Page images
[ocr errors]




receive, or on the part of the citizen to pay com- in default of the payment of such fine and costs, pensation for the services.

he was, by order of such probate court, commitWe cannot say, looking to the facts stated in ted to the county jail, where he was confined for this answer, that there was an implied contract thirty days. Thereupon, Friester brought suit on the part of the company to pay Lee compen

compen- against Diehl in the Court of Common Pleas of sation for his services. The further proposition Monroe County, for false imprisonment, based on is urged by the counsel for the company, that the above facts, and at the June term, 1878, of that even an express agreement to pay would have court, obtained a verdict and judgment for $245,

a been void as contrary to public policy. But upon and costs.

and costs. At the same term Diehl showed to that question we express no opinion. We hold the court that the mortgaged premises had been the answer to be sufficient, and hence that it was sold in pursuance of the order of the court, and error to sustain a demurrer thereto. The the proceeds applied in part satisfaction of the judgment will be reversed and the cause re- mortgage debt, leaving a balance of $1,092.18, on manded for further proceedings

his aforesaid judgment; and thereupon he moved Judgment reversed.

the court that so much of his judgment as [This case will appear in 37 0. 8.]

would equal the judgment of Friester should be

set off against the same in satisfaction thereof. INJUNCTION-CONTEMPT - JUDGMENT

This motion was sustained as to the sum of ATTORNEYS' FEES.

$145.00, and no objection has been made to the

order in this respect, but the court denied the SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.

motion as to the remaining sum of $100.00, which

portion of the Friester judgment the court by HENRY DIEHL

its order allowed to Hunter & Mallory, who

prosecuted, as attorneys for Friester, the suit for C. F. FRIESTER.

false imprisonment; and the judgment and or

ders were affirmed in the District Court. This

January 24, 1882. petition in error was filed by Diehl to reverse 1. Where a probate judge allowed an injunction in a

the judgment in favor of Friester, and to reverse cause pending in the court of common pleas, but an un- 80 much of the order as denied to Diehl a set off dertaking therefor was never given, a fine, with impris

with respect to said sum of $100.00. onment for its non-payment, imposed upon party enjoined, for an alleged contempt in disre- 1. As to the sufficiency of the petition. It garding such injunction, is not authorized by law; and where the person só imprisoned brings an

contains in detail the facts as to the suit of tion for such injury against the party causing the im- Diehl against Friester, the application of Diebl prisonment, it is not necessary. to allege malice and want for an injunction, the allowance of the injuncof probable cause.

tion, the application for and issuing of an attach2. A motion that one judgment be set off against an. other is an appeal to the equitable power of the court, to

ment, and the arrest, assessment of fine, and imbe granted or refused upon consideration of all the facts ; prisonment of Friester; and it contains, furtherand in granting such motion, the claim of the attoneys more, an allegation that no undertaking was for fees will be respected, wherever it appears to be right, in view of the facts, that this should be done.

ever given for the injunction, but none that such Error to the District Court of Monroe County. prosecution for contempt was malicious and

without probable cause. Spriggs & Driggs, for plaintiff in error.

In trespass for false imprisonment the gravamen Hunter & Mallory, for defendant in error.

is the unlawful act of the defendant. Case for OKEY, C. J.

malicious prosecution may be maintained where Diehl brought suit against Friester in the a proceeding is carried on maliciously and withCourt of Common Pleas of Monroe County. The out probable cause. While an action for mali. action was prosecuted on promissory notes and cious prosecution may be maintained, notwithreal estate mortgage to secure their payment, standing the plaintiff was imprisoned upon a executed by Friester to Diehl; the prayer was

perfectly valid judgment or order, an action for for a judgment and a sale of the land to satisfy false imprisonment cannot be maintained, where the same; and at the December term, 1877, judg- the wrong complained of is imprisonment in ment was rendered for $1,442.50 and costs, and accordance with the judgment or order of a court, such order of salz was made. On November 17, unless it appear that such judgment or order is 1877, while tho snit was pending, Diehl obtained void. And this distinction is as important now from the probate court of that county an injunc

as uuder the former practice. Spice d. Steintion in the action, to restrain Friester from ruck, 14 Ohio St. 213. doing certain acts with respect to the property, This is an action for false imprisonment. If and Friester was served with a copy of such or- Friester was imprisoned in pursuance of a valid der of the probate court; but no undertaking for judgment and order, the petition does not consuch injunction was ever executed. On Novem- tain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of acber 22, 1877, upon affidavit of Diehl that Fries- tion, and the judgment must be reversed. But ter was violating the injunction, the probate in our opinion the judgment and order for imcourt caused the latter to be arrested, assessed prisonment were void, for the reason that Diehl against him a fine of ten dollars and costs as for never gave the undertaking for the injunction a contempt for disobeying the injunction, and required by the statute, (Civil Code 88 242, 245,


