Case law

Castalia Trout Club Co. v. Castalia Sporting Club

8 Ohio C.C. 194 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1893

Bank v. Flour Co., 41 Ohio St. 552 . … King, and Brown & Geddes, attorneys for the plaintiff. E. D. Potter, Jr., J. E. Ingersoll, and L. W. Hull, for defendants.

Norwalk Savings Bank Co. v. Norwalk Metal Spinning & Stamping Co.

14 Ohio C.C. 1 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 15, 1897

Talmage v. Pell, 7 New York, 328.” … Elliott v.

National Malleable Castings Co. v. Luscombe

9 Ohio C.C. 680 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1895

machine had ever been discovered to which a guard had been attached; and that so far as the testimony shows, was not an attachment really of the manufacturer, but of some of the men in the shop, it being simply a piece of board … Rep. — Mackin v.

Wabash Railroad v. City of Defiance

10 Ohio C.C. 27 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1894

In the ease of Indianapolis v. … In The City of Akron v.

Donald v. State

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 483 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Aug 15, 1900

Snyder, had, on a certain Sunday afternoon in the town of Higginsport, Brown county, Ohio, in the year 1892, violently assaulted the defendant, John H. … The doctrine is laid down clearly in Fouts v. State, 7 Ohio St., 471 , and Clawson v.

Toledo Bridge Co. v. Yost

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 448 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 2, 1901

And we are not prepared to say that the action taken by certain officers of this bridge company, in appearing before the board of equalization Ion certain occasions, to make inquiries, and in having interviews there, was … The case of Hunter v. Borck, 51 Ohio St. 320 [37 N. E.

Arbuckle v. Woolson Spice Co.

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 726 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 18, 1901

But in the Hale v. … A., 254, appears Hale v.

City of Toledo v. Northwestern Ohio Natural Gas Co.

5 Ohio C.C. 557 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 15, 1890

Co. v. Smith. … Reed, City Solicitor, and Brown & Geddes, attorneys for plaintiff. Boyle, Seott & Lewis and Scribner & Hurd, attorneys for defendant.

Searles v. State

6 Ohio C.C. 331 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1892

The case of Remington v. … Goins v. The State, 46 Ohio St. 457 , (492); Noland v. The State , 19 Ohio, 131; Brown v. The State, 18 Ohio St. 496 ; Hanoff v. The State, 37 Ohio St. 178 .

City of Fremont v. June

8 Ohio C.C. 124 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 15, 1893

Sanford, 9 Metcalf, 402; Morse v. Copeland, 2 Gray, 304 , 305. … Phillips v. Sherman, 64 Me. 171, 174 , and cases. The above case, it will be seen, presents the converse of the proposition arising here. In Fry v.

Johnson v. Slaymaker

18 Ohio C.C. 104 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 15, 1898

United States v. Smoot, 15 Wall., 36 . … A witness wa3 asked to state how much it. would cost if white mortar was used instead of brown mortar.

Nitz v. Toledo

22 Ohio C.C. 454 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1901

The evidence showed that this platform has been used by ‘ people generally in walking back and forth whenever they saw fit, as a portion of the street, making a very convenient place for walking, being a board platform with … In Matthews v.

Minor P. Tone's Executors v. City of Columbus

1 Ohio C.C. 305 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1886

Columbus v. Mitchell et al., 31 O. S., 592. In view of that decision it is admitted that the assessments are without legal validity. … It results from an application to this conclusion of the third and fourth propositions in Tone v.

Robbins v. Smith

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 91 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1903

Isolated passages are not to control. ’’ Decker v. Decker, 3 Ohio 157 ; Williams v. Veach, 17 Ohio 171 [ 49 Am. Dec. 453 ]; Starling v. Price, 16 Ohio St. 29 ; Edwards v. Rainier, 17 Ohio St. 597 ; Townsend v. … Cantine v. Brown, 46 N. J. Law 599 .

Phœnix Ins. v. Romeis

8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 633 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 31, 1898

To the same effect is a case *636 of Adams, Admr. v. … Efe waited at his boarding place during the day until evening, and then found that they had signed their appraisal, left it at the hotel and fled the town.

H. M. Loud & Sons Lumber Co. v. Peter

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 155 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1900

S., (14 Wall.), 270; Wetmore v. Granite State, 71 U. S., (3 Wall.) 310; the Glaucus, 1 Lowell, 372 ; Hoffman v. Ferry Co., 68 N. Y., 396 . … The first case that I call attention to is Willamson v. Barrett, supra.

Hickle v. Hickle

6 Ohio C.C. 490 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 15, 1892

Brown v. Hunt, 18 Ohio St. 311 ; Id. 160. Confining ourselves for the present to the sections of the act quoted above, let us considder their obvious import and effect. … In Jens v.

Welty v. Vulgamore

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 553 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jul 1, 1901

Co. v. Ramey, 28 N. E. Rep., 1087, 1088; ( 139 Ill., 9 ). … Another case is Gray v.

Sylvester v. Hesslein

5 Ohio C.C. 256 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1891

Ingraham, and Blandy v. … Suffice it to say, that we are in hearty accord with the doctrines therein announced.- Turner v. Reed, 3 C. C. Rep. 660; Nat’l Bank v. Nat’l Bank, 3 C. C. Rep. 513; Preston v. Spaulding, 120 Ill. 208 ; Field v.

Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad v. Berdan & Co.

22 Ohio C.C. 326 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1901

Co. et al. v. Pontius *334 and Richmond, 19 Ohio St., 222. … The case is found in Wilder v. Merchant's Despatch Transportation Co., 47 Ia., 272 .