Case law

Bucket Pump Co. v. Eagle Iron & Steel Co.

21 Ohio C.C. 229 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1900

The provision under which service was had is found in section 5044, Revised Statutes, and is as follows: “A summons against a corporation may be served upon the president,, mayor, chairman or president of the board of directors … ‘‘Managing agent” has been defined to be ‘‘an agent having general supervision over the affairs of a corporation. ” Anderson’s Law Dictionary; Upper Mississippi Transportation Co. v. Whittaker, 16 Wis., 233 .

Feuerstein v. Jackson

8 Ohio C.C. 396 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1894

In the second case, that of Wilby v. Feuerstein, the plaintiff was the owner of two lots abutting on the same street, which lots had no buildings on them. … A trustee of the hamlet was also allowed to say, over exceptions, that although no resolution had been passed by the board to improve the street according to the grade adopted, that they expected to do so without delay.

Bucket Pump Co. v. Eagle Iron & Steel Co.

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 418 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 1, 1900

Stat., and is as follows: “ A summons against a corporation may be served upon the president, mayor, chairman or president of the board of directors or trustees, or other chief officer ; or if its chief officer be not found … Anderson’s Law Dictionary; Upper Mississippi Transporation Co. v. Whittaker, 16 Wis., 233 . It implies control of the business of a corporation or at least some part thereof.

Foster v. City of Findlay

5 Ohio C.C. 455 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1891

rates established by a former board the city will never be able to pay the debt, etc., etc. … So that, by these monthly and annual reports furnished council by the Board of Gas Trustees, council was put in possession of the amount that the Board of Gas Trustees was exacting from the Electric Light Company for fuel

State ex rel. Lueders v. Ermston

14 Ohio C.C. 614 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1897

Caldwell, the then mayor of the city of Cincinnati, on the 24th day of May, 1897, the confirmation of said appointment by the board of legislation on the 1st day of June, 1897, the giving of bond according to law, and the … In the case of Woodbury & Co. v.

McMaken v. Hayes

10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 38 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 9, 1907

The case of Barr v. … The case of Preston v.

Chicago Cottage Organ Co. v. Rishforth

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 45 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1903

“Johnson v. Milwaukee (1895), 46 Neb., 480 ; 64 N. W. Rep., 1100 ; approved in Holt v. Schneider (1899), 77 N. W. Rep., 1086 . “Heath v. Stoddart (1898), 91 Me., 499; 40 Atl. … Pole v. Leask (1863), 33 L. J., Ch. 162.” Its last and highest expression is by the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Northern Assurance Co. v.

State ex rel. Walbridge v. Jones

22 Ohio C.C. 682 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1900

Indeed, no organization is provided for, except the organization of a board to take care of that particular enterprise. The case of Seifert v. Weidner, 12 C. … The case of State v. Brown, 60 Ohio St. 462 , is also a county case. Hixson v. Burson, 54 Ohio St. 470 , is of the same character.

State ex rel. Walbridge v. Jones

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 496 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 1, 1900

Indeed, no organization is provided for, except the organization of a board to take care of that particular enterprise. The case of Seifert v. Weidner, 5 Circ. … The case of State v. Brown, 60 Ohio St., 462 , is also a county case. Hixson v. Burson, 54 Ohio St., 470 , is of the same character.

State ex rel. Clime v. Harvey

8 Ohio C.C. 599 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1894

McNeal v. … Att’y Gen. v. Brewster, 44 Ohio St. 589 ; State ex rel., etc. v. McCracken, 31 W. L. B. 214.

City of Columbus v. Williard

7 Ohio C.C. 113 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1893

In Gilmore v. … Brown, 12 Ohio St. 294 .

Wainright v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 530 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 12, 1901

Co. v. … Co. v. Miller, 104 Fed. Rep., 124; Wheeler v. Wason Mfg. Co., 135 Mass., 294 .

State v. Lewis

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 597 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 1, 1897

The case of State v. Kelly, 32 Ohio St. 421 , was an action against the treasurer, and was a suit on the bond. … That will be found m Debolt v. Trustees, 7 Ohio St. 227 ; Anderson v. Commissioners, 25 Ohio St. 18 .

State v. Lewis

22 Ohio C.C. 618 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 15, 1896

The case of State v. Kelly, 32 Ohio St., 421 , was an action against the treasurer, and was a suit on the bond. … That will be found in Debolt v. Trustees, 7 Ohio St., 227 ; Anderson v. Commis sioners, 25 Ohio St., 13 .

Bowler & Burdick Co. v. Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.

10 Ohio C.C. 272 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1895

In Cahill v. L. & N. W. Ry. … As was said in Griffith v.

Croy v. Marshall

3 Ohio C.C. 489 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 15, 1888

Adams v. Haskell et al., 6 Cal. 113 . … To the same effect is the case of Commonwealth v. Runk, 26 Pa. St. 235. John Little and Chas. H. Kyle, for plaintiff. Gottschall & Brown, for receiver.

Martin v. Cincinnati Traction Co.

10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 528 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1908

In his effort to obey the warning and ascertain the cause of it, he momentarily forgot the existence of the obstruction and looked out on the side of the car where the boss was standing on the running board. … Coal & Car Co. v. Norman, 49 O. S., 598; The Pennsylvania Co. v. McCurdy, 66 O. S., 118.

Seifert v. Weidner

12 Ohio C.C. 1 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 15, 1896

Pugh, 43 Ohio St. 98 ; State v. Hawkins, 44 Ohio St. 98 ; State v. Hudson, 44 Ohio St. 137 ; State v. Anderson, 44 Ohio St. 247 ; State ex rel. Herron v. Smith, 44 Ohio St. 348 ; Marmet v. … In State v.

City of Zanesville v. Crossland

8 Ohio C.C. 652 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1894

In Walker v. … In Taylor v.

Miller v. Southworth

10 Ohio C.C. 572 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1895

White—(34,605) Joseph Miller v. Ezra L. Southworth. George B. McCabe, and George A. White.—Joseph Miller v. Ezra L. Southworth et al. … Brown- & Geddes, for defendants in error.