247; Rev. Stats. 88 5576, 5579, 5581), and hence Duft v. Wells, 7 Heiskell, 17; Wilson v. McElroy, that the petition is sufficient.

32 Penn. St. 82; Beckman v. Manlove, 18 CaliThis is noi a case where a party, upon being fornia, 388. And see Comer v. Dodson, 22 Ohio informed that an injunction has been allowed to St. 622; McConville v. Lee, 31 Ohio St. 447; restrain him from doing a particular act, does Rev. Stats. SS 5433, 5441; Thompson on Exemp. the act before there is time to give such under $ 893. And it has likewise been held in many taking. What if any power the probate court cases, that a judgment will not be set off against has in a case of that sort to punish for contempt, another judgment, to the prejudice of an attoris a question which we need not determine. ney who contributed by his skill and services

2. Did the court err in holding that Hunter in obtaining it. Simpson v. Lamb, supra; John& Mallory should be preferred to Diehl as to son v. Taylor, 1 Disney, 169; Ames ». Bates, su$100.00, of the Friester judgment, and that as to pra; Carpenter v. Sixth Av. Ry. 1 Am. L. Reg. this amount the set off should be refused ? N. S. 410, 424; Perry v. Chester, 53 N. Y. 240;

The provisions of the statute relating to set Zogbaum v. Parker, 55 N. Y. 399. off do not in terms apply to the set off of one Although an attorney may contribute his judgment against another on motion (Civil skill and services in obtaining a judgment for Code, SS 26, 93, 97–99, 119; Rev. Stats. SS 4993, his client, he has, in this State, no lien on such 5071, 5075,5077, 5089), though doubtless those judgment for his fees, where there is no agreeprovisions will be applied whenever they are in ment for such lien known to the judgment their nature applicable to such motions. As the debtor, in the sense that such judgment debtor court say in Holmes v. Robinson, 4 Ohio, 90, "the may not effectually satisfy such judgment by practice of setting off one judgment against an- payment of the amount thereof to the judgment other, between the same parties, and in the creditor; nor do we doubt the right of parties to same right, is ancient and well established.” compromise any pending suit, in opposition to Even the fact that the judgments are in differ- the wish of their attorneys. But on the other ent courts, one for a tort and the other on con- hand, an attorney may have a claim upon the tract, and some of the parties in one case were fruits of a judgment or decree which he has asnot parties in the other, does not necessarily af- sisted in oblaining, or upon a sum of money ford an insuperable objection to such set off. which he has collected, and under some circumBut as Gibson, C. J. observes (Ramsey's Appeal, stances courts will aid him in securing or main2 Watts. 230), there is a fallacy in supposing taining such claim. Thus he will be protected that such set off is a legal right. "Judgments in retaining his fee out of money which he has are set oft against each other," said he, "not by collected for his client. (Longworth v. Handy, 2 force of the statute, but by the inherent power Handy, 75.) He will be protected in his claim of the court immemorially exercised. *

as attorney on a fund in the hands of a receiver An equitable right of setting off judgments, (Olds v. Tucker, 35 Ohio St. 581), or in court. therefore, is permitted only where it will in Ingham v. Lindemann, ante, 218.) fringe on no other right of equal grade.” And tection, it will be seen from the cases cited, will see Love v. Freer, Wright, 412. "Such power,"


