Case law

Kuhn v. Woolson Spice Co.

13 Ohio C.C. 547 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1897

In a case which is cited by counsel for both parties,in 52 Barbour's Reports, Belmont v. … It is the case of Forest v. Manchester, etc., Ry. Co., 4 DeGex,Fisher & Jones Rep., 125.

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

Watterson v. Ury

5 Ohio C.C. 347 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1891

In Williams v. Pres. … And in Brown v. Caldwell, 23 W.

Massey v. Stimmel

15 Ohio C.C. 439 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1897

S. circuit court for the eastern district of Michigan in 1885 by Judge Brown,now a Justice of the Supreme Court of the *444 United States, and it seems to meet this question. … res at the same time the suit is begun, and those wherein a personal judgment against a party not served with process it attempted to be enforced against property within reach of the court, is clearly stated in Pennoyer v.

Orwell Banking Co. v. Pelton

24 Ohio C.C. Dec. 172 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1911

Co. v. Keck, 35 Neb. 683 [ 53 N. W. Rep. 606 ]; Lee v. Brewing Co. 75 Neb. 212 [ 106 N. W. Rep. 220 ]; Crossley v. Stanley, 112 Iowa 24 [ 83 N. W. Rep. 806 ; 84 Am. St. Rep. 321 ]; Thacker v. Lumber Co. 131 S. W. … J., in Thompson v.

City of Cleveland v. Denison

16 Ohio C.C. 541 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 15, 1898

S., 348 to 355, Chapman v. … “As was said by this court in Marsh v. Fulton County, 10 Wall. 676, 684 , and repeated in Louisiana v. Wood, 102 U.

Kasson v. Licking Co.

24 Ohio C.C. Dec. 610 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 1, 1908

It appears from the agreed statement of facts that on May 8, 1907, the board of county commissioners ordered the improvement of that portion of a certain public highway in said county of Licking, known as the Johnstown and … The language of both these sections is clear and unequivocal, and the Supreme Court of Ohio, in considering Sec. 4786, in the case of Lear v.

State ex rel. Witt v. Craig

22 Ohio C.C. 441 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1901

In Lewis v. … In State v.

Toledo v. Willinger

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 512 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 17, 1904

S. 5294) on the question of variance, which indicate the view of the-court upon this subject: Piatt v. Longworth, 27 Ohio St. 159 , 160; Ralston v. Kohl, 30 Ohio St. 92 ; Lake Co. (Comrs.) v. Ashtabula Co. … The fourth paragraph from the syllabus in the case of Piatt v.

State ex rel. Hussey v. Hyman

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 559 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 22, 1900

That hearing, demanded by the relator, was had before the board provided for in the statute, consisting of the mayor, director of law and president of the fire department, and that tribunal found him guilty as charged, and … People v. Humphrey, 156 N. Y., 231 , sets out well the reasons for that proposition.

Ohio ex rel. Jones v. Bellows

15 Ohio C.C. 504 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1898

Jones, a tax payer, against the board of county commissioners, the auditor, the treasurer and the coroner of Franklin county to enjoin the allowance and payment out of the treasury of said county of certain fees and charges … Also Lancaster Co. v. Holyoke, 21 L. R. A., 394 and notes. The report of Muzzy v. The Commissioners of Hamilton Co., 2 West. Law Jour., 426, cited by counsel for the relator, is not official.

Toledo Ry. & Term. Co. v. Meinen

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 208 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 18, 1905

The petition sets forth that the plaintiff was the owner of lot 25 Machen’s Addition to Ellenboro, East Toledo; that on lot 25 she had erected a building that was to be used as a boarding house, containing seventeen rooms … But we think the law of this ease is well laid down in the case cited, Railway v. Gardner, 45 Ohio St. 309 [13 N. E.

Farmers' National Bank v. Miller

9 Ohio C.C. 111 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1894

Hull v. Jeffrey, 8 Ohio, 390; Fassett v. Traber, 20 Ohio, 540; Doremus v. O’Harra, 1 Ohio St. 45 ; Atkinson v. Tomlinson, Id. 237; Bloom v. Noggle, 4 Ohio St. 45 ; Harkrader v. Leiby, Id. 602 ; Dickson v. … In Jameson v.

Hays v. Olentangy Park Co.

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 101 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1903

Co. v. … Conceding that the right of appeal is wholly statutory, and that compliance with the provision of the statute is jurisdictional, and that in this respect the statute is to be strictly construed (Browne v.

Detwiler v. Louison

18 Ohio C.C. 434 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1899

Allen v. Louis, 30 Ohio St., 11 . … We cite Schultz v.

State ex rel. Witt v. Craig

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 351 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 21, 1901

In Lewis v. … In McGill v.

L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Mortal

18 Ohio C.C. 562 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 15, 1897

Co. v. Reynolds, 55 Ohio St., 370 . … Co. v.

City of Mansfield v. Hunt

19 Ohio C.C. 488 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1900

Railroad v. Lersch, 58 Ohio St., 639 652-653; Pinney v. Berry, 61 Mo., 359 ; Shively v. Ry Co., 74 Iowa, 169 ; 7 Am. St., 471; Loughran v. City, 72 Iowa, 382 ; Francis v. Schoelkoph, 53 N. … Enc. of Law, (1st Ed.), pages 38 and 39; Randolph v. Town of Bloomfield, 77 Iowa, page 50; 14 Am. St., 268; Brown v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 80 Mo., 475 ; Pierce v. Wagner, 29 Minn., 355 , Emery v.