text:
    No. 7718.
    Israel, Exr., et al. v. Metham.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Knox county.

      Mr. J. B. Waight; Messrs. Gritchfield & Devin and Mr. Bert Voorhees, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. E. W. James and Mr. J. B. Graham, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 7720.
    Insurance Co. v. Burke.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Fairfield county.

      Messrs. Maxwell & Ramsey, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. M. A. Daugherty, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7724.
    United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Drucker.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Air. A. A. Stearns, for plaintiff in- error.

      Messrs. Brewer, Cook & McGotoan, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burivet, O. J., Davis and Price, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7732.
    Cameron v. Laymon, Exr.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error ,to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

      Messrs. Kreitser é Kreitser, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. G-ottschall, Craioford & Limbert, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed as per journal entry.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7736.
    Berdan & Co. v. Railway Co.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Mr. Ralph 8. Holbrook, for plaintiff in error. i-

      Messrs. Sioayne, Hayes & Tyler, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7729.
    Milton et al. v. Jones et al.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Monroe county.

      Messrs. Hamilton & Mats and Mr. O. L. Weems, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. A. D. Follett; Mr. F. L. Blackmarr and Mr. J. P. Spriggs & Son, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7242.
    Gill v. Wright, Exr.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Fairfield county.

      Mr. C. W. McOleery, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Carl Norpell and Mr. M. A. Daugherty, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7743.
    Kimerline, Auditor, v. State ex rel. Sears et al.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Crawford county.

      Messrs. Finley & Cfallinger, for plaintiff in error.

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

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7745.
    Hayes et al. v. Board of Education.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.-

      Messrs. Henderson & Quail, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. M. W. Beaoom and Messrs. Baker, Payer, Cage & Carey, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7752.
    Dowd, Guardian, v. Cassilly et al.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Messrs. Bates & Meyer and Messrs. Campbell & Clenclening, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Stephens & Lincoln and Messrs. Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7765.
    Welch et al. v. Atwood.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Mr. A. A. Thayer and Mr. C. C. Bow, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. John H. White and Mr. Charles C. Upham, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7781.
    Parker, Admx., v. Townsend, Admr.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Huron county.

      Mr. Harlon L. Stewart, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Andrews Brothers, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7801.
    City of Toledo v. Radbone.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

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

      Mr. Frank H. Geer and Messrs. Eing & Tracy, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur;


text:
    No. 7808.
    Herbert v. Insurance Co.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Messrs. Marshall é Fraser, for plaintiff in error.

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

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 8024.
    Railroad Co. v. Ruble, Admx.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Allen county.

      Mr. John B. Cockrum; Messrs. Richie & Richie and Mr. W. H. Leete, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Ridenour & Halfhill, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 8109.
    State ex rel. Lloyd v. Dollison, Sheriff.
    (Decided March 24, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Guernsey county

      Mr. R. M. Nevin; Mr. James Joyce and Mr. F. S. Monnett, for plaintiff in error.

      'Mr. W. B. Wheeler; Mr. A. L. Stevens; Mr. L. D. Lilly; Mr. J. M. Sheets and Air. A. V. Taylor, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7310.
    Oak Loan & Building Co. v. Fletcher et al.
    (Decided March 31, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Messrs. Goppoelc, Sammel & Goppoelc, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Maxwell & Ramsey and Mr. Franklin T. Gahill, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7522.
    Insurance Co. v. Mueller, Admr.
    (Decided March 31, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Messrs. Maxwell & Ramsey; Mr. Robert Ramsey and Mr. W. W. Ramsey, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Gorman & Thompson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7715.
    Strouse et al. v. Strouse et al.
    (Decided March 31, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Seneca county.

      Messrs. Breioer & Brewer and Mr. N. L. Brewer, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Lutes & Lutes and Mr. Geo. E. Sohroth, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauok, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7741.
    Schultz et al. v. Schroeder et al.
    (Decided March 31, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Messrs. Sanders & Wilson, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. H. T. Goioin and Mr. Alexander Hadden, for defendants .in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7785.
    Madden et al. v. State ex rel. Fisher et al.
    (Decided March 31, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Greene county.

      Mr. G. W. Whitmer, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. William F. Orr and Mr. Marcus Showp, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7786.
    Leick v. Sanford.
    (Decided March 31, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Messrs. Beavis & Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. W. H. Boyd, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7787.
    McGillin v. Vietor et al.
    (Decided March 31, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Mr. George F. Arrel and Messrs. Foran, McTiglie & Baker, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Jones & Anderson; Mr. T. H. Gilmer; Mr. James F. Walsh and Mr. M. G. McNab, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7795.
    Haines v. Ballinger et al.
    (Decided March 31, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Union county.