be afforded in many other cases. And why said Devens, J., in Ames v. Bates, 119 Mass. 397, should not Hunter & Mallory, be protected to "is only to be exercised upon careful considera- the same extent as if Diehl had paid the money tion of all the circumstances of the transaction into court? The motion for set off was, as we out of which the judgments arise, and in order have seen, an appeal to the equitable power of to protect the just rights of parties." "The the court, and where such appeal is made, the privilege of setting off judgments,” said Cole- court looks not merely to the form the transridge, J., in Simpson v. Lamb, 40 Eng. L. & Eq. action is made to assume, but to its substance. 59,7 E. & B. 84,"is not an inherent incident of The attorneys contributed, undoubtedly, in obthe suit, but is given by permission of the court, taining the judgment. The court may have with reference to all the circumstances of the properly charged, under authority of Finney u. transaction.”. And it has been recently held Šmith, 31 Ohio St. 529; Stevenson v. Morris, that where the set off is sought by motion, the ante, 10, that if the jury found that Diehl was matter so far rests in the discretion of the court actuated by malice in causing Friester's arrest that the refusal of an order for such set off will and imprisonment, they might, in estimating not be reviewed on error. Chipman v. Fowle, compensatory damages, allow to the plaintiff 130 Mass. 352.

reasonable counsel fees in the prosecution of his Guided by this view of the law, courts have action. If such was the fact, and attorney's fees refused to order such set off where by granting were thus included in the verdict and judgment, it the just rights of assignees would be disturbed. upon what principal could Diehl be entitled to Ramsey's Appeal, supra. So it has been repeat them to the exclusion of the attorneys, who had edly held that where a debtor is entitled to hold not teen paid ? a judgment as property exempt from execution, Finally, it is said that the attorneys did not the object of the law being, not to exonerate the claim an allowance by the court of such fee, and debtor from the payment of his debts, but “to that the fee was allowed without evidence. But protect his family” (Sears o. Hanks, 14 Ohio St. we do not think this view is warranted. The 298, 301), a set off as to such judgment will not record does not contain the evidence, nor does it, be ordered. Curlee v. Thomas, 74 North Car. 51; | in terms, show any application for such allow

This pro



ance. But error will not be presumed. The The facts of the case, as disclosed by the recases were both tried in the same court, and cord, were as follows: doubtless before the same judge. The record On January 18th, 1872, Nolte delivered to shows that nothing could be collected from Fries- Hulbert his note for $2,500, to secure a loan of ter by process, and it may properly be assumed that amount, together with certain interest that when the motion for set off was presented, notes, the whole secured by mortgage upon city Hunter & Mallory suggested to the court that property. The principal 'note was due in two they had not been paid their fees, and that the

years after date. only way they could secure compensation was In August, 1873, one Steineke, a judgment credby an allowance out of the Friester judgment.itor of Nolte, brought suit against Nolte to obWhile the record does not show what evidence tain a sale of the mortgaged land to satisfy his was offered as to the value of their services, the judgment lien and for other relief. To this suit proof was no doubt satisfactory to the court; and, Hulbert was made a party defendant. On rebesides, as held in Ingham v. Lindemann, supra, ceipt of summons hê sent for Charles Cist, the amount was in some degree to be determined his regular attorney in such matters, and handed by the judge before whom the services were ren- to him the summons together with the notes endered from his own knowledge of their value. dorsed in blank and the mortgage, and took his Perhaps, indeed, there was an agreement be- | receipt therefor for collection. A cross-petition tween Friester and his attorneys as to the amount was filed on behalf of Hulbert asking that, if the of the fee and its lien, and that this was shown land should be sold to satisfy Steineke's lien, his to the court. However that may be, we hold rights might be protected and his claim satisfied that in any view there was

error in the from the proceeds of sale. courts below of which Diehl can complain.

While the suit was still pending the principal Judgment affirmed.

note became due and Hulbert then agreed with [This case will appear in 37 0. S.)

Nolte to extend it for another year. There is no

evidence to show whether or no Cist had knowlAGENCY-INNOCENT PARTIES.

edge of this agreement.

In March, 1874, the case was heard and decided SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.

and the land was ordered to be sold. No entry,

however, was made upon the minutes. HERMAN NOLTE, ET AL.,

Nolte, thereupon, fearing that the land would

be sacrificed engaged a broker to find a purchaser WILLIAM P. HULBERT, TRUSTEE.

at private sale. This broker applied to Cist, who

went to Seasongood, a capitalist, with whom he JANUARY 24, 1882.

