author: Williams, J. Davis, J.

text:
    Lander, Treasurer of Cuyahoga County, v. Burke.

      Investments by domestic corporation stockholders not exempt from taxation — Except when property is taxed in this state in corporation name — Section 27J/6, Rev. Stat. — Domestic corporation does not cease to be such by accepting grant or property' in foreign state.

    1. Investments by residents of tbis state in tbe shares of stock of a corporation, whether domestic or foreign, are not exempt from taxation under section 2746 of the Revised Statutes, except when the property of the corporation is taxed in its name in this state.
    2. A corporation organized under the laws of this state does not cease to be such, nor become a foreign corporation, by accepting from another state or country a grant of the privilege of owning and using real and other property therein necessary or convenient in carrying on its corporate business.
    (Decided February 4, 1902.)

      Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.
    Theaction belowwas broughtby Stevenson Burke to enjoin the treasurer of Cuyahoga county from collecting taxes on various bonds and stocks which the auditor of that county, acting under sections 2781 and 2782, of the Revised Statutes, entered upon the duplicate for 1892, and charged thereon against the plaintiff, for that and the preceding five years. After the suit was brought all of the matters involved in the petition were adjusted and settled by the parties, except those which relate to the taxation of the shares of stock of the Canadian Copper Company, and the Anglo American Iron Company, owned by the plaintiff during the years in question. The action thereafter proceeded as one to enjoin the taxes assessed on those shares of stock, and the other allegations of the petition have become unimportant. With respect to those stocks the petition alleges, that the plaintiff, a citizen and resident of the city of Cleveland, owned and held 1750 shares of the stock of the Canadian Copper Company during each of the years 1887, 1888, and 1889; that he owned 2420 shares during 1890, and 2875 shares during each of the years 1891 and 1892; that he owned during each of the years 1890, 1891, and 3 892, 5000 shares of the stock of the Anglo American Iron Company; and, that he was the owner of no other shares of stock in either of those companies. The petition further avers that the stocks of both companies are altogether speculative, that they never paid any dividend or income of any kind, and are ■without any market value; and that, if the shares held by the plaintiff were subject to taxation in this state, the extreme value which should be assessed on the stock of the Copper company should not exceed $10 per share, and on the Iron company $3 per share. The petition then avers that both of said companies are Ohio corporations, organized and existing under the laws of this state, and were such during the years mentioned, each company during that period, and still, having its principal office in the county of Cuyahoga; that the property of each company is subject to taxation in this state, like other Ohio corporations; “and that, its stocks in the hands of its holders is expressly exempted from taxation under the statutes of Ohio, and the plaintiff was not by the law of Ohio under any obligation to return the said shares or any of them for taxation.” And the plaintiff avers that, he “omitted the said shares from his return, in good faith, after careful investigation, fully believing that he was not bound to return the same for taxation during any of said years.”
    The answer admits that the county auditor entered upon the duplicate of 1892, the shares of stock held by the plaintiff in the two companies referred to, charged up the taxes upon the same at the valuation fixed by the auditor, as alleged in the petition, and placed the duplicate in the hands of the treasurer for collection from the plaintiff. And, it alleges that none of the shares of stock of either company, so entered, “are or were shares of the capital stock of any company the capital stock of which was, at any of the times named in said petition, taxed in the name of such company in the state of Ohio.”
    The answer further admits that both said companies “were originally incorporated under the laws of this state, and that the principal office of each of said companies is, and was during all the time since the incorporation thereof, in the city of Cleveland, which incorporation, as to each of said companies, was had before the year 1887.” But it avers that all of the property, estate, assets, and plant representing the aggregate capital of “each of said companies, during all the years for which the said taxes were so charged upon the tax duplicate of said Cuyahoga county against the said plaintiff, as set forth and charged in his petition in this cause, (except less than one per cent, of the property of the Copper company for the year 1892) were located without the state of Ohio, and within the Dominion of Canada, and were during all of that time outside of the taxable jurisdiction of the state of Ohio, and so have been at all times since the incorporation of said companies.” It is then alleged -in the answer that in June, 1899, the Copper company,under certain acts of the Canadian parliament, acquired by grant from the duly constituted authorities of that government, the right and power to purchase and own real estate, for mining purposes, and to mine for ores, minerals and other substances, to buy and sell ores, minerals and other substances, and to manufacture the same into forms in which they are or can be used, and the like powers, privileges and rights for the due carrying on within the Province of Ontario, of its business, as completely as if the said company had been incorporated under the said Ontario Companies act, and to which said license, by express grant thereof, there was added the further right to hold lands theretofore acquired, and which said license and every part thereof is now still in full force and effect.” Similar allegations are made with respect to the grant of like rights by the Canadian parliament to the Iron company. The answer also contained a denial of the allegations of the petition, not expressly admitted.
    A general demurrer to this answer was sustained by the common pleas, and a perpetual injunction entered restraining the collection of the taxes as prayed for by the plaintiff.
    The case was taken to the circuit court on appeal where a like judgment was entered, from which the county treasurer has prosecuted error to this court.

      P.H. Kaiser; P. L. Taft; G. W. 'Gollister and Grant & Bieber, for plaintiff in error, cited the following authorities: '

      Myers v. Seaberger, 45 Ohio St., 232; Insurance Co. v. Ratterman, 46 Ohio St., 153; Railway Co. v. Supervisors, 93 U. S., 595; Tucker v. Furguson, 89 U. S. (22 Wall.), 527; Bradley v. Bauder, 36 Ohio St., 28; Sturges v. Carter, 114 U. S., 511; Van Allen v. Assessors, 70 U. S. (3 Wall.), 573; People v. Commissioners, 71 U. S. (4 Wall.), 244; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S., 679; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 129; Jones v. Davis, 35 Ohio St., 474; Hubbard v. Brush, 61 Ohio St., 252; Lee v. Sturges, 46 Ohio St., 153; Cincinnati College v. State, 19 Ohio, 110; Railroad v. Dennis, 116 U. S., 665; Railroad v. Guffey, 120 U. S., 569; Cooley on Taxation, (2 ed.) 204; Gager v. Prout, 48 Ohio St., 89; Ratterman v. Ingalls, 48 Ohio St., 468; Rheinboldt v. Raine, 52 Ohio St., 160; County of Redwood v. Winona Land Co., 40 Minn., 512; Weyerhaueser v. Minnesota, 176 U. S., 550; Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend., 9.

      Stevenson Burke and H. H. Poppleton, for defendant in error, cited the following authorities:

      Jones v. Davis, 35 Ohio St., 744; Lee v. Sturges, 46 Ohio St., 153; State v. Sherman, 22 Ohio St., 411; Railroad Co. v. Trust Co., 174 U. S., 552; Railroad Co. v. Railroad Co., 118 U. S., 290; Goodlet v.
      Railroad Co., 122 U. S., 391; Railway Co. v. James, 161 U. S., 545; Martin v. Railroad Co., 151 U. S., 673; Railroad Co. v. Harris, 79 U. S. (12 Wall.), 65; Bible Society v. Marshall, 15 Ohio St., 537.
   Williams, J.

The controlling facts which are admitted, are (1) that the Canadian Copper Company, and the Anglo American Iron Company., are both corporations organized under the laws of this state, in 1886, and have since continued to be such corporations, each haying its principal office in the city of Cleveland; (2) that since the incorporation of each company its property, except some inconsequential part, has been situated in the Dominion of Canada, beyond the taxing jurisdiction of this state, and has not been taxed nor returned for taxation in this state; and (3) that the defendant in error, was during that time, and still is a citzen and resident of the city of Cleveland, and the owner of a number of the shares of the stock of each of the companies, as alleged in his petition, which he omitted to return for taxation, and the county auditor caused the same to be entered on the duplicate of Cuyahoga county, and charged thereon against the defendant in error, the current taxes for the omitted years, with the statutory penalties;

These taxes it is claimed were illegally assessed and should be enjoined for the reason that the shares of stock held by the defendant in error in each of the corporations are exempt from taxation. This exemption is sought to be sustained under the provision of sections 2744, and 2746, of the Revised Statutes, which, as claimed by counsel, should be considered and construed together. They read as follows:

“Section 2744: The president, secretary, and principal accounting officer of every canal or slackwater navigation company, turnpike company, plank-rqad company, bridge company, insurance company, telegraph company, or other joint stock company, except banking or other corporations whose taxation is specifically provided for, for whatever purpose they may have been created, whether incorporated by any law of this state or not, shall list for taxation, verified by the oath of the person so listing, all the personal property, which shall be held to include all such real estate as is necessary to the daily operations of the company, moneys and credits of such company or corporation within the state, at the actual value in money, in manner following: In all cases return shall be made to the several auditors of the respective counties where such property may be situated, together with a statement of the amount of said property which is situated in each township, village, city or ward therein. The value of all movable property shall be added to the stationary and fixed property and real estate and apportioned to such wards, cities, villages, or townships, pro rata, in proportion to the value of the real estate and fixed property in said ward, city, village, or township, and all property so listed shall be subject to and pay the same taxes as other property listed in such ward, city, village or township. It shall be the duty of the accounting officer aforesaid to make return to the auditor of state during the month of May of each year of the aggregate amount of all property by him returned to the several auditors of the respective counties in which the same may be located. It shall be the duty of the auditor of each county, on or before the first Monday of May, annually, to furnish the aforesaid president, secretary, principal accounting officer, or agent the necessary blanks for the purpose of making aforesaid returns; but no neglect or failure on the part of the county auditor to furnish such blanks shall excuse any such president, secretary, principal accountant, or agent, from making the returns within the time specified herein. If the county auditor to whom returns are made is of the opinion that false or incorrect valuations have been made, or that the property of the corporation or association has not been listed at its full value, or that it has not been listed in the location where it properly belongs, or in cases where no return has been made to the county auditor, he is hereby required to proceed to have the same valued and assessed: provided, that nothing in this section shall be so construed as to tax any stock or interest in any joint stock company held by the state.”

Section 2746: “Personal property of every descrip' .tion, moneys and credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint stock companies, or otherwise, shall be listed in the name of the person who was the owner thereof on the day preceding the second Monday of April, in each year; but no person shall be required to list for taxation any share or shares of the capital stock of any company, the capital stock of which is taxed in the name of such company.”

Inasmuch as the capital stock of neither of the companies in question has ever been taxed in this state in the name of the company, the claimed exemption of the investments in their stocks, is not within the express terms of section 2746. The argument in support of that claim, when brought to its final analysis, is that, because all domestic corporations are required by section 2744, to list for taxation all of their personal property within the state, the provision of section 2746, for the exemption of investments in their stocks, becomes applicable and operative, though in fact no return is made of, nor tax imposed on the property of the corporation. In other words, it is urged that the requirement imposed upon such corporations to make return of their property, takes the place of actual return and taxation, ..and makes the exemption available, though the requirement be not complied with; the test of the exemption being, it is said, not in the location or situs of the property, nor in the fact of its actual taxation, but solely in the fact that the corporation is a domestic one, which is required to list its property. That construction, it must be admitted, changes, and somewhat enlarges the terms of the exemption as expressed in the statute. It will be observed that no distinction is made by section 2744 between domestic and foreign corporations with respect to their duty of listing their property for taxation. Its language is that, every corporation (except those whose taxation is otherwise specifically provided for) “for whatever purpose they may have been created, whether incorporated by any law of this state or not, shall list for taxation, all the personal property, which shall be held to include all such real estate as.is necessary to the daily operations of the company, moneys and credits of such company or corporation within the state, at the actual value in money,” etc. Nor is any distinction made by section 2746, with respect to the right of exemption from taxation of investments in the stocks of domestic corporations, and in those of foreign corporations. Its language is that, “no person shall be required to list for taxation any share or shares of the capital stock of any company, the capital stock of which is taxed in the name of such company.” So that, investments in the stocks of any corporation, foreign as well as domestic, are exempt from taxation when the capital stock of the corporation is taxed in its name in this state; and no investment in the stocks of either class of corporations is so exempt, unless its capital stock is so taxed in its name. The obligation imposed by the statute upon each class of corporations to return their property for taxation, is not equivalent to its actual return and taxation, nor sufficient to entitle the shareholder to the exemption of his shares from taxation. The purpose of this provision of section 2746, was, as is declared in Bradley v. Bauder, 36 Ohio St., 28, “to exempt from taxation the shares of stock in (all ) corporations, where the state had exercised the right to tax the capital stock in the name of the company,” but not otherwise. The right of exemption, therefore, cannot arise where the property of the corporation is situated without the limits and taxing jurisdiction of the state, for in such case there is no means by which the right or power of the state to tax the property in the name of the corporation can be exercised. It seems to be settled by the former adjudications of this court that the term “capital stock,” as used in section 2746, includes the personal property which by section 2744, corporations are required to return for taxation: Jones v. Davis, 35 Ohio St., 476; Lee v. Sturges, 46 Ohio St., 160; Hubbard v. Brush, 61 Ohio St., 255; Sturges v. Carter, 114 U. S., 511. And, since our taxing statutes can have no extra territorial operation, nor the taxing power of the state be exercised beyond is territorial limits, the tangible property of domestic corporations situated outside of the state necessarily escapes taxation here. Shares of their stock, however, held by citizens of this state, are within the control of the statute, and are made the subject of taxation separate and distinct from the corporate property. Investments in corporate stocks are classified with investments in bonds and other securities, and the former like the latter are generally income producing and profitable investments, and subject to the same rules of taxation, except, however, that the former are exempted from taxation under the statute, when the property of the corporation is taxed in this state. The right to this exemption does not depend upon whether the corporation is a foreign or domestic one, nor on the statutory duty to make return of its corporate property, but upon its actual return and taxation in this state. Hubbard v. Brush, 61 Ohio St., 252. This is as far as any right of exemption is expressly given. The court is without power to enlarge it. The statutory rule on the subject is contained .in section 2731, which provides that: “All property whether real or personal in this state, and whether belonging to individuals or corporations; and all moneys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks, or otherwise, of persons residing in this state, shall be subject to taxation, except only such as may be expressly exempted therefrom.” And it is the rule adopted by the courts that there can be no exemption of property from taxation unless the right of exemption is plainly expressed. Lee v. Sturges, 46 Ohio St., 157; Cincinnati v. State, 19 Ohio, 110, 115; Sturges v. Carter, 114 U. S., 511.

It is argued by counsel for the plaintiff in error that the two companies in question became foreign corporations by accepting from the Canadian government grants of the right to purchase and own real estate in that dominion for mining purposes, and to work the same, and the ore obtained in the carrying on of their business. In the view we have taken of the case, as already expressed, this question is not so important. If it were otherwise, the authorities cited by counsel would require a negative answer to the question. We think the courts below erred in sustaining the demurrer to the answer, and their judgments are,

Reversed and cause remanded with instructions to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Speak, JJ., concur.

Davis, J.

I dissent from the first proposition of the syllabus and from the judgment of reversal. Revised Statutes,' section 2744, has nothing to do with the question before the court. It' merely provides that all corporations, domestic or foreign, shall return for taxation their property which may be within the state. It doese not require corporations to return for taxation property which may not be within the state. It does not follow, therefore, that “inasmuch as the capital -stock of neither of the corporations in question has ever been taxed in this state in the name of the company, the claimed exemption of the investments in their stocks, is not toithin the express terms of section 2746.” The exemption claimed is provided for, if at all, in the last clause of section 2746, as follows: “but no person shall be required to list for taxation any, shares of the capital stock of any company the capital stock of which is taxed in the name of such company.” This clause makes no distinction between foreign and domestic corporations, nor does it prescribe where the capital stock shall be taxed, whether at home or abroad. The obvious purpose of the legislature was to avoid double taxation, for no amount of casuistry can justify double taxation in foro conscientiae. It is held by this court that for the purposes of taxation the capital stock is represented by whatever it is invested in. Jones v. Davis, 35 Ohio St., 476, 477. Upon this theory, if these corporations should be taxed on their property in Canada there would be no justice in compelling a citizen of Ohio to pay tax again on the same property merely because he is the holder of certificates of shares in the capital stock and lives in Ohio. And so, in my judgment, the legislature advisedly and intentionally made the unqualified exemption contained in section 2746, and it is pure legislation for this court to insert the word “domestic” before the word “company” and the words “in this state” after the word “taxed.” If the statute needs amendment, it is the province of the general assembly and not of the Supreme Court to amend it. '


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: .By the Court:

license: Public Domain

text:
    The State ex rel. Johnson v. The Annual State Board of Equalization of Railroads et al.

      Board constituted by sections 2811 and 2812, Rev. Stat. — Is board of equalization and not of appraisal.