      Mr. J. L. Cameron and Mr. Robert MeCrory, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Piper, Porter & Porter, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7813.
    Western Star Publishing Co. v. Dechant.
    (Decided March 31, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit-Court of Warren county.

      Mr. Frank Brandon and Mr. George A. Burr, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. John E. Smith and Mr. W. G. Thompson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7821.
    Bates, Exr., v. Dubbs.
    (Decided March 31, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

      Mr. W. S. Emmons, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. A. W. Taylor and Mr. L. P. Metzger, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7514.
    Newport & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Jutte et al.
    (Decided April 14, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Messrs. Maxioell & Ramsey; Mr. Robert Ramsey and Mr. W. W. Ramsey, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Stephens & Lincoln and Mr. Charles IÍ. Stephens, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7748.
    Wicker et al. v. Messinger et al.
    (Decided April 14, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Mr. B. A. Hayes, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. King & Tracy, for defendants in error.
   Judgment modified and remanded to tlie court of common pleas for entry of proper final judgment.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7772.
    Calhoun v. Simmons.
    (Decided April 14, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Madison county.

      Mr. M. S. Murray and Mr. John A. Lincoln, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Selioyn N. Otoen,' Mr. T. K. Powell and Mr. R. H. McOloucl, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed, .there not being enough of the record printed to raise the question argued. •

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7832.
    Meehan v. City of Cincinnati.
    (Decided April 14, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. J ohn IF eld Peck and Mr. E. J. Power, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Charles J. Hunt and Mr. Wade E. Ellis, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7833.
    West, Exrx., v. Knoppenberger.
    (Decided April 14, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Auglaize county.

      Mr. Jesse Stephens; Messrs. Stueve & Connaughton and Messrs. Sumner & Tucker, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Layton & Son; Mr. D. F. Mooney and Messrs. Coeke & Hoskins, for defendant in error.
   Judgment vacated and cause remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings as per journal entry.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 8077.
    Wick Banking & Trust Co. v. Warner, Admr.
    (Decided April 14, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. E. T. Hamilton and Air. William M. Raynolds, for plaintiff in error.

      Air. O. G. Pinney and Mr. A. A. Stearns, for defendant in error.'
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7496.
    Hinchman et al. v. Mead et al.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Messrs. Ernst, Gassatt & McDougall and Air. Alfred G. Gassatt, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Foraker, Outcalt, Granger & Prior and Air. George Al. Eiehelberger, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed as per journal entry.

Burket,.C. J., Spear, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7721.
    Washburn et al. v. Washburn et al.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Pike county.

      Mr. John P. Phillips; Mr. John A. Eylar and Mr. Stephen D. McLaughlin, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Seney & Johnson and Mr. James A. Douglas, for defendants in error.
   Judgment of dismissal set aside and vacated, and judgment of the circuit court affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7730.
    Colby v. City of Toledo et al.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Messrs. Kinney & Newton; Messrs. Smith & Beck-with; Mr. G. W. Kinney and Mr. Alexander L. Smith, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. King & Tracy and Messrs. Brown, Geddes & Bodman, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7750.
    Bank v. Maumee Cycle Co. et al.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Messrs. Smith & Beckwith and Mr. R. S. Holbrook, for plaintiff in error.
    Messrs. Seney & Johnson and Messrs Doyle & Leiois, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burkbt, C. J., Spear and Davis, JJ., concur as to releasing stockholders from liability for debts incurred after transfer of tbeir stock.

Burket, C. J., Davis and Price, JJ., concur as to distribution of fund.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., dissent as to said distribution.


text:
    No. 7755.
    David, Trustee, v. Bright.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Messrs. Phelps & Davidj Mr. W. W. Chapman and Mr. L. A. Carabin, for plaintiff in error.
    Mr. George F. Pendleton and Mr. W. F. Briekman, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burkbt, C. J., Spear, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7761.
    Yeiser, Admr., v. Railway Co.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Warren county.

      Mr. George S. Baity, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Foraker, Outcalt, Granger & Prior and Mr. J. A. Runyan, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed for the reason that the judgment of the court of common pleas was reversed by the circuit court for the reason that it was against the weight of the evidence.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauok, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7775.
    Evans v. The State of Ohio.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Mr. D. H. Coinmanger and Mr. E. 8. Oommanger, for the plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Charles E. Sumner, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7782.
    Cheney v. Bank.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Messrs. Beney & J ohnson, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Smith & Beclcwith, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and .Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7810.
    Fire Assurance Co. v. Plato et al.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      Mr. Thomas Bates; Mr. F. M. Stevens and Mr. E. G. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. S. G. Redington and Messrs. Weber & Metcalf, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7811.
    Stocker et al. v. Village of Arcanum.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Darke county.

