text:
    The State ex rel. Attorney General v. Hoglan et al.

      Removal of public officer — For specified causes — Facts must be stated that are relied on for removal — Right of officer to be heard — Misconstruction of statute not evidence of incompetency — Proceeding in mandamus should be employed, tolven ■ — Civil service commissioners — Removal of by mayor.

    1. When a public officer may be removed for specified causes, such facts must be stated as in judgment of law, constitute the cause relied on, and an opportunity afforded the ' officer to , be heard, before he can be legally removed. . ,
    2. The misconstruction of a statute, about which there may be ' an honest difference of opinion, is not such evidence of iii-competency, or misconduct, in the officer as to warrant his removal on either of these grounds.
    3. The proper remedy in such case is a proceeding in mandamus to compel him to act in accordance with the required construction or to show cause why he does not.
    (Decided May 14, 1901.)
    In Quo Warranto.

      J. M. Sheds, Attorney General; Gilbert H. Stewart; E. B. Kinkead; Geo. B. Okey; E. B. Dillon’ and Henry Gamble, for plaintiff.
    ‘ •The act of April 14, 1900, entitled, “An act to regulate and improve the civil service in certain depart-meats within cities of the first grade of the second class,” 94 O. L., 603; Bates Rev. Stat., Sec. 1545-165a; provides :
    “Section 1. * * * The mayor may remove any commissioner for incompetence, neglect of duty, mal1, feasance in office, habitual drunkenness or gross immorality ; and any manifest failure on the part of any commissioner to enforce the provisions of this act, according to its true intent and purpose, shall be deemed incompetency.”
    No proposition of law is more firmly settled in this state than that the power of removal from office can not be exercised “arbitrarily, but only upon complaint, and after a hearing had, in which the officer is afforded an opportunity to refute the case made against him.” State ex rel. v. Sullivan, 58 Ohio St., 504.
    The court has been so recently over the ground that it seems a work of supererogation to do more than to' cite the cases, where, in State ex rel. v. Hawkins, 44 Ohio St., 98; State ex rel. v. Bryson, 44 Ohio St., 457; State ex rel. v. McLain, 58 Ohio St., 313, and State ex rel. v. Sullivan, 5S Ohio St., 504, the exhaustive opinions of Judges Minshall, Williams and Spear leave nothing to be added upon the subject.
    If mayor Hinkle had afforded the members of the civil service commission an opportunity to refute the charges made against them, if they embodied facts which, in judgment of law constituted such official misconduct as the civil service act prescribes as grounds for removal, and evidence had been adduced on the hearing tending to establish them, his action might have been final and conclusive.
    The members of the commission were charged and the mayor found that they were guilty of “gross offi-cial misconduct and incompetency and neglect of duty,” and that finding was made a matter of public official record.
    The mere faet that the character of the charges were not such as to reflect upon the integrity of the members can not be claimed to dispense with or create an exception to the rule requiring an opportunity to be afforded for a refutation of the accusation. The character of the charges can not affect the well established principle.
    The public record will always show that these officers were guilty. The record of a sentence convicting them of gross official misconduct, and incompetency and neglect of duty stares them in the face for all coming time.
    It will be seen by reference to Mayor Hinkle’s order' of removal that he found that it was known to hion that the charges and specifications were true and that “no investigation or hearing, and no exercise of judicial power,” were necessary.
    •• We feel that we might well stop at this point, and rest our case upon the single proposition that the action of the mayor was void because no opportunity was afforded the removed officers for a hearing, but believing that possibly the court might desire to look further into the case, we will present, briefly, our views on the other questions.
    It is provided in the civil service act—
    “Sec. 5. In case of any vacancy in the classified service of said city, notice shall be given the com-v mission by the appointing power of said vacancy, and thereupon the commission shall certify in writing to the appointing power, the. names, addresses and grades of the candidates, not exceeding three in number, for any such vacancy, whose names shall stand highest on the appropriate register, and it shall then he the duty of the appointing power to appoint on probation, to fill such vacancy, one of the said candidates whose name shall have been so certified.”
    The offense, in a nut shell, with which the members of the civil service commission were charged by the director of public safety was that in response to his requisition they transmitted to him but a single name, when they should have sent him more than one, and that that had been their practice with respect to Ms predecessor in office.
    It is obvious that the construction placed upon section 5 of the act by the members of the commission was done so conscientiously and with the deep conviction that it was the true one.
    The question then arises whether the charges were of a character that, in judgment of law, constituted incompetence, neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, habitual drunkenness, or gross immorality or manifest failure to enforce the provisions of the act according to its true intent and purpose, they being the grounds for removal provided for in section 1 of the act.
    A case directly in point is that of the State ex rel. v. Roll, 1 Dec. (Re.), 284; 7 W. L. J., 121, noted as well on account of the eminent men who were of counsel as of those whose election was involved in its hearing.
    But we insist that the construction placed upon section 5 by the commissioners was proper.
    While it is true that under section 5 of the act, the commission is required to certify “the names, addresses and grades of the candidates (using the plural), not exceeding three in number,” and which upon hasty reading would seem to be free from ambiguity, and to mean more than one name, yet when the object, purpose and policy of the statute are considered, it becomes apparent that the letter of the act must be subordinated to the intent.
    The spirit, the reason, the principle, of a law overshadows the letter of the lavr. Bishop, Written Laws, Sec. 92.
    The statute of frauds has been the subject of fierce litigation, of ingenious arguments and elaborate discussions. Every syllable of it, said a great judge, is worth a subsidy. But if it had been construed and enforced according to its strict letter, it would have promoted more frauds than it prevented.
    “In construing statutes, we should look to the real object and intention of the law makers, as gathered from an examination and comparison of the context of the whole act — its spirit and import.” People v. Canal Commissioners, 3 Scam., 153; United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall., 182; Sutherland on Statutory Construction, Sec. 218.
    Language must be restrained to the sense in which it was used by the legislature in adopting ,the law. Goodall v. Brewing Co., 56 Ohio St., 257.
    The great object in the construction of statutes is to ascertain the intent and carry it out. The court does not make the law, but decides it. Ludlow v. Johnston, 3 Ohio, 553; Pancoast v. Ruffin, 1 Ohio, 381; Beaver v. Blind Asylum, 19 Ohio St., 97.
    The intention may be collected from the cause of necessity of the act, and a thing within the letter is not within the statute unless within its intention. Burgett v. Burgett, 1 Ohio, 169.
    The object of a statute and the mischief against which it was designed to guard will be looked to. 2 Ohio Digest, p. 2115, par. 72; Henry v. Trustees, 48 Ohio St., 671; Tracy v. Card, 2 Ohio St., 431.

      The ascertainment of the true intention is the cardinal rule, or rather the end and object, of all construction. Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, Sec. 295.
    It is impossible to resist the conviction that, in enacting the Columbus civil service law, the highest efficiency in the classified service of the city was not only the chief, but the sole object of its enactment.
    An attempt had been made in what is familiarly known as the “Charter Law,” of the city of Columbus (Bates’ Stat., Sec. 1545-136) to establish the merit system in the police and fire departments of the city, but in its practical enforcement it had wholly failed in the purpose for which it was enacted. The main reason for its failure was, that its execution was left in the hands of the appointing power.
    The evils, then, which confronted the general assembly upon the introduction of the civil service bill, were:
    1. The inefficiency resulting from partisan control of muncipal affairs.
    2. The failure of the .attempt in the charter law, to correct those e'vils.
    In the light of these evils, it is,fair to assume that it was the intent of the legislature, in enacting the civil service law, to eradicate, root and branch, the possibility, in the remotest degree, of partisan politics controlling in municipal offices.
    If an adherence to the strict letter of the act destroys the design and purpose of its enactment, then, as we have shown, the letter must give way and be subordinated to the intent.
    Any construction of the act other than the one placed upon it by the civil service commission is absolutely destructive of its obvious spirit and intent.

      If the commission are required to certify more than one name to the appointing power, there is a possibility that the evils of partisan control will continue to exist.
    But it is claimed that the construction placed upon the act by the commission takes away from the heads of the city departments the appointing power conferred upon them by the Charter law (Bates’ Rev. Stat., Sec. 1545-111). That is not strictly true. It takes from them the power of selection only. They still have the power to appoint, and to appoint only on probation. We contend that it was the very object and purpose of the civil service act to take from the heads of departments the power of selection. That act was passed seven years after the “Charter Law.” It is the later enactment, and in so far as it is conflicting with it, it repeals it by implication. State v. Halliday, 63 Ohio St., 165.

