Case law

Zinn v. Baxter

17 Ohio C.C. 283 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1898

There is little room for controversy as to what relation- . ship exists between a shareholder in a corporation and a corporation in which he owns the stock, and between the officers and board of directors of the corporation … The ownership of stock, says Judge Boynton, in the case of Jones v.

Voorhees v. Minor

19 Ohio C.C. 560 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1900

For instance, in the case of Hagerman v. … We think, too, that the cases of Griffeth v. Bogart, 18 Howard, U. S,, 158 164-165, and Taylor v. Brown, 147 U. S., 640 , support the same view.

Cleveland Gas Co. v. Collins

19 Ohio C.C. 247 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1899

This matter has been before our own supreme court, and after stating the general doctrine as to how the courts arraigned themselves, it is only' necessary to read from the case of Richard Brown v. W. J. … In Corning v.

Cincinnati (City) v. Ryan

24 Ohio C.C. Dec. 421 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 1, 1911

Conneaut v. Naef, 54 Ohio St. 529 [44 N. E. Rep. 236]. … Railroad v. Swarts, 58 Kan. 235 [ 48 Pac. Rep. 953 ]. It was necessary to allege in the petition or prove that the injury was caused without the fault or negligence of the plaintiff. Street Ry. v.

Maclaren v. Stone

18 Ohio C.C. 854 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1899

We think under the decision of the Supreme Court in Boltz v. Stotz, 41 O. … Brown & Geddes; T. J. McDonnell; Justin Tyler, for defendants.

Fulwiler v. John Infield's Guardian

6 Ohio C.C. 36 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1891

In the case of Peter Fulwiler v. … Brown, for plaintiff in error. James P. Wilson, for defendant in error. We will modify the judgment still further. There is another question which I mentioned in the fore part of the case.

Smucker v. Wright

3 Ohio C.C. 620 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1889

Under the authority of Farr v. Reiker, decided by the Supreme Court and reported in Vol. 11, No. 10, page 141 of the Law Journal, we hold that the requests to charge were properly refused. … West, Brown & West, for Kauffman. Wm. Lawrence and D. S.

Bentzel v. Goodwin

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 244 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 1, 1910

Suffice to say were the ease of Brown v. Parham, 25 O. C. C. 640 [1 N. S. 602, 4 N.

Koblitz v. Western Reserve University

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 515 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 21, 1901

Attorney-General v. Price, 3 Atk., 108; 2 Ves., 328; Attorney-General v. Harrow School, 2 Ves., 551; 2 Kyd’s Corp., 182, 187. … Auburn Academy v. Strong, supra.

Gallagher v. Dettelbach

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 598 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 26, 1903

The case of Campbell et al v. Gittings, 19 Ohio Reports, 347, is in point here. … Durham Land & Improvement Co. v. Guthrie, 116 N. C., 381 ; 21 S. E. Rep., 952 ; Green v. N. C., etc., R. R., 77 N. C., 95 ; Foust v. Shoffner, Phil. Eq., 242.

Toledo v. Converse

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 468 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 5, 1900

What was true as to the triangular point in the case of Steinauer v. … Citing People v. Underhill, 144 N. Y., 316 .

Mathias Planing Mill Co. v. L. P. Hazen & Co.

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 54 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 1, 1900

In Hatch v. Oil Co., 100 U. … Mathias that a verbal agreement was made to deliver the material for che Big Four shops free on board cars at Dayton, Ohio. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Wilbur v. Bingham & Phelps

3 Ohio C.C. 459 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1888

McClure v. Briggs, 58 Vt. 82 ; Zaleski v. Clark, 44 Conn. 218 , s. c. 26 Am. Rep, 440; Brown v. Foster, 113 Mass. 136 , s. c. 18 Am. Rep. 463 ; McClaren v. McNulty, 73, Mass. (7 Gray) 139; Daggett v. … Johnson, 49 Vt. 348 ; Rositer v. Cooper, 23 Vt. 522 ; Hallidie v. Sutter St. R. R. Co. 63 Cal. 575 ; Gibson v. Cranage, 39 Mich. 49 ; Silsby Mfg. Co. v. Chicago, 24 Fed. Rep. 393; Wood Reaping Machine Co. v.

State ex rel. City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Electric Railway Co.

15 Ohio C.C. 200 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 15, 1897

Co. v. Smith, 29 Ohio St., 291 ; The Cincinnati & Springfield Ry. Co. v. The Village of Carthage, 36 Ohio St., 631 ; City of Columbus v. Str. Railroad Company, 45 Ohio St., 98 . *204 In the Cincinnati Str. R. R,. Co, v. … The State ex rel. the Board of County Commissioners of Ross County, v. The Zanesville & Maysville Turnpike Road Company, 16 Ohio St., 308 .

Mathias Planing Mill Co. v. L. P. Hazen & Co.

20 Ohio C.C. 287 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1900

In Hatch v Oil Co., 100 U. … Mathias that a verbal agreement saw made to deliver the material for the Big Four shops free on board cars at Da) ton, Ohio. Kelley & Hauck, for Plaintiff in Etror. R. de V. Carroll, contra.

State ex rel. Hippard & Schauss v. Commissioners of Franklin County

1 Ohio C.C. 194 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1885

Such estimates are to be submitted to and approved by a joint board of the seven officers and persons designated, or a majority of them. The statute provides for “ detailed estimates ” and “ aggregate estimates.” … Clough v. Commissioners of Shelby County, 36 O. S., 326. This discretion was not foreclosed by the conditional award to the relators.

Schmidt v. Elmwood Place (Village)

8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 113 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1898

In the case of Hunt v. Hunter, 5 Ohio Circ. … We think this view is warranted by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Welker v. Potter, 18 O. S, 85; Stephan v. Daniels, 27 O. S., 527; Kelly v. Cleveland, 34 O. S., 468, and Railroad Co. v. Wagner, 43 O.

In re Bachtel

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 159 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 18, 1905

Ry. v. … In State v. Buckley, 60 Ohio St. 273 [54 N. E.

Parks v. Enquirer Co.

16 Ohio C.C. 409 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1898

Plaintiff filed a reply saying that he “denies that the article complained of is a correct, fair, impartial and honest report of the proceedings had in and at said trial of Mary Clay v. L. F. … offered evidence tending to prove the circulation of the paper among his acquaintances; that it had given him great mental suffering; that he had quit going to church, and that by reason of the publication his arrangement for boarding

Parks v. Enquirer Co.

8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 621 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 15, 1898

That the defendant meant by said article aforesaid that at the said trial of Clay v. Parks it appeared in evidence that plaintiff herein, Louis F. … offered evidence tending to prove the circulation of the paper among his acquaintances; that it had given him great mental suffering; that he had quit going to church, and that by reason of the publication his arrangement for boarding