May
term,
A. D. 1872.
The Trustees
of Cook
Schoolscounty.
of township
thirty-nine (3y) north, range thirteen (13), east of the
third principal meridian, in Cook county, Illinois, v.
Charles J. Stolbrand ana M. Sophie Stolbrand, Peti
tion
to restore
Affidavit
thatrecord.In
said CharlesChancery.
J. Stolbrand and M. Sophie
Stolbrand. or either of them, on due inquiry, cannot
be found, having been filed in the office ot the clerk of
said
courtCharles
of Cook
county, notice
is hereby
givenCircuit
to the said
J. Stolbrand
and M.Sophie
Stolbrand that the complainants heretofore filed their
petitionandto that
restore
record, on thereuqon
the chanceryissued
Bide ofoutsaidof
court,
a summons
said court against said defendants, returnable on the
third Monday of May next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Charles J. Stolbrand and*
M. Sophie Stolbrand, shall personally be and appear
before said Circuit court 01 Cook county, on the first
day of a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said
county,
the third
May, 1872, andpetition,
plead,
answer oron demur
to Monday
the said ofcomplainants'
the same, and the matters and things therein charged
and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree en
tered against you according
prayer of said
peti
tion.
NORMaNtoT.theGASSETTE.
Clerk.
Francis'Adams A H. Lincoln, Com pl'ts' Sol'rs. 30-33
pHANCERY
of Illinois,
^
county, ss. NOTICE.-State
Circuit court of Cook
county. Cook
May
term, A. D. 1872. The Trustees of Schools of township
thirty-nine
(39)
north,
range
thirteen
(13},
east
of
third
principal meridian, in Cook county, Illinois, v. Eliza
A. Crocker and The unknown heirs or devisoes of
George
Crocker, deceased. Petition to restore
record.F.In Chancery.
Affidavit that the above-named defendants, on due
inquiry, cannot be found, having been filed in the office
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook couuty, no
tice is hereby given to the said Eliza A. Crocker and
The unknown heirs or devisees of George F. Crocker,
deceased, that the complainants heretofore filed their
petition
to restore
destroyed
on thereupon
the chancery
side of said
court, and
that a record,
summons
is
sued
out
of
said
court
against
said
defendants,
able on the third Monday of May next (1872). return
as is by
law- required.
Now, unless you, the said Eiiza A. Crocker and The
unknown heirs or devisees of George F. Crocker, de
ceased, shall personally be and appear before said Cir
cuit court of Cook county, on the first day of a term
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the
third Monday of May, 1S72, and plead, answer or de
mur to the said complainants' petition, the same, and
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, aud a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said petition.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE. Clerk.
Francis Adams AH. Lincoln, Compl'ts' Sol'rs. 30-33
E. VAN BUREN,
Attorney.
GUARDIAN'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE.-State of
Illinois, Cook county, ss. In the Circuit court of
Cook
county.
the matter
of theP. Towue,
application
Eliza H.
Towne, In
guardian
of Edward
minor,of
to sell real estate of said minor.
By virtue of a decree entered in said cause on the
25th day
of April,
A. D. 1672.
the April(2oth)
term ofdaysaidof
court,
I shall,
ou Monday,
theattwentieth
May, A. D. 1372, at ten (10) o'clock of the forenoon of
said day. at the east door of the old court house, in the
city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State of Illinois,
sell
public
auctionterms,
to theviz.highest
and best
uponat the
following
: One-third
cashbidder,
on the
day
of
sale;
the
balance
in
three
equal
payments,
pay
able in one, two, and three years respectively, bearing
interest
at
the
rate
of
eight
per
cent,
per
annum,
and
to
be secured
mortgage
deed ofupon
premises,
all theby rlglu,
title orandtrust
interest
the said
said
minor in the following described real estate, to wit:
An
one-sixth
(1-6) ofofnortheast
undividedone-quarter
four-fifths
(4-5) undivided
of west ten
(10) acres
(}+) of northwest one-quarter ( U) of section twentythree
town thirty-eight
fourteenfour(U).
Also,(23),
an undivided
one-sixth(38),
(1-6)range
of undivided
fifths
(4-5)
of
east
one-half
(H)
of
northwest
onequarter O4) of northwest one-quarter CO of section
twenty-three (23), town thirty-eight (33), range four
teen (14).
Also, the undivided two-fifths (2-5) of lot number
four
(4), in block
number
nineteen
(19), inquarter
the Assess
or's division
of the
northwest
fractional
(J)
of section number twenty-two (22), town thirty-nine
(39) north, range fourteen (It), east of the third
principal meridian.
ELIZA H. TOWNE,
Guardian of Edward P. Towne.
E. Van Buren, Attorney of said Guardian,
29-31
ESTATE OF WILLIAM EBERT, DECEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of William Ebert,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and
settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Cook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D.
1872, being the third day thereof.
POSTHOFF,
Administratrix.
Chicago. JOHANNA
April 13, A. D.
1872.
Johnston A Rogers, Attorneys.
29-34