      Luke Gr. Byrne; Franklin Rubrecht and Roy L. Wildermuth, for defendants.
    On April 14,1900, the act “to regulate and improve the. civil service in certain departments within cities of the first grade of the second class” was enacted. This act is found in 94 Ohio Local Laws, 603.
    Sec. 1 provides “That in cities of the first grade of the second class (Columbus) the mayor shall, within thirty days after the passage of this act, appoint four persons to constitute a civil service commission. * * * * They shall serve, one until the expiration of four years, one until the expiration of three years, one until the expiration of two years, and one until the expiration of one year, from the first day of September, 1900, and until their respective successors are appointed and qualified; and in the year 1901 and in every year thereafter, the mayor of such cities shall appoint, in the month of August, one person to serve as such commissioner for four years from the first day of September and until his successor is appointed and qualified.” * * * The mayor may remove any commissioner for incompetency, neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, habitual drunkenness, or gross immorality; and any manifest failure on the part of any commissioner to enforce the provisions of this act, according to its true intent and purpose, shall be deemed incompetency, and when the removal of any commissioner is made, the mayor shall file a written statement of the cause, or causes, for such removal with the clerk of said commission and the same shall be recorded in the records hereinafter provided.”
    Sec. 3 of this act [Bates’ Rev. Stat., Sec. 1545-165c] provides that “The said commission shall have power to and shall forthwith make rules to carry out the purposes of this act, and for regulating examinations and appointments to fill any and all vacancies in the classified service of such city, in accordance with its provisions.”
    Sec. 9 of this act [Bates’ Rev. Stat., Sec. 1545-165Í] provides that “Any person who shall wilfully violate any of the provisions of this act, or any rule promulgated in accordance with the provisions thereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars, * * * or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.”
    Sec. 10. provides that “all acts and parts of acts, so far as inconsistent hereivith, are hereby repealed.” It is a proposition, which we think will not be seriously disputed, that the two enactments, the charter law, and the civil service commission law must he construed together. The civil service law is not more than it pretends to be in its title, “A bill to regulate; and improve the civil service in certain departments within the city.”
    By it, the legislature did not intend to curtail or abridge the appointing powers of the mayor, as conferred upon him under the charter law. (Paragraphs 99,103,112,114 and 117 of Columbus Charter Law, section 1545-89, et seq., Rev. Stat.) It did enlarge his appointing powers to constitute a civil service commission, which are not provided for in the charter law. In most instances the power to appoint an officer implies the right to remove him, where the law is silent in this regard. But in the case before us neither law is silent upon the mayor’s power to remove any appointee of his own. Under the charter law “he may remove at his discretion any director or other officer, or employee appointed by him,” and in the civil service law, this po wer 'is not attempted to be denied him. It is true, that in the civil service law certain grounds are set out upon which the mayor may remove a commissioner, to-wit: incompetency, neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, habitual drunkenness or gross immorality, yet these grounds are only cumulative, and must be read in the light of the powers of removal conferred upon the mayor by tlie< charter law, as a matter in his sole discretion. No provision is made for a trial or hearing, and the order to file a written statement of the cause or causes for such removal with the clerk is not a condition precedent to the removal by the mayor. The words used are “when the removal is made the charges shall be filed,” etc.

      By the terms of the act itself the filing of said charges is to be made simultaneously with the removal, or subsequently thereto, and not before the removal is made, and for the sole purpose of preserving a record thereof. This is the only impprtance which should be attached to-this provision of tire civil service law.
    The court will observe that a director or the head of any of the four departments, may remove or suspend any officer or employe of such department “by written order giving his reasons therefor.” No such condition in either law is prescribed for the mayor.
    The civil service commission is not and was not intended to affect or control the appointments by the mayor. The civil service commission is created to affect appointments coming through the heads of departments only. It was not intended by the civil service law to take away the appointing powers of the directors. It was to provide a means whereby the fitness of applicants for positions might be ascertained before their appointment by the director. It is the duty of the commission to examine applicants for positions or appointments, to be filled and made only by the several directors, as to their qualifications. The commission is an auxiliary only, to the four heads of departments. In his discretion the mayor may remove either head of the department at any time, and it would seem a. preposterous proposition to claim that he could not remove, under the same poAver, an auxiliary to the directors Avhich is likeAvise appointed by him. That power to remove was conferred upon him by the charter law. The legislature recognized it AArhen it passed the civil service Iuav, and it did not in express terms, or by implication, attempt to take that poAver aAvay from him. The mantle of importance which the members of the old board have flung about themselves, must have been obtained from some source, wholly outside of the law creating it. The mayor is now, as he was before, the recognized, responsible head of our municipal government. Under the charter law he lias a right to ' remove his appointees at Ms discretion. Under the civil service law he may remove for incompetency, neglect of duty, drunkenness, etc., and it is still left to his discretion, for terms are not imposed by this law. Had the legislature intended to have taken away this discretion, it would have been an easy matter to have done so. They could have provided for notices, hearings, trials, tribunals, and evidence, but they did not.
    We hardly believe that the decision in State v. Sullivan, 58 Ohio St., 504, under the Cincinnati statute, will be seriously urged as applicable to a removal under the Columbus statute.
    The members of the commission were defying the law; they adopted rule 5 in defiance of the civil service law7; they assumed to be greater in authority than the legislature itself; they refused in writing to comply with the law and authorized their secretary to communicate that refusal to the mayor, which he did. They knew7 that the legislature had defined such conduct to be “incompetency,” and they knew7 that even under the civil service law the mayor might remove them for incompetency. The mayor did not have to go to some court for a definition of “incompetency,” for the legislature had taken the pains to define it, in the act creating the commission, in these words: “And any manifest failure on the part of any commissioner to enforce the provisions of this act, according to its true intent and purpose, shall be deemed incompetency.” Under such circumstances it became the duty of the mayor to remove immediately, and if he should have failed to have so done, he himself would have been guilty of a neglect of his own duty as mayor, and would have forfeited his right to be called the person at the head of this municipal government. Wilcox v. People, 90 Ills., 186; State v. Fire Comm’rs, 26 Ohio St., 24; United States v. Corson, 114 U. S., 619; McElrath v. United States, 102 U. S., 426; Mimmack v. United States, 97 U. S., 426; Steubenville v. Culp, 38 Ohio St., 18.
   By the Court :

On the 19th day of April, 1901, Henry Gumble, Eugene M. Kerr, Edward' B. Dillon and William Fisher, constituted the civil service commission of the city of Columbus, Ohio, having been previously appointed and qualified as such under an act of the legislature passed April 14,1900 (94 Laws, 603), entitled an act to regulate and improve the civil service of cities of the grade and class of Columbus; and on that day the entire board was removed from office by the mayor of the city, John N. Hinkle, without notice or opportunity to be heard, by an order entered upon his records specifying as the ground of his order that they were incompetent for the duties of the office; and thereupon he appointed the defendants to constitute such board, who assumed to qualify and enter upon the duties of the board; and claim to hold the office and are interfering with the former members in the discharge of their duties. The prayer is that they may be required to show by what authority they do so, and that they may be ousted therefrom and enjoined from interfering with the members of the board in the discharge of their duties. The gist of the answer is that the board had misconstrued the statute under which it had been created, and assumed when requested by the proper department to furnish but one candidate from the list of eligibles for appointment. The contention arises upon, the proper construction of section 5 of the act, which is as follows:

“Sec. 5. In case of any vacancy in the classified service of said city, notice shall be given the commission by the appointing power of said vacancy, and thereupon the commission shall certify in writing to the appointing power, the names, addresses and grades of the candidates, not exceeding three in number, for any such vacancy, whose names shall stand highest on the appropriate register, and it shall then be the duty of the appointing power to appoint on probation, to fill such vacancy, one of the said candidates whose name shall have been so certified.”

By a construction placed upon this section, in a rule adopted to that effect, the removed board claimed that it complied with the statute by furnishing the name of one such person, when requested to furnish names for the purpose of appointment. The construction placed on it by the mayor is that it requires' the board to furnish the names of three such persons, or at least two and for the refusal of the' board to adopt his construction he made the order of removal, on the ground of incompetency.