      Mr. Martin B. Trainor and Mr. Kirk Hoffman, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Meeker & Gaskill, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Comstock v. Nelsonville, 61 Ohio St., 288, and Findlay v. Pendleton, 62 Ohio St., 80.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7818.
    Werts v. Fire and Marine Insurance Co.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Miami county.

      Messrs. Gilbert & Shipman, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. J. H. Oabell; Messrs. Oabell & Freiberg and Mr. A. F. Broomhall, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7839.
    Hedrick et al. v. Gilbert et al.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mercer county.

      Mr. Robert L. Mattingly, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Cable & Parmenter and Messrs: Marsh & Loree, for defendants in error.
   judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. j., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7840.
    Gillen v. City of Warren.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Trumbull county.'

      Mr. E. B. Taylor and Mr. E. E. Roberts, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Charles M. Wilkins and Mr. T. H. Gillmer, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Davis, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7844.
    National Surety Co. v. Peck-Williamson Heating & Ventilating Co.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Messrs. Paxton & Warrington; Mr. G. 8. Bowman and Messrs. Wilson <£- Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Harmon, Golston, Goldsmith & Hoadly; Mr. G. B. Matthews and Messrs. Ernst, Gassatt & McDougall, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7846.
    Sherman et al. v. Campbell et al.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Sandusky county.

      Messrs. Hunt & DeRan, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Finefrock & Garver; Mr.- W. W. Campbell and Mr. L. J. Turley, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 8233.
    Bennett & Co. v. Railway Co.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Mr. J. H. Collins, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Merrick & Tompkins and Mr. T. J. Duncan, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 8234.
    Innis v. Railway Co.
    (Decided April 21, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Mr. J. H. Collins, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Merrick & Tompkins and Mr. T. J. Duncan, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7747.
    Beall et al. v. City of Martins Ferry et al.
    (Decided April 28, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Belmont county.

      Mr. S. W. Boyd; Mr. F. B. Sedgwick and Mr, H. G. Pratt, for plaintiffs in' error.

      Mr. G. L. Weems and Mr. George Gooke, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7814.
    Wadsworth Salt Co. v. Railroad Co. et al.
    (Decided April 28, 1903.)
    ■Error to the Circuit Court of Medina county.

      Messrs. Grant & Sieber, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Tibbals & Frank, for defendants in error.
   Cause dismissed for want of jurisdiction, it not appearing that more than $300 is involved in the judgment sought to be reversed.

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


text:
    No. 7823.
    Fire Insurance Co. v. Balbian.
    (Decided April 28, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Seneca county.

      Mr. Thomas A. Logan, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Bunn & Royer, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7824.
    Fire Insurance Co. v. Balbian et al.
    (Decided April 28, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Seneca county.

      Mr. Thomas A. Logan, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Bunn & Royer, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7835.
    Gwyn v. Donson.
    (Decided April 28, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Yan Wert county.

      Messrs. Glenn & Allen, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Saltzgaber & Hoke, for defendant in error.'
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Raudabaugh v. Hart, 61 Ohio St., 73.

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


text:
    No. 7847.
    Insurance Co. v. Strong.
    (Decided April 28, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Wood county.

      Messrs. Stephens & Lincoln; Mr. Datus R. Jones and Mr. Charles H. Stephens, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. James O. Troup, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shaucic and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7853.
    The State of Ohio ex rel. Sudborough v. McKenney et al.
    (Decided April 28, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. Samuel Doerfler, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. John G. White and Mr. Clifford A. Neff, for defendants in error.
   Judgment reversed, demurrer to reply overruled and cause remanded for further proceedings as per journal entry.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7938.
    City of Martins Ferry v. Ratcliff et al.
    (Decided April 28, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Belmont county.

      Mr. George Goolce and Mr. G. L. Weems, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. L. J. G. Drennen, for defendants in error.
   Judgments of the courts below reversed, demurrer to the answer overruled and cause remanded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings according to law.

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


text:
    No. 7827.
    Gressman v. Bruning.
    (Decided May 5, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Mr. J. 8. Wertman, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Southard & Southard and Messrs. Rhoades & Rhoades, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7849.
    Johnson v. Johnson.
    (Decided May 5, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Belmont county.

      Mr. Fred L. Rosemond, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Wells & Sheppard and Messrs. Petty & Grew, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7855.
    Huber v. Huber.
    (Decided May 5, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Wood county.

      Mr. Peter Emslie, for plaintiff in'error.

