Case law

State ex rel. News Publishing Co. v. Board of County Commissioners

10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 401 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1908

P. Hayden Saddlery Hardware Co. v. Slade & Kelton

3 Ohio C.C. 67 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1888

Under that statute, in the case of Copeland v. … That he does not hold it for the benefit of all the sub-contractors is shown by the de *71 cisions in Copeland v. Manton and Dunn & Witt v.

Smith v. Rauh

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 515 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1910

Browning v. Lovett, 29 Ky. L. 692. [ 94 S. W. Rep. 661 ]. … Brown himself. An attempt was made, and we think was improperly prevented by the court to show that the complexion of the board and that of the crowd that elected Mr. Bennett was plainly “wet.”

Theobald v. State

10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 175 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 15, 1907

enumerated by counsel are based upon a wrong construction of the statute; as for instance, the salary of the auditor in Auglaize county, estimated on a popualtion of 31,192, is $2,530, not $2,475, and of the auditor in Brown … magnitude, the default would be not his, but that of the board.

Markley v. State

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 225 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1909

The solution of this depends somewhat upon the question as to whether the Brown County Agricultural Society is a public or private corporation or agency. In Dunn v. Agricultural Soc. 46 Ohio St. 97 [18 N. E. … Justice Brown, in Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 137 [14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; 38 L.

Ohio Oil Co. v. Toledo, Findlay & Springfield Railroad

4 Ohio C.C. 210 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1889

City of Cincinnati ex rel. Ampt v. City of Cincinnati

11 Ohio C.C. 309 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1896

Benzenberg as expert engineers, to make the investigations and report to said board their conclusions as therein indicated. This employment and action by the board is claimed to be without authority of law. … In the action of the board in the present instance, has the board gone outside of its powers ?

Gibson v. City of Cincinnati

9 Ohio C.C. 243 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1894

Brown is the auditor of said city. … That said improvement was made and the board of administration of the city passed an ordinance laying a cash assesment of ¡§3.8992 upon each foot of the abutting property, and it was laid upon each foot of plaintiff’s said

State ex rel. Carpenter v. Fayette County

22 Ohio C.C. 433 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 23, 1900

Take, for instance, State v. Brown, 38 Ohio St., 344 , where an elector applied for a mandamus to require the sheriff to give the necessary notice for an election for common pleas judge. … And a very full discussion of that proposition will be found in State ex rel. v. Murphy, 3 C. C., 332, by Judge Shauck. We think, however, that that question does not arise here. In State ex rel. v.

Dayton v. Harmon

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 574 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 15, 1897

which requires county commissioners to keep in repair all parts of roads within municipal corporations to a point where the sidewalks have been curbed and guttered and no further; and it is alleged that the sidewalks upon Brown … Stat., 89 O. h. 102, the board of city affairs of Dayton is clothed with the exclusive control of the streets and bridges of the city.

State ex rel. Haines v. Board of Education of Chester Township Centralized School District

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 486 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 28, 1903

, each possessing like authority in the premises, *488 it does mot come within the principle announced nor the statute construed in the case of Moss v. … Harlan et al, v. The Board of Education et al, it was not necessary, nor did this court' decide, that such joint sub-districts were abolished by the vote for centralization.

Taylor ex rel. Taylor v. Columbus Railway Co.

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 145 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 25, 1903

Justice Brown in Wabash R. R. Co. v. Defiance, 167 U. S., 88, 93 . This is the case already referred to, 52 Ohio St., 262 . … Justice Brown in Wabash R. R. Co. v. Defiance, 167 U.

Peurrung Bros. & Co. v. Compton, Ault & Co.

6 Ohio C.C. 483 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1892

The defendants had been selling up to the time of the bringing of this suit, and now have in their possession a large quantity of matches marked as set out in plaintiffs’ petition ; that is, they are a square match with brown … colored heads, put up in brown paste-board boxes, marked in fancy black letters peculiarly arranged on the back of the box, “ The Acorn Parlor Match.”

Caldwell v. County Commissioners

8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 56 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 11, 1897

We refer to the case of Board of Education v. State, 51 O. S., 531. … We think Board of Education v. State, supra, is decisive in this action; that the legislature cannot proceed to legislate in this manner.

Law v. Leighty

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 431 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1903

(Commissioners of Mahoning County v. Railway Co., 45 O. S., 401). But' we are referred to Sections 845 and; 863, Revised Statutes, as specifically 'authorizing the bringing of this action. … Section 845, so far 'as it is material to the issues in this case, reads as follows: “The board of commissioners shall be capable of suing and being sued, pleading -and being impleaded, in any court of judicature, and of

State v. Cincinnati Tin & Japan Co.

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 587 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 1, 1901

This was a valid lease, the state board of public works, under the act of 1866, having been granted this right. » Second. … Judge Ranney, in Kelley v.

Burr v. Bates

3 Ohio C.C. 1 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1887

Umsted v. Buskirk, supra; Brown v. Hitchcock, supra. 7. … Umsted v. Buskirk, supra; Brown v. Hitchcock, supra. 8. That no creditor can acquire priority or institute a separate suit against any or all the stockholders to enforce the statutory liability on his own behalf.

State v. Cincinnati Tin & Japan Co.

21 Ohio C.C. 218 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1901

This was a valid lease, the state board of public works, under the act of 1866, having been granted this right. … Judge Ranney, in the case of Kelley v.

Ickes v. State

16 Ohio C.C. 31 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1898

Forsythe v. State, 6 Ohio, 6; also 23 Ohio St., 354 . … I will call attention to Brown’s testimony on page 131. Brown was an employe there. ‘‘Q. Who was the managing editor of the paper? A. Joseph M. Iekes.” Mr.

Wiley v. Bricker

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 429 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1900

Board of Ed. v. … Partington, 3 Brown Ch., 401. In Ringrose v.