The court is of the opinion that the commission erred in the construction it placed on the statute. The fair construction is that they should certify to the proper, department when requested at least two names, on the other hand we think the mayor is in error in his claim that it should certify three names. But such error of judgment is not of itself evidence of. such incompetency in the.board as would authorize its removal from office. Such errors frequently arise in the performance of their duties by public officers;, and it has not hitherto been regarded as an evidence of such ineora'petency as to require that they should be removed. We do not say that such a flagrant case might not occur as would require the exercise of such authority. Here, however, the construction of a statute is involved about which there is room' for an honest difference of opinion; and the proper remedy would have been a proceeding in mandamus, requiring them to certify , the number of names claimed by the mayor. This would have offered them an opportunity to be heard and to have obtained-a judicial construction of the statute. To remove an incumbent from office for an error of judgment in the construction of a statute that is open to doubt, and without an opportunity to be heard, seems rather too drastic-a remedy to be consistent with the liberal principles of our system of government.

Power is conferred on the mayor to remove any commissioner for incompetence, neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, habitual drunkenness, or gross immorality; and any manifest failure on the part of any commissioner to enforce the provisions of the act. The power is one that cannot be arbitrarily exercised. It requires charges to be made, supported by such a statement of facts as in judgment of law constitute the charge made; and an opportunity to the party to be heard. Whilst the court cannot pass on the truth of the facts alleged, or interfer with the discretion of the mayor in this regard, it may and will, when appealed to, pass on the sufficiency of the facts on \srhich the charges are made. State v. Hawkins, 44 Ohio St., 98; State v. Bryson, 44 Ohio St., 457; State v. McLain, 58 Ohio St., 313; State v. Sullivan, 58 id., 513.

We cannot accept the claim of the defendants, that the power to remove the board of commissioners, or any of its members, in the mode adopted by the mayor, is conferred on him by what is termed the charter law. Whatever powers of removal are conferred by that act, they do not apply to the removal of the members of the civil service commission. It was created and the mode of removal provided for, by a subsequent act, which provides the grounds upon which a removal may be had. The proyisions of this act govern the case, and are in no way varied by the provisions of the charter law. To remove any of its members without properly formulated charges and without an opportunity to be heard, would hardly be consistent with the principle of civil service. ■ Men of the requisite character and ability would hardly accept the position under such circumstances.

Judgment of ouster; and induction of former hoard.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 6725.
    Dodge Mfg. Co. et al. v. Dell et al.
    (Decided January 15, 1901.)
    Error to tlie Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      William T. McClure; Daniel Short; Crum, Raymond tf- Hedges; James C. Nicholson; and Arnold, Morton d McCoy, for plaintiffs in error.

      Rankin d Rector; John F. Fergus, and Kinkead, Merwinc cf Rhodes, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams and Spear, JJ._, dissent.


text:
    No. 6734.
    Banking Company v. Smith et al.
    (Decided January 15, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Darke county.

      All-read d Teec/arden and John C. Clark, for plaintiffs in error.

      Anderson d Bowman, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Pendery v. Allen, 53 Ohio St., 251.

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


text:
    No. 6738.
    Wikel, Partner, Etc., v. Deering & Co., et al.
    (Decided January 15, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Erie county.

      Kelly <6 Merrill, for plaintiff in error.

      John F. McCrystal and Frank W. Babcock, for defendants in error. . ‘
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6756.
    Thompson et al v. Vanderslice.
    (Decided January 15, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      F. N. Brotan and Frank- Jacobs, for plaintiffs in error.

      G. J. Miller, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Willjams . and. Ruricet, . JJ., dissent.


text:
    No. 6772.
    Curran v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided January 15, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      J. R. Johnston; .4. J. Woolf and F. H. Guffey, for plaintiff in error.
    J.• F. Wilson, for defendant in' error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Si-iauck, C. J., Minsiiall, Spear and Davis, JJ.,y: concur.

Williams and Burket, J J., dissent. ■


text:
    No. 6980.
    Etter v. Railway Company.
    (Decided January 15, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      Shi Ies d Shile-s; B rucher J- Cummins and HutcMn son é Painter, for plaintiff in error.

      J. JR. Carey and P. J. Mullins, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7048.
    Thomas v. Beard, Guardian.
    (Decided January 15, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      J. D. Sullivan, and John Morrisey, for plaintiff in error.

      W. M. Thompson and Bonnet. & Bennett, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Minsk all, Williams and Davis, JJ., concur.

Burket and Spear, JJ., dissent.


text:
    No. 6774.
    Railroad Company et al. v. Electric Railway Company.
    (Decided January 22, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Butler county.

      II. D. Marshall and Millikin, Shotts rf- Millikin, for plaintiffs in error.

      W. 0. Shepherd and Wilcox, Gollister, Hogan & Tarmely, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6866.
    Agricultural Society et al. v. Reber et al., Exrs.
    (Decided January 22, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Marion county.

      J. F. McNeal J Sons and D. R. Orissinger, for plaintiffs in error.

      W. Z. Davis• and H. N. Quigley, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, Williams and Burket, JJ., concur.

Davis, J., having been of counsel, did not sit in the case.


text:
    No. 7028.
    Clemons v. Solar Refining Company.
    (Decided January 22, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Allen county.

      D. G. Henderson, for plaintiff in error.

      Wheeler & Brice, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Spear and Williams, JJ., dissent, believing that there is error in the charge.


text:
    No. 7099.
    State of Ohio v. Winget.
    (Decided January 22, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Erie county.

      John Ray. for plaintiff in error.

      Franlc P. Calvar, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shatjck, C.. J.,. Mix,shall, , Bitrkbt, Speae and' Davis, JJ., concur.

Williams, J'., ¿bsent.


text:
    No. 6154.
    Dages et al. v. Fisher et al.
    (Decided January 29, 1901.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Defiance county.

      Pou:ell <(’■ Minahau, for plaintiffs in error.

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

Shatjck, C. J., Minstiall, Williams, Btjrket, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6163.
    Clark v. Clark et al.
    (Decided January 29, 1901.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Licking county.

      J. R. Darias and R. .1/. Hunter, for plaintiff in error.

      Waldo Taylor, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6775.
    Rice et al. v. Richards.
    (Decided January 29, 1901.)
    Error to tlie Circuit Court of Jackson county.

      Poioell é Eubanks, for plaintiffs in error.
    J, M. MeCilUvray, for' defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6809.
    Robinson et al. v. Robinson.
    (Decided January 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Jefferson county.

      Justin A. Moore, for plaintiffs in error.

      Walter C. Taylor, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shadck, C. J., Williams, Btjrket, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6820.
    Bradfield et al. v. Flood, Admr.
    (Decided January 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Belmont county.

      Petty é Crete, for plaintiffs in error.

      F. B. Doiidna, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Minshall and Burket, JJ., dissent.


text:
    No. 7190.
    Diebold Safe & Lock Co. v. Bowe.
    (Decided January 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Wilcox d Friend and Clark, Ambler d Clark, for plaintiff in error.

      Monnott té Whitaerc and Hugh d McCarty, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, Williams and Burket, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6595.
    Alsop et al., Exrs., v. Cattell et al., Exrs.
    (Decided February 5, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Tuttle d Fillim and Young d Trent, for plaintiffs in error.

      T. TF. Shreve, for defendants in error.
   Judgment reversed in part and cause remanded with instructions as shown by journal entry.

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

Spear, J., being also of opinion that the judgment should be reversed in toto.


text:
    No. 6202.
    Bank et al. v. Felton, Receiver, et al.
    (Decided February 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Erie county.

      Hewmn L. Peeke, for plaintiffs in error.

      Lawrence Maarwell, Jr.j Wickham, Guerin é French and George R. Reiter, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6744.
    Village of Uhrichsville v. Fisher, an Infant.
    (Decided February 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Tuscarawas county.

      Healea d Greene, for plaintiff in error.

      T. H. Loller and Bailey <& Douthitt, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6783.
    Fleming et al., Infants, v. Houseman, Admr., et al.
    (Decided February 19, 1901.)
    Furor to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Samuel Hambleton, for plaintiffs in error.

      Dyer, Williams & Stouffer, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Hershizer v. Florence, 39 Ohio St., 516.

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


text:
    No. 6831.
    Kirkbride v. Cline.
    (Decided February 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      William F. Duncan, for plaintiff in error.

      John Sheridan, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7276.
    Kirkbride v. Loach.
    (Decided February 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      William F. Duncan, for plaintiff in error.

      Bitter é Dvnggins, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6183.
    Hess v. Electric Railway Company.
    (Decided February 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      It. J. Finn and Harter & Krichbaum, for plaintiff in error.

      ft. H. Day, and Day, Lynch <£• Day, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6827.
    McCleery v. Kinsel et al.
    (Decided February 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Fairfield county.

      C. W. McOl'eery, for plaintiff in error.

      William Davichon, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed and judgment as per entry.

