Page images



II. Such annuities are tax-
able in the hands of their owners,
and should be returned by them for
taxation under secs. 2736 and 2737.

12. Railway companies have
general power to issue bonds
cured by mortgage, and where such
bonds are issued in excess of the
amount allowed by law, there can be
no recovery on the bonds, against the
individual stockholders and directors
who caused the issue. Raymond v.
Railroad Co.

13. A holder of such bonds
will not be presumed to have notice
of the clause in the mortgage limit-
ing the effect of the contract con-
tained in the bond, by reason of a
general reference to the "terms and
conditions" of the mortgage, con-
tained in the bonds.


1. Equitable set-off against
the receiver of a national bank is not
forbidden by sec. 5242, R. S. U. S.
Armstrong v. Warner.

2. Under sec. 5242, R. S., of
the U. S., there is no power in a
state to issue a temporary injunction
before final decree against the
ceiver of a national bank. Warner
v. Armstrong.

3. In a suit by a mortgagor
to redeem and compel a "e-conver-
ance from the mortgagee, upon the
motion of plaintiff for a receiver,
such appointment will not be made
if there is anything due the mortga-
gee, or if he is not mismanaging the
property, or has not committed, or
is not about to commit fraud which
has resulted, or will result in a loss
of the property, or in an irreparable
injury to plaintiff. O'Donnell

7. Upon the hearing of the
motion, the court need not look be-
yond the affidavit of the mortgagee,
to determine whether anything is
due, although plaintiff controverts
the affidavit.


1. The party seeking to
form a conveyance or written con-
tract, for the sale of land, is bound
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt,
that there was an agreement between
the parties, different from that which

embodied in the instrument.
Rothschild v. Bell.


capital stock of a mining corpora-
tion, and its contract for such pur-
chase is void. Railroad Co. v. Burke.

2. An Ohio railway has no
power to buy the capital stock of a
mining corporation, and a contract
therefor is void.

3. Several roads coming to-
gether at a certain city from different
directions and connected only by
three or four miles of track built to
secure a union depot, are not so dis-
connected but that they may con-
solidate as a connected and continu-
ous line under sec. 3380, R. S. Burke
v. Railroad Co.

4. The lines of two or more
railway companies, which are not,
"in their general features parallel and
competing," may

become consoli-
dated into one

corporation under
secs. 3380 to 3384, R. S.

5. Railway companies seek-
ing consolidation, under the consoli-
dation act, secs. 3379 to 3388, R. S.,
may agree upon the number and
amount of shares of the proposed
consolidation company.

6. Section 3313, R. S., makes
the purchase of bonds of a railroad
company by a director, at less than

null and void. Shoemaker's
Ex'rs v. Railroad Co.

7. Where a railroad compa-
ny isues so-called preferred stock,
and a mortgage to secure it, by the
terms of which the trustee for the
stockholders under the mortgage is
given power in case of default in the
payment of eight per cent. divi-
dends, guaranteed on the stock, to
take possession of the road, and after
paving all lawful prior charges and
running expenses, to pay up de-
faults, etc. Held, that the lawful
prior charges were those arising on
prior mortgages and liens by law
prior to them. Miller v. Ratter-

8. The terms and conditions
of the certificate and mortgage made
the obligation of the company to pay
the so-called dividends prior to the
unsecured debts or subsequent mort.
gage debts.

9. That such priority was in-
consistent with the liabilities of
stockholders under the constitution
and laws of this state, and that the
so-called preferred stockholders
were in fact owners of a perpetual
annuity secured by mortgage. Ib.

10. That it was within the
power of such company to renew old
mortgage debts by issuing such an-
nuities secured by mortgage.


2. Where a lot is sold as be-
ing 45 feet wide, and it turns out that
the lot supposed to contain 45 feet,
was only 4472 feet, and the seller
2. Whether the court may or-
der that a finding upon a particular
issuc shall not prejudice the parties
in a future action, query-but if such
an order can be made to be effective,
it should be clothed in unmistakable

[ocr errors]



Reformatory Institutions-Sentence.






the adjoining property, he
cannot be permitted to reform the
conveyance so as to limit it to the
smaller quantity.


The directors of the House
of Refuge and Correction of Cleve-
land, under sec. 2039 R. S., have au-
thority to employ the necessary sub-
ordinate officers, etc., and to fix their
compensation. State v. Cleveland.

