Case law

Bode v. City of Cincinnati

9 Ohio C.C. 382 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1895

void, for the reason that the ordinance providing for the improvement was not legally passed, was settled by the decision of the Supreme Court, affirming, without report, the decision of this court in the case of Hinsch v. … The plaintiffs, by a second amendment, aver that the assessments made upon their property are void, for the reason that on June 19, 1889, the Board of Aldermen of Cincinnati, and on July 19, 1889, the Board of Council men

Kaderabek v. Kaderabek

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

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

Gates v. Pond

12 Ohio C.C. 59 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1896

B., Monroe,at page 50, Wood and wife v. … Brown and Grace O. Brown. Grace was adopted by a family named Foot, and they took care of her and supported her. Albert P. Brown was not adopted, but money was expended for his support.

Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad v. Duckworth

2 Ohio C.C. 518 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1887

In the case of Pim v. … In the case of Railway Co. v.

Ohio Oil Co. v. Kelley

9 Ohio C.C. 511 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1895

I cite in support of this, the case of Brown v. … I again quote from the first and second paragraphs of the case of Brown v.

Elyria Gas & Water Co. v. City of Elyria

14 Ohio C.C. 219 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1897

The case of The Elyria Gas & Water Company v. The City of Elyria comes into this court by appeal, and has been ■submitted upon an agreed statement of facts. … of election in such cities as have such boards, (and) such deputy state supervisor, or board of election, shall, within ten days thereafter, proceed to’prepare the ballots.

Miller v. Lozier Mfg. Co.

19 Ohio C.C. 666 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1898

The boards had broken out and come down and it had no end support.” ‘Q. Then what did you do? A. I reported it to the store of the Lozier people.” “£). To whom did you report it? A. I think to Mr. Tracy.” *‘Q. To Mr. … Brown & Geddes, for Defendant in Error.

Champion v. State

9 Ohio C.C. 315 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1895

(Brown v. State.) Murphy & Lemmon, for plaintiff. J. A. Barber, Prosecuting Attorney, for motion. … And, after discussing the statutes and citing certain eases — and especially the cases of Stanley v.

Heintz v. Sawyer

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 10 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 2, 1904

The contracts of the investment security, or certificates of this company, were held unlawful in *12 ¿he case of State v. Investment Co. 64 Ohio St. 283 [60 N. E. Rep. 220; 52 L. R. A. 530; 83 Am. St. Rep. 754 ]. … Counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the case of State v. Board of Ed. 35 Ohio St. 519 .

State ex rel. Schwartz v. Alter

5 Ohio C.C. 253 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1891

which arises in this case is, whether the act of April 21st, 1886, amendatory of, and repealing section 994, Revised Statutes, as it before stood, and which new act *254 provided for the election of five members of the board … Davidson & Plertenstein, County Solicitors, for defendants, See People v. Perry, 79 Cal. 105 -113; Nevada v. Harris, 19 Nevada, 222. We have reached these conclusions with reluctance.

Reynolds v. Railway Co.

13 Ohio C.C. 39 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1896

He made no inquiry before boarding the train, of the train men as to whether the train stopped at South Lebanon, neither was he asked by them as to his destination. … We think not. *41 In the first place, as said by Judge Gholson in the case of Baker v. Cincinnati in the 11 Ohio St., there is no magic in names, especially under our rules of pleading.

Vance v. Park

15 Ohio C.C. 713 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1898

The case of Travice Vance et al. v. Margaret Park was-heard to the court upon testimony. The controversy arises solely over a fund of a thousand dollars. … It could be done in this instance just the ¡same as if it were a deed; and we think the same rule is applied here as is laid down in the 46 Ohio St., 102 , Mannix v.

Dalton v. Brush Electric Light Co.

13 Ohio C.C. 505 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1897

And in Holden v. R. R. … In the case of Rogers v. R. R.

Borger v. State

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 549 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 28, 1903

Justice Brown, in Lawton v. Steele, 153 U. S., 133, 137 ). “It will probably not be disputed that every one .has a right to pursue in a lawful manner any lawful calling which he may select. … Justice Brown. It does not appear that the interests of the public generally require such interference, or that this restriction was necessary.

Lake Shore Electric Ry. v. Hobart

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 154 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 26, 1909

Ry. v. Kreager, supra; Cincinnati St. Ry. v. Kelsey, 6 Circ. Dec. 209 ( 9 R. 170 ), and Cincinnati, H. & D. Ry. v. Brown, 6 Circ. … Dec. 225, 226 ( 9 R. 198 ), a case which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, without report, Railway v. Brown, 55 Ohio St. 665 , are Ohio eases which bear closely upon the question.

State ex rel. Sumner v. Toledo Railway & Terminal Co.

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 513 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 19, 1903

Co. v. Porter, 46 N. W. Rep., 75 ( 43 Minn., 527 ). … King & Tracy, General Hamilton and Clarence Brown, for defendant.

Ohio & Mississippi R. R. v. Sauer

4 Ohio C.C. 466 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1890

, which were inadequate, as defendant well knew, to support said iron while being raised; and while raising the iron, the boards broke, throwing the iron against plaintiff’s leg, tearing away the flesh, splitting the bone … Handy v. Turner, 9 Ohio St. 400 ; Householder v.

Ohio Central Traction Co. v. Mateer

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 478 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 8, 1908

Mansfield, there was a platform used by the defendant for passengers, desiring to get off and on the defendant’s cars; that on October 13, 1903, at about 7 a. m., the plaintiff went to this platform for the purpose ■of boarding … Thereupon error was prosecuted to the Supreme Court, Mateer v.

Hamilton v. Hamilton Coal Co.

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 637 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1894

Lord Redesdale, in Adair v. … Wade v. Pettibone, 11 Ohio. 57; Morrison v. Thompson, L. R. 9 Q. B. 480; 1 Leading Cases in Eq. 210.

Sammins v. Wilhelm

6 Ohio C.C. 565 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1892

By section 2332, it is provided that, “If the board of public works, board of improvements, council, or trustee of any municipal corporation deem it necessary to construct a sidewalk on one side only, of any street, alley … We find that in the case of City of Rochester v.