      Mr. J. E. Shatzel, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7857.
    State ex rel. Birch v. Clapsaddle et al., Directors.
    (Decided May 5, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

      Mr. P. M. Smith and Mr. W. F. J ones, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Potts & Moore, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7859.
    Burckhardt v. Greene.
    (Decided May 5, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Messrs. Goebel & Bettinger, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Galvin & Galvin, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7862.
    Karns v. Karns et al.
    (Decided May 5, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mercer county.

      Messrs. Mamie & Jackson, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. A. D. Marsh and Mr. John W. Loree, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7864.
    Smith et al. v. Verwohlt et al.
    (Decided May 5, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Jefferson county.

      Mr. P. M. Smith and Mr. A. G. Smith, for plaintiffs in error.

      Miss Beatrice M. Kelley; Messrs. Erskine & Erskine; Mr. D. M. 'Gruber and Mr. J. O. Bigger, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Dayis, Shauck and Créw, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7878.
    Wolf et al. v. Hapner.
    (Decided May 5, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Preble county.

      Messrs. King & Lowry, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Bisinger & Bisinger, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7887.
    Village of New Lexington v. Rose.
    (Decided May 5, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Perry county.

      Mr. Tom D. Binckley and' Mr. L. A. Tussing, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. H. D. Cochran; Mr. J. A. Ivers and Messrs. Donahue & Spencer, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7894.
    O’Malley, Exrx., v. Trustees et al.
    (Decided May 5, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Messrs. Coppock, Hammel & Coppock, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Thornton M. Hinkle, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauok and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7906.
    Troy Carriage Co. et al. v. Bank et al.
    (Decided May 5, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Miami county.

      Messrs. Davey, Campbell & St. John, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Gilbert <& Shipman, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Hinkle v. Salem Mfg. Co., 39 Ohio St., 547, and Holcomb, Admr., v. Gibson, 58 Ohio St., 710.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7908.
    Read, Assignee, v. Terhune et al.
    (Decided May 5, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Mr. W. H. A. Bead, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. King & Tracy, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7916.
    Stevenson v. Piqua Hosiery Co.
    (Decided May 5, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Miami county.

      Messrs. Long é Kyle, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Robert J. Smith, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 8375.
    Graham v. Railway Co.
    (Decided May 5, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. G. N. Sheldon, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. E. A. Foote, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed under rule 19.

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


text:
    No. 7722.
    Priddy v. Beatty et al.
    (Decided May 12, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Mr. George F. Pendleton; Mr. John Poe and Mr. John E. Beatty, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Adeline & Betts and Mr. E. T. Dunn, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7767.
    In the Matter of Crawford v. American Missionary Assn. et al.
    (Decided May 12, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Mr. Charles C. Wilson and Mr. E. F. Bacon, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Rhoades & Rhoades, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7831.
    Foxhever v. Order of Red Cross et al.
    (Decided May 12, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Mr. Orville S. Brumback and Mr. Charles A. Thatcher, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Kohn & Northup, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7896.
    Polsdorfer v. Bruon.
    (Decided May 12, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Putnam county.

      Messrs. Kraicss & Eastman and Messrs. Bailey & Bailey, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Leasure & Poioell and Messrs. Watts & Moore, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7902.
    Huffman v. Pierce et al.
    (Decided May 12, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Preble county.

      Mr. I. E. Craig, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Alex. F. Hume; Mr. F. G. Shuey and Mr. David Pierce, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7905.
    Hunt v. McCurdy, Admr.
    (Decided May 12, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Miami county.

      Messrs. Davy, Campbell & St. John, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. A. F. Broomhall, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed. .

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


text:
    No. 7909.
    Hutson Coal Co. v. Welty et al.
    (Decided May 12, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Portage county.

      Mr. T. H. Johnson; Mr. E. T. Hamilton and Mr. W. J. Becldey, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. I. T. Siddall, for defendants in error.
   Judgment as to the petition in error affirmed, and judgment as to the cross-petition in error reversed, and judgment in favor of cross-petition in error.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7930.
    Mischler, Treas., v. Whiteman et al., Admrs.
    (Decided May 12, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Brown county.

      Messrs. Parker & Waters and Mr. J. W. Tari) ell, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Rufus L. Fite, for defendants in error.
   Judgment on authority of Cleveland Trust Co. et al. v. Lander, Treas., 62 Ohio St., 266.

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


text:
    No. 7968.
    Jarmusch v. Otis Iron & Steel Co.
    (Decided May 12, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. Herman Preusser, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Squires, Sanders & Dempsey, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7981.
    Heller v. Cass et al.
    (Decided May 12, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Putnam county.