MATTHEW MARX,
Attorney. *J2 S. Bespiaineg tSlrett.
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois. County of
Cook. ss. Circuit court of Cook county. May
Term, A.D. 1*72. Lena lirolius v. August Brolius.
In
Chancery.
Affidavit
of the non-residence of August Brolius, de
fendant above named, having been hied in the office
of the clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county,
notice
is hereby given
to thefiled
saidher
August
that
the
complainant
heretofore
bill ofBrolius
complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and thata
summons
thereupon
issued
out
of
said
court
against
said defendant, returnable on the third Monday of May
next, (1372,1 as is by law required.
Now, uuless
the before
said August
Brolius.court
shall
personally
bo andyou,
appear
said Circuit
of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at
Chicago,
in
said
county,
on
the
third
Mon
day of May. Iu72. and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
of complaint,
the stated,
same, and
matters
and things bill
therein
charged and
willthe
be
taken
us
confessed,
aud
a
decree
entered
against
you
according to the praver of said hill.
NORMAN T. GASSETTE, Clerk.
Matthew Marx, Compl'ts Sol'r.
28-31
W. W. PERKINS,
Attorney, \iSi> Wabath Avenue.
"Y"0TICE OF APPLICATION FOR RE-ENTERING
i.1 of Record of a Judgment. State of Illinois, county
of
ss. Superior
of Cook
county.andMayJohn
Term,
1*72.Cook.Willis
II. Esty court
v. Samuel
llodgers
D.
Fee.Application for restoration of judgment.
Affidavit of the non-residence of John I). Fee, one of
the above named defendants, having been tiled in the
office ofis the
clerkgiven
ofsaidtoSuperior
courtI).ofFee,
Cookthat
county
notice
hereby
said John
said
Willis II. Esty has filed his petition for the re-entering
of
record
a
certain
judgment
heretofore
obtained
by
him
John I).court
Fee ofandCook
onecounty,
Samuel asRod
ger*,against
in saidsaid
Superior
set
torth
said Estyissued
in hisout
saidofpetition,
andagtmiBt
flw a sum
mons by
thereupon
said court
said
defendants, returnable on the first Monday of May
next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, said John T). Fee, shall personally
be and appear be.fore said Superior court of Cook
county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be holden
at Chicago, in said county, on the first Monday of May,
1872,same,
and plead,
demur
to the
said petition,
the
and theanswer,
mattersorand
things
therein
charged,
stated, and alleged, will be taken as confessed by you,
and an order entered in accordance with the prayer of
said petition.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
W. W. Perkins, Att'y for Petitioner.
28-31
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. To May
Term, A.D. 1872, Ruben Rubel v. John L..Campbell.
In
chancery.
Affidavit
of the non- residence of John L. Camp
bell, defendant above named, having been filed in
the office of the clerk of said Superior court of Cook
county, notice is hereby given to the said John L.
Campbell, that the complainant heretofore filed hia
bill of complaint in said court, on the chancery side
thereof, and that a summons thereupon issued out
of said ccurt against said defendant, returnable on
the first Monday of May next (1872.) as is by law re
quired.
Now, unless you, the said John L. Campbell, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court
of
on thein first
day of aonterm
be Cook
holdencounty',
at Chicago,
said county,
the thereof,
first Monto
day of May, 1872. and plead, answer or demur to the
said
complainant's
billtherein
of complaint,
the stated,
same, will
and
the matters
and things
charged and
be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
JACOBSON.
Rosenthal, PesceAUGUSTUS
A Moses, Compl't's
Sol'r. Clerk.
28-31
SAMUEL STRAITS,
Attorney-at'Law, 502 Wabash Avenue.
nHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County of
^ Cook-ss. Superior court of Cook county. To June
Term, A.D., 1872. Michael Schmidt v. Louise Schmidt.
In Chancery.
Affidavit above
of thenamed,
non - residence
of Louise
defendant
having been
filed In Schmidt,
the office
of
the
clerk
of
said
Superior
court
of
county,
notice is hereby given to the said LouiseCook
Schmidt
that
the complainant heretofore tiled his bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
a summons thereupon issued out ofsaid court against
said
on the first Monday ofJune
next,defendant,
(1872.) as isreturnable
by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Louise Schmidt, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
at Chicago,
in plead,
said county,
first toMon
day
of June,
1*72, aud
answeronorthe
demur
the
said complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters and things therein charged and stated, willlbe
taken as confessed, aud a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS JACOBSON, Clerk.
Samuel Straus, CompPt'a Sol'r.
28-31
CHANCERY NOTICE.-State of Illinois, County
of Cook ss. Superior Court of Cook County.
Maf
Term, A.D.
1872. James
The Washing
ton Insurance
Company
of NewCarter
York,v. George
Satterlee, Charles V. Dyer, andF. H.Winston.In Chancery.
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of
George
Satterlee,
one of the defendants above named, having been filed
in the office ofthe Clerk of said Superior court of Cook
county,
notice
hereby givenheretofore
to the saidfiledGeorge
terlee, that
the iscomplainant
his billSatof
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
and that a summons thereupon issued out of said
court against said defendant, returnable on the first
Mcroday of May next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said George Satterlee, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county , on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
Chicago,
in saidanswer
county,orondemur
the firstto Monday
of
May,at1872.
and plead,
the said
complainant's bill of complaint, the same, and the
matters
and
things
therein
charged
and
stated,
willyou
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
according to the prayer of said bill.
2S-3I
A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
CiiARLEi H. Lawrence, Compl't's Sol'r.
MONROE, BISBEE & GIBBS,
Attorneys, 523 Wabash Avenue.
ESTATE OF JAMES N. FERGUSON, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims
anddeceased,
demandstoagainst
Ferguson,
presentthe
theestate
same of
forJamas
adjudicaN.
tion and settlement at a regular term of the .County
court of Cook county, to be holden at the court house,
in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June,
A.D.
1872, being
day thereof,
Chicago.
Aprilthe
20, third
A.D. 1872.!
CAROLINE G. FERGUSON. Administratrix.
28-33
With will annexed.
JOSEPH WRIOHT,
Attorney, Room 43. Central Union Block.
ESTATE OF JOHN HOLLAND, DKCEASED.Notice is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate of John
Holland, deceased, to present the same for adjudi
cation and settlement at a regular term of the
County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court house in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
day of June, A. D. 1872, being the third day thereof,
WIN1FREDA HOLLAND, Administratrix.