Judgment affirmed:

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


text:
    No. 7031.
    Railroad Company v. Lersch.
    (Decided February 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of- Richland county.

      ..J. II. Collins and Cummings & McBride, for plaintiff in error.

      Jabets Dickey and Jenner cf- Weldon, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7072.
    Railroad Company v. Wikoff, Admr.
    (Decided February 26, 1901.)
    Error to tlie Circuit Court of Sciotd county.

      Hollister cG Hollister; IF.- A. De Camp and Oscar W. Newman, for plaintiff ip error.

      Evans cC Livingston aud Holcomb & Finney, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7136.
    Railway Company v. Dunlap.
    (Decided February 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Huron county.

      Jolm T. Dye and C. P. <£- L. TV. Wickham, for plaintiff in error.

      E. M. Palmer and Andrews Bros., for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Bitrket, Spear and Shatjck, .JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6750.
    McLaren v. Cowing, Admr., Etc.
    (Decided March 5, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Johnson iC- Hackney, for plaintiff in error.

      Mason & Taft, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6803.
    Mercantile Credit Guarantee Co. v. Littleford & Bro.
    (Decided March 5, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Follett & Kelley, for plaintiff in error.

      Littleford, Morris, Ballard ct- Sawyer, for defendant ip error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6805.
    Shields et al. v. Betts et al.
    (Decided March 5, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county,
    IT'»?,. Hartley Pugh, for plaintiffs in error.

      John A. Corbin, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6840.
    Pepple, Admr., v. Pepple et al.
    (Decided March 5, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Jason Blackford and J. A. Boye, for plaintiff in error. .

      Shafer cC Shafer and Pendleton & Whiteley, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6842.
    Witmore v. Ohio Oil Company.
    (Decided March 5, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Jason Blackford, for plaintiff in error.

      John Poe, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

MinsHxVLL, C. J., Bucket, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6868.
    Board of Education et al. v. State ex rel. Unger et al.
    (Decided March 5, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county.
    . Craighead cG Craighead; L. 8. Crickmore; W. A. Neal and J. W. King, for plaintiffs in error.

      J. A. é C. B. Gilmore and R. E. Lowery, for defendants in error.
   Judgment reversed.

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


text:
    No. 7075.
    Butler, Admr., v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided March 5, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Allen county.

      Ridenour & Halfhill: Charles R. Adgate and D. C. Henderson, for plaintiff in error.

      John B. Coehrum; M7. B. Richie and W. H. Leete, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7181.
    Snyder v. State.
    (Decided March 5, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Portage county.
    $. F-. Henselman and 8. P. Wolcott, for plaintiff in error.
    W. J. Beclcley, Prosecuting Attorney, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burket, J., dissents.


text:
    No. 7189.
    Nicholson et al. v. Carlisle.
    (Decided March 5, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Guernsey county.

      J. A. Troette; J. IT. Mackey and W. G. Collins, for plaintiffs in error.

      Rose monel á Pace, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burket and Davis, JJ., dissent.


text:
    No. 7200.
    Field v. Beavis, Executor.
    (Decided March 5, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county..

      C. M. Torce, for plaintiff in error.

      Beavis & Johnson and George 8. Kevin, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6221.
    National Bank v. Pippit et al.
    (Decided March 12, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Ashland county.

      John W. Mykremis and Clark, Ambler & Clark, for plaintiff in error.

      Campbell & Semille, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.

Burket and Spear, JJ., dissent.


text:
    No. 6501.
    Bogard v. Railway Company.
    (Decided March 12, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Putnam county.

      Thomas W. Prentiss and Lcasure & Powell, for plaintiff in error.
    IF. B. Riehie; IF. II. Leeto and Daniel M. Bailey, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed and cause remanded to the probate court on the authority of State v. Sherman, 22 Ohio St., 433, and Railroad Co. v. O’Harra, 48 Ohio St., 343.

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


text:
    No. 6762
    Brady v. Silvers.
    (Decided March 12, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      G. F. Walts, for plaintiff in error.

      Ira Taber and Clifford G. Whitmore, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6763.
    Brady v. Palmer.
    (Decided March 12, 1901.)
    Error to tlie Circuit Court of Lucas county,

      C. F. Watts, for plaintiff in error.

      Jra Taber and- Clifford C. Whitmore, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed:

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


text:
    No. 6789.
    Wade v. Brown.
    (Decided March 12, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Butler county.

      Millikin, Ehotts t& Millikin, for plaintiff in error.

      Edward, H. Jones and Morey, Andrews é Morey, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the Circuit Court vacated, and cause remanded to that court on authority of Deglow, Exr., v. Kruse, 57 Ohio St., 434.

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


text:
    No. 6795.
    Cheney v. National Bank et al.
    (Decided March 12, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Honey & Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

      Hmith & Beckwith and R. H. Holbrook, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6800.
    Potter v. Karrick et al.
    (Decided March 12, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Jason Blackford & Byal, for plaintiff in error.

      Totten & Cole; Ross & Kinder; William F. Duncan and McConica é Banker, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6806.
    Republican Company v. Shoupe.
    (Decided March 12, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      H. F. Burket, for plaintiff in error.
    W. Tl7. Hhnler, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burket, J., not sitting.


text:
    No. 6807.
    McNeal, Executor, v. Coss et al.
    (Decided March 12, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Ross county.

      D. M. Massie and Vanmeter & Cunningham, for plaintiff in error.

      F. P. Hinton, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7123.
    Railway Company v. Shaw.
    (Decided March 12, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of. Mahoning county.

      Thomas IF. Sanderson, for plaintiff in error.

      ■Tones & Anderson; D. F. Anderson and A.. J. Woolf, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshald, O. J., Williams and Burket, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7301.
    Gannon, Admrx., v. Street Railway Company.
    (Decided March 12, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      W. A. Hieles and Winkler & Rogers, for plaintiff in error.

      Paxton iG Warrington, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6223.
    Insurance Company v. Salrin, Jr.
    (Decided March 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Coshocton county.

      Lee Elliott and Pomerene & Pomerene, for plaintiff in error.

      Jamies Glenn aud T. G. Roche, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6230.
    Sullivan, Receiver, v. Bryan et al.
    (Decided March 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Summit county.

      Collins & Fletcher and Grant & Sieber, for plaintiff in error.

      Doyle & Bryan; Oti-s cC Otis and A. E. Tiling, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    6799.
    Merchants’ National Bank v. McMullen, Assignee.
    (Decided March 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Swayne, Hayes & Tyler, for plaintiff in error.

      JT. S. Bunker and Ralph Emery, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6810.
    Crawford et al. v. Hartupee, Admrx.
    (Decided March 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      H. S. Brewster, for plaintiffs in error.

      Charles W. Baker, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C.; J., Williams, Spear, Davis and Shatjok, JJ., concur.

Burket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 7124.
    Austin v. State.
    (Decided March 19, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Logan county.

      John H. Willis and John A. Price, for plaintiff in error.

      8. H. West, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7165.
    Railway Company v. Pierson.
    (Decided March 19, 1901.)
    Error to.the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Thomas W. Sanderson, for plaintiff in error.

      Jones & Anderson and I). F. Anderson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6247.
    Shafer v. Blakesley et al., Admrs.
    (Decided March 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      George F. Pendleton and M. G. Shafer, for plaintiff in error.

      George H. Phelps, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear and I)avis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6281.
    Ruggles v. City of Norwalk.
    (Decided March 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Huron county.

      George R. Walker and S. M. Young, for plaintiff in error.

      B. B. Wood and Andreios Bros., for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6796.
    Swisher v. McWhinney et al.
    (Decided March 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Darke county.

      Meeker d) Qa,skill and A.llreacl & Teegarden. for plaintiff in error. ♦

      R. 8. Frizell and .1 nderson <£• Bowman, for defendants in error.
   •Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.

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


text:
    No. 6812.
    Hippel et al., Executors, v. Rowe.
    (Decided March 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Jackson county.

      John T. Moore and J. M. MeQ-illivray, for plaintiffs in error.

      E. C. Powell and E. E. Eubanks, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6835.
    National Bank v. Deal et al.
    (Decided March 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Crawford county.

      D. W. Locke, for plaintiff in error.

      McNeal & Rons; Harris, Bears <G Monnette and L. C. Feighner, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Mins hall. C. J.., Williams, Burket and Spear, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6858.
    Southern Gas & Oil Company v. Central Ohio Natural Gas & Fuel Company et al.
    (Decided March 26, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Fairfield county.

