Case law

Findlay Brewing Co. v. Brown

19 Ohio C.C. 612 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1899

In the court of common pleas, Brown was plaintiff and the-Brewing Company defendant. … And we believe, too, that this is consistent with the case of Bogart v. Cox, 4 C.

Brown v. City of Toledo

10 Ohio C.C. 642 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1895

Brown — who was a client of the attorney of the bidders —and asked him to file this petition. … Brown went to the city solicitor, and asked that he commence an action, under section 1777, to enjoin the issue of these bonds.

Brown v. St. Bernard (Vil.)

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 178 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 18, 1910

In the case of Clark v. Fry, 8 Ohio St. 358 [ 72 Am. … The report of the committee of the state board of health tended to prove the charge made in the affidavit and the exclusion therefore was not prejudicial to the defendant.

Toledo (City) v. Brown

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 357 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 24, 1910

In Kansas City v. Overton, 68 Kan. 560 [ 75 Pac. … In State v. Montgomery, 42 Me. 433 [ 43 Atl.

Brown v. Incorporated Village

4 Ohio C.C. 407 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1890

In the case of State v. Newton, 26 Ohio St. 206 , the case of Fosdick v. … Hibbs v.

Brown v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance

6 Ohio C.C. 62 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1891

an order of sale is an execution, it is included in section 5416, and the remedies therein provided apply to orders of sale as well as to executions at law, and in support of this position counsel cite the case of Bell v. … Hence the case of Bell v. Duduit does not support the claim made by counsel for defendant in error.

Ohio State Journal Co. v. Brown

19 Ohio C.C. 325 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1900

State ex rel. Kessler v. Brown

8 Ohio C.C. 103 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1894

If he refuses to do so and returns it to the board with his objections, it is then to be considered by the board again, and if approved by the votes of four-fifths of all the members elected to the board, it shall then take … , instead of the votes of two-thirds of the members of each board, as it was before.

Brown Oil Can Co. v. Green

22 Ohio C.C. 518 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1901

Brown denies. … In Manufacturing Co. v.

State ex rel. Board of Education v. Board of Education

22 Ohio C.C. 224 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1901

from the funds belonging to said board the sum of $885.63. … And they undertook to declare that there was a surplus fund in the hands-of the board of education of Northfield township in May, 1898, to a portion of which the board of education of Macedonia school district was entitled

Brown v. Cleveland Trust Co.

10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 430 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1908

Attention is called to the following cases supporting these conclusions: Chrisman v. Hay, 43 Fed. Rep., 552 (Iowa); Reed v. Jones, 133 Mass., 116 ; Commercial Bank v. Hiller, 106 Mich., 118 . … The same is true of Clark v. Fontain, 135 Mass., 464 , and 144 Mass., 287 ; these cases do not overrule the previous case of Reed v. Jones, 133 Mass., 116 . The same may be inferred as the fact in the case of Gammel v.

Hayes v. Board of Ed.

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 219 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 10, 1901

This case is here on a petition in error to reverse a judgment obtained by the board of education of the city of Cleveland against W. J. Hayes & Sons for certain interest on bonds. On November 9,1889, W. J. … Hayes & Sons inquired of the board of education of the city of Cleveland for information touching a proposed sale of bonds by said board.

Minor v. Board of Control

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 16 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1899

of the street which the petition asked tó be improved, or of that part of said street which was ordered by the board to be improved. … If so, the board was authorized to act. If not, it had no such right.

Board of Education v. Clark

6 Ohio C.C. 599 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1891

Stat., which provides that no joint sub-district which is now organized, or may hereafter be organized, shall be dissolved, changed or altered) unless by the concurrent action of the boards of education of *600 the several … Dechant, for Board of Education, W. C. & C. M. Thompson, contra.

Megrue v. Board of Commissioners

15 Ohio C.C. 242 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1897

The whole contention of plaintiff in error rests on the assumption that the board of commissioners was without power to make the contract which forms the basis of the action. … The public road is not, and was not to be vacated and a new one opened, under the contract between the railway company and the board of commissioners.

Polhamus v. Board of Education

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 366 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 27, 1900

This case ol Polhamus against the Board of Education ol Cleveland is here on a motion for an order restraining the board from performing, or paying any money upon a contract referred to in the pleadings, until the case can … because it would be the same then — as everybody was entitled to bid upon the system — as though the board had named one system in the call for bids.

Gilbert v. Board of Education

21 Ohio C.C. 416 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1901

“None but the lowest responsible bid shall be accepted; but the board may, in its discretion, reject all the bids, or accept any bid for both labor and material, which is the lowest in the aggregate for such improvement or … Under this provision, although some items in a bid for the entire improvement may be higher than the same items in another bid, still if the bid is the lowest in the aggregate the board may, in its discretion, accept it.

Rahe v. Board of Commissioners

5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 97 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 25, 1904

Co. v. Hene, Admx., 25 O. … Commissioners of Hamilton Co. v. Mighels, 7 O. S., 110; Treadwell v. The Commissioners, 11 O. S., 183; Finch v. Board of Education, 30 O. S., 37; Dunn v. Agricultural Society, 46 O. S., 93; Overholser v.

Board of Trustees v. Jones

2 Ohio C.C. 482 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1887

Miller v. Webber, et al., 1 Cir. Ct. R. 130.

Millard v. Board of Commissioners

13 Ohio C.C. 518 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1897

Error is brought to reverse the action of the court of common pleas, in rendering a judgment against plaintiff in error, in an action brought by the Board of County Commissioners against Millard, in regard to certain fees