had had many dealings of a like character and

between whom and himself existed relations of 8. brought suit against N. and others to obtain a sale of land to satisfy a judgment lien thereon. To this suit

perfect confidence. H. was made a party defendant, wbo, upon receipt of

Cist offered the land to Seasongood for $3,500, summons, gave to C., his regular attorney, certain notes and told him of the incumbrances upon it. endorsed by him in blank, together with a mortgage These he agreed to pay off out of the purchase upon the land to secure the same, for collection. C. caused a cross-petition to be filed on behalf of H.,

money and to furnish a certificate that the title setting up his mortgage lien. The court, upon trial, or

was clear. He said that he had in his possession dered the land to be sold to satisfy the liens of S. and H. Pending the suit, H. agreed with n. to extend the note

all the papers necessary to make a clear title. for a year from the time when it fell due. Before the

Thereupon Seasongood gave to Cist his check time so extended bad expired, N., fearing that the for $3,500, the latter agreeing to pay off all the land would be sacrificed, employed a broker who ap- liens upon the property and to obtain from Hulplied to C. to find a purchaser at private sale. C. went to J. S, and offered him the land for $3500,00, telling him

bert a cancellation of the mortgage when he of the mortgage and saying that he had in his possession

should return to the city. all the papers necessary to make a clear title. "J. S. paid The land was then conveyed by Nolte and wife him the money and directed him to pay off all the claims upon the land, including the mortgage of H. and to ob

to Seasongood. tain H.'s cancellation of the mortgage upon his return, Cist paid the costs and the Steineke claim but he being then absent. C. paid the costs and the claim of embezzled the remainder of the money and fled .8. but embezzled the remainder of the money. Held: That under this state of facts, C. acted as the

the city. agent of J. S., to make payment to H., and not as the

At the trial below in General Term, the case agent of H. to receive payment from J. S.; and that, as having been reserved, the court found that the between the two innocent parties, the loss must be borne by J.8.

facts did not show a payment of Hulbert's claim

and that the loss caused by Cist's dishonesty Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

ought to fall upon Seasongood rather than Hul, The action in the Court below was brought by bert and overruled a motion for a new trial. William P. Hulbert, trustee of Julia Harbeson, The proceeding in error is to review this judgagainst Herman Nolte and others to foreclose a ment. mortgage securing certain notes held by him against Nolte. The mortgaged property had .

Thomas McDougall and Jordan, Jordan & been conveyed by Nolte to Seasongood and by

Williams for plaintiffs in error. him to Dallas. These latter were both made par- Hoadly, Johnson & Colston for defendant in ties defendant to the suit.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



session of the noter and mortgage would have auThe only question before us necessary to a de- thorized Seasongood to deal with him as such termination of the case is whether, at the time agent. the check was given by Seasongood to Cist, the We are asked to hold that the mere fact of poslatter acted as Hulbert's agent to receive payment session of a note by an attorney will protect the or as Seasongcod's agent to make payment to Hulbert.

maker who pays to the attorney against the claim This is a question of mixed law and fact.

of the payee, and Patton v. Fullerton, 27 Maine, The maxim that“no man shall serve two mas

58, is cíted in support of the rule claimed. ters” does not prevent the same person from act- should not be prepared to subscribe to this docing as agent, for certain purposes, of two or more trine even in a case where the question necessarparties to the same transaction when their in

ily arose; nor do we think that Patton v. Fullerterests do not conflict, and where loyalty to the ton bears it out. In that case the additional and one is not a breach of duty to another. Thus the doings of Cist as Nolte's agent to pro- partial payments had been made by the debtor to

most important circumstance existed that prior cure å purchaser were not inconsistent with his

the unauthorized agent, which had been accepted duties to Hulbert as his agent to receive or to

by the creditor. We should long hesitate to hold Seasongood as his agent to make payment. that a maker of a note may safely pay it to one

The fact, if fact it be, that at the time Cist re- who has stolen it from the payee and who falsely ceived the check he had full authority as Hul- pretends to hold it for collection in the absence of bert's agent to receive payment would not pre- any other evidence of authority than the bare clude Seasongood from choosing to deal with him possession. Yet this is the result of the doctrine in a different capacity. He might prefer to deal

as claimed. directly with the principal and to receive his receipt rather than that of his agent: and for this

True, in the case at bar the notes had been enpurpose to appoint Cist his agent to make pay

dorsed in blank by Hulbert and had Seasongood ment. He had only Cist's statement that he was

relied on this and paid them he would have been Hulbert's agent and was in possession of the

safe: yet it appears that this fact was never notes and mortgage to evidence the fact of such

known to him or communicated to him by Cist. agency. Suppose he had doubted the truth of Upon the whole case we are clearly of opinion these statements would it not have been compe

that Seasongood did not deal with Cist in any tent for him to direct Cist to make payment to

manner as the agent of Hulbert or at any time Hulbert and to bring him his (Hulbert's) receipt suppose that in delivering to him his check he of satisfaction ? Clearly so.

