Case law

Board of Trustees v. Jones

2 Ohio C.C. 482 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1887

Miller v. Webber, et al., 1 Cir. Ct. R. 130.

Millard v. Board of Commissioners

13 Ohio C.C. 518 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1897

Error is brought to reverse the action of the court of common pleas, in rendering a judgment against plaintiff in error, in an action brought by the Board of County Commissioners against Millard, in regard to certain fees

Hayes v. Board of Ed.

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 219 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 10, 1901

This case is here on a petition in error to reverse a judgment obtained by the board of education of the city of Cleveland against W. J. Hayes & Sons for certain interest on bonds. On November 9,1889, W. J. … Hayes & Sons inquired of the board of education of the city of Cleveland for information touching a proposed sale of bonds by said board.

Minor v. Board of Control

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 16 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1899

of the street which the petition asked tó be improved, or of that part of said street which was ordered by the board to be improved. … If so, the board was authorized to act. If not, it had no such right.

State ex rel. Perry County v. Brown

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 163 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1899

Brown, as infirmary director aforesaid, out of the county funds in the treasury of said Perry county, Ohio.” … By authority Jones v.

Brown v. Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.

19 Ohio C.C. 510 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1899

This suit was brought by David Brown against The Toledo & Ohio Centra! Railway Company, upon two causes of action, fox injuries sustained by the plaintiff on account of alleged negligence of the defendant.

Lake Shore & Michigan Railway Co. v. Brown

16 Ohio C.C. 269 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1896

Co. v. … Co. v.

Cin., Ham. & D. R. R. v. Brown

9 Ohio C.C. 198 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1894

Co. v.

State ex rel. Board of Commissioners v. Board of Commissioners

14 Ohio C.C. 26 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1897

Phillips v. Gaines; Gim v. W. S. Dist., 57 Pa. St., 433, 98 Am. D., 242 ; Bennet v. Kroth, 37 Kas., 235 , 1 Am. St., 248.) … (McDonald v. Page, Wright’s R., 121; Ela v. Knox, 46 N. H., 16, 88 Am. D., 179 ; Bennet v. Kroth, 37 Kas., 235 . 1 Am. St., 248.)

Board of County Commissioners v. McGee

20 Ohio C.C. 201 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1900

Manifestly, no right of action against that board was given or intended, so far as the words used import. … (Youngstown v. Moore, 30 Ohio St., 133 ; Feuchter v. Keyl, 48 Ohio St., 357 ; Smith v. Commissioners, 50 Ohio St., 628 .)

Miller v. Board of County Commissioners

3 Ohio C.C. 617 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1889

See Haff v. Fuller, 45 Ohio St. 495 . The second proposition was passed upon in the introduction of the evidence. … And that the ^defendants, the Board of County Commissioners, pay*the costs of this action.

State v. Board of County Commissioners

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 236 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 21, 1901

The other moneys upon which the clerk claims the percentage, were paid to him under Secs. 1261, 1262 and 2107 v, which several sections provide for the payment of costs in criminal cases out of *239 the county treasury and … The case of State ex rel. v. Brewster, 44 Ohio St., 249 [6 N. E. Rep., 653], is cited in support of the demurrer.

Board of County Commissioners v. Coffman

18 Ohio C.C. 254 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1897

By it boards of county commissioners are made liable in their official capacity for negligence or carelessness in keeping a bridge in repair. … The board being created for the benefit of political society, the duty was imposed when the board was created, and has existed since such board became a part of our system of local government.

Littleton v. Board of Infirmary Directors

18 Ohio C.C. 891 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1894

In this case plaintiff was appointed in May, 1883, by the defendant board, superintendent of the infirmary for one year, at a salary of $700, and $250 for his wife as matron. … In January, 1894, the board removed Littleton as superintendent, and appointed defendant Irvin as superintendent; thereupon an action was begun by Littleton for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with

Redfern v. Board of County Commissioners

18 Ohio C.C. 233 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 15, 1898

This is^'to be settled by the joint boards of the two counties at a joint meeting of such boards. … if the officer report favorable to the improvement, then said board gives notice and forwards a copy of said report to the board of the other county, and it then becomes the duty of the boards of both counties to meet in

Clark v. Board of County Commissioners

14 Ohio C.C. 349 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 15, 1897

For instance, in a suit of Smith & Jones v. Brown & White, he would enter up: “Smith v. Brown; Jones v. Brown; Smith v. White; Jones v. … And, applying a principle which is very well stated in this case of The Com’rs. of Butler Co. v.

Peale & Bro. v. Board of Education

12 Ohio C.C. 266 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1896

That in fact the paper was never laid before the Board at any meeting, by plaintiff, the clerk or said superintendent, and no formal act of transfer of the contract was ever made by any vote of the Board or building committee … We are of the opinion that the Board did not have such right.

Board on County Commissioners v. Ranck

9 Ohio C.C. 301 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1895

In Anderson v. … In the Board of Commissioners of Jay County v.

Ward v. Board of Education

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 671 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1900

Among the cases cited in support of this is Jenkins v. Clarkson, 7 Ohio, 72, and Turnbull v. Brock, supra. … I call attention also to the discussion of this principle in Withers v. Ewing, 40 Ohio St., 400 ; Hooker v. DePalos, 28 Ohio St., 251 ; Johnson v. Otterbein University, 41 Ohio St., 527 ; Sherwin v.

Robbins v. Board of Commissioners

2 Ohio C.C. 23 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1886

See State v. Hopkins, 10 Ohio St., 5 and 9. A vacancy within the meaning of section 1017, Rev. … To so interfere v ith him requires the act of another — the appointee. Judge James Gilmore, for plaintiff. Foos & Fisher, for defendants.