    The board constituted by sections 2811 and 2812, Revised Statutes, is a board of equalization; it is not a board of appraisal.
    (Decided February 4, 1902.)
    Mandamus.
    The relator, a taxpayer, by his petition sets forth that the annual state board of equalization of railroads has, upon application and complaint of relator, refused to raise the aggregate value of railroads above that fixed by the boards of county auditors, which aggregate amount so returned is greatly below the actual value of the property within the state of such companies, and asks that a writ of mandamus issue commanding tlie board and the members thereof to convene forthwith at the office of the auditor of state at the state capital, and then appraise and equalize the properties of the railroad companies, which were theretofore appraised by the boards of county auditors, the reports of which were filed with the auditor of state, and that in making such appraisal and equalization they determine and fix the said values duly equalized at the true value in money of said properties, limited, however, in performing said duties as by law provided, that the aggregate values so equalized shall not be less than the amount returned by the boards of county auditors, and that in performing their duties they be not limited by the valuation of the property of such companies if found hy the board undervalued so that the aggregate value of the property of the railroad companies within the state as returned by the boards of auditors is below the true value of the said property.
    To tin's petition a demurrer has been filed by the attorney general, averring that the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the cause was argued and submitted on that demurrer.

      W. A.. Babcock; M. W. Beacom and Newton I). Baker, for plaintiff, cited the following authorities:

      Karb v. State, 54 Ohio St., 383; State v. Halliday, 61 Ohio St., 352; United States v. Hodson, 77 U. S. (10 Wall.), 395; Cornwall v. Todd, 38 Conn., 433; Cooley’s Const. Lim., 184; Hankin v. People, 106 Ill., 628; 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2 ed.), 4; 25 U. S. (12 Wheat.), 210; Dwarris Cons, of Statutes, 179; 1 Kent, 464; State v. Raine, 47 Ohio St., 447; Gaylord v. Hubbard, 56 Ohio St., 25; People v. Lothrop, 3 Col., 428;
      People v. Ames, 60 Pac. Rep., 346; State v. Equalization Board, 18 Mont., 473; State v. Fortune, 24 Mont, 154; Kittle v. Shervin, 11 Neb., 65; State v. Edwards, 31 Neb., 369; Whitbeck v. Bank, 127 U. S., 193; Bank v. Chapman, 173 U. S., 205.

      J. ill. Sheets,, Attorney General; J. E. Todd and SW. Bennett, for defendants, cited the following authorities:

      Hankin v. People, 106 Ill., 628; Black Interp. of Laws, 212; Coal Company v. Rosser, 53 Ohio St., 12.
   .By the Court:

The issue of law raised is whether or not the annual board of equalization of railroads has power to act as a board of appraisers, and, if satisfied that it ought to be done, proceed to increase the aggregate value of the railroads of the state for the purposes of taxation in excess of that fixed and returned by the boards of county auditors.

We answer the question in the negative. The power delegated to this board is given by sections 2811 and 2812 of the Revised Statutes, by the provisions of which it is made the duty of the board to equalize the values of the property of railroad companies as the same are fixed by the county auditors by adding to the valuation of the property of such companies as have been undervalued, and deducting from the valuation of the property of such as have been overvalued, not, however, reducing the aggregate; and when the board has complied with these requirements, its duties are fully performed.

Demurrer sustained and petition dismissed.

Min shall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


author: By ti-ie Court:

text:
    The National Union v. Stoll.

      Endorsement by judge of bill of exceptions — Not extension of time for signing same, when.

    An endorsement by a trial judge upon a bill of exceptions, of an extension of time for filing such bill, is not in legal effect an extension of the time for signing the same.
    (Decided February 4, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.
    The motion for a new trial was overruled and judgment rendered on the verdict on the 28th day of December; 1898^ The bill of exceptions was delivered to the trial judge, February 11, 1899. The following was written upon the bill of exceptions, February 15, 1899: “Leave is hereby given to file this bill of exceptions within ten days next after the expiration of the fifty days allowed by law. Jno. P. Murphy, Judge.”
    On the next day, February 16, 1899, the following was placed upon the journal of the court:
    “For good cause shown, and on motion of counsel for defendant, the time for allowing and signing the bill of exceptions presented by defendant in this cause is hereby extended for a period not exceeding ten days beyond the expiration of the 50 days, next after the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and said extension is this day endorsed by the court, the trial judge on said bill of exceptions, to which ruling plaintiff hereby excepts.”
    On February 23, 1899, the trial judge allowed and signed the bill: a proper entry was placed on the journal, and the bill was then duly filed.

      A petition in error having been filed in the circuit court, that court on motion of defendant in error, struck the bill of exceptions from the files, to which plaintiff excepted, and took a proper bill of exceptions. The judgment was then affirmed, and thereupon the plaintiff in error came here seeking to reverse the order of the circuit court striking the bill of exceptions from the files.

      Lawrence Maxioell, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

      Theodore Horstman, for defendant in error, cited the foliowing authorities:

      Neuman v. Becker, 54 Ohio St., 323; Shillito v. Thacker, 43 Ohio St., 63; Rankin v. Sanderson, 35 Ohio St., 482; Wagner v. Ziegler, 44 Ohio St., 59; Bowen v. Gazlay, 4 Circ. Dec., 440; 8 C. C. R., 256; Johnson v. Johnson, 10 Circ. Dec., 411; 19 C. C. R., 610; Bacon v. Noble, 11 Circ. Dec., 49; 20 C. C. R., 281; Hill v. Bassett, 27 Ohio St., 597; Burk v. Railway Co., 26 Ohio St., 643; Heffner v. Moyst, 40 Ohio St., 112; Railroad Co. v. Kirchner, 3 Circ. Dec., 420; 6 C. C. R., 211; Meyer v. Schreder, 6 Re., 1083; 10 Am. Law Rec., 309; 6 Bull., 698; Young v. Shallenberger, 53 Ohio St., 291; Palmer v. Orcott, 4 Circ. Dec., 259; 9 C. C. R., 227, 229; Heingartner v. McLean, 1 O. S. C. D., 673; 38 Bull., 182.
   By ti-ie Court:

By section 5302, Revised Statutes, the trial judge, not the court, may extend the time for signing a bill of exceptions for a period not exceeding ten-days beyond the expiration of fifty days; which extension must be endorsed on the bill of exceptions by the trial Judge.

There is no authority by statute for entering this extension of time upon the journal of ¡the court, but it must be endorsed on the bill by the trial judge. There is no time expressly fixed by statute wherein a bill of exceptions shall be filed, and therefore-the extension of time- allowed for filing the bill, would not include the signing upon the principle that the greater includes the less, for the reason that an extension of- time for filing is not provided for, and therefore such unauthorized extension could not include an extension for signing.

As there was no extension of time for signing the bill endorsed on the bill by the trial judge, the bill was signed after the time allowed by law, and the circuit court was right in striking the same from the files.

Judgment affirmed.

Minsi-iall, C. J., Williams, Burkist, Spear and DaVis, JJ., concur.


author: By the Court:

text:
    The State of Ohio ex rel. Witham v. Nash, Governor, et al.

      Infirmary director not required to give bond before first Monday in January, tohen.