was paying Hulbert's claim. Seasongood testified, "I gave Mr. Cist the “

We find no error in the judgment of the court money at the time he gave me the deed, May 9th, below. 1874; the certificate I got after, and I then believed Judgment affirmed. he had paid off the Hulbert mortgage,” and further

[This case will appear in 37 O. S.] in cross-examination he said, “ I took it for granted that he would take the money and pay off the mortgage, I trusted Mr. Mist to make the mortgage payment and get me a clear title.

It is also worthy of note that this was not the only transaction between Seasongood and Cist. They were in the habit of dealing together in matters of this kind.

Seasongood in another place says, “I always gave my check to him (Cist)

IOWA. in similar transactions nid trusted him to clear the title.

(Supreme Court.) From this it is manifest that at no time did Seasongood understand that when he gave his BON v. RAILWAY PASSENGER ASSURANCE Co. Oct, 20, check to Cist he was paying Hulbert's mortgage;

1881. on the contrary, he trusted and expected Cist to Accident Insurance.-Plaintiff having an accidental inmake the payment and to obtain for him Hul

surance ticket or policy, containing a provision that the bert's cancellation.

“ insurance shall only extend to bodily injuries, fatal or

non-fatal, as aforesaid, wben accidentally received by This conclusion is perhaps strengthened by the the insured while actually riding on a public conveyance circumstance that but one check was given to

provided by common carriers for the transportation of

passengers in the United States or dominion of Canada, cover all the several claims, that Cist was Season- and in compliance with all rules and regulations of such good's agent to pay off the costs in the Steineke carriers, and not neglecting to use due diligence for selfsuit and the judgment in favor of Steineke is be- protection," was riding upon a train of cars, and as the

same approached the station, and while it was slowing yond doubt. If he was to act in any other ca- up, went out on to the platform. While standing there, pacity in respect to Hulbert's claim would it not owing to a sudden jerk of the train, another passenger be natural to suppose that separate checks would

was precipitated against him, and he was by reason

thereof thrown from the car and severely injured. It was have been given ?

a regulation of the railroad company that passengers These considerations make it unnecessary to

should not stand on the platform, and plaintiff was aware inquire whether Cist actually had authority from

of such rule. Held, in an action upon such accident Hulbert to receive payment or whether his pos-.

policy, that upon such state of facts verdiot should bave been ordered for the defendant.

Digest of Decisions.



(Supreme Court.)

[New cases filed since our last report, up to Feb. 1, 1882.)

APPEL ET AL. v. BYERS ET AL. November 7, 1881.

Devise. -Testator gave all his real and personal estate after the death of his wife to“ my nephew Philip Byers." The jury returned a special verdict, finding that the testator died leaving two nephews, one Philip, son of Martin, legitimate ; another Philip, son of Louis, illegitimate; also that the nephew intended by the testator to inherit was Philip, the illegitimate nephew, the son of Louis, and this from evidence aliunde the will and not from the will itself. Held, that there being no ambiguity in the will, and there being only one legitimate Depbew, ovidence could not be admitted to sbow that the testator intended his illegitimate nephew, although the name in the will applied as fully to him as to the legitimate nepbow.

1029. The P. C. & St. L. R’y Co. v. Matthew M. Patton, adm'r. Error to the District Court of Harrison County. J. Dunbar for plaintiff; J. M. Estep for defendant.

1030. Wesley Cameron v. W. S. Capeller, Auditor and Luke A. Staly, Treasurer of Hamilton County. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County:. Yaple, Moos & Pattison and C. D. Robertson for plaintiff; Charles Evans and Goss & Peck for defendants.

1031. Jacob Pfau et al. v. The Cincinnati Ice Co. Er-, ror to the District Court of Hamilton County. Long, Kramer & Kramer for plaintiffs; Ramsey, Matthews & Matthews for defendant.

1032. Jacob Pfau et al. v. Peter Andrew. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County. Long, Kramer & Kramer for plaintiffs ; Coppock & Coppock for defendant.