Chicago.April 23, 1872.
Joseph Wriout, Attornev.
29-34

Chicago
WOOD & CARTER,
Attennevs. Ati 11 *ki*gh Street.
rpRVSTEKS SA*LE-Wher*ae, John Schmith and
X Pauline Sclunitt, hie wile, by their trust deed,
dated
the eight
fttxteenth
<l*'t day
Blay.jn the(lf-71),
>ear and
one
thousand
hundred
andotseventy-one
duly recorded in the Recorder's office of Cook county,
in
the State'of
in Bookl*ian\
j-42 of U.Deeds,
page M,
conveyed
to theIllinois,
undersigned,
Marshall,
as
trustee, the following described In uric and pri-niieott.
situated in the city of Chicago, in the county of Cook,
and State of Illinois, to wit : Lot number twenty-fire
('>), in (12).
Ruutz'
yubdivisU.n
of tothethenorth
( -a) of lot
twelve
in north
addition
city half
of Chicago,
in
the county of . '00k. and State of Illinois, to secure the
payment of said John Schmith's four certain promis
sory notes given to secure a part of the purchase
money
the s-aid
aforesaid
detcnto-d
.premise*,
bearingol
even dateofwith
trust deed,
payable
to thy order
Jacob Hen rich, each of mi id pioioisi-oiy notes being
for the sum
of two
dollar* (I2Mi),due
payable
on, the
first hundred
day of November,
Wl, 1**72, and
1^73
and 1^7^, respectively, with interest at the rate of eight
per cent, per annum, payable nnunallv. And, where
as,
provided
uVed that
in easeof the
de
faultit wan
should
be mariein insaidtintru>t
pavtnent
of either
indebtednesses or moneys af repaid. mured by said
instrument, whether for principal or interest, ou the
day onpayable,
which then
the same
or each
eitherof the
thereof
became
due
and
all and
moneys
secured
by said trust deed should, upon such default, become
Immediately
duo trustee
and payable,
in case
such default, said
might Sellandandalso
dispose
of theof
said premises, and all the right, title, benefit and equity
of redemption of said party of the first part, their
heirs
assigns
at the innorth
door ofor the
courttherein,
house,atinpublic
the cityauction,
of Chicago,
the
State of Illinois, or on said premises, as may be speci
fied in the notice of such safe, for the highest and best
price the same will bring in cash, at least twenty
days' public notice having been previously given of the
time and place of such sale by advertisement in one of
the newspapers at that time published in the city of
Chicago, and make, execute and deliver to the pur
chaser or purchasers at such sale, good and sufficient
deed or deeds of conveyance for the premises sold ; and.
whereas, default has been made In the payment of said
first-mentioned promissory note for the sum of two
hundred dollars, and due on the first day of November,
JS71; and, whereas, said four promissory notes, to
gether with interest thereon since the sixteenth day of
May, A. D. 1071, are unpaid: and, whereas, the holder
of said first-mentioned promissory note has requested
the
to make
sale public
of saidnotice
described
land
and undersigned
premises: now,
therefore,
is hereby
Siven that in pursuance of the provisions of said trust
eed, and by virtue of the power and authority granted
to me in and by the same, I shall, on Thursday, the
thirtieth day of May, A. D. 1872, at eleven o'clock in
the forenoon, and upon the premises aforesaid, pro
ceedright,
to selltitle,
saidbenefit
described
premises, andof the
all
the
and land
equityandof redemption
said
John
Schmith
and
Pauline
Schniitt,
their
heirs
or
assigns therein, at public auction, for the highest and
' price the same will bring in cash, to pay said four
promissory
_ sory notei
notes and accrued interest.
Dated May 4, 1872.
FRANK B. MARSHALL, Trustee.
Woon & Carter, Attorneys,
30..13
A. B. JENKS,
Attorney.
ESTATE OF LEWIS P. HILL. DECEASED.Notice
is
hereby
given
to all persons
claims
and demands against the estate
of Lewishaving
P. Hill,
de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and settle
ment at a regular term of the County Court of Cook
county, to be holden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, be
ing the third day thereof.
JOHN L. WOODCOCK, Administrator.
ISABELLA
HILL, Administratrix.
Chicago, April
9. A. D. 172.
A. B. Jekks, Att'y27-32a
HOWE * RUSSELL,
Attorney*, 475 Waboth Avenue.
TXSTATE OF SENECA WRIGHT. DECEASED.
JEi Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Seneca Wnght, de
ceased,
theterm
sameoffor
set
tlementtoatpresent
a regular
theadjudication
County courtand
of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872,
being the third day thereof.
ADALINE C. WRIGHT.'Administratrix.
Chicago, April 13, A. D. 1872.
Howe A Russell. Attorneys.
28-33
ESTATE
OF
SOPHIA
B.
WHITING.
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Sophia 8. Whit
ing, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
ofCook county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D.
1872. being the third day thereof.
JOSEPH T. JANES.
HELEN S. JANES,
Chicago, April 13, A. D. 1872.
Executors.
Howe A Russell, Attorneys.
28-33
ESTATE
OF
LEMUEL
FOSTER,
Deceased.-Notice
is hereby given to all persons having claims and
demands against the estate of Lemuel Foster, de
ceased,
for adjudication
ment, attoa present
regularthe
termsame
of the
County Courtandofsettle
Cook
county, to be nolden at the Court House, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872, being
the third day thereof.
C. FOSTER, Executrix.
Oldcago, April 17,LYDIA
A. D. 1872.
2S-33a
ESTATE
OF
GEORGE
JEFFRES.
DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of George Jeffres,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement toat be
a regular
the County
Cookof
county,
holden term
at theofcourt
house, court
in theofcity
Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872,
being tho third day thereof.
GURDON S. HUBBARD and
GEORGE J. JEFFRES.
Administrators.
Chicago. April 8. A. D. 1S72.
27-32a
ANDREW H. DOLTON,
Attorney.
ESTATE OF TEUNIS SWETS, DECEASED.-Notice Is hereby given to all persons having claims
and
demands
against
the for
estate
of Tennis and
Swets
de
ceased,
to present
the same
adjudication
settle
ment at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county,
to
be
holden
at
the
court
house,
in
the
city
Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D. 1872, beof
ing the first day thereof.
ANDREWwith
H. DOLTON,
Administrator,
will annexed.
Chicago. April 26, A. D. 1672.
Andrew H. Dolton, Attorney.
29-34
NOTICE is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Lucius A. GHbwold, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court
of Cook
county, toonbe the
nolden
the courtofhouse,
city
of Chicago,
firstatMonday
July, inA.the
D.
1872, being the first day thereof.
MARIA
GRISWOLD,
Administratrix,
Chicago April 3. A. D. 1672.
26-31
Bennett, A Sherburne, Atty's for Administratrix.
ESTATE OF ELIZABETH CARSON, DECEASED.
is herebyagainst
given the
to all
persons
having
claimsNotice
and demands
estate
of Elizabeth
Carson, deceased, to present the same for adjudication
and settlement at a regular term of the County court of
Ceok county, to be holden at the court house, in the
city of Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D.
1872, being the first day thereof.
JOHN
T. FIRIE. Administrator.
Chicago, May 1, A.
D. 1872.
30-35a

