Case law

Mustill v. Thornton

22 Ohio C.C. 608 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1897

S.: Strong v. Strauss 40 Ohio St., 87 ; Board of Education v. Sinton, 41 Ohio St., 504 , 513; Jelke v. Goldsmith, 52 Ohio St., 499 , 516 [40 N. E. … Hurley v. State, 46 Ohio St., 320 [21 N. E. Rep., 645].

Baker v. John Brennan & Co.

22 Ohio C.C. 241 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1901

Another case is Brown v. Jaquette, 94 Pa. St., 113. This did not involve an oil and gas lease, but the lease of a farm for agriculture, and it is cited by way of illustration of the general principles of law involved. … In Ervin v.

Baum v. State

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 569 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1904

Brown v. State, 18 Ohio St. 496 . We think the court did not err in permitting Mrs. Fraze to give her reasons for making these contradictory statements. 2. Was it error to admit the evidence of the witness Fred Marpe? … In the case of the State v.

Wilt v. Wabash Railroad

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 589 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 21, 1901

We will refer to two or three cases that have been cited by counsel for defendant in error in their brief: In Crawford v. … In another case, Shelton v.

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Allen

14 Ohio C.C. 320 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1895

, and was about to leave for Ashtabula, as aforesaid, plaintiff, as such sheriff, desiring to go to Oonneaut, upon his official duties over the road and route aforesaid, the same being the best and only practical route, boarded … Without referring to the evidence for the reasons stated in the case of The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company v. Charles Teed, just announced by me, this exception is overruled.

Thomas v. Boyson

21 Ohio C.C. 302 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1901

In May v. … In Brown v. Carpenter, 26 Vt., 638 , the trial judge-charged the jury that every dog not confined, or physically restrained, is a dog at large. This is approved and' Redfieid, O.

First National Bank v. Chapman

9 Ohio C.C. 79 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1894

Stat. of Ohio, and returned the amount of stock owned by each shareholder, and.the amount of “credits” and “debts” of each shareholder, and applied to the auditor, and also to the annual board of *80 equalization of banks … Hills v. Exchange Bank, 105 U. S. 319 ; Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U. S. 305 ; Boyer v. Boyer, 113 U. S. 689 .

Hance v. Chappell

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 139 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 15, 1900

Dugan, 14 Ohio St., 276 ; McGonigle v. Arthur, 27 Ohio St., 251 , 257; Brown & Co. v. Mott & Bro., 22 Ohio St., 149 , 159; Lockwood v. Krum, 34 Ohio St., 1 , 11. … In Conger v.

Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. v. Coshocton Glass Co.

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 665 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1910

Rep. 897 ]; Johnson v. Van Epps, 110 Ill. 552 ; Hosmer v. Welch, 107 Mich. 470 [ 65 N. W. Rep. 280 ; 67 N. W. Rep. 504 ]; Graff v. Insurance Co., 92 Ill. App. 207; Langford v. Freeman, 60 Ind. 46, 55 ; Diffenback v. … Eckel v. Renner, 41 Ohio St. 232 .

Fleischman v. Shoemaker

2 Ohio C.C. 152 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1887

This is clearly held in Waldsmith v. Waldsmith, Adm’r, 2 Ohio, 336, also in the cases Duvall v. Craig, 2 Wheaton, 45 , and Sumner v. … In the case of Titus v.

Froelich v. Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.

5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 6 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 23, 1903

In State v. … In State v.

Cincinnati, L. & A. Elec. St. Ry. v. Lohe

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 138 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1905

Co. v. Kent, 27 O. C. C. 000, this court following the decision of the Supreme Court in Cin. L. & A. Elec. St. Ry. v. Lohe, supra, and the case of Hickey v. … It' appears that parties boarded this car and subsequently found seats.

Steele v. Edwards

15 Ohio C.C. 52 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1897

In the case of Brown v. … In Woolnoth v.

Judge v. Masonic Mutual Benefit Ass'n

10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 473 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 22, 1907

Co. v. … Gibbs v.

State v. Dayton Traction Co.

18 Ohio C.C. 490 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1899

Co. v. Smith, 29 Ohio St, 306; C. & S. Ry. Co. v. Village of Carthage, 36 Ohio St., 631 ; City of Columbus v. … Co. v. Galveston, — — Tex.——, 36 L. R. A., 1, which supports our conclusion, and in which and in the note the cases are reviewed. In this case Brown, J, well says, in reviewing Northern C. R. Co. v.

City of Toledo v. Hosler

10 Ohio C.C. 257 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1895

The foundation stone upon which that decision is built is the case of the State ex rel. v. The City of Toledo, and reported in the 48 Ohio St. page 112. … St., page 336, City of Cincinnati v. Cameron.

Perkins v. Scott

9 Ohio C.C. 207 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1895

In the case of Winship v. … Also, we are cited to the case of Brown v. Harshman, Ex’r, vol. 9 C. C. Rep., p. 1, decided by the Second Circuit, in an opinion by Shearer, J. I do not agree with the learned Judge that delivered the opinion.

Geisse v. State

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 560 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 5, 1910

Early in Ohio, in the case of Brown v. State, 11 Ohio 276 , the Supreme Court of the state held that the court would fake judicial notice of general, local and special acts. … In the case of Urmston v.

Coppock v. S. Kuhn & Sons

3 Ohio C.C. 599 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1889

It is settled by the decision in Insurance Co. v. … The case of Flanders v. Blandy, 45 Ohio St. 108 , is also a strong one against the theory of a delivery in this case.

Stephenson v. Sedam

12 Ohio C.C. 408 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1888

And the doubt as to this question arises in our minds in view of a decision of the Supreme Court in 44 Ohio States 269 — Brown v. National Bank. … And it is expressly held in the case of Ford v.