      Messrs. Watts & Moore; Messrs. Brown, Geddes & Bodman and Messrs. Swayne, Hayes & Tyler, for plaintiff in error. •

      Messrs. Bailey cG Bailey and Mr. Harvey Scribner, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

• Burket, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7992.
    Life Insurance Co. v. Howle.
    (Decided May 12, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. C. L. Hotze, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Hart & Canfield and Mr. W. 8. Kerruish, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 8241.
    The State of Ohio v. Cosner.
    (Decided May 12, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      Mr. W. H. Bowers, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr¡ W. F. Yoegele, Jr., for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Btjrket, C. J., Davis and Price, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7877.
    The State of Ohio v. Hood.
    (Decided May 19, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Guernsey county.

      Mr. James Joyce, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Thomas E. Steele and Mr. G. D. Dugan, for defendant in error:
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7879.
    City of Lima et al. v. Baxter, Guardian.
    (Decided May 19, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Allen county.

      Messrs. Wheeler & Bentley and Mr. D. G. Henderson, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Motter, Mackenzie & Weadock, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of City of Dayton v. Beauman, 66 Ohio St., 379.

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


text:
    No. 7888.
    Cowen et al. v. Lanehart.
    (Decided May 19, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      Mr. J. S. Collins and Messrs. Cummings, McBride & Wolfe, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. Andrew Stevenson and Messrs. Jenner & Weldon, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Shauok, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7910.
    Kotte v. Creed et al.
    (Decided May 19, 1903.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Mr. diaries W. Baker, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Alfred B. Benedict, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7915.
    Ilgenfritz v. Lohman et al.
    (Decided May 19, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Mr. S. L. Clark and Mr. R. B. Murray, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. A. J. Woolf and Mr. William A. Maline, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Bukket, C. J., Davis and Price, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7919.
    Ward v. Cleveland Trust Co. et al.
    (Decided May 19, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. S. W. Ward, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Garfield, Garfield & Hoioe, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7923.
    Schmidt et al. v. Wunker.
    (Decided May 19, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. Chris. Von Seggern and Messrs. Conner & Walker, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Goebel & Bettinger, for defendant in error;
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 7996.
    Grant, Exr., v. Grant, Admr., et al.
    (Decided May 19, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Sandusky county.

      Messrs. Van Horn & Mead and Messrs. Meeh, Dud-row & Worst, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Hunt & DeBanj tov defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7816.
    Leonard, Trustee, v. Bank.
    (Decided June 9, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      Messrs. Johnston & Leonard, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. W. B. Thompson and Mr. Geo. L. Glitsch,■ for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, O. J., Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7892.
    Faurot v. Norton et al., Partners, et al.
    (Decided June 9, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Defiance county.

      Mr. J. M. Damson, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Harris, Cameron & Shaw; Messrs. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey; Messrs. Winn & Hay; Messrs. Kline, Oarr, Tolies & Goff; Messrs. Swayne, Hayes & Tyler; Mr. S. T. Sutphen; Mr. Elizer G. Johnson; Mr. Virgil P. Kline and Mr. T. H. Bushnell, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 8007.
    White v. Cherry.
    (Decided June 9, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Mr. L. Howard Jones, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. G. B. Dwiggins and Mr. H. Walter Doty, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 8095.
    Railway Co. v. Ham, Admr.
    (Decided June 9, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Fulton county.

      Mr'. E. D. Potter; Mr. Geo. G. Greene and Mr. F. J. Jerome, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Ham, Ham & Ham apd Messrs. Handy & Handy, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 8239.
    Board of Education v. State ex rel. Morganstern.
    (Decided June 9, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Trumbull county.

      Mr. T. H. Gillmer and Mr. E. E. Roberts, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Charles Fillkis, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 8240.
    Board of Education v. State ex rel. Parke.
    (Decided June 9, 1903.)

      Mr. T. E. Gillmer and Mr. E. E. Roberts, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Gharles Fillius, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7763.
    Gary, Assignee, v. Bank.
    (Decided June 16, 1903.)
    Error to tlie Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Mr. M. B. Gary and Messrs. J. A. & E. V. Bope, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Blackford & Blackford, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and judgment in favor of.plaintiff in error as per entry, on authority of Rouse v. Bank, 46 Ohio St., 493.

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


text:
    No. 7891.
    Suburban Building and Loan Assn. v. Pugh.
    (Decided June 16, 1903.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Mr. Benjamin F. Ehrman, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Gohen & Mack, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J.,- Spear, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7984.
    Rasche v. Varwig et al., Exrx.
    (Decided June 16, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. L. S. Pummill and Mr. W.' G. Williams, for plaintiff'in error.

