Case law

Toledo ex rel. MacGahan v. Ford

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 115 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 14, 1900

Under the statutes of the state when the city desires to make drainage in a city, the matter is to be submitted to the board of health, and the board of health at first decided against allowing this main sewer to empty into … That is the statute under which the decision in Newell v. Cincinnat, 45 Ohio St., 407 , proceeded and which was construed.

Griner v. Ohio Oil Co.

5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 126 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1904

Some of the cases *128 we have been referred to are The Woodland Oil Co. v. Crawford, in 55 Ohio St., 161 ; Detlor v. Holland, 57 Ohio St., 492 ; Kelly v. Ohio Oil Co., 57 Ohio St., 317 , and Brown v. … V. Bope, for defendant in error. It follows then, from this view of the case, that the plaintiff should have judgment here as prayed for in this petition, and it is so ordered.

Laylin v. Commissioners of Huron County

3 Ohio C.C. 338 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1888

See, also, 29th Ohio St., at p. 522, Parker v. Burgett. … Support for the views we have taken in this matter may be found in the cases of Commissioners v. Railway Co., 45 Ohio St, 401, 405—6; R. R. Co. v. Commissioners, 35 Ohio St., at p. 9.

Mt. Adams & Eden Park Inclined Railway Co. v. Winslow

3 Ohio C.C. 425 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1888

duly .authorized the plaintiff to construct and operate an electric system of motive power on all the lines of street railroads owned and operated by it, the work of construction to be done under the supervision of tbe board … Under the authority thus granted, and under the supervision of said board, *426 and of the city engineer, the plaintiff, owning and operating the line of street railroad in question, running on Gilbert avenue, in front of

Village of Bradner v. Grundetisch

15 Ohio C.C. 32 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1897

, or a statement of facts embodied in the record upon application of a party aggrieved, the proceedings in error are the same as those heretofore provided on writs of error, and in case. of the Village of Bellefountaine v. … Brown & Guernsey, for Defendant. The judgment of the court of common pleas reversing the judgment of the mayor, is reversed, and the judgment of the mayor affirmed.

Norton v. Parker

8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 572 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 1, 1893

induce the plaintiff to purchase the whole of the furniture of two houses situated on Michigan avenue, in the city of Chicago, known as numbers 1328 and 1330 and which had theretofore been and was intended tó be used for a boarding … This question in Lawrence Railroad Co. v.

Stevens v. Shannon

6 Ohio C.C. 142 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1892

. *144 The case of The Board of Education v. … Co. v. Patch, 28 Kans. 470 ; Day v. Schroeder, 46 Iowa 546 ; Brubach v. Schweinler, 56 Wis. 386 ; Elliott on Roads, 670; 35 Iowa, 345 : Rev. Stat. 4977; Cincinnati v. First. Pres.

Schmitt v. Schnell

14 Ohio C.C. 153 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1897

It was urged on the part-of VineensSchnell, on the hearing, that this case was prematurely brought, and we were cited to the case of Maud v. … We cite the case of Miller and wife v.

State ex rel. Spaller v. Painesville

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 123 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1910

If the chief fails in his duty the exclusive power of suspending him is vested in the mayor, and he may suspend him and certify the fact to the 'board, so that the board of public safety does not deal directly with the members … People v. LeFevre, 21 Colo. 218 [ 40 Pac. Rep. 882 ].

Tucker v. Gillette

22 Ohio C.C. 664 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 15, 1901

Brown, for Plaintiff in Error, cited: Care and skill required: Witthaus & Becker, Med. Juris, (x ed.) p. 30; Enc. of Law (1 ed.), vol. 14, p. 76; Gallaher v. Thompson, Wright 466; Craig v. … Dec. 487 ]; Klonne v. Bradstreet, 7 Ohio St. 322 , 325; Bouvier’s Dictionary, title, Torts; Hill on Torts; p. 1; Pollock on Tort's, 4; O’Callaghan v. Cronan, 121 Mass. 114 ; Mahan v. Brown, 13 Wend. 261 [28. Am.

Harley v. Weber

2 Ohio C.C. 57 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1887

The principles thus clearly published by Judge Swan find support also in the following authorities : Painter v. Painter, 18 Ohio, 247; Holsworth v. Koch, 26 Ohio St., 33 , 37; Brown v. … Willis, 13 Ohio, 26; Thurston et al. v. Ludwig, 6 Ohio St., 1 ; Edwards v. Richards, Wright’s Rep., 496; Ormsly v. Machie, 20 Ohio St., 295 ; Shore v. Wilson, 9 Clark & Finnelly, 563; Collins v.

Mackey v. Burwell

4 Ohio C.C. 348 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1890

This is said to be the well-settled law of that state, and the case of Brown v. Mott, 7 Johns. 361 , is cited as the case which establishes that principle. … In the case of French v.

Union Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Darr

19 Ohio C.C. 497 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1900

In the case of Richey v. … Swing, F. ■ Sanford Brown, for heirs of Joseph Darr. John S. Conner, A. J.

Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co. v. Stewart

13 Ohio C.C. 359 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1896

The proceedings of the board are, in many respects, those of a court of special and inferior jurisdiction. “In Anderson v. … In State v.

Foster v. State

1 Ohio C.C. 467 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1886

See Rex v. Filkes R. & M. C. C. R., 354; Rex v. Vide et al., Fitz Coronne 86; Rex v. Borgess, Trin T., 1813. … See State v. Munson, 25 Ohio St., 383 ; Hartshorn v. State, 29 Ohio St., 635 , and 42 Ohio St., 150 .

Royce & Pulling v. Tyler

2 Ohio C.C. 175 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1887

Urmsted v. Buskirk, 17 Ohio St., 113 ; Rev. Stats, sec. 3260. In Norris v. Wrenschall, 34 Md., 496 , and in Hayes v. … In the case of Hager v. Cleveland, 36 Md., 476 , quoted with approval in Brown v.

Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co. v. Marsh

17 Ohio C.C. 379 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1898

Defendant says that plaintiff boarded this train at West Mansfield with full knowledge of this, and knew when he went to West Mansfield that he could not purchase a ticket at said office at that time of day, and that the … We are inclined to the contrary holding as supported by the best guarded reasons and authority, to use the language in the Railway Company v.

Myers v. State

4 Ohio C.C. 570 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1890

We would see no reason to doubt that the law was the same on these points in Ohio, were it not for the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brown v. … The State, 25 Ohio St. 162 , and Campbell v.

Stafford v. Produce Exchange Banking Co.

16 Ohio C.C. 50 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1898

Morgan v. The Bank of North America, 8 S. & R., 72-88; Bank of Holly Springs v. Pinson, 58 Miss., 421 ; The Union Bank of Maryland v. Ridgely, 1 H. & G., 324 -413. … In 77 New York State Reports, 550, Buffalo German Insurance Company v.

Moerder v. City of Fremont

19 Ohio C.C. 394 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 15, 1899

Held, void as to competent physicians; and so it seems as to hotels, boarding houses and bath-houses.” … Paul v. Smith.