    An infirmary director is not required to give bond before the first Monday of January., when his- term of office begins, but must give bond before entering on the discharge of his duties as such infirmary director.
    (Decided February 7, 1902.)
    Mandamus.
    The relator says that the defendants, are the governor and secretary of state. That “on the 5th day of November, A. D., 1901, one Thomas W. Hill was elected to the office of infirmary director of Clermont county, Ohio, for a term of three years to begin on the first Monday in January next after his election. A commission was duly issued to said Thomas W. Hill by the defendant herein, and the same was delivered to him by the clerk of the court of common pleas of Clermont county, Ohio, on the first Monday in January, A. D. 1902, but said Thomas W. Hill failed and neglected to give a bond to the state of Ohio for the faithful performance of his duties upon said day, it being the sixth day of January, A. D., 1902, or upon any day prior thereto, and neither did he file or cause to be filed with the board of commissioners of said county upon said day or any day prior thereto for their approval a bond as aforesaid, but attempted to enter upon the discharge of the duties of said office on the sixth day of January, A. D., 1902, without executing or filing any bond as aforesaid.
    “Relator further says that said Thomas W. Hill, on the seventh day of January, A. D., 1902, executed to the state of Ohio a bond for the faithful performance of his duties and presented the same to the prosecuting attorney of said county for his certificate as to its sufficiency who refused to approve the same because not filed or presented on or before the first Monday in January, A. D., 1902, and before the said Thomas W. Hill entered upon the discharge of his duties. Said bond was filed in the auditor’s office of said county on the seventh day of January, A. D., 1902, and on the fifteenth day of January was presented to the board of county commissioners of Clermont county, Ohio, for their approval who refused to approve the same' for the following reasons which were duly entered on the journal of said board, to-wit: “Phis day Thomas W. Hill who was elected to the office of infirmary director of Clermont county, Ohio, at the November election, A. D., 1901, presented to the board for approval, a bond for the faithful discharge of his duties, and it appearing from an inspection of said bond that the same was not executed nor filed in the office of the board until the seventh day ©f January, A. D., 1902, and it further appearing that the certificate of the prosecuting attorney as to the sufficiency of said bond was not entered thereon as required by law, the board thereupon refused to approve said bond.’
    “Thereupon the board caused to be spread upon their journal a resolution declaring said office vacant, and appointing relatpr to fill said vacancy of which the following is a copy, to-wit: ‘It appearing to the board that Thomas W. Hill who was elected to the office of infirmary director of Clermont county, Ohio, at the November election, A. D., 1901, has failed and neglected to execute and file his bond for the faithful performance of his duties on or before the first Monday in January, A. D., 1902, as required by law, and it further appearing that by reason of his so failing to qualify and file said bond as required by law, there is now a vacancy in the office of infirmary director of said county. On motion of W. H. Wood, seconded by John Sutton, Mr. C. P. Witham is hereby appointed to fill said vacancy.’
    “Relator further says that said Thomas W. Hill was in his usual health and fully able to execute a bond prior to the first Monday in January, A. D., 1902, and the board of county commissioners were in session in said county every two weeks from the November election, A. D., 1901, to the first Monday in January, A. D., 1902, yet the said Thomas W. Hill failed and neglected to file a bond as aforesaid during said period.

      “Relator further says that on the sixteenth day of January, A. D., 1902, he forwarded by mail to defendant, Hon. L. C. Laylin, secretary of state, at Columbus, Ohio, a duly certified copy of the foregoing resolution appointing relator to fill said vacancy in the office of infirmary ‘director of said county, together with a fee of five dollars therefor asking that upon the filing of said certified copy of appointment as aforesaid that the defendants issue to relator a commission to fill said vacancy to which relator has been appointed as aforesaid.
    “Relator further says that the secretary of state duly received said certified copy of the foregoing resolution appointing relator to fill said vacancy, yet the defendants refused and neglected and still refuse to issue a commission to relator to fill said vacancy, although requested so to do.
    “Relator further says,that he is without remedy in the premises unless it be afforded by this honorable court.
    “Wherefore relator prays a writ of mandamus issue out of this court requiring defendants to show cause why they should not issue a commission to relator to fill vacancy as aforesaid, 'and for such further relief as is just and proper.”
    The defendants demur to this petition for the reason that the same does not state facts sufficient to warrant the relief therein prayed for.

      G. B. Nichols, Prosecuing Attorney, and W. F. Roudebush, for the relator.

      George W. Huliclc; Louis Hicks and J. R. WoodHef, for defendants.
   By the Court:

An infirmary director must give bond “before entering on the discharge of his duties.” Revised Statutes, section 960. In this respect the law differs from that governing the bond of a sheriff, which prescribes that a sheriff shall give bond “within ten days after receiving his commission and before the first Monday of January.” State ex rel. Poorman v. Commissioners, 61 Ohio St., 506. The term of office of an infirmary director begins on the first Monday in January; but the actual discharge of the duties of such officer does not necessarily begin with his term. The petition does not show that Hill performed any official duty prior to the giving of the bond on January 7, 1902, which was the day after the first Monday in January; but it does show that the board of county commissioners refused to approve I-Iill’s bond solely because it appeared from the bond that it was not executed nor filed in the office of the board until the 7th day of January, 1902, and that the prosecuting attorney had not certified the sufficiency of the bond for the same reason. This was not enough to authorize the commissioners to consider the office va.cant, under Revised Statutes, section 19, and to proceed to fill the vacancy, under Revised Statutes, section 959. The demurrer is therefore sustained and the

Petition dismissed.

Wiluiams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Si-iauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7006.
    Sturgis et al. v. Cook, Admr., et al.
    (Decided June 25, 1901.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Riebland county.

      H. B. Dirlam and Addison & Hosmer, for plaintiffs in error.

      Jenner & Weldon, for defendants in error.
   Judgment modified as per journal entry.

Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauok, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7057.
    Bowles, Exr., v. Arnold et al.
    (Decided June 25, 1901.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Follett, Kelley & Follett; Milton Setter and Ohetrles Follett, for plaintiffs in error.

      Swing, GttsMng & Morse; G. B. Matthews and George B. Goodhart, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7064.
    McIlhenny v. Railway Company.
    (Decided June 25, 1901.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

      J. B. Mcllhenny and IF. A. Pohlman, for plaintiff in error.

      Charles Darlington, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minsi-iall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7065.
    Gordan, Exr., v. Pontius, Receiver.
    (Decided June 25, 1901.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Wyandot county.
    ■ L. K. Powell; J. IF. Barry; B. B. 'Newell and IF. It. Bare, for plaintiff in error.
    D. D. Clayton, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis aud Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7073.
    Martin et al., Exrs., v. Dershem et al.
    (Decided June 25, 1901.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Darke county.

      Allread cG Teegarden • Devor c& Devor and D. P. Irwin., for plaintiffs in error.

      H. F. Dershem and A mlerson cG Bowman, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Monger v. Jeffries, 62 Ohio St., 149.

Minshall, O. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7388.
    Ferguson et al., Trustees, v. Cincinnati.
    (Decided June 25, 1901.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      W. T. Porter, for plaintiffs in error.

      Charles J. Hunt, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7389.
    Hill v. State of Ohio.
    (Decided June 25, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Wyandot county.

      Finley cG Gallinger and 'Wright & Leuthold, for plaintiff in error.

      Benjamin Meek, Prosecuting Attorney, for defendant in error. •
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams and Burket, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7555.
    State ex rel. Attorney General v. Ketter et al.
    (Decided June 25, 1901.)
    Quo Warranto.

      J. M. Sheets, Attorney General; J. E. Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Smith W. Bennett, for plaintiff.

      W. M. A nipt, for defendants.
   The court is of opinion that the act passed April 14, 1900, entitled “an act for the protection of life and property in cities of the first grade of the first class,’’ (94 O. L., 611) is unconstitutional and the demurrer to the petition is therefore overruled, and judgment, of ouster rendered against the defendants, on the authority of Cincinnati v. Steinkamp, 54 Ohio St., 284.

Minshall, G. J., Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7095.
    White v. Village of Cedarville.
    (Decided June 28, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Greene’county.

      J. C. Cook, for plaintiff in error.

      Marcus Shoup, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, concur.


text:
    No. 7061.
    Bartram v. Thatcher et al.
    (Decided October 1, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Marion county.

      S. H. Bartram and Gopeland é Bartram, for plaintiff in error.

      J. F. McNeal & Sons, for defendants in error.
   Judgment reversed and judgment rendered as per journal entry.


text:
    No. 7087.
    Bank v. Standard Wagon Company et al.
    (Decided October 1, 1901.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Herron', Gatch <& Herron, for plaintiff in error.

      Lawrence Maxwell, Jr.; Edward Ritchie and Thornton M. Hinlcle, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7090.
    Brooks v. Building and Loan Company et al.
    (Decided October 1, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hardin county.

      Stillings & Stillings and John A. Price, for plaintiff in error.

      W. P. Henderson; James Watt and Or oto dl Durbin, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7199.
    Insurance Company v. Lock et al.
    (Decided October 1, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Licking county.

      J. V. Hilliard and 'Maxwell & Ramsey, for plaintiff in error.

      S. T. James; Kibler & Kibler and Flory & Flory, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ.. concur.


text:
    No. 7282.
    Faloon et al. v. Snyder.
    (Decided October 1, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Ottawa county.

      Charles E. Burolcer and Hunt & DeRan, for plaintiffs in error.

      George A. True and Andrews Bros., for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7283.
    Faloon et al. v. Snyder et al.
    (Decided October 1, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Ottawa county.

      Charles E. Buroher and Bunt & DeRan, for plaintiffs in error.