Legal

ROSENTHAL, PENCE & MOSES,

A'ttn nt y*.
f-HANCKRY NOTICE. -state of Illinois. Cook
^ county, ss. Circuit court ofOook county. July
term, A. D. 1*72. John Dunlin, William F. Crouse and
Catherine J. (.'rouse v. James Kelly. David Mergentheim, 'Francis Hettinger, George Oertel, Daniel Don
ahue
and Mahu-hi
Donahue.InotChancery.
Affidavit
of the nun-residence
James
Kelleyhaving
and
Malachi
Donahue,
defendants above
named,
been
tib>d
in
the
office
of
the
cierk
of
said
Circuit
court
of Cook county, notice is hereby given tu the said
James Kelley and Malachi Donahue that the com
plainants heretofore (fled their bill of complaint in
said
court,thereupon
on the chancery
andagainst
that a
Summons
Issued outsideof thereof,
said court
said defendants, returnable on the third Monday of
jl:iy
(1872).you,
as the
is bysaid
lawJames
required.
. Now,nextuuless
Kelley and Malachi
Donahue, shall personally be and appear before wtid
Circuit court of Co<k county, on the first day of a
term thereof, to be hulden at Chicago, in said county,
on
of July.
1472, and plead,
or thethird
demur toMonday
the said
complainants1
bill ofanswer
com
plaint, the same, and the matters and things therein
charged and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a
decree
v<>u h<cording
tu the prayer
said bill.entered against
NORMAN
T. CASSETTE.
Clerk.ol
Rosenthal. Pence A M<>sas, Conipl'ts' SoPrs. 31-^4
ADMINISTRATORS
ministratrix of the SALE.estate ofLouisa
Israel Heller,
Heller, ad
de
ceased, v. Rosa Hess. Abraham Hess. Fanny McCreary,
Robert McCreary Caroline Schiam, Benedict Schnun,
Theresa and
Porges,
HenryHeller.
Forge*.Superior
Esther Sehram.
Schrain
Elizabeth
court of Jacob
Cook
county. Petition to sell real estate to pay debts.
Public notice is hereby given that in pursuance ot the
decree
of saidSaturday,
court in said
Iday
heretofore
entered,
I shall
thecause,
of May.for
A.cash,
D.
1.-72.
at 10. oonclock,
a. m., sell
stIcth
public
auction,
to the highest bidder, at the north end of the new City
Hall,
corner
of
LaSalle
and
Adams
streets,
in
Chicago,
Illinois,
following
premises,
viz: Lot
Bix
(f>) Intheblock
three described
(3) in Quick's
subdivision
0*
Harlem, being part of the northeast quarter of sec*
lion twelve (12,j in town_ thirty-nine (39,^ north ol
range twelve (12) east of 3rd p. m., in Cook county,
Illinois.
LOUIS \ HELLER,
April's.Administratrix
1872.
of
estate
of Israel
Heller,2f3Tl
deed.
Rosenthal. Pence A Moses, PPffs
Atty'e.
BROWN & RICKETTS.
Attorneys, Room* 1 and 2, 116 W. Madtion St.
CHANCERY NOTIGE.-State of Illinois. County of
Cook, ss. Superior court of Cook county. June
term. A.D. 1&72. Ellen E. Smith v. Henry A. Smith.
InAffidavit
Chancery.of the non-residenre of Henry A.Smith,
defendant above named, having been filed in the office
ol the clerk of said Superior court of Cook county,
notice 1b hereby given to the said Henry A. Smith that
the complainant heretofore hied Ver bill of complaint
in said court, on the chancery side thereof, and that a
summons thereupon issued out of said court against
said defendant, returnableon the first Monday ofJune
next,
by law
Now,(le72.)
unlessas isyou.
the required.
said Henry A. Smith, shall
personally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof, to be
holden
Chicago,
in saidanswer
county,orondemur
the firstto Monday
of
June,atlt*72j
and plead,
the Raid
complainant
s
bill
of
complaint,
the
matters and things therein charged andsame,
stated,and
willthe
be
taken as confessed, and a decree entered against you
according to the prayer of saidA. bill.
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Brown & Ricketts, CompPt's SoPrs.
30-33
H. S. ft F. 6. OSBORNE,
Attorneys, Room 52, Arcade Building.
PUBLICATION
IN ATTACHMENT.State of Illinois,NOTICE
Cook county.SB.
Superior court
of
Cook
county.
May
term,
A. D.of 1872.
Samuel K.
Martin v. William Payne.Action
assumpsit.
Public notice is hereby given to the said William
Payne,is defendant
in the
abovecourt,
entitled
same
now pending
in said
and cause,
that athat
writthe
ot
atttachment
in
aid
of
said
suit
at
law,
issued
of
the office of the clerk of the Superior court ofout
Cook
county,
dated
the
2d
day
of
iday,
A.
D.
1872.
at the suit of the said Samuel K. Martin, and against
the
of William
Payne,
the sum
of six
hun
dredestate
and sixty-four
dollars
andfor
fifty-two
cents,
directed
to the sheriff of Cook county, which said writ has been
returned executed.
Now, therefore, unless you, the said William
Payne, shall personally be and appear before the
said
Superior
county,
or before
first
day of
the nextcourt
termofCook
thereof,
to be on
holden
at thethecourt
house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Monday ol
May, A. D. action,
1872. givejudgment
special bail
to the
said
plaintiff's
willandbeplead
enteredagainst
you.
and
in
favor
of
the
said
Samuel
K.
Martin,
and
so
much of the property attached as may be sufficient
to satisfy the said judgment and costs will be sold to
satisfy the eame.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON. Clerk.
H. S. & F. S. Osborne.
Attorneys.
30- 3
WM. T. BUTLER,
Attonney. 871 tfate Street.
ESTATE
OF JOHN
DECEASED.-Notice is hereby
given toPFUND
all persons
having claims
and demands against the estate of John Pfund, de
ceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of tho County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago, on the first Monday of July, A. D., 1872, be
ing the first day thereof.
Chicago. April 2. A. ANNA
D. 1872.B. PFUND, Executrix.
Wm. T. Butler, Atty.
26-31a1|
SNOWHOOK ft GRAY,
AUorneyt. 85 Wert Monroe Street.
C1HANCERY
Illinois,
countyTo
of
J Cook. ss. NOTICE.State
Superior court ofof Cook
county.
Mav Term, A.D. 1&72. Ellen Keefe, Edward Keefe and
Johanna Sullivan, v. Catharine McCann, Patrick
McCauu, Patrick Sullivan, Houora Sullivan, Christian
Frnzier. Diedrich Frazier and Mary Spankenberger.
InAffidavit
Chanceryof the non-residence of Catharine McCann,
Patrick Sullivan and Honora Sullivan, defendants
above named, having been filed in the office of the
clerk of said Superior court of Cook county, notice
is herebv given to the said Catharine McCann, Patrick
Sullivan and Honora Sullivan, that the complainants
heretofore filed their bill of complaint in said court,
on the chancery side thereof, and that a summons
thereupon issued
out on
of the
said first
court
againstof May
said
defendants,
returnable
Monday
next, (1872.) as is by law required.
Now, unless you. the said Catharine McCann,
Patrick Sullivan and Honora Sullivan, shall per
sonally be and appear before said Superior court of
Cook county,
on thein said
first county,
day of aonterm
to be
holden
at Chicago,
the thereof,
first Monday
of
1872, and bill
plead,of answer
or the
demur
to and
the
saidMay,
complainant's
complaint,
same,
the matters and things therein charged and stated,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against
you according to the prayer of said bill.
AUGUSTUS
JACOBSON, Clerk.
Snowhoox & Gray.
Comp'ts SoPrs.
29-32
TTSTATE OF DANIEL REARDON, DECEASED.
Notice is hereby given to all persons having claims
and demands against the estate of Daniel Reardon,
deceased, to present the same for adjudication and set
tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago. 00 the first Monday of June A. D. 1872. being
the third day thereof.
MATHEW REARDON and
Chicago, April 17, A. WILLIAM
D. 1872. JOY, Executors.
Snowhook & Gray, AtCys.
2B-33a