      Durban & McDermott and George E. Martin, for plaintiff in error.

      Nash, Lents, Addison cG Fritter, and A. /. Vorys, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6232.
    Cody et al. v. Olmstead et al.
    (Decided March 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      White, Johnson, MoCaslin J Cannon, for plaintiffs in error.

      Boynton & Horr, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6257.
    Broxterman, Receiver, v. Stall et al.
    (Decided March 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Goebel & Hettinger, for plaintiff in error.

      Alfred B. Benedict, for defendants in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6258.
    Hazeltine v. Hewitt, Trustee, et al.
    (Decided March 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Thomas McDougal and Alfred C. Cassatt, for plaintiff in error.

      Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6275.
    Black v. Smith, Admr.
    (Decided March 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Clark county.

      Ellis H. Kerr, for plaintiff in error.
    Weaver, Stafford & Arthur and B. H. Ratmells, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6276.
    Black v. Neff.
    (Decided March 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Clark county.

      Ellis E. Kerr, for plaintiff in error.

      Weaver, Stafford <£ Arthur and B. N. Rannells, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6736.
    Collopy v. State.
    (Decided March 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Fayette county.

      D. I. Worthington, for plaintiff in error.

      O. A. Reid, Prosecuting Attorney, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6824.
    Kaylor v. Seaman et al.
    (Decided March 29, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Darke county.

      O. R. Krickenberger, for plaintiff in error.

      B. F. Dershem, and A. 0. Robeson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Davis and- Si-iauck, JJ., concur.

Burket, J., dissents.


text:
    No. 6857.
    Trustees of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church v. Meehan et al.
    (Decided April 9, 1901.)
    Error to tlie Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Eugene Lane, for plaintiff in error.

      G. J. Marriott and Kinhead é Memoine, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Burnet, Spear and Shatjck, JJ., concur.

Davis, J., absent.


text:
    No. 7292.
    Beachman et al. v. State ex rel. Deitz.
    (Decided April 9, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Clermont county.

      E. Q. Grane and 77. L. Nichols, for plaintiffs in error.

      Louis Hides, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed on tlie authority of Randall et al. v. State ex rel. Hunter et al., ante 57, and petition dismissed.


text:
    No. 6856.
    Taylor, Assignee, v. Owens, Trustee, et al.
    (Decided April 16, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Licking county.

      Waldo Taylor, for plaintiff in error.

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

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


text:
    No. 7162.
    Hunt, Receiver, v. Carl.
    (Decided April 16, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Brown & Gedcles and Charles A. Schmettau, for plaintiff in error.

      Hurd,, Brnmback cG Thatcher and Orville S. Brumback, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7313.
    Railroad Company v. Haffey, Jr., Etc.
    (Decided April 16, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lake county.

      Ford, Snyder, Henry & McGraw, and A. G. Reynolds, for plaintiff in error.

      Bosioorth & Ham,mar and Jones & Anderson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7344.
    Johns v. Murdock et al.
    (Decided April 16, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lawrence county.

      A. R. Johnson and E. E. Corn, for plaintiff in error.

      J. L. Anderson, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6295.
    Tual v. Stollberg & Clapp Company et al.
    (Decided April 23, 1901.)
    Error to the..Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Ashton H. Co Id,ham, for plaintiff in error.

      Lyman W. Wachenhimer; T. L. Gifford and Hamilton & Kirby, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the authority of Ryan, Sheriff, v. Root & McBride Bros., 56 Ohio St., 302, and Doll v. Barr, 58 Ohio St., 113.

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


text:
    No. 6297.
    Cass v. Dunham et al.
    (Decided April 23, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Morrow county.

      J. IF. Coulter and O. IF. Aldrich, for plaintiff in error.

      Harlan & Wood and Mitchell & Bruce, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshald, C. J., Williams, Burket and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6891.
    Dorman Grocery v. Young et al.
    (Decided April 23, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Darke county.

      Allread & Teegarden, for plaintiff in error.

      Anderson & Bowman and M. F. Myers, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Keever v. Hunter, 62 Ohio St., 616.

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

Davis, J., absent.


text:
    No. 6894.
    Vanas v. Vanas.
    (Decided April 23, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      J. M. Noioak and Joseph Moore, for plaintiff in error.

      Reynolds cG Carpenter, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6897.
    Dayton et al. v. City Railway Company.
    (Decided April 23, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

      Edwin P. Matthews, City Solicitor, for plaintiffs: in error.

      i]fcMahon ct McMahon, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6915.
    Case et al. v. Shafer et al.
    (Decided April 23, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Wyandot county.

      A. ]]. Walton, for plaintiffs in error.

      Carey & Parker, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7098.
    Reigel v. Coons.
    (Decided April 23, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Jolm Poo and George P. Pendleton, for plaintiff in error.

      Ross cG Kinder and J. Prank Aosline, for defendant. in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7149.
    Railway Company v. Ullom, Admrx.
    (Decided April 23, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Morrow county.

      Gwmmings <£■ McBridej Olds cG Olds and J. T. I)ye, for plaintiff in error.

      Mitchell é Brice and J. IF. Barry, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6268.
    Stimson v. Hegler et al.
    (Decided April 30, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Fayette county.

      W. 0. Tanzey and John Log an, for plaintiff in

      Van Deman & Chaffin, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6302.
    Caldwell et al. v. Heintz.
    (Decided April 30, 1901.)
    Error to tlie Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Johnson & Levy, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mortimer Matthews, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6304.
    Glenn et al. v. Andress et al.
    (Decided April 30, 1901.)
    Error to tlie Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      W. C. Herron; Herron, Catch & Herron and August W. Brack, for plaintiffs in error.

      Follett & Kelley ; Dra-usin Wulsin and Frank 0. Suvre, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6321.
    Barney v. Brown.
    (Decided April 30, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Erie county.

      Charles L. Hubbard, for plaintiff in error.

      Kelly & Merrill, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Buri-cet, Spear, and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6885.
    State ex rel. Attorney General v. Rapid Transit Company.
    (Decided April 30, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Greene county.

      J. M. Sheets, Attorney General, and Charles Darlington, for plaintiff in error.

      M. Shoup and H. L. Smith, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6892.
    Francis v. Ashbaugh, Trustee, et al.
    (Decided April 30, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Norris, Jackson cf- Rose, for plaintiff , in error.

      W. S. Anderson; M. G. McNab, and J. P. Wilson, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, O. J., Williams, Buricet, Davis and ' Shauoic, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6893.
    Pittsburg Refining Company v. Jennings et al.
    (Decided April 30, 1901.)
    Error to tlie Circuit Court of Monroe county.

      Mallory é Sears, for plaintiff in error.

      J. P. Spricjys & Son; G. G. Jennings and W. V. Walton, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Buricet, Spear, Davis and Si-iaucic, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6916.
    Wasner v. Rawlins.
    (Decided April 30, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lawrence county.

      A. T. Holcomb and John Hamilton, for plaintiff in error.
    A. R. Johnson and E. E. Gorn, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6918.
    Addy et al. v. Jewell.
    (Decided April 30, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mercer county.

      O. 8. Mauh, for plaintiffs in error.

      LeBlond & Landfair, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6924.
    Leonard v. Struble et al.
    (Decided April 30, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Morrow county.

      Olds & Olds, for plaintiff in error.

      L. K. Powell, for defendants in error.
   Judgment vacated and cause remanded to the circuit court with directions to consider bill of exceptions.


text:
    No. 6928.
    Eaton v. Smith.
    (Decided April 30, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Geauga county.-

      N. H. Bostwick, for plaintiff in error.

      Metcalfe <& King and G. IF. A Ivorcl, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6939.
    Moormann v. Fox, Executor.
    (Decided April 30, 1901.)
    Error to tlie Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Frank J. Moormann and Stephens & Lincoln, for plaintiff in error.
    IF. F. Fox, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minsi-tall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Si-iauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6944.
    Hammerly v. Zettler.
    (Decided April 30, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Lynch, Bay & Bay, for plaintiff in error.

      Clark, Ambler cG Clark, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed, except as to Dow Tax as per entry.

Williams, Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.

Spear and Shauok, JJ., concur in the judgment of reversal as to Bow Tax.


text:
    No. 7434.
    State ex rel. Vail v. Craig, Auditor, etc., et al.
    (Decided April 30, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county

      Samuel Doerfl'er, for plaintiff in error.

      P. //. Kaiser and Prederich L. Taft, for defendants in error.
   J udgment affirmed.

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

Min,shall, O. J., absent.


text:
    No. 6330.
    Preston v. Wolf.
    (Decided May 7, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      Bradford & Moorjiouse and Donnell & Marriott, for plaintiff in error.

