, 1879-04-03
APPELLATE COURT.

The Appellate Court met yesterday afternoon
and disposed Of n goodly number OF cases, t.le
most iNAnostant of which was ono OF tho Clyhonrn
dowor cases. Tho opinion In It has, howcvrr, not
yet bccn hlod, so thnt 1t II not known whether It
npsots Mrs. .Clybourn's dower.cln!ms altogether,
ct only In this particular casp. Tho following is
tho Hat OF opinions:
.3B. M4nson vs.. Waldrou. Affirmed.
10. Pratt W. Pratt. Affirmed.
Al. Uarnea ~. Chicago Uasu.I}all Club. A.
drmed.
30. Clybourn vs. Pittshurg Fort Wayne & CHI
saCn 1saiirona Company. l.evcrscu ard reminded.
OF. Carpenter vs. FaltSr. Reversed and 70.
nanled.
CD. Fergus w. Cleveland Paper Company. This
was anlt on note against tl,e Fcrgua Frlnlins
Company, and It waA sought to hold thu dcicfdanta
Jointly liable. Each Of the defendants pleaded
non-aHsu.npslt, md nlso atel a specal rlon yrri-
aea BY aiaaYt dcn3Ing his Joint liability with tho
Other dsfondanta on Tho promises. The Canrt be-
low held sueh aflslaylta wero not sutlelont, and
rendered 4 judgment !ur the plaIntgs.
was error. Tho anuuuEd Of tho atlliay!r was
manifnt1y different lsom Sec, ~ 1f VIC frac!lcc,
Ast sha fac!s stated wgte WIS. otosdss han te staule
thu enliEe suit. and tho nillastts verifying thu
plsas aatod IN eah4tuuco, uosututely, and not ~
saeh sf.sa 10 ths cn,t" sui. Ts B.asilo u1 iii iii
not require tho nnture OF the 4cfunso to be ret out
IL !he athday,t; Tho swarm pleas. however, not
only showed shs existence Of defense, hut ndi.
Gated IT, precise nature. For snch urtos tho caso
II. Walker =. Mcclure Affirmed. This was a
ssae ltsld oyos from !aat turn.
1o. !tanan VI. Wiltshire. Affirmed.
1g. JadsDn ". Letter. Affirmed.
~, lianalo va li0h!nson. Affirmed. 80
.Es, ptcston, Kean L. ca. ~. JuNrs. Rovertcd
ana ,rem4Hdcd Tals was a suit by the pla,ntldt
aAua,nal Ienes ~ gnnrantnr of . nol1 for &4OO
haas tna. 70 thcH by ". +. Jonea. The defeneo wns
taa oSnes tndos.ed The mite after 1t hud hecu le.
sso that 10 delivered to tlsnl and tpy received III
!uM satMsAetlon Of 1t an OErus OH ttaynr Wullr0tI
ioL somewhat larger amount than thG 1uto. The
secona ho!at was Tho only ono relied on. II
Cashier of taa Continental BanK Of st, Louis, fus
collection. JoMeR Offered iho ordct abovo 1tca.
TUNED IN ketsssment. hut Karat taid ls vas no,
autho1izc1 to receive H. liz, however, offered to
son 1t 70 te n1asAttas anh II lhuy declined 10 10.
week. The plntn.ia. mads an "M atten,us
nuycf sgMl It buck 10 kars, Tho Jury in liz court
below found for The defense on ths efato Of facts,
M no AR2psiiatSS &C. Gon, Sy Judge Psa.a hougt
cuMbcnt on Iuncs 70 show by q propondefapcu pl
evidence that platnt3Hs had accepted li.y order in
pAyMcnt. Karat 1tal not Authurty to p1sku anY
aSfeemcnt, aud waa 0uly junca aKent. The fact
70 pxesuplnston that they received It fot ellis Than
So!lAteral sseuEi.y, mud the jury should not have
oeen allowed ~ make such presumption, The caif
"unla ~ x;e! xi;nsse!os1 hc toycrSed ana rcman1ed,
W. Mil!est ya.totheraa,n. Reversed aud remand.
e.. Ibis .sas suit for baisnCo tua "a d note,
The question wss whether ,he fact Of part payIn
aIet lne Makers discharge In bankruptcy WpulL
W natnllteu rs evidence to pr0yp new p{optst
s1Hcteht 70 afola The bar Of such discharge Judge
A1sA'An'e sa'a 'hefo xaa di1sssnee between tLs