Case law

Brewster v. Anderson

1 Ohio C.C. 479 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1886

county office, for performing or attempting to perform any duty authorized by or directed by any statute or statutes of this state for the collection of the public revenue, * * it shall be the duty of the solicitor of said board … In Hettrick v. Wilson, 12 Ohio St., 136 , the plaintiff had obtained a judgment at one term, which the court, at a subsequent term, on motion, without notice to the opposite party, had set aside.

Jeremy v. Elwell

5 Ohio C.C. 379 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 15, 1890

justify the alleged trespass by alleging that the fence in question had been wrongfully erected, and was standing in and across a public highway, and obstructed the same so that without breaking or removing some of the boards … In Hickok v.

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Baldwin

19 Ohio C.C. 338 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1899

I cite Snyder v. … If it were then, under the holding of this court in Railway Co. v. Lavalley, 36 Ohio State, 221 , and in Railway Co. v.

Phillips v. LeJune

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 616 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 15, 1903

In the case of Brown v. … We find this in Seaton v.

Poag v. Shaw

10 Ohio C.C. 448 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1895

And the court, in the case of Smith v. … Brown & Son, for defendants.

Day v. Forest City Railway

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 60 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 28, 1904

Neither consent or revocation was authorized by the board of directors at a meeting regularly held, but we are satisfied that the several members of the board were consulted in each instance and that the revocation is as … This conclusion is sustained by Sanfleet v. Toledo, 8 Circ. Dec. 711 ( 10 R. 460 ), affirmed by the Supreme Court without report. See also State v. Henson, 66 N. J. Law 601, 617 [ 50 Atl.

Timmerman v. Howell

2 Ohio C.C. 27 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1886

In Erwin v. … Davies, and West, Brown & West, for defendants.

Luetzler v. Perry

18 Ohio C.C. 826 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1899

King v. Suddis, 1 East., 306, 314. … S., 121, and State v. Ottinger, 43 O.

Hawk v. Bonn

6 Ohio C.C. 452 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1892

Westchester v. Darlington, 2 Wright, 157 ; Bor. Carlisle v. Marshall, 12 Casey, 397; Spangler v. York County, 1 Harris, 322; School Trustees v. … Jefferson v.

Mooney v. Village of St. Mary's

15 Ohio C.C. 446 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1897

See Board of Commissioners v. Mighels, 7 Ohio St. Rep., 110 . But the amendment now provides a remedy for such neglect of official duty.. Vol. 91 O. … Such is the view taken by our supreme *451 court in State ex rel. v.

O'Hara v. O'Hara

16 Ohio C.C. 367 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1898

In Shepherd v. … (Parkhurst v. Van Cortland, 1 Johns. Ch., 284 ; Malins v. Brown, 4 N. Y., 411 ; 2 Story.Eq., sec. 795.)” In Bohanan v.

Wabash Railroad v. Heeter

14 Ohio C.C. 257 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1897

The court say, in the *265 case of Wright v. … And in the case of Wright v. Southern Pacific (46 Pac.

Clements Bros.' Construction Co. v. City of Cleveland

22 Ohio C.C. 152 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1901

Y., 178 ; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43 ; Payne v. Treadwell, 16 Cal., 221 ;Jones v. Lake View, 151 Ill., 663 ; Frederick City v. Groshon, 30 Md., 463 ; Groff v. Frederick City, 44 Md., 67 ;State Bank v. … Madison 3 Ind., 43 ; Patterson v. Society for E. M. U., 24 N. J. L., 385; State ex rel., Cleveland v. Board of Finance, 38 N. L. J., 259; In Re Dalton, 59 Pac., Rep., 336.

Millen v. Young

8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 391 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 12, 1892

Millen, guardian, v. S. M. Young, there are two cases in error here, identical in their facts and in the questions sof law, and they will be disposed of together, as they were argued together. … “Held, that the omission did not give an appointment made under the original act a more conclusive effect than it had before such revision; Messenger v. Bliss, 35 O.

Cincinnati Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Steinau

2 Ohio C.C. 286 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1887

on the part of the defendant, as if he had entirely repudiated it, and refused to receive any gas whatever, and so advised the company, then, as we understand the decision of the supreme court in the case of *289 James v. … Board of Com’rs of Allen Co., to appear in 44 Ohio St., and reported in Weekly Law Bulletin, vol. 15, p. 287, such •successive actions could not be maintained, but the remedy of the plaintiff would be in one action to recover

Forrest v. Jelke

7 Ohio C.C. 23 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1892

the defendant, eight acres off of the west side thereof, and that said Forest after-wards devised the same to her; that at the time of the conveyance thereof by Swartz to Forrest, there was, and for many years had been, a board … So far as we can see, this question is settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ford v. Langel, 4 Ohio St. 465 , and Wintermute v. Montgomery, 11 Ohio St. 442 .

Toledo v. Strasel

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 432 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 26, 1909

Ry. v. … Ry. v.

Weston v. Commissioners of Hamilton County

6 Ohio C.C. 641 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1892

The court in deciding the case of Wewell v. … And in Chamberlain v.

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. McPeek

16 Ohio C.C. 87 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 15, 1898

V. & T. R. R. Co., he was struck by the locomotive of said defendant, the B. & O. R. R. … R. v. Coon, 104 Indiana, 64; Chicago & Northeastern R. R. v. Miller, 46 Michigan, 532.

C., H. & D. Railroad v. Hedges

15 Ohio C.C. 254 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1897

old and worn, so that the notches thereon were so worn away that the iron pawl failed to catch and securely hold the same, and that said iron pawl or brace was worn,or loose, and that the bolt which held the same on said board … The case of Railroad Co. v. Barber, 5 Ohio St., 541 , tends strongly to support this view.