News.

247

HOYNE, H0RT0N & HOYNE,

BAyKIU PTCr NOTICES.
Attut my*.
pHANCERY NOTICE. - State of Illinois, Cook
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
^ ct'untv. fcs. C ircuit court .if Cook comity. June
At:
term.husband,
A. D. l*-72.
Margaret
WalshTimothy
and JohnBrickley,
Walsh,
her
v. John
lJrh.ikh.-y,
ASSIGNEES NOTICF..- Northern District of 1111^"V'
lit
r*s.
At
Chicago,
in said IHeti let, 011 the JVXh
Catheriue
Potter.
l>ani-l
Potter.
Mary
K.
Brickley,
John Brickley and Mary Brickley. In Chancery".
day of April. A. D. Kfc
.
/.
Affidavit of the noii-reJ'>i, of John Brickley, The undersigned hereby gives notice of hi*! appoint'
the
ment
as
t**igiifi*
of
Christian
Kassing,
ot Chicago,
Catherine
Potter
and
Daniel
.
rotter,
three
of
defendant* above mimed, having been tib-d in theoflue in the county of.Cook, and State of f Uluois,
who has
by
of tlie clerk -of said < Ircuit court ol Cook count) , notire been adjudgfl a bankrupt, upon creditor*' petition,
is hereby given to the said Johu Brickley, Catherine the District court of the Cuited States in and for the
Potter and Daniel potter that the complalnauts here said I'ist; ict.
tofore hied their bill of complaint In said court, on the 30-32
ROBERT E. JENKINS. Assignee.
chancery side thereof, and tuat a summons thereupon ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.Northern District of IlliIssued out ot -aid court against said di fe idaii's, return
mds.s.
At
Chicago,
able on the third Moiida> ot June (i-7.,>, as \s by law day of May, A D. l73. in -aid District, on the 1st
reyuired.
The undersigned hereby gives notice of his appoint
' Now, unless you. the j-aid John Brickley. Catherine ment
" assignee
of Charles
Jr., ofwho
Chicago,
in
Potter
and Dante)
Potter, court
shall ofpersonally
by tind
the county
of Cook,
and StateWaite,
of Illinois,
has been
pear before
said Circuit
Cook c -unty.
011 ap
the I adjudyed
uroi: bis ow n petition, by the
lirst day of a term thereof, to be hoideu at VbicaKo, in District 0 11urtbankrupt,
of the I'nitrd Stat*-* in and for said Dis
said county, on the third Monday of Jum*. I.*?2, and trict.
plead,
answer the
or d<Mime
tour i-ud
to the!.*Kindmatters
complainants
bill 3**-32
of
complaint,
and things
ROB ljKT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
therein
chargedentered
and stated,
will you
be taken
as confessed,
i SSTGNEE'S NoTICE.-NorMiern District of IlliMiida decree
against
according
to the 1V
uois.
sr. A.AfD.Chicago,
prayer id' said bill
April.
l?72. In said District, on the 25th
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk. darTheof undersigned
gives notice of his appoint
Hoyne. Horton & Hoyxe, Conipl'ts' Sol'ns.
30-3.1 ment a assignee of hereby
Alfouse
Chicago,
in
the county of Cook, and
StateL.ofMandel,
Illinois:,ofwho
has been
pHANCERY
NOTICE.
State
of
Illinois,
Cook
a bankrupt, upon creditors' petition, by tha
Kj county, bh. Circuit court of Cook county. May adjudged
District court of the I nited States in and for said Dis
term, A. D. W2. James M. Marshall and Susan C. trict.
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
Marshall v. John Slepicka. Rosa Slepicka, Wenzel 29-31
Benulder and Franc Horal.In Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-residence of Franz Horal, one of
the defendants' above namtvl, having been filed in the
NORMAN C. PERKINS,
office of the clerk of said Circuit court ofCook county,
Attorney,
No. 479 -Wabash
ASSIGNEE'S
NOTICE.
Districtavenue.
Court of the
notice
is
hereby
given
to
the
said
Franz
Horal
that the complainants heretofore filed their bill of
United Mates, Northern District of Illinois, ss.
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof, The undersigned hereby gives notice of his appoint
hp assignee,
of the
estate
of theofState
and that a summons thereupon
Issued
outthird
of said
court ment
Company,
of Chicago,
in the
county
CookInsurance
and State
againstsaiddetendant,
returnable
on the
Monday
of Illinois, which has been adjudicated a bankrupt,
of May next (1872'. hs is by Ihw required.
Now. unless you, the said I ranz Horal. thai! upon creditors' petition, by the District court of the
personally be and appear before said Circuit court I nited States for the Northern District of Illinois.
of Cook "county, on the first day of a term there
NORMAN a PERKINS, Assignee.
29-31
of, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the third Dated Chicago, April 26, A. D. Ie72.
Monday ot May. 1*72, and plead, answer or demur
to the said complainants' bill of complaint, the same, ASSIGNEE S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi
and
thetaken
matters
and thingsand
therein
charged
andagainst
stated,
s. A.D.
At Chicago
will be
as confessed.
a decree
entered
day ofnois,
April,
hs72. in said District, on the luth
you according to the prayer of Vaid bill.
The
undersigned
givesInsurance
notice of Company
his appointof
t. cassette,
ment as assignee ofherebv
The Home
Hoyne. Horton Norman
Hoyne. CompPts'
Sol're. cierk.
3H-33 Chicago,
in been
the County
of Cook
and State
of Illinois,
which
has
adjudged
a
bankrupt
upon
its own
CHANCERY NOTICE. - State of Illinois, Cook petition by the District Court of the United States
in
county, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. May and for the said District.
term. A. D. 1*72. George W. Norton v. Nimrod Long,
THOMAS
BUCKLEY,
Assignee.
Amanda
F.
Long.
John
P.
Long,
Ma
com
G.Long.
29-31
Mattie Long mid Nimrod Long, as guardian of said Wm. H. Holden, Attorney.
Malcom G. Long and Mattie Long.In Chancery.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
Affllavil
of
the
non-residence
of
all
the
defendants
forEli
theN.Northern
District of Illinois.In
above named, having been filed in the office of the the States,
matter of
Small, a bankrupt.
clerk of said Circuit court of Cook county, notice is Notice
hereby given that the undersigned will, on
hereby given to the said defendants that the complain Saturday,isthe
Utb of May, 1872, at 10 o'clock a. m., at
ant heretofore filed his bill of complaint in said court, No. 386 Wabash
avenue, in the city of Chicago, sell at
on
chancer}' side
alias sum
public auction to the highest bidder for cash, any and
monsthethereupon
issuedthereof,
out ofand
saidthat
courtanagainut
naid all
interest which the said bankrupt may have in the
defendants,
returnable
on
the
third
Monday
of
May
estate of his mother, Evelina Small, deceased.
next (1872), as is by law required.
S. S. MERRILL, Assignee.
Now, unlesK you, the said Nimrod Long Amanda F. 2S-31
Long, John P. Long. Malcom G. Long and Nimrod
Long, as guardian of said Maalcom G. Long and
H.
A.
WHITE,
Mattie Long, shall personally be and appear before
Attorney. JVo. 165 Wert Washington St.
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
on
the
first
day
of
a
ESTATE
OF
GEORGE
A.
DECEASED.
term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county,
is hereby given toBIGELOW,
all persons having
claims
on the third Monday of May, 1872, and plead, answ er and Notice
demands against the estate of George A. Bigclow,
or demur to the said complainant^ hill of complaint, deceased,
the same for adjudication and set
the same, and the matters and things therein charged tlement attoa present
term of the County court of Cook
and stated, will be taken as confessed, and a decree county, to beregnlar
