2. The building in question was origin-
ally planned as three distinct houses;
but soon after the foundations were
laid, it was agreed between the owner
and the plaintiff, that it should be
altered and finished so as to adapt it
exclusively as one building, to the
use of a boarding-school for young
ladies; and it was altered and finished
accordingly.
id.
3. Held, that by a reasonable construc-
tion of the statute, it was to be con-
sidered strictly as a building erected]
for the use of a seminary of learning.
the iron been taken to the public
yard, it would have been removed on
the same day by a person to whom
the plaintiff had sold it.
Held, that the notice, by its fair con-
struction, gave to the plaintiff, as
owner of the iron, the whole of the 3d
of September, to make the removal
that was ordered; and that the de-
fendants, by taking it to the public
yard, at the time and in the manner
they did, rendered themselves liable
to him as trespassers. Coddington v.
White,
390
id. 2. Held, also, that the defendants, as
public officers, were bound to act in
conformity to the city ordinances, and
to the terms of the notice; and could
not defend themselves upon the
ground, that, as private citizens, they
had a right to remove the iron, as a
nuisance.
id.
4. Held, that it did not lose its cha
racter as such by the fact that the
scholars were boarded and lodged,
and part of the building used for the
dwelling of teachers.
id.
ants caused the iron to be taken to the 1. On the trial of this action, in which
public yard, and the plaintiff was
compelled to pay a considerable sum
for charges and expenses, as the con-
dition of its restoration. Had not
the defendant was sought to be
charged, as the endorser of a promis-
sory note, J. M. was offered as a wit-
ness on his behalf, and was rejected,
13. The question of title to lands is, in
all cases, a question of ownership.
The question does not arise in an action
to recover damages for the breach of
an agreement to convey lands, when
the only issue made by the plead-
ings is, whether an inchoate right of
dower in the wife of the defendant
was a subsisting encumbrance. Smith
v. Riggs,
8. A general allegation in a complaint, that the defendant had received money, or property, to the use of the 14. In such an action, if the plaintiff
plaintiff, or of the assignor of the plaintiff, is bad upon demurrer. Lienan v. Lincoln,
recovers only nominal damages, the defendant is entitled to full costs. id.
15. In an action to set aside a conveyance of real estate, an extra allowance can only be made when the case upon the trial appears to be difficult or extraordinary," or "the prosecution or defence has been unreasonably or unfairly conducted." Bridges v. Miller, 683
16. The objection, that there is an im proper joinder of parties, when the facts appear on the face of the complaint, can only be taken by a demurCode, §§ 144, 147, 148. Baggott v. Boulger,
10. A counter claim, as defined by the Code, includes only causes of action existing against the plaintiff on the record, and on which, under the old See PLEADING, 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, 27 28. system, an action at law, or a suit in equity, might have been maintained against him.
11. Hence, in an action against the 17. Where an execution issued against maker of a negotiable note by an two joint debtors has been levied upon
|