      Kerr & La Dow and Douglass & Mengert, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court vacated, and cause remanded with instructions to consider the bill of exceptions.

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

Minsk all, C. J., absent.


text:
    No. 6333.
    Wymond Cooperage Company v. Thompson.
    (Decided May 7, 1901.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      G. B. Mattheias and Pogue cG Pogue, for plaintiff in error.

      Paxton, Warrington cG Boutet, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Minshall, C. J., absent.


text:
    No. 6345.
    Connor v. Curran et al.
    (Decided May 7, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Fayette county.

      Harper & Harper, for plaintiff in error.

      Post & Reid and Mills Gardner, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Williams, J., not sitting.


text:
    No. 6922.
    Morgan v. Katzenstein.
    (Decided May 7, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      George E. Baldwin; D. Fording and D. E. Rogers, for plaintiff in error.

      Welty & Albaugh; Lynch, Day & Day and A. O. Strong, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6932.
    Lecklider, Receiver, v. Halderman et al.
    (Decided May 7, 1901.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Darke county.

      Elliott & Ghenoweth and John C. Clark, for plaintiff in error.

      Anderson & Bowmanj Allread & Teegarden; O. R. Krickenherger and A. F. Broomhall, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6937.
    Whitney v. Roth et al.
    (Decided May 7, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Preble county.

      J. A. & C. R. Gilmore and Stafford & Arthur, for plaintiff in error.

      J. W. King; 0. Sheppard, and E. B. Stephenson, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshald, C. J., Burket, Spear and Davis, JJ. concur.


text:
    No. 6940.
    City of Salem v. Fawcett.
    (Decided May 7, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

      Lewis P. Metzger and A. IF. Taylor, for plaintiff in error.

      Carey, Boyle & Mullins, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Minshall, C. J., absent.


text:
    No. 6945.
    Dueber Watch Case Mf'g Co. v. Piero, Trustee.
    (Decided May 7, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Lynch é Day and John (J. Given, for plaintiff in error.

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

Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shah ok, JJ., concur.

Minshall, O. J., absent.


text:
    No. 6954.
    Trustees of Claridon Township v. King, Receiver.
    (Decided May 7, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Geauga county.

      H. 0. Bostivick and Metcalfe & King, for plaintiff in error.

      Jones & Anclerspn, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Minshall, O. J., absent.


text:
    No. 6356.
    Commissioners v. Blyth.
    (Decided May 14, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Crawford county.

      Harris, Sears & Monnett and P. W. Poole, for plaintiff in error.

      Dan Babst and Finley & Gallinger, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 6361.
    Lees v. Insurance.
    (Decided May 14, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Licking county.

      Flory & Flory and G. D. Barrows, for plaintiff in error.

      ;Tenner & Weldon and Charles Follett, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6370.
    National Bank Company v. McIlyar.
    (Decided May 14, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Guernsey county.

      Rosemoncl cG Pace, for plaintiff in error.

      Mathews, Heade & M^Gieivs, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6901.
    Haviland v. Market et al., Admrs.
    (Decided May 14, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Wyandot county.

      T. D. Banker and Benjamin Meek, for plaintiff in error.

      Fred. E. Guthery, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 6948.
    Butler et al., Admrs., v. Thomas et al.
    (Decided May 14, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Rankin é Rector and Taylor, Taylor & Taylor, for plaintiffs in error.

      Kinkead & Merwine and E. 0. Randall, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Williams and Burket, JJ., absent.


text:
    No. 6956.
    Lilley v. National Bank et al.
    (Decided May 14, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      It. IF. McCoy, for plaintiff in error.

      F. F. D. All) cry, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6969.
    Thomas et al. v. Ennis.
    (Decided May 14, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Carpenter & Voorhees, for plaintiffs in error.

      Snicler & Murphy, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burkiot, J., absent.


text:
    No. 6989.
    State ex rel. Timeus v. Piper et al., Trustees, et al.
    (Decided May 14, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Shelby county.

      ■Jolm F. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

      J. Fj. Russell and Andrew J. Hess, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the ground that the relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law as defined in Kerr v. Bellefontaine, 59 Ohio St., 446. Burns Law does not apply.

Williams, Davis and Si-iaucic, JJ., concur.

Minsiíall, O. J., dissents.


text:
    No. 7198.
    Insurance Company v. Lock et al.
    (Decided May 14, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Licking county.

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

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

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


text:
    No. 7324.
    Commissioners v. Church, Admr.
    (Decided May 14, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Champaign county.

      T. J. Frank; E. F. Middleton and S. $. Deaton, fox* plaintiff in ex*i*ox\

      Charles H. Easier and George M. Eichelberger, for defendant in ei*x*or.
   Judgment affirmed.

Mins hall, C. J., Spear, Davis and Shatíck, JJ., concur.

Burket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 6235.
    Sigler, Assignee, v. Rogers, Smith & Co.
    (Decided May 21, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Everett, Weed & Meals, for plaintiff in error.

      White, Johnson, McOaslin & Cannon, for defendants-in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burket, J., dissents.


text:
    No. 6373.
    Insurance Company v. Packet Company.
    (Decided May 21, 1901.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Thomas d. Logan, for plaintiff in-error.

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

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

Buricet, J., absent.


text:
    No. 6374.
    Poyser & Son et al. v. Standard Paving Brick Company et al.
    (Decided May 21, 1901.)
    Error to tlxe Circuit Court of Start county.
    d. d. Thayer; C. C. Boio and W. J. Piero, for plaintiffs in error.

      Barter & KricJibaum, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minsi-iall, C. J., Williams, Dayis and Si-iaucic, JJ., concur.

Buricet, J., absent.


text:
    No. 6375.
    Railway Company v. Duckwall.
    (Decided May 21, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Clermont county.

      Hollister é Hollisterj Walter A. DeCamp and W. W. Dennison, for plaintiff in error.

      Nichols & Nichols and Frazier & Hichs, for defendant in error.
   Judgment modified and affirmed as to modification.


text:
    No. 6964.
    Mercer v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided May 21, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Adams county.

      F. D. Bayless; J. R. B. Hosier and Blair & Mahafey, for plaintiff in error.

      Hollister & Hollister; Walter A. DeCamp and T. G. Downey, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6968.
    Davies, Assignee, v. Tong et al., Trustees.
    (Decided May 21, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Licking county.

      8. M. Hunter and J. R. Davies, for plaintiff in error.

      Flory & Flory and Kibler & Kiblcr, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 6979.
    Linde v. Ware.
    (Decided May 21, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      John F. Betts and Jason Blackford, for plaintiff in error.

      McGonica <£• Banker, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed and remanded for new trial. Grounds stated in journal entry.

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

Burket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 6996.
    Morgan et al. v. Wakelin.
    (Decided May 21, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      E. Sowers, for plaintiffs in error.

      Blandin, Rice d Ginn, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 7330.
    Railway Company v. Munger.
    (Decided May 21, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Thomas W. Sanderson, for plaintiff in error.

      George F. Arrel; IF. S. Anderson and D. F. Anderson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Railroad Co. v. Margrat, 51 Ohio St., 130.

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

Burket, J,, absent.


text:
    No. 7404.
    State ex rel. Hostetler v. Deitz et al.
    (Decided May 21, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Tuscarawas county.

      P. S. Olmsteacl and John A. Hostetler, for plaintiff in error.

      J. F. Greene and J. H. Mitchell, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 7529.
    Caldwell v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided May 21, 1901.)
    Error to tlie Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Hurd, Brumbado & Thatcher, for plaintiff in error.

      Brown é Geddes and Charles A. Schmettau,, for ■defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6394.
    Allender et al. v. Ross et al.
    (Decided June 4, 1901.)
    •Error to the Circuit Court of Guernsey county.

      J. B. Ferguson, for plaintiffs in error.
    TP. TP. Stewart, for defendants in error.
   Judgment against George Allender reversed and judgment as to Lydia A. Allender, and order óf sale affirmed.


text:
    No. 6962.
    Edrich et al. v. Shriver.
    (Decided June 4, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Huron county.

      G. H. Withey; A ndrews Bros, and Stephen M. Young, for plaintiffs in error.

      B. B. Wood and •/. R. McKnight, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Davis and Shatiok, JJ., concur.

Btjrket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 6999.
    Manner et al. v. Manner et al.
    (Decided June 4, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      II. T. Manner and Gummings & McBride, for plaintiffs in error.

