Case law

North American Accident Insurance v. Gulick

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 477 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1903

There would be no use in taking out a policy in an accident insurance company if it meant simply that the party was1 to use the ordinary care which would he required in boarding a railroad train; it must mean more than that … Mutual Accident Assn. v.

Mason v. Commissioners of Fulton County

10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 201 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1907

The case to which I refer is Cleveland v. Bag & Paper Co., 72 Ohio St., 324 . … Mason to sue, except to make a mere reference to the ease of Quinlan v.

Rhoades v. City of Toledo

6 Ohio C.C. 9 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1890

Ball, 5 Ohio St. 568 ; The Little Miami Railroad Company v. Collett and others, 6 Ohio St. 182 ; McMicken v. City of Cincinnati, 4 Ohio St. 395 ; Watson’s Executors v. Pleasant Township, 21 Ohio St. 667 . … If, as appears to have been the case in Cleveland v.

Dakin v. Lecklider

19 Ohio C.C. 254 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1899

Henry v. Doctor, 9 Ohio Rep. 49 ; Salmond v. Price, 13 Ohio Rep. 369 . … Another case in which a like doctrine is held, is that of Preston, Trustee, v. Brown, 35 Ohio St., 18 , I will read but a single paragraph.

Kit Carter Cattle Co. v. McGillin

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 413 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 22, 1900

The trust doctrine, announced in Rouse, Trustee, v. … The prohibition upon the powers of thecorpor *417 ation, announced by Rouse, Trustee, v.

Edwards v. Rissler

5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 44 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1902

And the court say, in Burdick v. … In the case of Looney v.

Millen v. Young

18 Ohio C.C. 571 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1892

Millen, guardian, v. S. M. Young, there are two cases in error here, identical in their facts and *572 in the questions'of 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 *575 act a more conclusive effect than, it had before such revision;” Messenger v. Bliss, 35 Ohio St., 587 .

In re the Estate of Crawford

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 605 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 21, 1901

Wall v. Bissell, 125 U. S,. 382; Colt *612 v. Colt, 111 U. S., 566 ; McArthur v. Scott, 5 O. F. D., 357; Newcome v. Williams, 9 Metc., 525 ; Drury v. Inhabitants of Nantic, 10 Allen, 169 ; Crocker v. … S.), 192; Armstrong v. Lear, 12 Wheat. (25 U. S.), 169; Cabanne v.

Rafferty v. Toledo Traction Co.

19 Ohio C.C. 288 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1899

Restaurant and boarding house. “Q. Are you acquainted with the plaintiff in this case, Edward T. Rafferty? A Yes, sir. “Q. … This, as I have mentioned, is ruled upon the authority of Coal & Car Co. v. Norman.

Simpson v. Serviss

3 Ohio C.C. 433 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 15, 1888

McIlvain, J., in State v. Frame, 39 Ohio St. 399 ,413. … Walker v. Whitfield, 16 Wall. 314 .

New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Woods

9 Ohio C.C. 322 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1895

In Robinson et al. v. … In the case of Silvus v.

Bowlus v. Shanabarger

19 Ohio C.C. 137 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1899

To this point I cite Miller v. … Roff et al., 9 Ohio St., 430 , 434- and 435, and in Orumbaugh v.

Ludwig v. Overly

19 Ohio C.C. 709 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1895

Manor et al. v. Joseph Manor et al., Lucas county, Ohio, court of common pleas. (See record, volume VII, page 217, Lucas county, Ohio, Chancery Records.)” … Manor, Sr., but in 1842 he entered into a contract with the board of public works, whereby he settled with the state certain claims for damages that he had for loss of water, and interference with water; and the state at

Caldwell Furnace Foundry Co. v. Peck-Williamson Heating & Vent. Co.

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 665 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 22, 1905

The defendant in error was to furnish all patterns, and the foundry company the flasks and follow-boards. … Ry. v. Laird, 164 U. S. 393 [17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 120; 41 L. Ed. 485 ], The court did not therefore err in permitting the second amended petition to be filed.

Ridenour v. Biddle

10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 438 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 8, 1907

Affirmed, Block v. Parker, 71 Ohio St., 533 . Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. v. … Davies v.

Baker v. Orme

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 465 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1905

The cases of Reeves v. Bank, 8 Ohio St. 465 and Jones v. Kilbreth, 49 Ohio St. 401 [31 N. E. … Ry. v. Johnston, 133 U. S. 573 [10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390]; Commercial Bank v. Armstrong, 7 O. F. D. 487 [ 148 U. S. 50 ; 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 533]; Cragie v. Hadley, 99 N. Y. 131 [1 N. E. Rep. 537].”

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Gaffney

9 Ohio C.C. 32 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1894

McKee v. Nelson, 4 Cowen, 356; see Steamboat v. Logan, 18 Ohio, 396, where this rule in 4 Cowen is quoted with approval; see, also, Stewart v. State, 19 Ohio, 302; Yahn v. Ottumwa, 22 Am. … Brown, 12 Ill. App. 122 .

Gates v. Tippecanoe Stone Co.

9 Ohio C.C. 99 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1894

The contract made is this: These three stockholders at a time when they composed a majority of the board of directors, sold to the company the property at double its value in payment of their stock in full. … In another case in our state, Noble, adm’r v. Callendar et al., 20 Ohio St. 199 , a party subscribed for stock with the agreement that he would pay for it in land.

Evans v. Peck-Hammond Co.

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 24 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1903

“We will furnish flasks, follow boards, and such other appurtenances as are necessary for making first-class castings. “We agree to begin to deliver castings within thirty days after patterns are received by us. … The same difference exists between such cases as Caring v. Carr, 167 Mass., 544 , where there was a contract for permanent employment, and the case at bar.

Wade v. Kimberley

5 Ohio C.C. 33 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1891

See also Goshorn v. Purcell, 11 Ohio St. 641 ; Greene Tp. v. Campbell, 16 Ohio St. 11 ; State v. Richland Tp., 20 Ohio St. 362 ; Dow v. Norris, 4 N. H. 16; Clark v. Clark, 10 N. H. 390; Greenlaw v. Greenlaw, 12 N. … Such is the rule recognized in the Supreme Court of our own state. - State v. Pugh, 43 Ohio St. 524 ; Gibbons v. Gatholie Institute, 34 Ohio St. 390 ; Exchange Bank v. Ilines, 3 Ohio St. 1 ; Zanesville v.