and A. T. Bledsoe appeared on behalf of the appellee. The opinion affirming the decision was rendered by Justice Stephen A. Douglas.

12. Wilson, Admr., plaintiff in error, vs. Alexander, 4 Ill. 392. Mr. Lincoln appeared alone for the plaintiff in error and Jesse B. Thomas for the defendant in error. This suit was in assumpsit and involved a forged note. The contention of Mr. Lincoln was approved and the judgment of the trial court reversed.

Cited by the Supreme Court of Ohio.

13. Schlencker et al., appellants, vs. Risley, 4 Ill. 483. This was an action of trespass for false imprisonment. O. B. Ficklin appeared for the appellants and Mr. Lincoln appeared alone for the appellees. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Cited by the Supreme Courts of Iowa, Alabama, Michigan, Connecticut, Mississippi, California, and in the courts of New York.

14. Mason, appellant, vs. Park, 4 Ill. 532. This was an action of debt for the recovery of a penalty. O. B. Ficklin and Levi Davis appeared on behalf of the appellant, while Mr. Lincoln and Aaron Shaw appeared for the appellee. The judgment of the trial court was reversed.

Cited by the Supreme Court of Florida.

15. Greathouse et al., appellants, vs. Smith, 4 Ill. 541. Mr. Lincoln appeared alone for the appellee and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Cited by the Supreme Courts of Iowa, Nevada, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

16. Watkins vs. White, 4 Ill. 549. Mr. Lincoln appeared alone for the appellant and Edward D. Baker and A. T. Bledsoe for the appellee. This was an action of replevin. The judgment of the trial court was reversed.

17. Payne et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Frazier et al., defendants in error, 5 Ill. 55. O. B. Ficklin appeared for the plaintiffs in error and Mr. Lincoln for the defendants in error. This was a bill in chancery and the decree of the trial court was reversed. The case involved a question of procedure.

18. Fitch et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Pinckard, 5 Ill. 69. This was an action of ejectment. Extensive separate briefs were filed by J. W. Chickering, John J. Hardin, Lincoln, Cowles, and E. A. Smith for the defendants in error, as well as separate briefs of three different attorneys appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs in error. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. Justices Treat and Douglas dissented from the majority opinion.

Cited by the Supreme Court of Iowa.

19. Edwards et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Helm, 5 Ill. 142. This was a suit to foreclose a mortgage. Mr. Lincoln appeared with two others as counsel for the plaintiffs in error and the decree of the trial court was reversed.

Cited by the Supreme Court of Michigan.

20. Grubb, plaintiff in error, vs. Crane, 5 Ill. 153. This was a bill of review. James Shields and J. C. Conkling appeared for the plaintiff in error, while Lincoln and Stephen T. Logan appeared for the defendant in error. The decree of the trial court was affirmed.

Cited by the Federal Courts, and the Supreme Court of Iowa.

21. Pentecost et al., appellants, vs. Magahee, 5 Ill. 326. Edward D. Baker and A. T. Bledsoe appeared for the appellants, while Mr. Lincoln appeared for the appellee. The appeal had been taken from an interlocutory order of the Circuit Court. Mr. Lincoln contended that no appeal would lie from an injunctional order when such order did not dispose of all the issues in the case, and the motion made by Mr. Lincoln to dismiss the appeal on that ground was allowed and the appeal dismissed.

22. Robinson, appellant, vs. Chesseldine, 5 Ill. 332. This was a bill for an injunction filed in the Circuit Court. The defendant demurred to the bill on the ground that the courts of chancery were without jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for. The demurrer was sustained, the temporary injunction dissolved, and the bill dismissed. J. J. Hardin (afterwards a general in the Mexican War) and other counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant, while Mr. Lincoln and Stephen T. Logan appeared for the appellees. The decree of the Circuit Court was affirmed.

Cited by the Supreme Court of California.

23. Lazell, plaintiff in error, vs. Francis, 5 Ill. 421. This was a suit on a promissory note. Mr. Lincoln was associated with Stephen T. Logan for the defendant in error and the judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed. This case involved several important questions in commercial law.

24. Spear, plaintiff in error, vs. Campbell et al., 5 Ill. 424. This was a bill in chancery to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance. Mr. Lincoln and Stephen T. Logan represented the defendants in error. The decree of the Circuit Court was reversed because of the failure of the complainant to make certain persons defendants in the suit.

25. Bruce, plaintiff in error, vs. Truett, 5 Ill. 454. E. B. Washburne and M. Brayman appeared for the plaintiff in error, Mr. Lincoln and Stephen T. Logan for the defendant in error. The case involved a question of practice and the decision of the Circuit Court was affirmed.

26. England, plaintiff in error, vs. Clark, 5 Ill. 486. Mr. Lincoln and Urquhart appeared for the plaintiff in error and Edward D. Baker and others for the defendant in error. This was an action of assumpsit and the judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed.

27. Johnson, plaintiff in error, vs. Weedman, 5 Ill. 495. This was an action of trover. Mr. Lincoln appeared for the defendant in error. The judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed.

28. Hall, appellant, vs. Perkins, 5 Ill. 548. This involved a question of procedure and of commercial law. Edward D. Baker and another represented the appellant and Lincoln and others appeared for the appellee. The judgment of the Circuit Court was reversed.

29. Lockridge, plaintiff in error, vs. Foster, 5 Ill. 569. This was a chancery proceeding. Mr. Lincoln and Stephen T. Logan appeared on behalf of the defendant in error and the decree of the Circuit Court was affirmed.

Cited by the Supreme Courts of Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, and the Federal Courts.

30. Dorman et ux., plaintiffs in error, vs. Lane, 6 Ill. 143. This was a proceeding instituted, by the defendant in error as administrator, in the Circuit Court for the sale of certain real estate to satisfy debts against the estate of the decedent. Mr. Lincoln appeared for the plaintiffs in error and Lyman

Trumbull for the defendant in error. The judgment of the Circuit Court was reversed.

31. Davis, plaintiff in error, vs. Harkness et al., 6 Ill. 173. This was a suit in chancery for an accounting. Colton and Edward D. Baker appeared for the plaintiff in error and Mr. Lincoln and Stephen T. Logan for the defendants in error. The decree of the Circuit Court was affirmed.

Cited by the Supreme Courts of Iowa, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

32. Martin, appellant, vs. Dryden et al., 6 Ill. 187. This was a bill for an injunction involving the title to land. O. H. Browning and Bushnell appeared on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Lincoln and J. M. Krum appeared for the appellees. The decree of the Circuit Court was reversed.

Cited by the Federal Courts and in the Supreme Courts of Arkansas, Iowa, and Kansas, and the New York Court of Appeals.

33. Warner et al., appellants, vs. Helm, 6 Ill. 220. This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage on real estate. Mr. Lincoln and Strong appeared for appellants. Opposed to them were J. T. Stuart and others. The decree of the Circuit Court was reversed.

34. McDonald, appellant, vs. Fithian et al., 6 Ill. 269. Mr. Lincoln, Stephen T. Logan, and Edward D. Baker appeared for the appellees. The decree denying an injunction and dismissing the suit was affirmed. The names of the counsel in the case do not appear in the published volume with the opinion, but in the case of Cunningham vs. Fithian, 7 Ill. 650, it is stated that the above-named counsel appeared on behalf of the appellees in this case, but that their names were omitted by the reporter through inadvertence.