      Mr. Louis J. Dolle and Mr. Alfred B. Benedict, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7952.
    State ex rel. O’Brien v. Yaple, Mayor, et al.
    (Decided June 16, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Ross county.

      Mr. Charles R. Doll, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Wallace D. Yaple and Mr. James A. Cahill, for-defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7985.
    Bank et al. v. Granger, Assignee.
    (Decided June 16, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. Charles W. BaJcer, for plaintiffs .in error.

      Messrs. Foraker, Outcalt, Granger & Prior and Messrs. Burch & Johnson, for defendants in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 8028.
    Oglevie et al. v. Miller et al.
    (Decided June 16, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Knox county.

      Mr. J. B. Graham and Mr. J. B. Waight, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Cooper & Moore and Messrs. Mclntire & Mclntire, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Buricet, C. J., Spear, Shaucic, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 8173.
    Railway Co. v. Taylor.
    (Decided June 16, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Messrs. Merrick, Tompkins & Godown, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. T. E. Poioellj Mr. G. G. Snyder and Mr. W. J. Ford, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Speak, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 8384.
    The State of Ohio v. Ellis.
    (Decided June 16, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Mr. W. R. Graham, prosecuting attorney, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Frank Jacobs, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed on authority of State v. Allen, infra, 516.

Burket, C. J., . Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7950.
    City of Cincinnati et al., v. Shoemaker et al.
    (Decided June 23, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. Charles J. Hunt and Mr. Albert H. Morrill, corporation counsel, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Wilby & Wald and Mr. Charles E. Tenney, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7962.
    Stewart et al. v. Turner et al.
    (Decided June 23, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Guernsey county.

      Mr. J. B. Ferguson, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. J. W. Smallwood and Mr. B. T. Scott, for defendants in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear,. Davis, Shauck, Price and' Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 8166.
    Council of the City of Defiance v. State ex rel. Chapman et al.
    (Decided June 23, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Defiance county.

      Mr. F. L. Hay, city solicitor, and Mr. J. M. Sheets, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Ansberry & Farrell, for defendants in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court and of common pleas reversed and petition of plaintiff below dismissed for the reason that mandamus is not the proper remedy, the plaintiff having an adequate remedy at law.

Burket, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 8447.
    Grimes v. McCullough et al.
    (Decided June 23, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Adams county.

      Messrs. Kinlcead, Menvine & Schumacher, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. A. G. Blair, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.

Burket, C. J., dissents.


text:
    No. 7842.
    Skinner v. State, for the use, etc., et al.
    (Decided June 23, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Jackson county.

      Mr. R. H. Jones, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. A. E. Jacobs, prosecuting attorney, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7843.
    Teeple v. Johnson.
    (Decided June 25, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Summit county.

      Mr. S. G. Rogers and Mr. L. S. Pardee, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. E. G. Sanford and Messrs. Tibbals & Frank, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirjned.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7874.
    Dickman v. State.
    (Decided June 25, 1903.)
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of Allen county.

      Messrs. Ridenour & EaXfhill. for .plaintiff in error.

      Mr. John M. Sheets, attorney general, and Mr. William Klinger, prosecuting attorney, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7971.
    Insurance Co. v. Edmonds.
    (Decided June 25, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. G. W. Fuller and Mr. It. H. Patohin, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Alex. S. Martin and Mr. O. G. Pinney, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 7998.
    Burns-Bowe Banking Co. v. Jordan et al.
    (Decided June 25, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Messrs. Kart & Gan field, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. JSf oble, Pinney & Willard and Mr. James M. Jones, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 8002.
    Cincinnati, Portsmouth, Big Sandy & Pomeroy Packet Co. v. Bay et al.
    (Decided June 25, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lawrence county.

      Messrs. Stephens & Lincoln and Mr. Julius L. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., and Mr. J. O. Yates, for defendants in error.
   Judgment vacated and cause remanded to the circuit court with direction to consider bill of exceptions.

Burket, O. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 8514.
    State ex rel. Moffatt v. Gotchell.
    (Decided June 25, 1903.)
    Mandamus.

      Mr. F. A. Jeffers, for plaintiff.

      Messrs. Mallory & Sears, for defendant.
   Demurrer to petition overruled and peremptory writ of mandamus awarded.

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


author: Davis, J.

text:
    The State of Ohio, ex rel. Sheets, Attorney General, v. Laylin, Secretary of State.

      Act providing for manner of submission of constitutional amendments—Longworth ballot act—Passed May 2, ic¡02—Is a valid act—Constitutional law. ■ t .