      J. M. Reed and L. C. Mcngert, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Btjrket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 7002.
    Collins, Admrx., v. Railway Company.
    (Decided June 4, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Guernsey county.

      J. B. Ferguson, for plaintiff in error.

      Matheios, Ideado cG Mathews, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 7009.
    McClure v. Kirkendall.
    (Decided June 4, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Putnam county.

      Bailey & Bailey, for plaintiff in error.

      Krauss & Eastman,, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 7010.
    Gray, Auditor, et al., v. Stewart.
    (Decided June 4, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Butler county.

      Warren Card, for plaintiffs in error.

      Stephen Crane, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 7011.
    McClure, Admr., v. Pope.
    (Decided June 4, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Putnam county.

      Bailey & Bailey, for plaintiff in error.

      Watts & Moore, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 7016.
    Douglas v. Douglas.
    (Decided June 4, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Tuscarawas county.

      E. E. Lindsay and J. .71. Mitchell, for plaintiff in error.

      John A. Buchanan, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Fulton v. Fulton, 52 Ohio St., 229.

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

Btjrket and Spear, JJ., absent.


text:
    No. 7027.
    Hoover v. Sherwood.
    (Decided June 4, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Crawford county.

      Edward Vollrath, for plaintiff in error.

      Horace Holbrook^ for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, O. J., Spear, Davis and Shatjok, JJ., concur.

Btjrket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 7372.
    Moriarity, Admrx., v. Railway Company.
    (Decided June 4, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Allen county.

      Grist cG Grist and Gable & Parmenter, for plaintiff in error.

      I. R. Longsioorth and R. D. Marshall, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Burket, J., absent.


text:
    No. 6377.
    Morrison v. Equitable National Bank.
    (Decided June 11, 1901.)
    Error to tlie Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith &' Hoadly and Spotsicood D. Bowers, for plaintiff in error.

      Sayler & Sayler, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Williams, Btjrket and Spear, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6692.
    Pistorius v. Bell.
    (Decided June 11, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      O’Hara d Jordan and John S. Conner, for plaintiff in error.

      Peek, Shafer d~ Peck, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, CV J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Dayis and Shatjck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 6886.
    Rafferty v. Toledo Traction Company.
    (Decided June 11, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Hurd, Brumbaah & Thatcher, for plaintiff in error.

      Smith & Baker, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 6997.
    Allen v. Marvin, Admr.
    (Decided June 11, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Portage county.

      J. II. Nichols, for plaintiff in error.

      I. T. Siddall, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7007.
    King et al. v. Roose.
    (Decided June 11, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      Jenner é Weldon, for plaintiffs in error.

      Cummings & McBride and Don,glass & Mengert, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7041.
    Greene, Executrix, v. Trustees York Township.
    (Decided June 11, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Sandusky county.

      B. A. Hayes, for plaintiff in error.

      Jesse Vickery, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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

Btjrket and Spear, JJ., absent.


text:
    No. 7044.
    Packard et al. v. Canfield et al.
    (Decided June 11, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Fulton county.

      F. D. Prentis and W. W. Campbell, for plaintiffs in error.

      I). B. Morgan and Everett £ Paxson, for defendants in error.
   Judgment reversed and common pleas affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7413.
    Railway Company v. Findley.
    (Decided June 11, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Warren county.

      J ames R. Foraher and Rwn/an & Stanley, for plaintiff in error.

      Harrison d Aston and M. .4. Jameson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7588.
    State ex rel. Attorney General v. Runyan.
    (Decided June 11, 1901.)
    Proceedings in contempt. Guilty as charged.

      J. M. Sheets, Attorney General, and J. E. Todd, Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff.

      Booth, Keating d Peters, for defendant.
   Sentence, $250 fine and ten days imprisonment and costs of suit, and to stand committed until fine and costs are paid.

Davis and Shaltck, JJ., are of opinion that the term of imprisonment is too short in view of the gravity of the offense, and that in view of the doctrine of Hale v. State, 55 Ohio St., 210, the power of the court in that regard is not restricted by any valid statute.

Spear, J., absent.


text:
    No. 7589.
    State ex rel. Attorney General v. Steele.
    (Decided June 11, 1901.)
    Proceedings in contempt. Not guilty as charged.

      J. M. Sheets, Attorney General, and J. E. Todd, Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff.

      Jerry Dennis, for defendant.
   Discharged.

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

Davis and Shauck, JJ., dissent.

Spear, J., absent.


text:
    No. 6631.
    City of Toledo v. Russell.
    (Decided June 18, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      M. II. Brailey and Charles K. Friedman, for plaintiff in error.

      Chittenden & Chittenden, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7020.
    Heinman v. Tippery.
    (Decided June 18, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      Douglass & Mengert, for plaintiff in error.

      Cummings & McBride, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7037.
    Railway Company v. Baldwin.
    (Decided June 18, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Dickey, Brewer & Me Gotean, for plaintiff in error.

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

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


text:
    No. 7038.
    Stewart v. Kern.
    (Decided June 18, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Sandusky county.

      Jesse Vickery ; Bentley & Vickery; John 8. Williams and Kinney cC- O’Farrell, for plaintiff in error.

      James B. Miller and Garver & Garver, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7055.
    Hamlin v. Young.
    (Decided June 18, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      John M. IJamlin j Pendleton & Whiteley and Shafer & Shafer, for plaintiff in error.

      J. A. & E. V. Boye, for defendant in error.
   Judgment vacated and cause remanded to the circuit court with directions to consider the bill of exceptions.

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


text:
    No. 7080.
    Bingham v. Lederman et al.
    (Decided June 18, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Marion county.

      Scofield, Dnrfee & Scofield, for plaintiff in error.

      J. F. McJSfeal A Sons, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, 0. J., Williams, Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7218.
    Sohn v. City of Circleville.
    (Decided June 18, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Pickaway county.
    ' Abernethy A Folsom; John Schleyer and Charles Gerhardt, for plaintiff in error:

      C. A. Leist, City Solicitor, and Clarence Curtain, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the opinion of Cherrington, J., in Circleville v. Sohn, 11 Circ. Dec., 193 (20 R., 368).

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


text:
    No. 7407.
    Railway Company v. Andrews, Admr.
    (Decided June 18, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Emery I). Potter; George G. Greene and F. J. Jerome, for plaintiff in error.

      J. Kent Hamilton and George B. Boone, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed ón authority of same case, 58 Ohio St., 426.

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


text:
    No. 7427.
    Streets Western Stable Car Line v. Guilbert, Auditor.
    (Decided June 18, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Percy Werner and Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly, for plaintiff in error.-

      J. M. Sheets, Attorney General; J. E. Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Smith W. Bennett, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Express Co. v. State, 55 Ohio St., 69.

Williams, Burket and Davis, JJ., concur.


author: Shauck, J.

text:
    The State of Ohio v. Budd.

      Jurisdiction of judge of common pleas sitting in chambers— Oral testimony competent upon hearing of motion to demand injunction — False testimony in such case is perjury, when — Person convicted and sentenced for criminal offense by common pleas court — On petition in error circuit court erroneously reverses common pleas — Effect of reversal of circuit court by Supreme Court — Section 7306a.

    1. Although the statute permits the use of affidavits upon the hearing of a motion to dissolve an injunction before a judge of the common pleas court sitting in chambers, the oral testimony of witnesses is competent upon a hearing of that character; and one who knowingly and wilfully testifies falsely in a material matter in giving such testimony is guilty of perjury.

      2. When, upon the petition in error of a person convicted and sentenced in the court of common pleas for a criminal offense, the circuit court erroneously reverses such judgment, section 7306a, Revised Statutes, authorizes and requires this court to reverse the judgment of the circuit court and to affirm that of the court of common pleas, and to remand the cause to ;the latter court for the execution of its sentence. The section thus construed is not repugnant to any provision of the constitution.
    (Decided June 4, 1901.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Adams county.
    The defendant was indicted for perjury in knowingly and wilfully swearing falsely while giving oral testimony before the judge of the court of common pleas sitting in chambers on the hearing of a motion to dissolve an injunction. The defendant demurred to the indictment on the ground that the facts charged did not constitute an offense against the laws of this state. He also filed a motion to quash the indictment. The demurrer and motion having been overruled, he entered a plea of not guilty. Upon the trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment. He then moved in arrest of judgment upon the ground, among others, that the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute an offense. This motion having been overruled, be filed a motion for a new trial upon grounds wbicb are not material to any. question to be determined here. This motion was overruled, and tbe court adjudged that be be confined in tbe penitentiary of tbe state for three years and pay tbe costs of prosecution. He filed a petition in error in tbe circuit court where tbe judgment of tbe court of common pleas was reversed “for tbe reason that said court erred in overruling tbe demurrer of plaintiff in error to tbe indictment on tbe ground that said indictment does not state any offense under the laws of the state of Ohio, and for the same reason said court erred in overruling the motion of the plaintiff in error in arrest of judgment, and said cause is not reversed on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence; and the court finds that there are no other errors apparent upon the record; and the court coming now to render the judgment that the court of common pleas should have rendered does sustain the motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that the indictment does not state an offense under the laws of the state of Ohio and for no other reason, and for the same reason the demurrer to the indictment is sustained, and said judgment is arrested and held for naught and said indictment is held for naught, and said defendant, Joseph T. Budd, plaintiff in error, is hereby discharged; to all of which findings, rulings and judgments the prosecuting attorney and the attorney representing the state excepts.”
    The state now prosecutes a petition in error here praying for the reversal of the judgment of the circuit court and the affirmance of the judgment of the court of common pleas.