      George A. True and Andrews Bros., for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket,- Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7320.
    Bank v. Cincinnati et al.
    (Decided October 1, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly and Burch & Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

      Frank F. Dinsmore; Gorman & Thompson; Bromwell & Bruce; Charles J. Hunt; A. J. Cunningham and Lloyd P. Bean, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7365.
    City of Toledo v. Mathews.
    (Decided October 1, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Moses R. Brailey and Charles E. Friedman, for plaintiff in error.

      Sotothard & Love and Marshall d) Fraser, for defendant in error.
   The judgment of the circuit court reversing the common pleas is affirmed on the first ground stated in the record, on the authority of Schweinfurth v. Railway Co., 60 Ohio St., 215.

Williams, Burket and Spear, JJ., concur.

Williams and Spear, JJ., are of opinion that the judgment should also be affirmed on the second ground.


text:
    No. 6377.
    Morrison v. Bank.
    (Decided October 8, 1901.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith dt Hoadly and Spots-wood D. Bowers, for plaintiff in error.

      Sayler d- Sayler, for defendant in error.
   Former judgment adhered to.

Williams, Burket and Speár, JJ., concur.

Minshall, O. J., Davis and Shauok, JJ., dissent.


text:
    No. 6404.
    Board of Commissioners v. State ex rel. Shoup.
    (Decided October 8, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Greene county.

      Little é Spencer, for plaintiff in error.

      Marcus Shoup, Prosecuting Attorney, and M. J. Hartley, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7017.
    Smith, Admrx., et al. v. Lauer et al.
    (Decided October 8, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Seneca county.

      Seney & Sayler, for plaintiffs in error.

      Dore & Dore, for defendants in error.
   Judgment, affirmed.

Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7083.
    Simmons v. Calhoun.
    (Decided October 8, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Madison county.

      Selwyn N. Owen and R. H. McCloud, for plaintiff in error.

      M. S. Murray and John A. Lincoln, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court vacated and cause remanded to that court to consider bill of exceptions.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7088.
    Moffitt, Admr., v. Powell et al.
    (Decided October 8, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Putnam county.

      Handy &\ Unverferth and J. S. Ogan, for plaintiff in error.

      Watts & Moore and George J. Ghapman, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear and Shauok, JJ., concur. '


text:
    No. 7105.
    Quinn, Admx., et al. v. Burkey & Gay Furniture Co.
    (Decided October 8, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      McGuire & Galbraith and Samuel Marriott, for plaintiffs in error.

      Twitchell cG Hartman and L. O. Mengert, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauok, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7109.
    State Building & Loan Co. v. Baker et al.
    (Decided October 8, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Herrick & Hopkins, for plaintiff in error.

      W. W. Boynton and Horton T. Horr, for defendants in error.

      Herrick & Hopkins, for defendants in error cross-petitioners.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7341.
    Mitchell v. The State.
    (Decided October 8, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Muskingum county.

      McHenry & O’Heal and A. J. Andrews, for plaintiff in error.

      J. M. Sheets, Attorney General; G. G. Lemert, Prosecuting Attorney, and George K. Browning, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7384.
    Kline, Treasurer, v. Born & Company.
    (Decided October 8, 1901.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Hocking county.

      Wright & Pettit and J. M. McGillivray, for plaintiff in error.

      John A. Oaklwell and S. Weldy, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7682.
    State ex rel. Attorney General v. Guarantee Savings & Loan Company.
    (Decided October 8, 1901.)
    Quo Warranto.

      J. M. Sheets, Attorney General; J. E. Todd, Assistant Attorney General and Smith W. Bennett, for plaintiff.

      Smith & Taft, for defendant trustees.
   Judgment of ouster and appointment of trustees as per journal entry.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis ■and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7082.
    Kalb v. Bank et al.
    (Decided October 15, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Allen county.

      Gable & Parmenter, for plaintiff in error.

      Richie, Leland & Roby and Ridenour & Halfhill, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7175.
    Larwill v. Smith et al.
    (Decided October 15, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Licking county.

      Kibler é Kibler, for plaintiff in error.

      Jerome Buckingham; Carl Norpell and John David J ones, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7377.
    Street Railway Company v. Westenhuber.
    (Decided October 15, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Smith & Baker, for plaintiff in error.

      Surd, Brumback <£\ Thatcher, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur. •


text:
    No. 7473.
    Fenner v. City of Cincinnati.
    (Decided October 15, 1901.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Ellis C. Kinkead; S. K. Rogers and Challen B. Ellis, for plaintiff in error.

      Charles J. Sunt; Charles W. Scott and Frank F. Dinsmore, for defendants in error.
   On consideration whereof this court being of opinion that the act of April 26,1898, entitled “an act supplementary to section 2293, of the Revised Statutes of Ohio” (93 O. L., 374), is unconstitutional, and that the superior court at general term erred in reversing the judgment of that court in special term. It is ordered and adjudged that on the ground above stated the judgment of said superior court at general term be, and the same is hereby reversed. And proceeding to render the judgment which said court at general term should have rendered it is ordered and adjudged that the said judgment of said court at special term be and the same is hereby in all things affirmed.

Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.

Minshall, C. J., and Williams, J., dissent.


text:
    No. 6432.
    Insurance Company v. Mieritz.
    (Decided October 22, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Meyer Mooney, for plaintiff in error.

      Jay P. Dawley; Frank A. Beecher and Foran & Mc-Tighe, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6456.
    Railway Company v. Ficker, Jr.
    (Decided October 22, 1901.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly, for plaintiff in error.

      Scott Bonham, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed and judgment of the special term affirmed.

Minshall, O. J., Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7154.
    Brimson v. The State.
    (Decided October 22, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Warren county.

      R. E. Hamil and Runyan & Stanley, for plaintiff in error.

      G. B. Dechant, Prosecuting Attorney; William 'McDonald and Brandon & Burr, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams and Spear, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7168.
    Railway Company v. Kindell.
    (Decided October 22, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      H. F. Burket; Watts & Moore and George Chapman, for plaintiff in error.

      John Poe and Gable & Parmenter, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.

Burket, J., did not sit in the case.


text:
    No. 7746.
    State ex rel. Yersin v. Swing et al.
    (Decided October 22, 1901.)
    In Mandam

      George F. Bailey, for plaintiff.

      J. R. Foraker and J. A. Runyan, for defendants.
   Peremptory writ refused.

Minshall, O. J., Williams, Bueket, Speae, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6726.
    Western Gas Construction Co. v. Morgan Boiler et al.
    (Decided October 29, 1901.)
    Eeeoe to the Circuit Court of Summit county.

      Robertson & O’Rourke and Musser & Kohler, for plaintiff in error.

      Grant & Sieber; Edwin F. Voris; Allen & Cobbs and 8. G. Rogers, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, O. J., Williams, Bueket, Speae, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6784.
    Ranney, a Minor, v. Ranney et al.
    (Decided October 29, 1901.)
    Eeeoe to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Boynton & Horr, for plaintiff in error.

      C. W. Fuller and W. B. Sanders, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed^

Williams, Burket, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6871.
    Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Railway Company.
    (Decided October 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Wm. L. Dickson, for plaintiff in error.

      S. O. Bayless; John T. Dye and Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6872.
    Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided October 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Wm. L. Dickson, for plaintiff in error.
    Sí. O. Bayless; John T. Dye and Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith <& Hoadly, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6926.
    Railway Company v. Village of Clyde.
    (Decided October 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Sandusky county.

      John T. Dye and Kelly <£\ Merrill, for plaintiff in error.

      J. C. Craig and S. S. Richards, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Railway Co. v. Bowling Green, 57 Ohio St., 336, and Village of St. Marys v. Railroad Co., 60 Ohio St., 136.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7352.
    Guthrie v. Guthrie.
    (Decided October 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Tuscarawas county.-

      M.T. Ream, for plaintiff in error.

      P. S. Olmstead, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7760.
    Board of Deputy State Supervisors of Elections v. Johnson.
    (Decided October 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      J. M: Sheets, Attorney General; J. E. Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Smith W. Bennett, for plaintiff in error.

      White, Johnson, McCaslin & Gannon, for defendant In error.
   Judgment of the circuit court and that of the common pleas reversed and petition of relator dismissed.

Minshall, O. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7219.
    Campbell v. Quinn et al.
    (Decided November 1, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Boss county.
    Wto. Edgar Evans and H. W. Woodrow, for plaintiff in error.