holden
at the court
house,A.D.
in the
of
entered against you according to the prayer of said Chicago, on the
first Monday
of June,
1672,city
being
bill.
NORMAN T. GA8SETTE. Clerk. the third day thereof.
Hoyne, Horton & Hoywe, Compl't's Born. 90-33 Chicago. April 19th, A.D. 1872.
pHANCERT NOTICE. -State of Illinois, Cook
LOUISA G. BIGELOW. Executrix.
28-33a
v> county, ss. Circuit court of Cook county. May H. A. Wuite. Attorney.
3erm. A.D. 1872. Hugh Barclay and George W. Nor
ELDRIDGE ft TOURTELLOTTE,
ton
v.
Nimrod
Long,
Amanda
F.
Long,
John
P.
Long,
401 Wabash Avenue.
Malcom G. Lornr, Mattie Long and Nimrod Long, as
guardian of said Maicoin G. Long and Mattie Long. ESTATE OF MICHAEL LANG, DECEASED.Notice isagainst
hereby given
to all persons
having
claims
InAffidavit
Chancery.
the estate
of Michael
Lang,
de
of the non-residence of all the defendants and demands
ceased, to present the same for adjudication ana set
above named, having been filed in the office of the tlement
at a regular term of the County court of Cook
clerk
of
said
Circuit
court
of
Cook
county,
notice
is
hereby given to the said defendants that the com county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
plainants heretofore filed their bill of complaint in Chicago, on the first Monday of June, A. D. 1872,.
said court, on the chancery Bide thereof, and that an being the third day thereof.
alias summons thereupon issued out of said court
Chicago. April 4,CHARLES
A. D. 1872.JORN, Administrator.
against said defendants, returnable on the third Mon
Eldbidge & Tocrtellotte, Atty's for estate. 36-31
day of May next (1872), as is by law required.
Now, unless you, the said Nimrod Long, Amanda F.
Long. John P. Loug.Malcom G. Long, Mattie Long and
S. M. DAVIS.
Nimrod Long, as guardian of suid Malcom G. Long and
Attorney, 50 W. Randolph St.
Mattie Long.shall personally be and appear before said
Circuit court of Cook county, on the first day of a term ESTATE OF JOHN HOPP, DECEASED.Notice
is hereby given to all persons having claims and
thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said county, on the
third Monday of May, 1872. and plead, answer or demur demands against the estate of John Hopp, deceased,
to present the same for adjudication and settlement at
to
the
said
complainants'
bill
of
complaint,
the
same,
and the maturs and things therein charged and stated, a regular term of the County court of Cook county,
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against to l>e holden at the court house, in the city of Chicago,
on the first Monday of June A. D. 1S72, being the
you according to the prayer of said bill.
NORMAN T. CASSETTE, Clerk. third day thereof.
Hoyne, Horton * Hoyne, CompPts' SoPrs. 30-33 Chicago, March an. A. D. 1*72.
WILLIAM WENDLAND. Executor.
S. M. Davis. Att'y.
26-3t
JOHN LYLE KINO,
Attorney. of Illinois. County of
pHANCERY NOTICE.-State
BENNETT & SHERBURNE,
Tern., cor. Hoisted and Randolph sts.
Cook. ss. Circuit court of Cook county. June Atty, Masonic
is hereby
giventhe
to all
persons
having
claims
term, A. D. W2. Christian Wilhelm v. Franz Crbain. "VjOTICE
and demanis
against
estate
of Ann
McDonald,
Maria Urbain, Peter Sleffer and John GusmuB.In Xl
deceased, to present the same lor adjudication and set
Chancery.
Affidavit of the non-renidence of John Gusmns. one of tlement at a regular term of the County court of Cook
the defendants above mimed, having been filed in the county, to be holden at the court house, in the city of
Chicago,
on the
first Monday of July, A. D. 1S72, be
office of the clerk ofsaid Circuit court of Cook county, ing
the tirBt
dav thereof.
notice is hereby given to the said John Gusmus
that the complainant heretofore filed his bill of Chicago. April
HENRY
Administrator,
3, A. D.McDONALD,
1872.
complaint in said court, on the chancery side thereof,
Atty's for Administrator.
26-31
aud that a summons thereupon issued out of said Bennett A Shehitrne,
court against said defendant, returnable on the third
Monday
of
June
next
(1872),
as
is
by
law
required.
ALLEN,and Canal Sts.
Now, unless you, the said John Gusmus, shall
Attorneif, S. TC.B.cor.P.Randolph
personally be and appear before Baid Circuit court ESTATE
OF ARISTARCHC8 BULKLEY, DE-.
of Cook county, on the first day of a term thereof,
ceased.Notice
is hereby
given
all persons
hav
to be holden
at Chicago,
said answer
county, oron demur
the third
and demands
against
thetoestate
of AristarMonday
of June,
1872. andinplead,
to ing claims
Bulkley, deceased, to present the same for adju
the said complainant's bill ofcomplaint, the same, and chus
and settlement at a regular term of the
the matters and things therein charged and stated, dication
County county of Cook county, to be holden at the
will be taken as confessed, and a decree entered against court
house, in the city of Chicago, on the first Mon
you according to the prayer of said bill.
day of June, A. D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
CASSETTE, Clerk.
AdministraJor. Z
John Lyle King,NORMAN
CompPts' T.
SoPr.
29-32 Chicago.R6BERT
April 8, A.H.D.BULKLEY,
1872
E. F.ALLEN, Att'y.
j.-ais
EDWARD J. HILL,
Masonic Temple, cor. Randolph and Halted St?.
BARBER & LacawjiK
PUBLICATION NOTICE IN ATTACHMENT.Attorneys, 64 We*t iMKe Street.
State of Illinois, Cook County, ss. Superior court
HENRY
of Cook county. May Term, A. D., 1872. Harford J. ESTATE
Notice isOF
hereby
given toAFr-KL.,
au personaVlLCEAbLV.
navmg claimsPerkins v. Nathaniel B. Coder.
demands against the estate 01 Hemy Appei.uePublic notice is hereby given to the said Nathaniel and
ceased, to present the game lor actjuaication Rnawi'
B. Coder that a writ ot attachment issued out of the tlement
a regular term oftne tftuuty t^ourt ot vnn^
office of the clerk of the Superior court of Cook county, county, toat be
holden at the co* 1 1 nouse, in tne city o
dated
the
fifth
day
of
April,
A.D.
1872,
at
the
suit
of
the
Chicago, on the first Monday irune, a. v. 1 2,
said Harford J. Perkins, and against the estate of ing
the 3d day thereof.
Nathaniel
B.
Coder,
for
the
sum
of
three
hundred
and
APP , Aaminutratr
forty-five dollars, directed to the sheriff of Cook coun
Chicago, April 4, A.MARE
D. 1872.
ty, which Baid writ has been returned executed.
Barber & Lackner, Attye.
26-31a
Now,
therefore,
unless
you,
the
said
Nathaniel
B. Coder, shall personally be and appear before the
said
Superior
court
of
Cook
county,
on
or
before
ESTATE
OF
JOHN
G.
GINDELE,
DECEASED.
the first day of the next term thereof, to be holden
is hereby against
given totheallestate
persons
havine
at the court house, in the city of Chicago, on the first clalmBNotice
demands
of John
(i.
Monday of May, A. D. 1872, give special bail and Glndele,and
deceased, to present the same for adjudica
plead
to
the
said
plaintiff's
action,
judgment
will
be
tion
and
settlement
at
a
regular
term
of
the
County
entered against you, and in favor of the said Harford court- ot Cook county, to be holden at the court house
J. Perkins, and so much of the property attached as In the city of Chicago, on the first Monday of June,
may be sufficient to satisfy the said judgment and costs A.D. 1872, being the third day thereof.
will be sold to satisfy the same.
FRANZ GINDELE, Administrator.
Chicago. April 4. 1872.
26-31a
Edward J. Hiix, Attorney.A. JACOBSON, Clerk.
29-32 Barber
& Lackner, Attye.