2. The city council has
control over the question of such
compensation, and it is not necessary
that council first pass an ordinance
for the payment of such employees
before the city auditor be re-
quired to issue warrants for their

3. Section 1693, R. S., that no
appropriation of money shali be
made except by ordinance, does not
apply, for this is not an original ap-
propriation but payment of a debt,
out of the fund applicable thereto.


1. Property was held in trust
for a certain sect and at a general
conference, the highest authority in
the sect an amended constitution and
revised confession of faith were
adopted and a small part of the gen-
eral conference seceded, and claim
the property; Held, that the civil
courts have jurisdiction only in case
of a perversion of trust. Griggs v.

2. On matters of form and
discipline the decision of the su-
preme authority of the church is
binding on the courts.

3. It is only in cases of de-
parture in essential matters of faith
or organic law that the courts can
look to see if the body has trans-
cended its powers, and the departure
must be obvious.

4. Where such changes do
not conflict with any formal doctrinal
matter, nor with the substance of the
faith, and are adopted in the method
provided for by the constitution of
the church, the schismatics cannot

obtain aid from the courts. Ib.

Where a question has been ad-
judicated between parties, it is con-
clusive as to that point, in a subse-
quent action, even if the causes of
action be not the same. Keown v.


3. When a question of fact
has been thus tried and adjudicated
by a court of competent jurisdiction
upon evidence, it cannot be re-
opened in a court of competent juris-
diction between the same parties.
They are concluded by the former
judgment. Barr's Wil', In re.


Where a party obtains posses-
sion of goods fraudulently and then
delivers them to a bona fide pur-
chaser for value, the person from
whom they were obtained may main-
tain an action for conversion of the
goods to his own use, against such
purchaser, if the latter refuses to de-
liver up the goods, or account for
their value, for the reason that the
dealer has not parted with his title.
Block v. Peebles.


1. A board of education ad-
vertising for bids for heating and
ventilating apparatus for a school
building, may first select the kind of
system, and invite bids for that kind
alone, thus confining competition to
those offering to furnish the one kind
of system selected. State v. Bd. of

2. Or, second, it may invite
bids for all apparatus which will ac-
complish the desired result, thus also
putting in competition the various
kinds and systems.

3. The board is not required
to select the kind of system for
which the bid is pecuniarily the low-
est, but may adopt that which in its
judgment is the best.

4. The discretionary power
to select the system of heating and
ventilating to be used in the public
schools is vested by law in the board
of education and when the power is
exercised by the board lawfully, and
in good faith, its decision is final and
is not the subject of judicial investi-


A fine of $25 for keeping a
place where liquor is sold is not un-
reasonable under 1862, Rev.
Stat., providing that $10 a day is not
unreasonable for a continuous thing,
for the act is not continuous in its






3. The

nature. McCrea Washington.


1. Equitable set-off against
the receiver of a national bank, is not
forbidden by sec. 5242, R. S. of the
U. S. Armstrong v. Warner. 434

2. A stockholder's indebted-
ness against a bank cannot be set off
against the claims of a pledgee of
stock of the former, who received it
in pledge to secure the payment of a

made on the faith of such
pledge, without knowledge of the
claims of the bank, or that it was in-

solvent. McConville v. Means. 452

The right to alter a con-
'tract to build a sewer or change the
work is limited by secs. 2224 and
2225, R. S. Gano v. Eshelby. 442

2. Section 2224, allowed ad-
ditions not swelling the , cost be-
yond the original estimate, but the
amendinent in 78 O. L., 228, con-
fines then to the cost of the original

3. If a change made plainly
increases the cost of the entire work
beyond what the work under the
original contract would have cost,
then such change is beyond the
power of the board to make; and is

4. The fact that the work has
been done does not estop the city
from defending against a claim made
under such void contract, for the ex-
cess over and above the cost of the
original contract, for the contractor,
knew of the want of power.

5. If a lot is provided with lo-
cal drainage at a point beyond the
average depth of lots it cannot for
the purpose of assessment be con-
sidered as already provided with
drainage. Cincinnati V. Kassel-

6. Lots are not to be deemed
already provided with drainage be-
cause they reach back to a perma-
nent water course, which will take
their surface water even if the sewer
empties into it. For the law will not
allow fouling a water course. Ib.

7. In levying assessments for
the construction of sewers, sec. 2269
R. S., which relates to improve-
ments generally, applies, and there-
fore lots are to be fixed as of the
average depth of lots on the im-


When a notice to repair a side-
walk is served upon an abutting

owner of property, and a dispute
arises as to whether the notice has
been complied, it is for the city au-
thorities to decide this controversy.
Cincinnati v. Longworth.