      J. M. Sheets, Attorney General; G. F. McGoy, Prosecuting Attorney, and Blair & Mahaffey, for plaintiff in error.

      O. G. W. Naylor, for defendant in error.
   Shauck, J.

The indictment charges that the defendant wilfully and corruptly swore falsely upon a material matter in -the giving of oral testimony before a judge, of the common pleas court, sitting in chambers, upon the hearing of a motion to dissolve an injunction. The judgment of the circuit court is said to be right because oral testimony is incompetent upon a hearing of that character. If such testimony is incompetent it may be admitted that the indictment does not charge a crime under the laws of this state. But why is it incompetent? The reliance of defendant’s counsel is upon a construction of the provisions of the statute relating to the granting and vacating of injunctions. Those provisions are contained in sections 5573, 5583, 5584 and 5585 of the Revised Statutes. In the first of these sections it is provided that the courts named, or the judges thereof, may grant injunctions “upon its appearing satisfactorily to the court or judge by affidavit of the plaintiff or his agent that such plaintiff is entitled thereto.” Although an affidavit is the necessary predicate of the application for an injunction, the court or judge is not required to either grant or finally refuse the injunction upon the probative effect of such affidavit, for it is provided in section 5583 that “on the hearing of and application for an injunction each party may read affidavits, and all affidavits shall be filed.” The provisions with respect to the evidence to be offered on a motion to vacate or dissolve an injunction are ■ in section 5584: “When an injunction has been granted a party may at any time before the trial apply to the court in which the action is pending, or a judge thereof, to vacate or modify the same, * * * and the application may be made upon the petition and affidavits upon which the injunction was granted, or upon affidavits on the part of the party enjoined with or without answer.” Section 5585 provides: “When the application is made upon affidavits on the part of the defendant, but not otherwise, the plaintiff may oppose the same by affidavits, or other evidence, in addition to the evidence on which the injunction was granted.” It is admitted that the rules of evidence are the same whether the hearing is in court or before a judge in chambers; and that admission is required by the plain provisions, of the statute. When the parties appear before the court or judge, whether upon an application to grant or to vacate an injunction, to contest the allegations of fact involved, they may, under favor of these provisions, present their evidence by affidavits; but the natural meaning of the language by which the use of affidavits is authorized is permissive only. Counsel for the defendant, however, insist that in these provisions of the statute “may” should be read “shall.”' The cases in which it is held that these words should be regarded as convertible are numerous, and they contain much learning. The sum of it, however^ is that the natural meaning of these words is not always conclusive as to the construction of statutes in which they are employed, and that one should be regarded as having the usual meaning of the other when that is required to give effect to other language of the statute or to carry out the purpose of the legislature as that purpose may appear from a general view of the statute under construction. But no such requirement appears here. These provisions of the statute regulate the presentation of evidence upon controverted questions of fact. The legislature had the common knowledge that the general and most satisfactory mode of presenting evidence, not documentary, is by the testimony of witnesses who appear in court so that an opportunity is afforded for cross-examination, and some helpful inferences may be drawn from the appearance and manner of the witness; that a less satisfactory mode of presenting the testimony of witnesses is by deposition where there is opportunity for cross-examination, although the witnesses do not appear in court, and that the least satisfactory mode of presenting such testimony is by affidavit where there is neither the appearances of the witnesses nor an opportunity for cross-examination. These less satisfactory methods of presenting evidence are specially provided for to meet considerations of convenience or necessity. While the legislature may have required affidavits as the predicate of actions to present evidence which shall enter upon the record, and may have permitted their use upon hearings of this character in view of exigencies which may require immediate judicial action, it is not to be presumed that there was an intention to compel a resort to the least satisfactory and reliable of all modes of presenting evidence. A purpose to deny a resort to the most satisfactory mode should not be imputed to the general assembly in the absence of provisions indicating it with reasonable clearness. Certainly the natural meaning of words should not be changed to create opportunity for such an inference. We think the circuit court erred in reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas.

Counsel for the defendant further contends that the judgment of the circuit court, holding the indictment for naught and discharging the defendant from custody, is conclusive of the present case, and that, although we may be of the opinion that the circuit court erred in reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas, we are without jurisdiction to reverse the judgment of reversal and to affirm that of the court of common pleas. To support this contention he refers to section 7308, Revised Statutes, and to thé long established practice with reference to this particular subject. The section referred to and the three sections immediately preceding it are a part of the code of criminal procedure enacted May 6, 1869. They provide for the taking of a bill of exceptions by the prosecuting attorney in the trial court, for the presentation of such bill to this court and for the allowance of the filing of such .bill in this court if it is of the opinion that the question presented should be decided, and conclude with the section cited which provides that “the judgment Of the court in which the case was taken shall not be reversed nor in any manner affected; but the decision of the Supreme Court shall determine the law to.-govern in any similar case.” Since the circuit court is not the trial court in criminal cases, and since it is without jurisdiction to consider any exceptions which the prosecuting attorney may take in the trial court, the statute can have no reference to its judgments. If the verdict and judgment in the trial court are in favor of the state the prosecuting attorney would not desire a judgment of reversal. If the verdict is in favor of the accused the judgment of the trial court must follow it, and the section quoted regards the provision of the tenth section of the bill of rights that the accused shall not “be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” In view of that-immunity it has been, and is, regarded as the established law that one who has been tried upon an indictment or information and acquitted cannot be again tried for the same offense although his acquittal resulted from erroneous decisions upon the trial.

It is true that from the adoption of the present constitution until April 17, 1896, the circuit court and its predecessor, the district court, had jurisdiction to reverse a judgment of the court of common pleas adverse to a person accused of a crime or misdemeanor upon the petition in error of such person, and. that there was no jurisdiction in this court to review such judgment of reversal by the circuit court. But on the day lastly named the legislature enacted section 7306a. of the Revised statutes. Its material provisions are “Whenever after a conviction of any crime, misdemeanor or violation of a city ordinance in any court inferior to the circuit court such con-, viction may be reversed by the circuit court; in each and all of such cases the attorney representing the state may take proceedings in error in the Supreme Court to reverse the order of reversal in the circuit court, * * * and like proceedings shall be had in the Supreme Court at the hearing of the petition in error as in other cases. * * *.” It is by the authority of this section that the present petition in error is filed in this court. By the plain terms of the section this court, being of the opinion that the circuit court erred in its judgment of reversal, should reverse that judgment and affirm the judgment which it erroneously reversed. To this section, thus construed, there is no valid objection on constitutional grounds. The constitution does not confer upon one convicted and sentenced for crime the right to have the judgment reviewed by any court. The jurisdiction of the circuit court in that regard is conferred by statute pursuant to the provisions of the sixth section of the fourth article of the constitution that “the circuit court shall have like original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court, and such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law.” Whether there shall be. a review of a conviction is thus submitted to the discretion of the legislature. Not being required to confer the right to prosecute error in the circuit court, the legislature may confer it subject to any condition which it sees fit to annex. By the act of April 17, .1896 (section 7306», Revised Statutes), it has annexed the condition that a judgment of reversal in such case improperly rendered in the circuit court may be reversed here and the judgment of the common pleas court affirmed. It follows that the judgment of the circuit court must be reversed and that of the court of common pleas affirmed, and that the cause will be remanded-to the court of common pleas with instructions to carry its sentence into execution.

Judgment accordingly.

Minshall, C. J., Williams, Speak and Davis, JJ., concur. Burket, J., dissents as to the first proposition of the syllabus and concurs as to the second.