    The act of the general assembly entitled “An act to provide for the manner of submission of constitutional amendments and other questions to a vote of the people,” passed May 2, 1902 (95 O. L., 352), is a valid act.
    (No. 8652
    Decided October 6, 1903.)
    In Quo Warranto.
    The relator sets forth in his petition that, by certain joint resolutions passed by the general assembly of the state of Ohio, it was agreed to submit to the electors of the state of Ohio, on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, 1903, certain propositions to-amend the constitution of the state of Ohio, which propositions are described in the petition. It is also, alleged that under the act of the general assembly, passed May 2, 1902, entitled “An act to provide for the manner of submission of constitutional amendments and other questions to a vote of the people” (95 O. L., 352), the republican and democratic parties of the state of Ohio, in convention assembled, took action in favor of the adoption of certain of such constitutional amendments, and also against the adoption of certain other constitutional amendments, and certified their action to the secretary of state in the manner provided for certifying nominations for state offices;, and that the defendant, as secretary of state, pursuant to said act, is preparing, and is about to print, such action of said parties, so certified to him, upon the official ballot for use at the election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November,, A. D. 1903, as a part of the party ticket of each of said parties; and in all other respects in the preparation of such ballot and the placing of such constitutional amendments thereon, is complying with the requirements of the said act of May 2, 1902; and the relator alleges that the exercise by the defendant of any of the' franchises, privileges, rights or powers sought to be conferred by said act is in contravention of the-constitution of the state of Ohio, and prays that he be-compelled to answer by what warrant or rights he claims to act in the preparation or arrangement of' such ballot in the form aforesaid, and by what warrant or right he is about to have printed upon such ballot the action in favor of or against the adoption of such constitutional amendments by the parties aforesaid, and that upon the hearing hereof he be ousted from the rights, franchises and privileges so claimed. The defendant demurred to the petition on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

      Mr. John M. Sheets, attorney general, for the relator.
    It will be seen that, according to the provisions of this act, a party may not only express its wish in convention assembled as to the men it desires to fill the offices, but it may also express its wish as to the constitutional amendments it desires to be adopted or rejected. In other words, the act in question undertakes to apply the Australian method of voting to constitutional amendments, as well as to candidates for offices to be filled.
    The act cannot be considered as an unreasonable infringement on the right of a voter to express his will untrammeled, for if it were, it would necessarily follow that the whole Australian method of voting would be an infringement on the right of suffrage, hence unconstitutional. The application of the Australian method of voting to constitutional amendments makes it easier for the voter to adopt the will of a party as expressed in convention, with reference to the amendments, just as the Australian system of voting makes it easier for the voter to adopt the will of a party expressed in convention with respect to its candidates. Under this system, however, the voter is also given the opportunity to approve the action of his party in part, and disapprove it in part, by voting for some of the candidates nominated, or of the amendments indorsed, and against others.

      It would seem that the only serious question for consideration by the Court is, does this system make the indifferent voter support a constitutional amendment in favor of which his party has taken action, while the framers of the constitution intended that all indifferent votes should be counted against any proposed amendment. It was no doubt the purpose of the framers of the constitution (article 16, section 1) to provide that since the constitution is the expression of the whole people, it should not be amended unless a majority of those voting at the election should express themselves in favor of the amendment.
    In contemplation of law are there any indifferent voters? The voter is presumed, of course, to know the law, and knows that if he does not cast his vote in favor of the amendment, it is counted against it. As the- voter casts his ballot, so he is conclusively presumed to intend to vote. He is conclusively presumed to know and understand what names are on his ballot—what persons and propositions he is voting for or against-.
    A number of the eastern states have constitutional provisions to the effect that a majority vote is necessary to elect a person to office; i. e., a plurality vote is not sufficient. If then, in contemplation of law, there is such a thing as an indifferent voter, and if the constitution protects him in his indifference, and protects him against voting for any candidate whose name he does not know to be on the ticket, or toward whom he may have a feeling of total indifference as to whether he is elected or defeated, and if the Australian ballot system causes the ignorant or indifferent voter, to vote for candidates whose names he does not know to be on his ticket, then in all those states requiring a majority-vote to elect a person to office, the Australian ballot system could be attacked on constitutional grounds. Yet these states have the Australian ballot system, and so far as I know, it has never been successfully attacked.
    Voting on constitutional amendments, and voting for candidates for office, are both elections, the one no more sacred than the other, or more within the protection of the constitution.