1. Specific performance of a
contract of sale of real estate will not
be decreed in a case where there is a
grave doubt about the validity of the
title of the vendor, and such doubt
may arise upon a question of law or
the construction of a will. Breuer
v. Hayes.

A person who has con-
tracted to purchase property will not
be compelled to perform, where a
suit affecting his grantor's right is
pending, although the court believes
the suit to be groundless, and the
clainiant to be estopped. Hopple v.

proposed purchaser
will not be burdened by having to
defend even an unjust claim. Ib.

4. Equity will decree specific
performance of a contract for the
lease of real estate where the only
defense is, that the quantity of land
described in the lease tendered is
slightly less than that contracted for,
if the court is satisfied that defendant
will thus receive substantially that
which he agreed to lease. Bowler v.
Brush El. L. Co.

5. If the deficiency in such
case is sufficient to affect the value
of the property, the court may de-
cree specific performance with com-
pensation to defendant for the differ-
ence in value.

6. In a contract providing for
the exchange of a tract of land, for a
farm and farm outfit title and pos-
session to be delivered May ist, held
that time of performance was suf-
ficiently inaterial to make it equi-
table to enforce a purchase on a title
to the tract not perfected by vendor
until nine months after objection by
vendee and the time fixed for per-
formance. Breuer v. Hayes. 583

7. Executors made void
lease under a naked power of sale
and conveyed the reversion subject
to the lease: Held, that the claim that
the two acts constitute a iawful ex-
ecution of the power, is, at least, so
doubtful that in absence of cestuis
que trust equity ought not to force
upon a purchaser, a title dependent
for its validity upon the deed or the


1. Criminal, or penal stat-





Street Railroads—Sureties.




utes must be strictly construed, and
cannot be extended by implication
to cases not falling within their
ternis. State v. Fennessy. 608

2. Section 3398, R. S., should
be fairly construed so to effect
the purpose for which it was enacted.
Loan and Trust Co. v. Railroad Co.

3. The statute which prohibits
the keeping open of saloons for busi-
ness, and the sale of intoxicating
liquors, on Sunday, is a criminal law
of the state. State v. Police Board.

4. Section 7263, R. S., does
not in terms, or by implication, re-
strict the right to have a change of
venue to defendant in a criminal
case, but it bestows the same right
upon both state and defendant. State
v. Myers.

5. That

section thus
strued is not in conflict with sec. 10,
art. 1, of the constitution.


1. It cannot be said that the
right of a street railway to occupy a
street for travel is a superior right to
that of using it for telephone poles.
Telegraph Assn. v. Inclined Plane
Ry. Čo.

A telephone company's
grant of the right to use a street is as
well founded as that of a street rail-

3. The consent of abutting
lot-owners upon a street occupied by
a street railroad is not required, and
is not a condition precedent to the
right of the council to grant a re-
newal of the franchise of such com-
pany, under secs. 2501 and 2502, R.
S. Petton v. Railroad Co.

4. Change of motive power
in the operation of such railroad, as
from horses to electricity, does not
constitute new and additional burden
upon the street.


One who was extradited from
N. Y. to Ky., was served with sum-
mons in a civil action while passing
through Ohio on his way home, by
the party who caused his extradition,
and the court on motion set aside the
service, Deuber Watch Co. v. Dal-


I. In a prosecution had under
sec. 7033, R. S., known as the “Sun-
day Common Labor Law,” it cannot
be ruled as a matter of law, that shay-
ing on Sunday is not work of

necessity. Spaith v. State.

2. An

information framed
under this section, which charges no
specific act of shaving, is bad for uri-

3. The keeping open by a
barber of his shop on Sunday, and
doing the common labor of a barber
therein, cannot be said, as a matter
of law, to be a work of necessity, or
within the purview of the Ohio Star-
utes. State v. Schuler.

4. Whether shaving or hair
cutting on Sunday by a barber is a
work of necessity or charity, within
the meaning of our act prohibiting
common labor on that day, depends
largely 'upon the circumstances and
facts in any given case.

5. A musical performance is
neither a theatrical nor dramatic per.
formance of any kind or description
State v. Fennessy.

6. Section 7032a (78 O. L..
126, passed April 9, 1881), does not
forbid the giving of a musical per-
formance on the first day of the
week, commonly called Sunday. Ib.

7. The statutes which pro-
hibits the keeping open of salvons
for business, and the sale of intoxi-
cating liquors, on Sunday, is a crim-
inal law of the state. State v. Police

8. Section il of the Dow law,
(85 O. L., 250), makes the keeping
open on Sunday, of the doors of a
place where liquor is sold a distinct
offense from selling on Sunday.
Moliter v. State.