      R. A. Harrison; Lawrence T. Heal and Albert Douglas, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.

Minshall, C. J., not sitting.


text:
    No. 7438.
    State of Ohio v. Killits.
    (Decided November 1, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Williams county.

      R. L. Starr and John W. Winn, for plaintiff in error.

      John M. Killits, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Davis and 'Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7540.
    Hibbard, Etc. et al. v. State of Ohio.
    (Decided November 1, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Moses R. Brailey and Charles K. Friedman, for plaintiffs in error.

      I. N. Huntsberger, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the opinion of the circuit court, same case, 22 C. C. Rep., 267.

Minshall, O. J., Williams, Burket, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7212.
    Custer v. New Philadelphia.
    (Decided November 12, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Tuscarawas county.

      Richards & McCullough and J. W. Yeagley, for plaintiff in error.

      E. S. Douthitt, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7227.
    Coombs v. Kemplay et al.
    (Decided November 12, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Perry county.

      Waldo Taylor and Donahue, Spencer &\ Donahue, for plaintiff in error.

      H. D. Cochran and J. E. Poioell, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burnet, Davis and Shaucn, JJ., concur.

Spear, J., absent.


text:
    No. 7332.
    City of Youngstown et al. v. Bonnell et al.
    (Decided November 12, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      S. S. Conroy, for plaintiffs in- error.

      Hiñe &\ Kennedy, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the authority of Railway Co. v. Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St., 465.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burnet, Spear, Davis and Shaucn, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7547.
    Pinney et al. v. Linthwaite.
    (Decided November 12, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Edward L. Taylor, Jr., Prosecuting Attorney; Augustus T. Seymour; Karl T. Webber; Gfeorge B. Olcey; James A. Allen and W. E. English, for plaintiffs in error.

      Won. J. Ford; S. (x. Osborn and Taylor d\ Taylor, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6396.
    Brigel et al. v. Kittredge et al.
    (Decided November 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      O. W. Baker and J. R. Sayler, for plaintiffs in error.

      Kittredge & Wilby and Laiorenee Maxwell, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6420.
    Wichman v. Oil Company.
    (Decided November 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Frank O’Farrell; W. W. Campbell and Beard & Beard, for plaintiff in error.

      King & Tracy, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6452.
    Midler v. Lozier Manufacturing Company.
    (Decided November 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Touvelle, Masters é Adams and J. Kent Hamilton, for plaintiff in error.

      Brown & Geddes and Charles A. Sehmettau, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7091.
    Worthington v. Hottois et al.
    (Decided November 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Dickey, Breioer & McGowan and C. Everett Wash-burn, for plaintiff in error.

      Charles E. Penneioell and Amos Denison, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Buricet and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7114.
    McCray, Assignee, v. Bank et al.
    (Decided November 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Crawford county.

      Donnell & Marriott and T. 7. McOray, for plaintiff in error.

      Johnston &i Leiois; W. J. Geer and J. W. Coulter, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7118.
    Railway Company v. Betts.
    (Decided November 19, 1901.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Crawford county.

      E. A. Foote and John T. Dye, for plaintiff in error.

      Beer & Monnette and R. Ü. Miller, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of tbe circuit court reversed and that of tbe common pleas affirmed.

Minsi-iall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7145.
    Marvin v. Fellers et al.
    (Decided November 19, 1901.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      J ohn Poe, for plaintiff in error.

      J. A. &F.Y. Bope; Ross & Kinder and A. G. Fuller, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams and Shauck, JJ., concur.

Burket, J., not sitting.

Spear, J., absent.


text:
    No. 7197.
    Robertson v. Consolidated Boat Store Co. et al.
    (Decided November 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Pogue & Pogue, for plaintiff in error.

      John O. Eealy, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Wit hams, Spear and Síiauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7297.
    (Decided November 19, 1901.)
    Railway Company v. Blinn.
    Error to the Circuit Court of Crawford county.

      Doylé & Letois and Beer d\ Monnette, for plaintiff in error.

      Finley & Gallinger; Dan Bahst and B. W. Joimson. for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed and cause remanded to the circuit court with instructions to consider and pass upon the questions presented in the bill of exceptions.

Minshall, C. J., Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7375.
    Kepner et al. v. Alspach et al.
    (Decided November 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Phelps & David and J eróme D. Greed, for plaintiffs in error.

      John Poe and Axline & Betts, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7412.
    Portsmouth Street Railway and Light Co. v. Russel, Admx.
    (Decided November 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Scioto county.

      A. T. Holcomb; F. B. Finney and Duncan Livingstone, for plaintiff in error.

      Noah J. Dever and Ed. II. Walsh, for defendant in error.
   Judgment vacated and cause remanded to the circuit court with instructions to consider and pass upon the questions presented in the bill of exceptions.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7544.
    Beard, Admr., v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided November 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Licking county.

      S. M. Hunter and Flory & Flory, for plaintiff in error.

      Kibler A Kibler, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6446.
    Desmond & Ryan et al. v. Roth et al.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Denis F. Gash and Pogue & Pogue,.for plaintiffs in error.

      Lawrence Maxwell, Jr.; Robertson c& Buchwalter and Robert G. Pugh, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6458.
    Moore v. Fieg et al.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      William Howell and George L. Phillips, for plaintiff in error.

      Hessenmueller & Bemis, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6459.
    Moore v. Mueller et al.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      William Howell and Georye L. Phillips, for plaintiff in error.

      Hessenmueller é\ Bemis, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6460.
    Moore v. Shultz et al.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      William Hoioell and George L. Phillips, for plaintiff in error.

      Hessenmueller & Bemis, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Wu.liams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6466.
    City of Zanesville v. Martin.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Muskingum county.

      Charles G. Griffiths, City Solicitor; C. A. Maxwell and A. J. Andrews, for plaintiff in error.

      C. M. Vandenbark and 8. M. Winn, for defendant in error.-
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6469.
    Goodrich et al. v. Mason.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      W. B. Beclortha and E. G-. Johnson, for plaintiffs in error.

      N. L. Johnson, for defendant in error. ’
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6479.
    Neff, Admx., v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Pickaway county.

      Abernethy & Folsom, for plaintiff in error.

      J. H. Collins, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6502.
    Kittredge v. Suburban Delivery Company.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      J. W. Warrington and Kittredge & Wilby, for plaintiff in error.

      E. W. Strong, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6509.
    H. B. Claflin Company v. Friend, Assignee, et al.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Seneca county.

      McCauley & Weller, for plaintiff in error.

      Jessee Stephens; A. J. Stackhouse; Charles A. Strauch; J. M. Bever; J. G. Royer and J ohn Bender, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6535.
    Pavey, Admr., v. Cox, Admx.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Fayette county.

      Ulric Sloane and J ohn Logan, for plaintiff in error.

      Mills Gardner; Charles C. Pavey and Joseph Sidy, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7116.
    State of Ohio v. Hill.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Exceptions by the prosecuting attorney to the ruling of the court of common pleas of Jackson county.

      A. E. Jacobs, for plaintiff.

      Elmer G. Poioell, for defendant.
   Exceptions sustained on the authority of Burke v. State, 34 Ohio St., 79; Hamilton v. State, 34 Ohio St., 82.

Minshall, O. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7125.
    Village of East Palestine v. Bower.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

      G. O. Rotlnoell, for plaintiff in error.

      Moore J' Williams, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7126.
    Stichtenoth et al. v. Building Association and Loan Company.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      J'. B. Von Seggern, for plaintiffs in error.

      G. B. Matthews and Benjamin F. Ehrman, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7132.
    Moss v. Board of Education et al.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Geauga county.

      J. E. Stephenson and N. E. Bostwich, for plaintiff in error.

      Metcalfe & King; Leiois J. Wood and Williamson, Cushing di Clarice, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7360.
    Pennsylvania Company v. Sifferlin.
    (Decided November 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.
    J. R. Carey and F. J. Mullins, for plaintiff in error.
    O. L. Cunningham and Jenner & Weldon, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, O. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6498.
    Plaut, Admr., v. Insurance Company.
    (Decided December 3, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Smith & Kuhn, for plaintiff in error.

      Stephens & Lincoln and Charles H. Stephens, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ,. concur.


text:
    No. 6547.
    Wilkinson v. Detwiler.
    (Decided December 3, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      L. H. Wilkinson and A. W. Eckert, for plaintiff in error.

      Richard M. McKee, for defendant in error.
   J udgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6584.
    Insurance Company v. Byall.
    (Decided December 3, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Wayne county.

