The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1853-08-20
SllPRi,MI COURT


BACON ct al. ~ the people, &c. Error to Bu
reau. 4. l.. Dickey and Il T. Jone. Tor PLAN
IN IN error wv. II l.. Wallace for defendant
Opinion by Treat. {. j. Judgment reversed,
y sei,e faeids which rec,tes that the defendants
appeared before Justice Of the peace, ana d'n
then and there execute aud deliver TO The SAID
justice a certain bond or Recognizable Whereby
that the obligation was ever taken and approved
by the officer. Such taking and approval are cs-
scolial to its validity. Aud tins should appear
from the scirs fieid, either by a strict avcrment
to tina, effect, or by setting ont the rec"sn'Ence
from the fate Of which it may be seen that It was
50 taken and approved,
A recosuizaace must be returned to the circuit
cour, before judsmcn, Of fOrieltu'e can be pro
nounccd upon it The statute requires every re-
cogniZance taken out Of court, To be certified AMI
returned into the circuit court. 1t must be So GER
tilted and returned, before any proceedings can be
had upon it in the circuit court II is not mat.
ter of record TIL this is done 1t must become
such before forfeiture can be entered, or a sctre
fdcias can be issued upon it. A wit Of scirefI
eias is necessarily founded upon record, and ii
mus, ce issued on, OF the court 10 which the re
rprd is.
Richardson ct al. - Ford st al Arpo, from
La Sale Glover and Cook for appellants; Chu'
pasern and TAYLOR for apnrllees. Opinion by
Treat. Q. H. Judgment St'irurd
The 81 OF the plaintiffs to perform their
part of cSptract which performance is a ccndi-
ton precedent to the performance OF the contrac,
o" the part Of the defendants, will authorize the
defendants to treat the contract a. re-cinded To
sustain an action on the contract the plaintiffs
bound to show the performance of the precedent
condiI;ons-,hs being necessary part Of their
RICH, Of action.
The plaintiff rovenanted to pay zone hundred
dollars now and four hundred dollars more be-
tween now and the first of September next
Held that tender flour hundred dollars BY the
plaintiffs on the frs; day Of September, was not
made in due time that the defendants might
have maintained an action on that day to recover
the money: that where an act is to be done on
particular day, the party has the whole Of that
day in which 10 perform it, But where the act Is to
he done by or before given day, i, mus; be per
formed prior to that day. So if an act is to be
done between two certain days it must be perior'
med before the commencement Of the latter day.
Walker n al IS WEIGH Of a. Appeal from
/ 10 D.v-.s stephens anl Cook for appellants
Higgins and Strolher iur app-ees Opinion by
Treat, c. ]. Judgment affirmed
party canno, complain OF any decision over.
ruling u demurrer. after leave obtained TO with
draw it, and to plead The assignment for error
Of any su, h decision cannot be considered
In An action on an appeal bond, conditioned f-l
the paymen, Of a certain judgment, in the event
that it should be affirmed il the supreme court
the plaintiff IN his declaration, stated the exrcu
ton Of the bond and described 1t as payable NJ
demand and then proceeded TO set forth the con
dltun at large, and then averrsd that the judy
meu' had been affirmed, and assigned frr breach
Of the non payment thereof. The defendant ob
iecled TO the introduction ot the bond because /
did no, CORE. pond with ibe one described in n,
decHs,iun Held ;hat thrre.vas no substan.iA
variance: that the mere statement that the obi
CATION was payableon demand, was clearly IN
con,issn. with the full description Of it IN tn
declaration, and might well be disregsrded a
surplussage
In proceeding by attachment, expenses ia
Cured ty tbs sheriff IN renting room In whlcl
to keep the properly seized, the money b-ul
necessarily expended IN securing and keeping tn
properly, W. part of the cost. in the case an
PROF elty taxable nier o. IA cL. Al, K. 5.
Gillian ct al, rs Gray ct al Euor to Mt
Henry. OPINION hy Treat, Z. j. judgment IL
verseI and cause r,manded.
Where process issues to foreign county, th
declaration need cot contain an avrrment as to tn
residence of the plaintiff, or the accrueng Of tn
cause of action, If the cause Of action does NJ
arise in the county in which the suit is brough
or the plaintiff doe. not reside there vloui'ls CO
mencsd the objection must be taken advantag
Of by motion.
A declaration alleging in substance that III
defendants. in consideration that the plaintiff
would buy Of them rcap'ng and grass cuttin
machine for the price Of slo5, undertook that til
same was well made good materials and wcu!
work well if properly managed, that the plair
tff.. relying upon this promise, purchased the m'
chine, and paid the price demanded and tia
the machine was not well made Of good mater
ais and would not operate well when proper,
managed, bu, was Of no use or value i, good o
general Demurrer It clearly shows warrant,
and breach thereof. 1t is not necessary to pnir
out the defects in the article with greater part
cularity. Judgement reversed and causes II
nisnded.
MuRRis, Aug. l6, 1853.