9. In the law against selling
liquor on Sunday (85 0. L., 260).
the prohibition against keeping
“open means open in such a man-
ner as to induce the public to enter,
as on other days, and does not make
penal the opening of the door under
any and all circumstances. Munze-

brock v. State.

Sureties are favorite sub-
jects of legal protection; their agree.
ments are to be strictly construed,
and can not be extended beyond the
very letter of their contracts. Mc-
Dowell v. Reese.

An agreement that the
time of payment of a note may be ex-
tended from time to time, does not
authorize an unlimited number of

3. A verbal agreement be-
tween the payee and the principal on
a note, to pay 12 per cent. interest in
advance for a certain time on a note
calling for eight per cent. interest,
11. By art. 12, sec. 2 of the
constitution of 1851, the legislature
has no power to exempt from taxa-
tion by express enactment, stocks, or
bonds of this state issued under that








and the payment of the same, is a
valid contract, and if made without
the knowledge or consent of the
surety releases him.

4. Section 5832, R. S., was
intended to permit sureties, who
were such in fact, and known to the
banker to be such at the time, but
who were falsely stated in the note
to be principals, to show the truth,
and then have all the rights of sure-




The board of equalization
of Colunibus, when acting within its
sphere, as prescribed by law, acts
judicially; its decisions are judg-
ments, adjudications. Heffner


2. Generally the decisions of
the board are final and conclusive.

3. A court of equity is not a
court of errors to review the decis-
ions of the board.

4. But when

a case comes
under either of the heads of equity
jurisdiction, a court of equity will
award relief.

5. The board must act and
decide either upon evidence, or
knowledge of its own, of the facts.

6. A court of equity will go
behind the records of the board far
enough to inquire and ascertain
whether it acted and decided within
its jurisdiction, and in the scope of
its authority.

court will not set
set aside the decision of the board
simply because it differs from it as
to the weight, force and credibility of
the evidence upon which the board
acted and decided.

8. The board has power to
take and bear evidence and to ad-
minister oath to witnesses.

9 A person required to tes-
tify before such board refuses to
answer pertinent questions, he is
liable to be indicted, and after con-
viction fined or imprisoned, or both,
under sec. 6906, R. S.

10. Additions made by a
board of equalization are not
joinable as disproportionate if they
had investigated this question on no-
tice to plaintiff and there is no evi-
dence to fraud. Lackman v. Zun-

constitution and held by residents of
this state. Probasco v. Raine.

12. In view of this want of
power, the act of 1856 (53 O. L., 112)
cannot be construed to include in its
provisions, the clause of the canal
act of 1825, exempting stock issued
under that act from taxation. Ib.
13. So far

as stockholders
were concerned, the stock of 1825
was paid and extinguished, and the
stock of 1856 was a new contract of
loan taxation of which in no respect
impaired the state's obligation under

14. Taxation of canal stock
held by a resident of this state is not
taxation of public property used ex-
clusively for any public purpose. Ib.

15. Good faith in a tax return,
which does not state truly the tax-
able personal property held by the
taxpayer because of a mistake of law
honestly entertained, does not pre-
vent it from being a false return with
sec. 2781 as amended 83 O. L., 92,
when only inaction on the part of the
tax official is shown.

16. Section 2732, R. S.. ex-
empts from taxation a house used
exclusively for public worship and
the grounds attached to it, necessary
for its proper occupancy, use and en-
joyment, and not leased or otherwise
used with a view of profit. Church
of Epiphany v. Raine.

17. It forms no exception that
the same belongs to the worshipers
as an estate of perpetual leasehold-
that is by a lease for ninety-nine
years and renewable forever. Ib.

18. Assessors do not possess
the power to equalize the value of
property, which had depreciated on
account of floods; their official acts
are to be embodied in their returns
and nowhere else. Wagner v. Zum-

19. The_limit of 14 mills un-
der sec. 2689, R. S., is not extended
by a law requiring cost of intersec-
tions in street improvements already
ordered to be levied generally, but
this is included in the 14 mills. To-
ledo v. Toledo.

20. The limitation fixed by
secs. 1005, subd. 5, and 1006, R. S., is
intended to apply only to the current
experises of the county as ordinarily
understood. Dexter Hamilton

21. In the county of Hamil-
ton the levy of 1888 for the road and
bridge fund is without authority of

22. Where an act provides for
the construction of a road and the

7. The


[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »