Case law

DeCamp v. Levoy

19 Ohio C.C. 335 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1900

Younglove v. … The money was paid directly to the Taylor & Faulkner Company, and was a transaction made for the benefit of the company by a resolution of the board of directors, because it was thought impossible for the corporation to become

Millikin v. Village of Bowling Green

9 Ohio C.C. 493 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1895

Now, it has been held in the case of Montrose v. … And in the cause of Harding v.

Fels v. Fels

1 Ohio C.C. 420 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1886

several years, with Autenrich, the witness -referred to, showing charges against him, for rent, and for other matters, with credits of cash paid to the intestate by him, a'nd a large number of items of credit of cash, and boarding … But as stated in the case of Creed v. Lancaster Bank, 1 O.

Fisher v. Kissinger

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 13 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 29, 1903

The authorities cited to sustain this text are Abbott v. Inskip, 29 Ohio St. 59 ; M’Coy v. Huffman, 8 Cow. 84 ; Holmes v. Blogg, 8 Taunt. 508. Abbott v. … M’Coy v. Huffman has been expressly overruled in the same court which rendered the opinion. So has Holmes v. Blogg been overruled.

Gatton v. United States Express Co.

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 532 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 25, 1911

In the amendment to the reply, he admitted that after said horses and mules had been delivered by plaintiff to the defendant and the same had been *534 loaded on board of the express car of the defendant and accepted for … In the ease of Perry v. O’Neill Co. 78 Ohio St. 200 [85 N. E.

Davis Carriage Co. v. Weber

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 621 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1900

So far as I am advised, since the decision of the ease of Brown v. Kuhn, 40 Ohio St. 468 , the practice as to this has been almost uniform.

State ex rel. United States Ballot Box Co. v. Ratterman

3 Ohio C.C. 626 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1889

For good and sufficient reasons it is the policy of our statutes upon this subject, that the management of the official affairs of the county should be entrusted to a board elected by the people for that purpose, and that … Flanagan v. McConnell, 28 Ohio St. 589 , we are of the opinion that the case before the court is not one of that character.

Mason v. Ferguson

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 623 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 5, 1910

In the case of Burns v. Washburn, 160 Mass. 457 [36 N. E. … In the case of Adasken v. Gilbert, 165 Mass. 443 [43 N. E.

Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Ry. v. State

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 20 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1909

Ry. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677 [16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 714; 40 L. Ed. 849 ]. … Ry. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677, 702 [16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 714; 40 L.

Hoffman v. Kiefer

19 Ohio C.C. 401 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1899

The other case is Davis v. … The court being in rightful possession of the cause for a discovery and account, will proceed to a final decree upon all the merits. ” Citing Thompson v. Brown, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) Ch. 619; 1 Story Eq.

Wood County Commissioners v. Shinnew

10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 554 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 27, 1907

The cases referred to are Williams v. … Ry. v. Hancock County, 63 Ohio St., 23 , Judge Williams on page 28 cites the case of Williams v.

Munday v. State

5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 656 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 2, 1904

In Jones v. … And Kain v.

Alm v. Andrews Bros.

9 Ohio C.C. 591 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1895

In Watts v. … In Kenrick v.

Marmet Co. v. Cincinnati (City)

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 555 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 15, 1909

In the case of Smith v. … Hayes v. Skidmore, 27 Ohio St. 331 .

Peat v. City of Norwalk

5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 614 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 13, 1903

If the circumstances and surroundings were such as mentioned in Schaefler v. … In Schaefler v.

Hawthorne v. McClure

4 Ohio C.C. 11 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1889

While she performed these services, she had the benefit of a home, and her board and clothing, and was treated as a member of the family, and not as a servant. … Hall v. Finch, 29 Wis., 278 . In this case there is no evidence of a prior request for these services on the part of Hawthorne; nor any promise by him to pay therefor. He said to Mr.

Pullen v. Smith

5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 1 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 15, 1904

It was held in the case of The Elyria Gas & Water Co. v. The City of Elyria, 57 O. … It was held by the *5 Sixth Circuit, in the case of Rhodes v. The City of Toledo, 6th C.

State ex rel. Sullivan v. Morris

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 119 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 23, 1909

Harris, then governor of Ohio, pursuant to “An act to regulate railroads, * * * create a board of railroad commissioners,” etc., passed April 2, 1906 (98 O. L. 342; Lan. Rev. Stat. 5269a; B. 244-11), appointed James C. … But there is a recognized exception to this rule, which is stated in State v. Ermston, 8 Circ. Dec. 83 ( 14 R. 614 ); affirmed, Ermston v.

Moores Lime Co. v. National Chemical Co.

10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 53 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 15, 1907

The other modifications of the .contract, such as mixing the materials in a machine instead of by hand on a board platform, are of minor importance, and the question is whether the change of mixture was such a deviation from … The rule is stated in Hobson v.

Put-in-Bay Vilinage v. Webb

18 Ohio C.C. 780 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 15, 1897

The case of the Village of Put-in-Bay v. Thos. E. Webbe al., is a *781 case appealed from the court of common pleas and was brought by the plaintiffs to enjoin the defendants from cutting trees on certain lands. … contract, agreement or other obligation involving the expenditure of money shall be entered into, nor shall any ordinance, resolution or order for the appropriation or expenditure of money, be passed by the council or any board