Chicago

248
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
CHAS. M. HARRIS,
S. E. cor. Clark and Adams.
MILLER, WILLIAMSON130ft W.
MILLER.
Randolph street.
JACKSONVILLE (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
JTETCKAM, L J.
ALEDO (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
PEPPER, WILSON A MARTIN,
Room 2 Bank Building.
MORRIS (ILL.) ATTORNEYS.
SANFORD, E. Special attention given to Collec
tions and Real Estate.
A3*
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
ROBERT E. JENKINS,
Attorney.
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi
nois, ss. At Chicago, In said District, on the 4th
dayTheof undersigned
May, A. D. 1872.
hereby gives notice of his appoint
ment as assignee of Michael W. I'halen, of Chicago, In
the county of Cook, and State of Illinois, who has been
adjudged a bankrupt, upon creditors* petition, by the
District court of the United States in and for said Distrlct.
ROBRRT E. JENKINS, Assignee.
31-33
ASSIGNEE'S NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi
nois, sh. At Chicago, in said District, on the 4th
dayTheofundersigned
May, A. D. 1*72.
hereby gives notice of hiB appoint
ment
as
assignee
nf and
Samuel
Chicago,
in
the county
of Cook,
StateS.ofNutting,
Illinois,ofwho
has been
adjudged a bankrupt, upon his own petition, by the
District court of the United States in and for said Dis
trict.
31-33
ROBERT K. JENKINS, Assignee.
A S8IGNKE'8 NOTICE.-Northern District of Illi*X nois. ss. At Chicago, in said District, on the
7thThe
dayundersigned
of May, A. D.
1*72. gives notice of his appoint
hereby
ment as assignee of L. F. Daley and the firm of Moneley
& Daley, of Chicago, in the county of Cook, and State
of Illinois,petition,
who have
beenDistrict
adjudged
bankrupt*,
upon
creditors'
by the
court
of the United
States in and for said District.
31-33
ROBERT E. JENKINS, Ass'gnoe.
SAWIN ft WELLS,
Attorneys, Exchange Building. cor.Ctark & Washington.
GUARDIAN'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE.-By vir
tue of an order and decree of the Superior court
of Cook county. State of Illinois, In chancery sitting,
made
and term,
entered
4th day of April, A. D. 1872, in
the April
A. this
D. 1872. of said conrt, in the matter
of the petition of the undersigned guardian of Jacob
Lauer and Catharine Laner, minors, for leave to sell
the
of thedescribed
said minors
and to for
the their
following
andInterest
hereinafter
realinestate,
supSort and education, I shall as such guardian, on Monay, April 22, A. D. 1872, at ten o'clock in the forenoon,
upon the premises, expose and sell at public vendue,
for cash, to the highest bidder, all the right, title and
interest of the said Jacob Lauer and Catherine Lauer,
and to lotaddition
eleven (11,)
block twenty-four
minors,
(24,) in inBushnell's
to Chicago,
county of
--Cook, and State of Illinois.
JACOB
SERAMORE,
Guardian of Jacob Lauer and Catherine Lauer.
Chicago,
1872. premises, by virtue of an order
The
sale ofApril
the 4,above
and decree of said Superior court, made and entered
in said cause, this loth day of May. A. D. 1S72. will be
made upon said premises, upon Monday, May 20, A,
D. 1872, at 12 o'clock at noon.
JACOB SERAMORE, Guardian.
Chicago,
May 10, Atty's.
1872.
Sawin ft Wells.
31-32
T1 j IMITED
PARTNERSHIP.-Notice
is
hereby
given
that the subscribers have fo'med a limited partner
ship
for
the
purchase
and
sale
of
farm
and
garden
seeds, and also farming and garden utensils and im
plements, ornamental and useful. James H. Morris Is
the special
D. S.in HXfrnn
both
of whomandreside
the citytheof general
Chicago.partner,
James
II. Morris contributes the sum of ten thousand dollars
to the capital stock of said partnership. The firm
name is to be D. S. Heffron : ana said partnership is for
the term of one year from the tenth day of April, 1872.
JAS. H. MORRIS,
31-36
D. 8. HEFFRON.
MASTER'S SALE.State of Illinois. Cook county,
s. Circuit court of Cook county. InChancerv.
Trustees of Schools of township thirty-nine (3y> north,
range thirteen (13), east of the third principal meridian,
In Cook county, Illinois, v. William Siem and Frede
rick E. Scheil. Foreclosure of mortgage.
In pursuance of the decree of said court rendered in
said cause April 25, 1872, 1, John Woodbridge, master
In chancery of said Cook county, will, on Monday,
June
A. D.at the
1872,east
at ten
the offorenoon
of said10,day,
door(10)ofo'clock
the eastinwjng
the old
court house, at the Clark street entrance, expose at
public auction, and sell to the highest bidder for cash,
lot one hundred and twenty-nine (129), in the School
Trustees'
subdivision
the north(39)partnorth,
of section
sixteen (16),
township ofthirty-nine
range
thirteen (13), east of the third principal meridian, In
said Cook county.
JOHN VoODBRIDGE,
Chicago, May Master
II, 1872. In Chancery of Cook county.
FaAwcis Adams, Esq., Sol'r for Compi'to.
31-35
JAMES SPRINGER,
Attorney, 669 Wabash Avenue.
NOTICE Is hereby given to all persons having
claims and demands against the estate or
Absalom R. Gedney, deceased, to present the same
for adjudication and settlement at a regular term of
the County court of Cook county, to be holden at the
court
the being
city ofthe
Chicago,
on thereof.
the first Monday
of July,house,
A. D.in1872,
first day
HELEN GEDNEY and
Chicago. April 11, A.JOHN
D. 1872.O. WESTERFIELD.
Administrators.
Jambs Sprinokr, Att'y for Administrators. 31-36
NOTICE.To
it may
concern guardian
: Notice of
Is
hereby givenwhom
that the
undersigned,
the
estate
of
Frank
D.
Laughton,
will
apply
to
the
Superior court of Cook county, by petition, on the first
Monday of June next,being the first day of the June
__. D. 1872, of said court,for an order to sell
the real estate of said Frank D. Laughton. situated in
the
county
of Cook,
and Stateforofthe
Illinois;
or soof much
thereof as may
be necessary
payment
taxes
and assessments upon his said real estate, for the pay
ment of the expenses of his guardianship, and for his
support and education.
RUFUS A. RICE, Guardian.
Chicago, May 11, 1872.
31-33
ESTATE OF HIRAM LEMUEL WILDER, DEceaned.Notice is hereby given to all persons
having claims and demands against the estate of
Hiram Lemuel Wilder, deceased, to present the
same for adjudication and settlement at a regular
term
of the
County
court
of Cook
to beonholden at the
court
house,
in the
city ofcounty,
Chicago,
the
first Monday of July, A. D. 1872, being the first day
thereof. THOMAS A. JACKSON, Administrator.
Chicago, May 10, A. D. 1872.
31-36

