Case law

Ditzler v. State

4 Ohio C.C. 551 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1890

It was held in the case of Adams v. … The charge of the court given by the lower court in the case of Brown v.

Newdick v. City of Hamilton

18 Ohio C.C. 266 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1899

and Barton, alleges as follows: “Plaintiff says that in doing all said work, and furnishing and handling all of said material required to be done by said contract, said Barton was under the control and direction of said board … if it is to be taken as more than this, and as an allegation of fact, we suppose that it is substantially an allegation of fact that Barton was not an independent contractor, and therefore, on the authority of Cincinnati v.

Marcus v. Barbour

14 Ohio C.C. 628 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1897

In Hoffman v. … Co. v.

Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad v. Murphy

17 Ohio C.C. 223 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1898

Co. v. Cavagna, 6th C. … Co. v.

State ex rel. McClurg v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

8 Ohio C.C. 604 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1894

placed in a conspicuous place in each passenger depot of such company, located at any station in this state at which there is a telegraph office, a blackboard, at least four feet in length and two feet in width, upon which board … Hall v. The State, 20 Ohio, page 7. With this rule of construction in mind, what are the material and essential provisions of this statute ? 1st.

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. v. Saltzman

9 Ohio C.C. 230 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 15, 1894

Reasoning now from principle, it would seem that if a passenger is received on board of a train, and becomes sick after he gets upon the train, so that he needs care and attention,, that it is, and should be a part of the … It is the case of the New Orleans, Jaelcson & Great Northern Railroad Company v. John B. Statham, a decision of the High Court of Appeals in the state of Mississippi, volume 42, page 607, decided in 1866. Mr.

Edward S. Jaffray & Co. v. Weatherby

12 Ohio C.C. 205 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 15, 1895

Stevens, and made by her in the hearing of case No. 90,314, Halzmaister v. … It is also agreed that Anna F.Stevens recovered her board, clothing and living expenses from Will A. Stevens, her husband, in addition to the payments named above.” From this it appears that Mrs.

State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Hocking Valley Ry.

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 175 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 22, 1909

The subject is taken up by the president and board of directors of the railway company, who are also president and directors of the coal company. … In Piatt v.

Scofield v. Excelsior Oil Co.

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 347 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 16, 1905

Brown v. … Also from Hager v.

Ives v. McNicoll

12 Ohio C.C. 297 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1896

be our.duty to interpret the words in their natural and ordinary sense, although-the result may conflict with our ideas of public policy. ” See also the language used by Judge Shauck in the decision of the case of Deem v. … It is urged that it was directly approved by Justice Brown in the Cope case ( 137 U. S. 685 ). But we think this was hardly the case.

MacGregor v. Linney

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 490 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1905

plain spirit and intent of said instrument, on or about September 1, 1904, cause to be erected upon the premises so conveyed to her, within about a foot of the northerly line thereof, a certain building, to wit, *492 a board … That a fence is a building was held under the circumstances of the case reported in Wright v. Evans, 2 Ann. Pr. 308. The contrary was held under the circumstances of the case of Nowell v.

Germantown v. Basore

22 Ohio C.C. 417 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1901

In Williams v. … In Williams v.

Cotton v. Ashley

13 Ohio C.C. 535 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1897

Cotton, deceased v. S. D. Ashley, Attorney at Law. Motion. “And now, July 18th, 1895, on motion of Charles Lawyer, Jr., and S. … The evidence also showed that the testator had at one time boarded with the defendant, and at times employed him as an attorney.

Phipps v. Ratterman

10 Ohio C.C. 205 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1895

And this seems to have been the construction placed upon the statute by the Supreme Court, for when called upon in the case of The State v. … See State v.

Ellis v. Ellis

3 Ohio C.C. 186 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1888

Sustained by Brower et al. v. Hunt et al., 18 U. S. 311 . The same rules applied to the 109 acres would give it to the plaintiffs. … West, Brown & West, and Wm. Lawrence, for defendant. With these views of the case, the demurrer to the answer will be sustained.

B. Stroth Brewing Co. v. Schmitt

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 177 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 8, 1903

In the ease of Harsh v. … To the same effect are the following authorities: Uline v. N. Y. Cent., etc., R. R., 101 N. Y., 98 ; Shively v. Cedar Rapids, etc., Ry. Co., 74 Iowa, 169 ; 7 Am. St., 471; Randolph v.

Cleveland Retail Grocers' Ass'n v. Exton

18 Ohio C.C. 321 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1899

In the case of the State v. … In Woodard v.

Braman v. City of Elyria

5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 387 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 8, 1904

follows: “No contract, agreement or other obligation involving the expenditure of money shall be entered into, nor shall any ordinance, resolution or order for the expenditure of money be passed by the council or by any board … S., 82, and Comestock v. Nelsonville, 61 O. S., 288.

Joseph Spiedel Grocery Co. v. Armstrong

8 Ohio C.C. 489 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1894

In The Board of Education v. … In Moore v.

Massey v. Stimmel

8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 237 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 11, 1897

The case of Bunnell v. Bunnell, 25 Fed. … Rep., 214, is a case decided in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan in 1885 by Judge Brown, now a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and it seems to meet this question