parties. In this opinion the case was decided against Mr. Lincoln. It was a suit in chancery and the decree of the Circuit Court was reversed because Mr. Lincoln had failed to make necessary parties defendants so that the merits of the controversy were not settled by the decision.

48. Wren, plaintiff in error, vs. Moss et al., 7 Ill. 72. This is another decision rendered in the same case as that in which the decision of a preliminary motion is reported in 6 Ill. 560, and which appears as No. 39 of this list of cases. The point here decided is one of procedure also, being a motion by Mr. Lincoln and his associate to require the defendants in error to join in error, that is, to admit or deny that error has been committed by the trial court. The motion of Mr. Lincoln was granted.

Cited by the Supreme Courts of New Hampshire, Maryland, and Colorado.

49. Risinger et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Cheney, 7 Ill. 84. Mr. Lincoln appeared alone for the plaintiffs in error and John T. Stuart and B. S. Edwards represented the defendants in error. The case involved interesting questions of law and the decision of Judge Treat in the Circuit Court was reversed. The opinion of the Supreme Court in this case occupies six pages of the report.

Cited by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

50. Eldridge vs. Rowe, 7 Ill. 91. This was a suit to recover for services rendered by the appellee under an entire contract which he had failed to perform. Mr. Lincoln represented the appellee. The decision of the Circuit Court was reversed, but from this decision Justice Koerner dissented.

Cited by the Supreme Courts of Colorado and Montana.

7

51. Frisby et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Ballance et al., Ill. 141. This was an ejectment suit involving the title to a tract of land in Peoria County. Mr. Lincoln and three others appeared for the plaintiffs in error and Justin Butterfield, one of the most famous lawyers in Illinois, appeared for the defendants in error. The judgment of the Circuit Court was reversed. The deed involved in this case was again before the Supreme Court in the case of Frink vs. Darst, 14 Ill. 304, and the decision in the case of Frisby vs. Ballance was there expressly overruled.

52. Hall, plaintiff in error, vs. Irwin et al., 7 Ill. 176, was an action of ejectment involving among other questions the want of power in an administrator with the will annexed to convey real estate so as to vest title under the will. Mr. Lincoln and another appeared for the defendants in error and argued against the existence of such power and the holding of the Circuit Court which sustained this view was approved and its judgment affirmed in an opinion of nine pages.

Cited by the Supreme Court of Iowa.

53. The City of Springfield, plaintiff in error, vs. Hickox et. al., 7 Ill. 241. Mr. Lincoln and another appeared for the City of Springfield, plaintiff in error, and James A. McDougall for the defendants in error. This case involved the right of the holder of an order issued by a municipality to introduce the same as a set-off or counterclaim in a suit brought by such municipality to recover a penalty accruing under an ordinance. The decision of the Circuit Court in favor of such right was affirmed.

54. Ross et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Nesbit, 7 Ill. 252. This was an action of trespass and involved several questions as to the sufficiency of certain defenses as a matter of law.

Mr. Lincoln appeared for the defendant in error. The judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed.

Cited by the Supreme Court of Missouri.

55. Simpson vs. Ranlett, 7 Ill. 312. This involved a question of the sufficiency of the endorsement of a promissory note to enable the endorsee to bring suit in his own name. Mr. Lincoln appeared for the appellant. The judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed.

56. Murphy, plaintiff in error, vs. Summerville, 7 Ill. 360. This was an action of debt on a bail bond. Mr. Lincoln appeared for the plaintiff in error and Stephen T. Logan for the defendant in error. Several important questions of law were involved and the judgment of the Circuit Court was reversed.

57. Trailor, plaintiff in error, vs. Hill, 7 Ill. 364. This was a bill in chancery to enforce the specific performance of a bond for a deed conveying certain real estate. Mr. Lincoln and Stephen T. Logan were associated on behalf of the defendant in error. The decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill was affirmed.

58. Chase vs. Debolt, 7 Ill. 371. This case involved the question of the liability of an agent for an obligation contracted by him on behalf of an undisclosed principal. Mr. Lincoln and another appeared for the appellee. The judgment of the Circuit Court was reversed.

59. Smith et al. vs. Byrd, 7 Ill. 412. Mr. Lincoln appeared for the appellee, and the judgment of the Circuit Court was reversed on account of an error in procedure.

Cited by the Supreme Court of Georgia.