1033. Jacob Pfau et al. v. Henry Adam. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County. Long, Kramer & Kramer for plaintiffs ; Ramsey, Matthews & Matthews for defendant.

1034. Charles Theis v. Mary Ryan. Error to the District Court of Brown County. Loudon & King for plaintiff; White, McKnight & White for defendant,



Agreement.-Where two men agree that each will loan a third a sum of money, one keeps and the other breaks his promise, no legal principle will enable the lender to compel the other promissor, as garnishee in an execution attachment, to pay what he had promised to loan to said third person.




CONNER V. LONG. (Supreme Court of the United States.)

February 1st-No. 8. Union Central Life Insurance Company v. Cheever.

February 1st-No. 25. Cross v. Winslow.

February 1st-Bloom v. United Railroad Stock Company.. Motion to vacate Injunction of Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.

February 2d-No. 386. Ohio ex rel. Brackney et al. v. Commissioners of Fayette County. Mandainus.

February 3d-No. 68. Sidener v. Hawes, adm'r, etc.

February 3d-No. 31. P. C. & 8t. L. Railway Company v. Ranney

February 16th-No. 959. J. H. Devereux et al. v. Hugb J. Jewett, Trustee, &c., et al. No. 963. Ohio ex rel. Attorney General v. William H. Vanderblt et al. Quo Warranto.

February 23d-No. 6. Shorten v. Drake et al. . No. 30. Pitts, Graham & Co. v. Foglesong.

February_23d-No 794. Elias Sima et al. v. The Brook. lyn Street Railroad et al.

February 24th-No. 23. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis R’y Co. v. Anderson, No. 24. Samo v. Shuss. No. 73. Samo v. McMillan.

December, 1881.

Conversion-Sherif - Attachment-Bankruptcy-Notice.An action of conversion cannot be maintained against a sheriff of a foreign jurisdiction for proceeding uuder an attachment after an adjudication in bankruptcy of tbe debtor, where no notice had been served upon him of the bankruptcy proceedings until after the sale and payment of the money to the plaintift in the attachment suit.

ROGERS V. LEE MINING CO. (Circuit Court, D. Colorado.)

December, 1881.

1. Attorney and Client-Purchase by Attorney pending Litigation.-When there is a pending litigation threatening a client's title to property, his attorney cannot, while acting as such, purchase the property. It is contrary to public policy to permit the purchase.

2. ibid-Purchase by Atiorney from Client-Duty of Attorney.-To sustain a sale from client to attorney, the latter must show that he has done as much to protect the client's interest as would have been done by him in the case of his client's dealing with a stranger.

3. Ibid-Ibid-Secret Brush Bona Fide Purchasers.When an attorney purchases from his client in his own name, but in secret trust for strangers, the latter cannot be regarded as innocent purchasers or entitled to greater rights than the attorney himself.

BOYD v. CLARK. (Circuit Court, E. D. Michigan.) Oct.

1881. Statutory Remedy-of Foreign State-Statute of Limitations.-Where a statute gives a right of action not known to the common law, and therein limits the time within which an action shall be brought, such limitation is operative in y other jurisdiction wherein the action is brought. FLAGG v. THE MANHATTAN RAILWAY Co. (Circuit Court,

8. D: New York.) December 21, 1881.

Railroad8-Lease of Road-Discretion of Directors to modify Rent. - Where two railway corporations have leased thoir property to third company at a certain rental, the directors of the three companies may afterwards modity the lease without the authority of the.stockbolders, reducing the amount to be paid by the lessee, and an in. junction will pot be granted at the suit of stockbolders to provent such modlication.

March 18t-No. 33. Little v, Eureka Firo and Marine Insurance Co. No. 34. Roland v. Meader Furniture Company.

March 2d-No. 18. Marietta & Cincinnati Railroad Company v. Western Union Telegraph Company.

March 3d-No. 37. Phænix Insurance Coinpany v. Priest, adm'r, etc. No. 39. Morris et al. v. Williams.

March 8th-No. 40. Crabill, ex'r v. Marsh. No. 50. City of Ironton v. Kelley and wife.

March 9th-No. 7. Dawson v. Obio and J. B. Koch. No. 74. Obio ex rel. Dawson et al. v. Board of Education of Wooster.

March 15—No. 114. Coppin v. The Greenloos & Rene som Company

« PreviousContinue »