The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1850-07-13
Supreme Court.

4 FAINT in the premises in controversy WINS not made
Va party the court declining to pass upon any of
Elhe other questions presented 10y the record.
Eopnion 10y Cation, justice
n armstrong ct ais. vs.. Cooper c: al-Error 70
EPeoria.-N IL Purple for plaintiffs and BALANCED
4 for defendants 4 hill in chanccry was taken for
Econfesscd, and decree entered without thc ap
Epearance Of any Of the defendants some ofwhom
kuow bring the case here by writ Of error De.
Eiendant in error filed special plea, setting forth
Ethat the decree was entered by the consent Of ono
Cot the defendants who was also, attorney for the
Eothcrs. Pitts in crr,r demur Directing that IL
Ecanuot be shown that the decree was entered hy
kconscut, when the record shows that it was en-
Etcrcd 10y default Demurrer oyerruled, with leav f,
4 10 plis in error to reply. Opinion by Cation ju,
n tee
n Gy'gy ". FSscaia--APpeal from Lcs-Glo.l
Eyer 4 Cook for appellant and I j. Turner for'
Aappollec This cause was originally commenced
ocfore ajusticc Of the peace and an appeal taken,
Hby Bragg. The bond was executed by an agent
HI Bragg without any sufficient authority, but his;
55act IN executing the bond was afterwards ratified
NY Bragg. The circuit court dismissed the anil
Rpea' and Bragg takes his appeal to this court.
a he court decide that the bond So executed was,
E;coL Judgment reversed and cause remandel
Eopinion by Trumbul justice.
q DeGoon "a. A"keay--Igpeal from, StspAea.I
ks7n--E 5. Leland for app't and NJ, Y Johnston
A'orapplee. y party, considering chattel in his!
possession entirely worthless and casting i. away
Swith the intention ofabndoniug it thereby diyests
E'lmsclfoi his title to it, and cannot reclaim il III
mother who has taken it, Personal property mE
he adverse possession Of one who claims il AS hi,
'wn, cannot be sold by the real owner so as IA
ransfcr good tile to purchased Judgment!
sreycr-eiand cause rcmanded Opinion by Cation.
ustice
B D. Merritt rs S. Manufacturer 10 Bureau
O Peters for the plT in error and 7 L. Dickey for
left. in error. Bill hed by Daniel Merritt against
HSicphen to foreclose a mortgage The answer,
set up submission to arbi,raors Of all mattersl
IN controversy between the parties including Hi,
mortgage an award by the armtutor,, AMI an:
olar on the part Of Stephen to perform the award
Complainant amended his bill, admitted the sub
mission charging that the arbitrtors were guityI
II gross mistakes, of fraud and corruption, andI
zprayed that the award should be set aside. Thes
answer denied all mistakes and fraud on the partI
sot the arbitrator. The decree Of the circuit court
dismissed the bill, ard complainant prosecuted
fthis writ of srror The court decide that the
Saward follows the submission that the proof,
furnish no evidence that the arbtrators acted i'm
lproperly that every intendcnt Of the law is in
favor OF the award; and that the matters having
been submitted and passed upon by the arbitra
TORS, the award Is final and conclusive and pary
must pursue his remedy under the award and in
no other way. Decree affirmed Opinion by
Treat, chicfjustice
Humphreys ". Ndihcvs--Errorio Cook--Ej
". Tracy for plf in error and Mlunerre for def
% error An action Of account NAV be commenced
by an attachment Opinion by Trumbull. jus.
Wo'c'mdn ct al, VS.. Pet ct al--Agpcui from
hme--S. A. HurIbu; for appellants and Man
nicre for oppel!ces, In an action on a contract
1 Specifically made payable in the county where
the suit is brought it i not necessary to aver that
the plaintiff resides in such county. to Justify thci
issuing of process to foreign county Suit NAV
H. brought anil process made rcturnable to spe
rlal term appointed at the preceding regular
aterm. The statements If an agent or attorney
. made 10 one Of the parties, aud at the time Of al
ssetuemcnt, may he a part Of the res gslto. and!
smay be admissible rs evidence; but his state
Ements toastfanger, made. at another time and af
tier the transaction was concluded are not the acts
ri lis principal, and therefore ina,lmissablc
eJudgment affirmed. Opinion by Treat. ch. inst.
q. ". Basseh ", o. ChRB--Appcal from LaI
sS@ir-Gloycr d Cook for appellant and L. S |
Leland forappelee, This was an action brought
aby Chids on Il contract 70 saw 10000 # Of lumberI
! Tor $500; one half To be paid when one half Of
1 the lumber was sawed and the balance when the ,
whole was completed and in case Bassett ncgec /
sted to furnish logs, Childs should be allowed,
1900 f. for each day lac was thus compelled toI
] remain idle. About $4,000 #. were sawed whenI
5Child' stopped saving, and it was shown by the]
! proof that there were no more logs Il, the millI
xwhcn lac stopped Childs sued for the balance due
i him at the contract price. The court below. atI
Bthc instance Of Childs instructed the Jury chat id
the defendant ceased to haul logs TO plaintiff i
Smill it excuses the performance by the plaintiff of
his whole contract and he is entitled to recoverI
for what he had sawed at the contract price, andI
Ereiused to give the following instructions for the
4 deiendant below lst, that under the contract!
Sgiycn in evidence the pIE is notinttled torecover
Epay for more than IS 900 It., unless he has sawed
4 the whole 10000 f., or has shown Tho, he has
been released from his contract by defendant orl
some other legal excuse for not fulfilling theI
contract on his part And 3D. THAT this contract!
was an entire contract aud plaintiff cannot reco-
yer unless he has performed the contract on hsI
part, or showcs some legal excuse iorn not saving
This court decide that the instruction given for,
plfr. below should have been refused and the two!
j. instructions asked by dcfnt below and refused by{
the court should have been given Judgment re-