Case law

Hoshor v. Fairfield Co. (Comrs.)

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 415 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1911

Reading simply from the syllabus of the case, Smith v. Wayne Co. … S.) 233], and as is held in Vermillion v.

C., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Urbana, B. & N. Ry. Co.

5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 583 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1903

In Railway Co. v. … Co. v. Defiance, 167 U.

Gawn v. State

13 Ohio C.C. 116 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1896

That there was and could be no such body corporate as “The Board of Education of Amherst township,” but that the only legal designation of that body was “The Board of Education of the Township District of Amherst.” … This charge is, in our opinion, misleading and erroneous-It is not in conformity with the decision of the Supreme' Court in Walters v. The State, 89 Ohio St. 215 .

Doppes v. City of Cincinnati

16 Ohio C.C. 183 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1898

That about 1889 the Oity, by -its proper-boards and officers improved Powers street in said city from* Van Horn street (now Edgewood avenue) to Sylvan avenue,- and by ordinance duly passed, assessed the cost thereof on* the … We think therefore, on the authority of City of Cincinnati v.

Fritsch Manufacturing Co. v. Elmont Building & Saving Co.

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 47 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 23, 1908

It is a proper-certificate, and while it may not appear recorded in the minutes of the company, yet this would not justify its rejection, where there is evidence' that such action was taken by the board of directors, and … Bosche v. Display Horse Co. 7 Circ. Dec. 374 ( 14 R. 289 ).

Pollock v. Pollock

2 Ohio C.C. 140 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1887

In Brown et al. v.

Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Hamburger

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 253 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 16, 1910

conductor having negligently hurried the plaintiff to get out of the car was withdrawn from the jury, when the plaintiff in her testimony testified that the conductor called to her to hurry up when she was on the running board … The syllabus in the case of Van Winkle v.

Redkey v. Worthington

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 63 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1909

The first case is Phipps v. … Brown. This money belonged to the intestate at the time of the deposits. ’ ’ Quoting from Lord Ch. J. Turner, p. 138, in Milroy v.

State ex rel. Figley v. Conser

5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 119 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 1, 1902

In the case of State v. … and a statute enacted in the exercise .of that power was held, in State v.

Livingston v. Fidelity & Dep. Co.

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 662 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 26, 1905

His board *663 of directors granted the loans, on his recommendation, and issued checks therefor to the order of the fictitious applicants. … People v. Royce, 106 Cal. 173 [ 37 Pac.

North v. Commissioners of Huron County

10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 462 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1907

In Buchanan Bridge Co. v. Campbell, 60 Ohio St., 406 , it was held that there could be no recovery by a person furnishing an improvement, for the value thereof as upon an implied contract. The case of Comstock v. … Upon the authorities and principles considered and discussed in State v.

Doney v. Trustees of Truro Township

1 Ohio C.C. 566 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1886

.: Hopple v. Brown Tp., 13 Ohio St., 324 . Nowhere in this statute, or any other, can there be found authority for them to make such an agreement as claimed to have been made here.

Atwood v. Whipple

5 Ohio C.C. 118 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1891

Section 6708 defines the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas in error, and provides that: “A judgment rendered or final order made by a probate court, justice of the peace, or any other tribunal, board or officer exercising … Henry Newbegin, for plaintiffs in error, in support of the jurisdiction of the court, cited: Burk v. Railway Co., 45 Ohio St. 631; Rev. Stats, of Ohio, sec. 6707; Young v. Gerdes, 42 Ohio St. 102 ; Seville v.

Crossley v. City of Findlay

10 Ohio C.C. 286 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1895

In Cincinnati v. … While the precise question we have here has not, in terms, been decided by the Supreme Court, yet we think, in the *290 case of Cincinnati v. Seasongood, ¡tupín,the question is substantially settled.

City of Circleville v. Throne

1 Ohio C.C. 359 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1885

In that case the negligence charged was, that the defendants did not properly secure and tend the gangway plank by which passengers went on board the boat. … Cooley on Torts, 551; Gibson v. Erie R. R. Co., 20 Am. Rep., 553 ; L. S. & M. S. R. R. v. Knittal, 33 O. S., 468. For these reasons the judgment must be reversed.

Kummer v. Cincinnati

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 683 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 24, 1905

The street improvement involved in this ease is the same as that in the case of Nulsen v. Cincinnati, 27 O. C. … C. 383, in which it was held that in making the assessment the board of public service did not regard nor attempt to regard the benefits thereof to the respective lots, but apportioned the cost, and expense of the improvement

State ex rel. Alter v. Bader

13 Ohio C.C. 15 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1896

The Realty Company, and The United States v. … In the case of Babcock v.

Ebbenpowell v. State

14 Ohio C.C. 129 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1896

Our criminal code has not changed or modified this principle of pleading, so long recognized and enforced. s In the case of Ellars v. the State, 25 Ohio St. 385 , our supreme court has.clearly stated this rule. … The charge, and the only charge of false representation to the board is, that, he, Ebbenpowell, apoeared before it and “did then and there represent that he, the said Ebbenpowell, was then and there a qualified elector of

Lloyd Booth Co. v. Mahoning Co.

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 706 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1898

act of the board, be within the law a provision providing lor compensation to be assessed by a common law jury, not at the instigation of the lot owner, but at the active instigation of the board oi commissioners; that board … Stat., was decided in Woodworth v. State, 26 Ohio St., 196 .

Weaver v. State ex rel. Rulison

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 151 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1910

This being so, we do not think the case of State v. Fronizer, 77 Ohio St. 7 [82 N. E. … In that case it was held that the board of county commissioners, represents the county in respect to its financial affairs only so far as authority is given to it by statute.