"1st.
That the plaintiff, A. L. Baker, is the absolute owner in fee simple of the north ten acres of lot 3,
section 21, township 29, range 9 east, in Dakota county,
Nebraska, from and on which the brick in question were
manufactured and burned by the defendant, Peter Meisch, Rosa
Meisch, and John Marshall, and that the said A. L. Baker has
been the owner of said premises since the 25th of June, 1887.
"2d.
That the brick in question, as replevied by the plaintiff
from the defendants, aggregated 150,000, and were at that
time, and are now, of the value of $ 6.50 per M brick, and
were manufactured by the defendants during the months of June
and July, 1888, upon and from the clay and materials of the
premises aforesaid then belonging to the plaintiff.
"3d.
That said defendants Meisch and Marshall had entered upon
said premises by virtue of a pretended lease from one E. C.
Palmer, who never owned or had a right to lease the same; but
who claimed to the defendants that he was the owner of the
same, and claimed right to the same under the terms of a
contract he claimed to have entered into between himself and
one J. M. Moan, who was his partner in the real estate
business at South Sioux City, Neb. near the land above
described, and who claimed to be the agent of one Edward
Croak, a former owner of said premises, and that the said E.
C. Palmer had brought an action in the district court of said
county against said Croak to compel the specific performance
of said alleged contract; which action was begun in May,
1887, and was finally adjudicated and decided in favor of the
defendant, the said Edward Croak, and against the plaintiff,
E. C. Palmer, on the 18th day of Sept., 1888, the costs
having been paid by the said Palmer and the time for appeal
passed, but that the said suit was pending at the time that
the brick in question were made by the defendants.
"4th.
That at the time the said defendants Meisch and Marshall
entered upon said premises, they were notified by the owner thereof that the land described did not belong
to Palmer, the lessor to them; that the defendants proceeded
to manufacture brick thereon, and that on the 29th day of
November, 1887, the plaintiff, who was then the owner in fee
of said premises, brought an action in the district court of
said county against the defendants Meisch and Marshall to
enjoin them from further trespassing upon said premises and
from manufacturing brick thereon or therefrom, and that on
the 29th day of December, 1887, the judge of said court,
after hearing the evidence on part of the plaintiff and
defendants, made an order enjoining said defendants from
further trespassing upon said premises for the purpose of
manufacturing brick thereon, which order was duly served upon
the defendants.
"5th.
That said defendants not regarding said order of injunction,
but while it was still pending, willfully proceeded to
manufacture the brick in question as aforesaid; that on the
21st day of September, 1888, the defendants made a bill of
sale of the brick in question to the defendant, John
Arensdorf, which bill of sale plaintiff and defendants are
permitted to introduce evidence upon and inquire into the
same as though it had not been referred to in this
stipulation, the question of the bona fides of the
purchase made by the said Arensdorf, and the question of
notice to the plaintiff's rights at the time of purchase
being alleged by the defendants and contradicted by the
plaintiff herein.
"6th.
That this action was begun after the date of the alleged bill
of sale, and that the proceedings on the part of the
plaintiff in regard to the petition, affidavit, bond, demand
on the defendants, and service by summons, and every other
needful step has been regular and according to law on the
part of the plaintiff and the defendants to this
action."
"Comes now the plaintiff and as cause for
relief states to the court: 1st. That prior to the 23d day of
May, 1887, Edward Croak was the owner in fee of the following
described premises, to-wit, the N. 10 acres of lot 3, section
21, township 29, range 9 east, in Dakota county, Nebraska
said land being a strip of uniform width along the north side
of said lot.
"2d.
That on the 23d day of May, 1887, Edward Croak conveyed to F.
L. Gilbert all his right, title, and interest in and to the
above described premises by warranty deed, which will more
fully and at large appear by reference to the records of
Dakota county in deed book R, page 37, the said F. L. Gilbert
entering into immediate possession of said land and remaining
in possession of the same until the 25th day of June, 1887;
that on or about the 30th day of May, 1887, the said F. L.
Gilbert appointed Eugene R. Sissons as his attorney in fact
for the care and management of said land, which power of
attorney is a matter of record, as will at large appear by
reference to the records of said county in miscellaneous
record A, page 383, and that the said Eugene R. Sissons took
possession of said land and remained in continuous possession
until said Gilbert disposed of the same.
"4th.
That on or about the 25th day of June, 1887, F. L.
Gilbert, by good and sufficient warranty deed, conveyed to A.
L. Baker the lands above described, which deed is recorded in
the record of Dakota county, in deed book R, pages 217 and
218, the said A. L. Baker entering into immediate possession,
and by his regular appointed agent Eugene R. Sissons has
continued in possession up to the present time.
"5th.
That on or about the 27th day of June, 1887, an action was
begun in the district court of Dakota county to adjust the
alleged disputed title to the lands above described, which
action is still pending in said court.
"6th.
That after the commencement of the aforesaid action, and while the said F. L. Gilbert was in possession of
said land, Peter Meisch and John or Jean Marshall, without
any color of title or show of right, entered upon said lands
and erected the fixtures necessary for the manufacture of
brick and have dug deep holes and pits in said land,
rendering it useless for tilling, residences, and
manufacturing, or city purposes, and are otherwise injuring
said property, and will continue so to do to the damage of
this plaintiff if not enjoined by the court.
"7th.
That the acts of the defendants in trespassing upon and
entering into possession of said land, and digging up the
soil thereof, was without the consent of this plaintiff.
"8th.
That the said F....