      Boss W. Fimck; M. L. Smyser and John W. Jenner, for plaintiff in error.

      Critchfield & Critchfield and Frank Taggart, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6585.
    Donohue et al., Receivers, v. Ryan.
    (Decided December 3, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Cour.t of Hamilton county.

      E. R. Donohue and C. Hammond Avery, for plaintiffs in error.

      Coffey, Mallon, Mills & V or deni) erg, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6586.
    Donohue et al., Receivers, v. Hanna et al.
    (Decided December 3, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      E. R. Donohue and C. Hammond Avery, for plaintiffs in error.

      Coffey, Mallon, Mills & Vordenberg, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, J J., concur.


text:
    No. 6587.
    Donohue et al., Receivers, v. Blair Brick Co. et al.
    (Decided December 3, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      E. R. Donohue and G. Hammond Avery, for plaintiffs in error.

      Cojfey, Mallon, Mills & Yordenberg, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7133.
    Kennard House Co. v. Mathivet.
    (Decided December 3, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Paul G. KassulJcer, for plaintiff in error.

      G. M. Yorce and Loren Prentiss, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7134.
    Feurt et al. v. Feurt, Executor, et al.
    (Decided December 3, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Scioto county.
    • T. G. Anderson and George M. Osborn, for plaintiffs in error.

      Gharles H. Grosvenor and Bannon d Bannon, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7135.
    Hood et al. v. Thomson et al.
    (Decided December 3, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hardin county.

      J ohnson & J ohnson and S. T. Armstrong, for plaintiffs in error.

      Stillings & Stillings and John A. Price, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7176.
    Davis et al. v. Windisch-Mulhauser Brewing Co.
    (Decided December 3, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Ashland county.

      McCray & McCray and W. T. Devor, for plaintiffs in error.

      H. A. Mylcrantz and George A. Nicol, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6499.
    Osborn v. Osborn et al.
    (Decided December 10, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      Kline, Carr, Tolies & Goff; W. B. Thompson and Ingersoll é<Day, for plaintiff in error.

      E. G. Johnson; A. R. Webber and Lee Stroup, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6500.
    Osborn et al. v. Osborn et al.
    (Decided December 10, 1901.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      Kline, Carr, Tolies & Goff; W. B. Thompson and Ingersoll & Day, for plaintiffs in error.

      E. G. Johnson; A. R. Webber and Lee Stroup, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6546.
    Murray v. Geddes.
    (Decided December 10, 1901.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Ricbland county.

      Bowers & Black and E. C. Irvine, for plaintiff in error.

      S. C. Parker; A. A. Douglass and Samuel Marriott, ■for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6589.
    Anisfield v. Klein.
    (Decided December 10, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Sidney G. Strieker, for plaintiff in error.

      Frank Seinsheimer and J. B. Sayler, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6593.
    Insurance Company v. Whitworth et al.
    (Decided December 10, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Lee Elliott and Hile c9 Horner, for plaintiff in error.

      Noble, Pinney and Willard, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Dayis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6594.
    Esmann et al. v. Esmann et al.
    (Decided December 10, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Denis F. Gash, for plaintiffs in error.

      John D. Dewitt and Foraker, Outcalt, Granger & Prior, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Si-iaucA, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6611.
    Baumgardner et al. v. Smead et al.
    (Decided December 10, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      James M. and Walter F. Brown, for plaintiffs in error.

      Hurd, Brumbaclc & Thatcher and Hamilton & Kirby, for defendants in error. .
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, O. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6624.
    Duhme, Admr., et al. v. Mehner, Admx., et al.
    (Decided December 10, 1901.)
    Error to tlie Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      John J. Glidden and John C. Healy, for plaintiffs in error.
    Follett, Kelley & Follett; Stephens & Lincoln and Ghris. Yon Seggern, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the ground that the suit is barred by the statute of limitations, the' evidence showing that all the parties, including the minor son, knew of the alleged fraud in the settlement for more than four years before the suit was brought, and for more than four years after the minor son became of age; and furthermore the equities seem to be with the defendants.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Dávis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6909.
    Emerine v. Alcott Hardware Company.
    (Decided December 10, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Seneca county.

      G. E. Beney and McCauley cG Weller, for plaintiff in error.

      Dore cG Dore, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7147.
    City of Dayton v. Railway Company.
    (Decided December 10, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

      Edtoin P. Matthews, City Solicitor, for plaintiff in error.

      John T. Dye and E. M. Nevin,, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6508.
    Friend v. Friend & Fox Paper Company et al.
    (Decided December 17, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit- Court of Hamilton county.

      Philip Roettinger and Robert 8. Fulton, for plaintiff in error.

      Thomas McDougal and Ernst & Gassatt, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6541.
    Elder et al. v. Kinnane.
    (Decided December 17, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Clark county.

      Boicman & Boioman, for plaintiffs in error.

      J ames J ohnson, Jr., for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams and Spear, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6618.
    McCrea v. Friedman.
    (Decided December 17, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Baldwin & Shields and Day, Lynch & Day, for plaintiff in error.

      Clark, Ambler & Clark, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Davis and Shauck, JJ.., concur. .


text:
    No. 6629.
    McCafferty v. Cowan et al., Receivers.
    (Decided December 17, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland.county.

      Maguire & Galbraith and Donnell & Marriott, for plaintiff in error.

      Cummings & McBride and J. H. Collins, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7141.
    Cleveland City Railroad Company v. Croninberger, Admr.
    (Decided December 17, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.
    Squire, Sanders cG Dempsey, for plaintiff in error.

      Noble, Pinney £ Willard., for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court and that of the common pleas reversed and petition for new trial dismissed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Buricet, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7146.
    Beagle v. Myers.
    (Decided December 17, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Blackford tG Blackford, for plaintiff in error.

      II. Walter Doty, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7179.
    Hallett v. Curtis et al.
    (Decided December 17, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Fulton county.

      Handy & Unverferth and Fuller & Handy, for plaintiff in error.

      Frank B. Geer; Files & Emerling and Ham, Ham & Ham, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Buricbt, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur. .


text:
    No. 7355.
    Ewing Coal & Salt Company v. The State ex rel. Attorney General.
    (Decided December 17, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      M. J. Daugherty; G. D. Martin and George Eioing, for plaintiff in error.

      J. M. Sheets, Attorney General; T. J. Keating and Gilbert H. Stewart, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7356.
    Railway Company v. Baldwin.
    (Decided December 17, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      M. R. Dickey and Breiver, Cook ct- McGowan, for plaintiff in error.

      J. F. Herrick and Herrick ct Hopkins, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7362.
    Murphy v. Quigley.
    (Decided December 17, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Hiram Van Campen, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

      Hurd, Brumback é Thatcher, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Spear, Davis and Shaucic, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7511.
    Bellaire Stove Company v. Small, Admr.
    (Decided December 17, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Belmont county.

      George Duncan and G. L. Weems, for plaintiff in error.

      Tallman S. Armstrong, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall,' C. J., Williams and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7733.
    Leonard v. Struble et al.
    (Decided December 17, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Morrow county.

      Olds & Olds, for plaintiff in error.

      L. K. Dowell, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, O. J., Williams, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6437.
    Railway Company v. Traction Company et al.
    (Decided December 20, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      King é Tracy and Smith Ai Beckwith, for plaintiff in error.

      Smith A Baker, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6614.
    Railway Company v. Clifford.
    (Decided December 20, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Athens county.

      O. O. Hunter and Jewett & Wood, for plaintiff in error.

      Grosvenor, Jones & Worstell, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket and Spear, J J., concur.


text:
    No. 7144.
    Ready v. National Bank.
    (Decided December 20, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Greene county.

      Charles Darlington, for plaintiff in error.

      Charles H. Kyle, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the authority of Stoddard v. Myers, 8 Ohio, 203.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Spear and Si-iauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7163.
    Langhorst v. Ahlers et al.
    (Decided December 20, 1901..)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      William Worthington, for plaintiff in error.

      August IT. Bode, for defendants in error*.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams and Burket, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7180.
    Klorer v. McTighe.
    (Decided December 20, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Arnold Groen, for plaintiff in error.

      Foran, McTighe cG Baker, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of In re Richards, 2 Am. Bankruptcy Rep., 145.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6638.
    Abert v. Reece.
    (Decided January 14, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Follett do Kelley and Harmon, Golston, Goldsmith cG Hoadly, for plaintiff in error.

