Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Ohio, Volume 44Robert Clark, 1887 - Law reports, digests, etc |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 83
Page xv
... District Court Lake Co. , 22 Am . L. Reg . ( N. S. ) 528 268 113 , 134 Dougherty v . Walters , 1 Ohio St. 201 ... District , 111 U. S. 701 ............ Hambleton v . Dempsey , 20 Ohio , 571 168 ... 112 644 Hanes v . Tiffamey , 25 Ohio St ...
... District Court Lake Co. , 22 Am . L. Reg . ( N. S. ) 528 268 113 , 134 Dougherty v . Walters , 1 Ohio St. 201 ... District , 111 U. S. 701 ............ Hambleton v . Dempsey , 20 Ohio , 571 168 ... 112 644 Hanes v . Tiffamey , 25 Ohio St ...
Page 13
... District Court of Licking county . The facts are stated in the opinion . Charles A. Montgomery , for plaintiff in error . I. The defense of the statute of limitations was not properly interposed . The demurrer , by which the question ...
... District Court of Licking county . The facts are stated in the opinion . Charles A. Montgomery , for plaintiff in error . I. The defense of the statute of limitations was not properly interposed . The demurrer , by which the question ...
Page 20
... District Court of Ross county . August 1 , 1878 , Jeremiah Pyle brought suit against the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company , to recover back the premium paid for a policy that the company had canceled . Pyle , in his petition ...
... District Court of Ross county . August 1 , 1878 , Jeremiah Pyle brought suit against the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company , to recover back the premium paid for a policy that the company had canceled . Pyle , in his petition ...
Page 33
... clerk had absconded with the money . Held , W. was not a guest of the inn at the time he deposited his money with the clerk , and the innkeeper is not liable for its loss . ERROR to the District Court of Hamilton county . The action ...
... clerk had absconded with the money . Held , W. was not a guest of the inn at the time he deposited his money with the clerk , and the innkeeper is not liable for its loss . ERROR to the District Court of Hamilton county . The action ...
Page 34
Ohio. Supreme Court. Arcade Hotel Co. v . Wiatt . The district court affirmed this judgment on error , and the present proceeding is to reverse the judgments below . All the evidence given upon the trial is before the court in a bill of ...
Ohio. Supreme Court. Arcade Hotel Co. v . Wiatt . The district court affirmed this judgment on error , and the present proceeding is to reverse the judgments below . All the evidence given upon the trial is before the court in a bill of ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
alimony alleged Allen County amount answer apply appointed Arcade Hotel assembly assessment Attorney-General authority averment bill bond Brewster canal cause of action charge Cincinnati claim Clark commissioners common pleas constitution contract corporation counsel court of common creditors Cuyahoga county deceased deed defendant in error demurrer district court divorce dower duty election evidence ex rel facts filed Gelhaus Hamilton county held Herron husband indorser intoxicating liquors journal judge judgment judicial jurisdiction jury lands lease legislative legislature liability lien Lucas county mayor ment mortgage notice Ohio St Olive McGill owner paid party payment person petition plaintiff in error pleaded premises premium probate court proceeding question quo warranto Railroad Company Railway Company reason Revised Statutes rule Sarah Clark senate Smith supra sureties term thereof Thompson tion traffic trial Wiatt wife