Legal

News.
ATTORNEYS.

JAMES

COCKCROFT & CO.,

LOTHROP 8. HODGES,
BOOKS. HAVE IN PREPARATION, AND WILL SOON
ATTORNKY-AT-LAW,
131 La Salle Street.
PUBLISH, THE
OXO. C. BATES,
LITTLE, BROWN & CO.,
ATTORNEY. COUN8EL0B-ATFIRST VOLUME U. 8. DISTRICT
LAW AND MINING AGENT,
SaU
Lake, Utah.
Boston,
All business promptly attended to.
SL
Of a proposed Series of
HAVI JUST PUBLISHED:
JAKES B. BRADWELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Lowell's Decisions.
American
No. 161 and 163 LaSalle Street, Chicago.
Special Attention Given to Probate Matters.
JUDGMENTS DELIVERED IN THE COURTS OF
WILLS DRAWN AND CONSTRUED.
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF
ESTATES SETTLED.
Railway
MASSACHUSETTS. By John Lowill, LL.D., Dis
" Set thine house in order ; for thou Shalt die,
trict Judge. 8to. Law Sheep, $6.00.
and
not
live."'i
Kings xx. l.
This volume embraces case, decided by Judge Lowell
during the years M6V71. It contains more than one
FRANK
J. CRAWFORD,
Reports.
hundred and sixty decisions, of which nftjr-afjrht are
ATTORNEY
No. 328 AND
WabathCOUNSELOR-AT-LAW,
Avenue, Chicago.
M
in
bankruptcy.
The
appendix
includes
the
rules
and orders in bankruptcy for the District of Massa
chusetts.
GEORGE C. FRY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
It la the intention of the Editor of these Reports to
UNITED STATES DIGEST.
34 Clinton Street, Room 5, Chicago.
furnish all the current
Mew Series. Tol. I.
8. A. GOODWIN.
E. C LARNED.
H. 8. TOWIJL
Containing a Digest of the Decisions of the various
GOODWIN, LARNED ft TOWLE,
Courts within the United States, for 1870. By Ben Decisions of the American Courts
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
jamin Vauqhan Abbott. Royal 8vo. Law Sheep,
17.90.
On questions of
No. 376 Wabath Avenue, Chicago.
12
The ample experience of Mr. Abbott hus suggested
so many desirable alterations that the work upon its
ROGERS ft ROGERS,
new plan is properly distinguished as a A'w Series.
RAILWAY LAW,
The general purpose remains unchanged ; but some of
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS.
the differences between the methods of this volume
and those of its predecessors are: A more Readable With references and notes of recent English Cases,
St Paul, Minn}
Type : Catchwords to indicate the topic of a Paragraph;
The Year of each Decision : Sew Series of Reports here and to make of the series a compendium of all the
HENRY HAYDEN,
tofore omitted; A revi*ed Classification, with new Titles;
The Table of Content* arranged so that it serves as an
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW,
Index ; The grouping of Cases according to their logical LATEST DECISIONS on matters arising in litiga
Kinoiton, Mo.
connection ; Cases turning upon Statutes, Qie pith of the
Statute is given so ttiat the Reader in another State may tion for or against Railway Companies.
compart it with the Statute which there prevails.
It Is confidently expected that the Digest for each
CHICAGO ATTORNEYS.
year can appear by June of the year following.
Barker ft Waite, 46 East Harrison.
Beattle, C. J., 45 South Canal.
Price $6.00 per Vol.
BRA DWELL, J. B., 161 and 163 LaSalle street.
MASSACHUSETTS DIGEST.
Bonney, Fay A Griggs, 120 West Washington .
Bentley, Bennett, U11inan ft Ives. 376 Wabash ava,
Tol. III.
Brouse, 0. R., 400 Wabash avenue.
THE MASSACHUSETTS DIGEST. Vol. III. Being JAMES COCKCROFT & Co., Carmichael, D. L 815 Prairie avenue.
a Digest of the Decisions of the Supreme Judicial
Chase, F. L., 386 Wabash avenue.
Court of Massachusetts, from the year 1857 to the
Clarkson ft Van Scbaack, 454 Wabash avenue.
year 1869; or from the 9th Gray to the 102d Mass.,
Deane ft Cahill, room 7, Llnd's Block.
499 WABASH AVENUE,
inclusive. By Edmund H. Bknnett and Hknby W.
Dent ft Black, 131 LaSalle, Boom 22.
Holland. Royal Svo. Law Sheep, $8.00.
W J., 159 La Salle street.
CHICAGO, III. Durham.
Kldridge & Tourtalotte, 401 Wabash avenue.
Ewlng ft Leonard, 487 Wabash avenue.
Billiard on Mortgages.
Ellis, B. W., 115 West Madison street
ADVERTISEMENT.
Felker, Wm. S.. 92 Desplaines street.
New Edition.
Goodwin, D., jr., n. e. corner Monroe and La Salle.
Goudy
ft Chandler, Union Central Block.
A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF MORTGAGES OF
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY. Fourth STEVENS &HAYNES Graham. Geo. T., 60 South Canal.
Herbert ft Quick, 61 Union Central Building.
Edition, revised and enlarged. 2 vols., Svo. Law
Hodges, L. S., 131 La LaSalle street.
Sheep, $15.00.
Law Publishers,
Hoyne, Phil. A., Congress Hall, between Michigaa
and Wabash avenues.
Hoyne, Horton ft Hoyne, 2f<7 Michigan avenue.
BOOKSELLERS AND EXPORTERS,
Mex, Macnailiten & Gordon's Reports.
Hitchcock, Dupee ft Evarts, corner Wells and Mon
roe streets.
Vol. V.
AMERICAN & COLONIAL AGENTS, Howe ft Russell, 475 Wabash avenue.
REPORTS OF CASES HEARD AND DETERMINED
Ingersoll, O. P., 92 South Green street.
BY THE LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR AND THE
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
Jenkins, Robert E., 161 La Salle street, Republic Life
Building.
COURT OF Al'PEAL IN CHANCERY. By J. P.
LONDON.
Knickerbocker, J. C. ft J. J.. 163 West Washington
DxGex, S. Machaohtkn, and A. Gordon. Edited
Leary, D. James, 95 West Madison.
with Notes and References to American Law and
subsequent English Decisions, by Hon. J. C. Perkins. Works in all Classes of Literature Magruder, B. D., 181 West Madison.
McClelland, Thos. S 45 South Canal, room 6.
Vol. V. 1844-4. 8vo. Law Sheep.
Miller, M. M., Room 1, Masonic Temple.
Moore ft Caulfleld, 54 Central Union Block.
NEARLY READY:
Monroe, Bisbee ft Gibbs, 523 Wabash avenue.
Catalogues and Estimates Furnished, and Norton,
Jessie 0., 386 Wabash avenue.
Orders
Promptly
Filled.
Nissen ft Barnom, 109 Fifth avenue.
Morse dn Arbitrations and Awards.
The Trustee* and Officer* of Public lift* Otis. E. A., 481 Wabash avenue.
rely upon it
Perkins, N. C, 479 Wabash av., cor. Eldrldge court.
LangdelTs Leading Cases in Sales. Vol. I.
to their
Reynolds, W. C, 176 West Washington st
Roberts, R. Blddle, room 7, 43 South CanaL
Rorke, M. A. ft Son, Room 57, Central Union Block.
Rosenthal, Pence ft Moses, 328 Wabash avenue.
By importing DIRECT from England a consider
able saving in effected, especially in the Customs duty, Sawin ft Wells, Exchange Building, corner Wash
AUTHENTICATED EDITION.
from which Public Institutions in t/ie United States are ington and Clark streets.
Scammon, McCagg ft Fuller, 389 Wabash avenue.
GROSS'
Geo., 30 South Clinton.
SUNDRY mistakes have been made by our Foreign Scoville,
Small ft ingalls, 481 Wabash Ave.
and Colonial
in addressing their let
STATUTES OF ILLINOIS. ters,
we beg toCorrespondents
notify that the members of our firm are Smith, Upton ft Waterman, 135 West Monroe street.
Henry G. Stevens and Robert W. Haynes, the son Tenny, McClellan ft Tenny, 454 Wabash avenue.
Volume 2.
and stepson of the late Valentine Stevens, the eminent Thomas,
Sidney, 79 Dearborn street.
Law Publisher. Since our father's death we have con
tinued to carry on the business of Lsw Pnbllahera, Vallette, H. F., Room 43, Bryan Block.
ACTS OF 1871 AND 1872.
Bookaellera and Exporter*, at the above ad
Waughop, J. W., 401 Wabash^avenue.
All the laws passed by the 27th General Assembly, of dress.
During his recent visits to the United States and Williams ft Thompson, 554 Wabash avenue.
general and permanent interest, arranged, classi
Canada,
Robebt
W.
Hatnes
secured
many
Friends
Dexter ft Smith, 562 Wabash avenue.
fied and indexed to correspond with our
and Correspondents ; we are thus enabled to give ref Walker,
Wilson, Perry 4 Sturges, 479 Wabash avenue.
first volume of STATUTES.
erences of the highest character in most of the princi
pal American cities.
In one handsome Royal Octavo Volume.
We have no connection whatever with any other
HIOH & TRUMAN,
house of business, and to prevent delay and miscar
Attorneys,
487 WabashofAvenue.
Half Leather Bikdino, S3. Full Leather, $4. riage, our Correspondents abroad are respectfully re fiHANCERY
NOTICE.-State
Illinois, County of
quested to plainly address their letters to us as fol - ' Cook, ss. Superior
court of Cook county. June
lows:
term,
A.
D.
1872.
Anna
A.
Skinner
v. Marvin H.
arrangement
and classification
is observed
Skinner.In Chancery.
STEVENS & HAYNES,
inThe
thissame
volume
as in the First
Volume of our
STAT
Affidavit
of
the
non-residence
of
Marvin H.
UTES ; and while it Is in every respect complete
Skinner,
named,
havingSuperior
been
Bell Yard, Temple Bar,
in Itself, it will be found especially useful to all with
who
filed
in thedefendant
office of above
the clerk
of said
possess our former work. Frequent notes of explana
court
of
Cook
county,
notice
is
hereby
given
to
LONDON,
tion and reference are introduced to aid the reader
the said Marvin H. Skinner that the com*
where
otherwise
he
might
be
in
doubt,
especially
in
ENGLAND,
filainant
heretofore
filed
her
bill
of
complaint
noting repeals and the like.
court, on the chancery side thereof, and that
The sizestyle
of the
page, type,
of details
paper this
and Extract from " Report of Julius Rosenthal, Esq., an said
summons thereupon issued out of said court
printing,
of binding
and inquality
all minor
against
the first
Librarian
to
the
President
and
Members
of
work is uniform with our First Volume : so that those
Monday ofsaid
Junedefendant,
next (1872),returnable
as is by lawonrequired.
Chicago Law Institute." November, 1870.
who are familiar with that work will know instantly "the
Now,
unless
you,
the
said
Marvin
H.
Skinner,
To our collection of English Reports a valuable shall personally be and appear before
where
for what
want in the new. For addition
has been made by the Importation of a Superior court of Cook county, on the first said
generaltouselook
a careful
indexthey
is provided.
day
The same care has been used to make the text accu full and well preserved set of the House of Lords of a term thereof, to be holden at Chicago, in said
rate as in former publicationseach section having Cases,
county,
on
the
first
Monday
of
June,
1872.
and
plead,
including
Clark's
Digest,
consisting
of
58
been
compared
the enrolled
law, volumes.
answer or demur to the said complainant's bill of com
and thetwice
wholecarefully
authenticated
by thewith
certificate
of the Secre
mattersasand
things therein
" English books were imported directly free of plaint, the
tary of State,
andsame,
stated,and
willthe
be taken
confessed,
and a
duty, and their purchase was attended to by the charged
Orden solicited. Address
decree entered against you according to the prayer of
firm
of
Stevens
and
Haynes
in
London,
whose
E.
L
tt
W.
L
GROW,
said
bill.
Publishers, Springfield, Illinois. diligence, promptness, and care in filling our or
JA0OBS0N, Clerk.
*% Ready for delivery 10th May, 1872.
30 ders, I have thankfully to acknowledge."
High ft Truman, AUGUSTUS
Compl't's Sol'r.
31-34
NEW

LAW