      Thomas McDougal and Patterson A. Reece, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6683.
    Fargo Gas Light and Coke Company v. Greer.
    (Decided January 14, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Jmnes M. & Walter F. Brown, for plaintiffs in error.

      W. 8. Thurskin and Brown & Qeddes, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7177.
    Village of Van Wert v. Longsworth.
    (Decided January 14, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Van Wert county.

      H. G. Richie and Blachly & Matthias, for plaintiff in error.

      Saltsgaher, Hoke & Burtsfield and W. 8. Johnson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7178.
    Railway Company v. Scott.
    (Decided January 14, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Tuscarawas county.

      J. M. Lessick and Neely & Patrick, for plaintiff in-error.

      Fred L. Rosemond, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7420.
    City of Toledo v. Lewis.
    (Decided January 14, 1902.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Moses R. Brailey and Charles K. Friedman, for plaintiff in error.

      W. T. 8. O’Hara, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7440.
    City of Toledo v. Buechele et al.
    (Decided January 14, 1902.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Moses R. Brailey and Charles K. Friedman, for plaintiff in error.

      J. 8. Wertman and E. P. Raymond, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ.. concur.


text:
    No. 7460.
    Betts v. Tuscarora Advertising Company.
    (Decided January 14, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Coshocton county.

      Charles A. Beard, for plaintiff in error.

      Pomerene & Pomerene, for defendant in error.
   J udgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear. Davis and Si-iauck, JJ., com


text:
    No. 6649.
    Smith et al. v. Noble, Exr., et al.
    (Decided January 21, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

      George T. Farrell, for plaintiffs in error.

      J. A. Marlin; W. G. Wells and F. L. Wells, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed..

Williams, Spear and Siiatjck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6681.
    Pike, Admr., et al. v. Fay, Admr.
    (Decided January 21, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Wood county.

      Baldwin & Harrington and Wesley 8. Thurstin, for plaintiffs in error.

      J ames íG Beverstoch and R. B. Moore, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6702.
    Insurance Company v. Herzer
    (Decided January 21, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Myron H. Beach and Dickey, Brewer &\ McGowan, for plaintiff in error.

      White, Johnson, McCaslin & Cannon, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear, Dayis ana Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6706.
    Duffield v. Russell et al.
    (Decided January 21, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Harrison county.

      W. S. Miller and D. A. Hollingsworth, for plaintiff in error.

      Walter G. Bhotwcll and John B. Chapman, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear, Dayis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7485.
    State of Ohio v. Cincinnati Tin & Japan Company.
    (Decided January 21, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      J. M. Sheets, Attorney General; J. E. Todcl, Assistant Attorney General, and Smith W. Bennett, for plainti ff in error.

      Peeh, Shaffer <£- Peeh and William Worthington, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear, Davis and Shauok, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7598.
    Marting Iron & Steel Company v. Keen.
    (Decided January 21, 1902.)

      Boss & Davis, for plaintiff in error.
    •/. L. Anderson and L. B. Andrews, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauok, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6591.
    Laws, Surviving Partner, v. Potomac Shoe Company.
    (Decided January 28, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Maxwell é Bamsey, for plaintiff in error.

      Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith e£- Hoadly, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.'

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauok, JJ., concur. . . < •


text:
    No. 6778.
    Felch, Assignee, v. Hodgman Mfg. Co. et al.
    (Decided January 28, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Erie county.

      King & Guerin and Charles L. Hubbard, for plaintiff in error.

      H. L. Peehe and George E. Reiter, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6791.
    Keister v. Foglesong et al.
    (Decided January 28, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

      Allread £ Teegarden and O. E. Harrison, for plaintiff in error.

      McMahon £ McMahon, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7370.
    Russell v. The State.
    (Decided January 28, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Frank F. Gentsch, for plaintiff in error.

      Harvey Keeler, Prosecuting Attorney, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Speak and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7446.
    Gardiner et al. v. Railroad Company et al.
    (Decided January 28, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Huron county.

      O. h. Kennan and*G. P. cG L. W. Wickham, for plaintiffs in error.

      Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith cGl Hoadly; J. II. Gollins and IF. Severance, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burkict, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7593.
    Railway Company v. Pero, Admx.
    (Decided January 28, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Emery D. Potter; George G. Greene and F. L. Jerome, for plaintiff in error.

      Hurd, Brumback & Thatcher and O. A. Thatcher, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket and SrEAR, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6811.
    National Bank v. National Bank et al.
    (Decided February 4, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Belmont county.

      Tollman & Armstrong, for plaintiffs in error.

      John Pollock, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6816.
    Finley Brewing Company v. Brown.
    (Decided February 4, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      B. W. Tolerton and Bhunck & Thompson, for plaintiff in error.

      Beney, Johnson rf-l Wachenheimer, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6817.
    Seasongood v. Kinsey, Admx., et al.
    (Decided February 4, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      G. B. Matthews, for plaintiff in error.

      Harmon,-Colston, Goldsmith &\Hoadly and Alfred Hill, for defendants in error.
   Judgment reversed and cause remanded to the circuit court for further proceeding.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, J J., concur.


text:
    No. 6846.
    City of Akron v. Akron Gas Company.
    (Decided February 4, 1902.)
    . Error to the Circuit Court of Summit county.

      Osborn Esgate and Rowley c& Bradley, for plaintiff in error.

      Atterholt é Marvin and E. F. Voris, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6847.
    Everett v. City of Newark.
    (Decided February 4, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Licking county.

      Samuel M. Hunter, for plaintiff in error.

      T. B. Fulton, City Solicitor, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6851.
    Dovey et al. v. Trust Company, Trustees, et al.
    (Decided February 4, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Crawford county.

      Wager Swayne; Joseph Randolph and Powell & Minahan, for plaintiffs in error.

      Latorence Maxwell, Jr., and Gilbert S. Stewart, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6873.
    McCarty, Admx., v. Railroad Company et al.
    (Decided February 4, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      Jenner <£• Weldon, for plaintiff in error.

      J. H. Collins and Cummings & McBride, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7174.
    Wynne v. Cincinnati et al.
    (Decided February 4, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Stephens & Lincoln and Ledyard Lincoln, for plaintiff in error.

      Charles J. Hunt and Charles W. Scott, for city of Cincinnati, one of the defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis. and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7298.
    Baumgardner & Company v. Mollenkopf.
    (Decided February 4, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Doyle & Lewis and C. A. Seiders, for plaintiff in error.

      M. F. Grijfin and Delphey & Corbitt, for defendant in. error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burket, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7552.
    State of Ohio v. Carr.
    (Decided February 4, 1902.)
    Exceptions by the prosecuting attorney to the rulings of the Court of Common Pleas of Summit county.

      B. M. Wanamaker, Prosecuting Attorney, for plaintiff.

      F. F. Voris, for defendant.
   Exceptions overruled.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6677.
    Wilson, Receiver, v. Blankenbuhler et al.
    (Decided February 7, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Muskingum county.

      Hoy, Dustin cC- Kelly and Durban & McDermott, for plaintiff in error.

      J. T. Crew and F. H. Southard, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6771.
    St. Paul's Methodist Episcopal Church v. Gorman Brothers.
    (Decided February 7, 1902.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Clayton W. Everett and E. W. Tolerton, for plaintiff in error. ■

      George B. Boone, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6818.
    Dallas et al. v. Moore et al.
    (Decided February 7, 1902.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Cuyaboga county..

      Justin A. Moore, for plaintiffs in error.

      A. G. Lewis, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7205.
    Thurston et al. v. DeWitt, Executor.
    (Decided February 7, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Morrow county.

      Robert F. Bartlett, for plaintiffs in error.

      L. K. Powell, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7222.
    Hoppe, an Infant, v. Parmalee et al.
    (Decided February 7, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      A. J. Wilhelm; S. W. Ingersoll and Musser £ Kohcler, for plaintiff in error.

      E. G. Johnson and A. R. Webber, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7374.
    Village of Napoleon v. Durbin.
    (Decided February 7, 1902.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Henry county.

      F. M. Hall, City Solicitor; James P. Regan and John C. Regan, for plaintiff in error.

      W. W. Campbell, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket and Spear, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7798.
    Cincinnati et al. v. Fenner.
    (Decided February 7, 1902.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Charles J. Hiont and Wade H. Ellis, Corporation Counsel, for plaintiffs in error.

      George P. Stimson and L. D. Oliver, for defendant in error. •'
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Burket, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.