Case law

Dickason v. Grafton Sav. Bank Co.

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 357 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 8, 1905

This precise question was determined by the Supreme Court in the case of Cobb v. Scofield, 66 Ohio St. 680 [65 N. E. Rep. 1127], on authority of Younglove v. Lime Co. 49 Ohio St. 663 [33 N. E. Rep. 234] and Bronson v. … The case of Medill v.

Cincinnati & Dayton Railway Co. v. Miami & Erie Canal Transportation Co.

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 117 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1903

The Cincinnati & Dayton Railway Company claims to be where it is by virtue of a grant from the State Board of Public Works. … Joy v. St. Louis, 180 U. S., 1 -50; Conger v. N. Y. Co., 120 N. Y., 29 .”

Aydelott v. City of Cincinnati

11 Ohio C.C. 11 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1893

But as the board of administration and the board of legislation of this city constitute the legislative body of the city, and can at pleasure alter or repeal any ordinance merely providing for the manner in which this legislative … As was said by Judge Longworth, in the decision of the case of the State v.

Mills, Spellmire & Co. v. Whitmore

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 338 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 1, 1901

It further appears that the plaintiffs in error had notice of this assessment made by the board of directors, and that demand of payment was made of each of them respectively. … Wardle v. Hudson, 55 N. W. Rep. 992 [ 96 Mich. 432 ], We therefore conclude that at the time these actions were brought in the court below they were barred by the statute of limitations.

State ex rel. Sears v. McGonagle

5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 292 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1904

suitable person who shall act as superintendent of said home, and who for his services such compensation as the board of trustees desshall also be clerk of said board of trustees and shall receive ignate at the time of appointment … In the case of The State, ex rel, v.

Means v. Clark

7 Ohio C.C. 276 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1893

is liable ; and in effect a judgment is asked against the board for these sums. … Under the authority of the case of Fleming v.

Strabler v. Toledo Bridge Co.

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 87 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 7, 1900

Evidence also tended to show that the scaffold was firmly constructed in the first instance, but that through use or the removal of certain boards therefrom, by direction of the foreman, it had become racked, insecure and … In support of this we cite Clow & Sons v. Boltz, 92 Fed. Rep., 572; Illinois Steel Co. v. Schymanswiski, 162 Ills., 147; Vandusen G. & G. E. Co. v. Schelies, 61 Ohio St., 298 .

Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co. v. Beard

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 406 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1898

or end boards, negligence ? … It is said in Mad River and Lake Erie Railroad Co. v.

Columbus, Newark & Zanesville Elec. Ry. v. Nelson

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 431 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1910

In the case of Hatch v. … In the case of Hatch v.

Swift & Co. v. Youngstown Baking Co.

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 253 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1905

Brown v. Hitchcock, 36 Ohio St. 667 , 678; Harpold v. Stobart, 46 Ohio St. 397 [21 N. E. Rep. 637; 15 Am. St. Rep. 618 ].

Murphy v. Quigley

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 638 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1900

Strong v. Strauss, 40 Ohio St., 87 ; First National Bank v. Railway Co., 9 Dec. (Re.), 702; see Cin. N. O. & T. P. Ry. v. Bank, 1 Circ. Dec., 109. … Citizens Nat’l Bk. v. Railway Co., 9 Dec. (Re.), 147.

Stegeman v. Humbers

2 Ohio C.C. 51 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1886

': Murray v. Currie, Eng. Law Rep., 6 Com. Pleas, 24; Murphy v. Carroll, 8 Hurlstone & Coltman, 462. … In this case the board of commissioners for rebuilding the court-house were the master, and all of the others the servants ; but such board by the statute under which it was constituted, is exempt from any such liability.

Deters v. Commissioners of Hamilton County

1 Ohio C.C. 295 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1886

Or does not this duty of furnishing such things in the first instance devolve upon the commissioners, as the board having, by the law, the charge of the financial affairs of the county? … And on this point we heartily concur in the view of the learned judge who delivered the opinion of the court in the case of Mayhew v. The Com’rs of Ham. Co., 1 Disney, 186.

Dalrymple v. State

5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 185 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1904

Coombs v. Lane, 4 Ohio State, 112 , is in point upon this general question. … Another case in point is Reynolds v. Schweinefus, 27 Ohio St., 311 , 312.

Feike v. C. & E. R. R.

12 Ohio C.C. 362 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1892

As held in the case of Keeley v. Kelso, 5 Ohio St. 198 , “statutes affecting substantial interests and rights of property, have a prospective operation only, unless the contrary is clearly expressed.” … It is hardly necessary to cite authority as to this, but we quote a single passage from the decision of Judge Brinkerhoff in the case of Rairden v.

Kaderabek v. Kaderabek

3 Ohio C.C. 419 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1888

In The Union Bank of Rochester v. … In White v.

Strong v. Pickering Hardware Co.

9 Ohio C.C. 249 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1895

The language used by Judge Ranney, in deciding the case of Dayton v. … And, as said by Judge Peck, in deciding the case of Railroad v.

Johnson v. Cincinnati

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 318 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 1, 1900

Scovern v. State, 6 Ohio St., 288 ; McHugh v. State, 42 Ohio St., 154 . … In the recent case of Schweinturth, Admr., v.

Johnson v. City of Cincinnati

20 Ohio C.C. 657 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1900

Scovern v. State, 6 Ohio St., 288 ; McHugh v. State, 42 Ohio St., 154 . Johnson & Levy and John S. Conner, for Plaintiff in Error. Corporation Counsel, contra. … In the recent case of Schweinfurth, administrator, v.

Toledo Electric Street Railway Co. v. Western Electric Light & Power Co.

10 Ohio C.C. 531 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1894

In this connection I will call attention to the case already mentioned of Brush Electric Light Co. v. Jones Bros. Electric Light Co. et al., 5 O. C. C. R. 340. … In this connection I also call attention to the case of the Kinsman Street Railway Co. v. The Broadway & Newburg St. Ry.