      Mr. George B. Okey; Mr. B. M. Ditty and Mr. W. A. Taylor, for the relator.
    The “Longworth act” has no application to the five pending propositions to amend the constitution. Two of the joint resolutions submitting propositions to amend the constitution were adopted before the passage of the “Longworth act;” one on the same day and two afterwards. Each joint resolution prescribes the language which shall, in each case, be placed upon the ballot by the elector desiring to vote either for or against the proposition. .
    The “Longworth act” provides how constitutional amendments shall be placed upon the regular ballot (section 2); the same section further provides for cases when any political party in state convention has taken action, that: “Said statement shall also be placed on the' official ballot immediately below the names of the candidates for the state officers on the regular ticket of any party or parties,” etc.
    Both of these forms are irreconcilably in conflict with those prescribed by the joint resolutions. It is impossible that both can be followed. Take as an illustration the joint resolution submitting the double liability amendment. That proposed amendment was indorsed by the state conventions of both the republican and democratic parties, and will therefore go upon the official ballot in accordance with the provisions of the “Longworth act,” if that act is constitutional and applies to the pending propositions. By the provisions of that joint resolution those electors desiring to vote for it must place upon their ballots “For single liability amendment,” while those opposed to it must place upon their ballots the words “Against single liability amendment.” If it is placed upon the ballot in accordance with the provisions of the “Long-worth act,” it will appear on the ballot in three different places, in two different forms, none of which will be in the form prescribed by the joint resolution. First, it will appear in a separate column on the regular ballot. Second, on the regular democratic and republican tickets immediately below the names of candidates for state officers.
    The same is true, in a large degree, with respect to all of the other propositions, some of them going on both party tickets, some on one party ticket, and one on none. In order that the “Longworth act” may be held to apply to the pending propositions, the court must hold that it operated to repeal by implication the joint resolutions adopted prior to its enactment, as well as that the joint resolutions passed afterward did not, by implication, repeal it. A joint resolution of the general assembly is as solemn' an act of legislation as a statute. A joint resolution submitting to the people a proposition to amend the organic law must be adopted by the affirmative vote of “three-fifths of the members elected to each house,” while a statute requires but a majority of such votes. The form of the ballot prescribed by each joint resolution might, perhaps, have been left to be provided for by general act, although much might be said upon a proposition to the contrary; or each resolution might have incorporated similar provisions contained in the “Longworth act,” if such provisions are constitutional, which we do not at all concede. As it is, neither was done. What rule of construction must be applied to resolve, the situation? It is evident that the provisions of the “Long-worth act” must control, or those of . the joint resolution must prevail, for both cannot be followed. The “Longworth act” is in form general. If constitutional, it will apply, until repealed, to the submission of all future constitutional amendments and other questions to a vote of the people. There is nothing in it, except the fact of its enactment at the same session, to indicate that it had any special or particular reference to any proposition already submitted, or to be submitted, at the same session.
    The joint resolutions were special and particular enactments. 2 Bates’ Dig., p. 2160, par. 231, citing Ohio cases; Sedg. on Stat. Law, 123; also Gregory’s Case, 6 Coke’s Rep., 19b; Brown v. Commissioners, 21 Pa. St., 42; Sutherland on Stat. Const., sec. 157 and 158; Fosdick v. Perrysburg, 14 Ohio St., 473; Shunk v. Bank, 22 Ohio St., 515; State v. Newton, 26 Ohio St., 206; Knox Co. v. McComb, 19 Ohio St., 320; State v. Franklin Co., 20 Ohio St., 421; Allen v. Russell, 39 Ohio St., 336.
    If the “Longworth act” be constitutional its provisions can and will apply to all future propositions to amend the constitution, unless the joint resolutions of submission provide a different form and method. There can be no question but that if any one of the five joint resolutions in question had specifically and unequivocally provided that the ballot upon that proposition should be deposited in a separate ballot box, as many contend that the constitution contemplates and requires, such provision would have been operative and binding irrespective of the “Longworth act.” .Is a joint resolution submitting a proposition to amend the constitution, after final adoption, susceptible of amendment or repeal? If so, such action would require a vote equally as great as that required for its adoption, to-wit: “By three-fifths of the members of each house.” If it be claimed that the “LongAvorth act” operated to repeal or amend, by implication, any of the joint resolutions adopted before its enactment, it would seem that no such effect could be given to that act unless adopted by a like vote.

      Mr. Oharles Kinney, for the respondent.
    The submission of a constitutional amendment or question to a vote of the people is an election. (Bouvier & Abbott’s Law Dictionary.) And as “All elections must be by ballot” (article 5, section 2), the constitution enjoins upon the electors the duty of expressing their approval of the proposed amendments through the medium of a ballot. State ex rel. v. Bode et al., 55 Ohio St., 229. All regulations of election, however, “to be valid, must be reasonable and impartial and calculated to facilitate and secure the, constitutional right of suffrage, and not to subvert, or injuriously or unnecessarily restrain or impede the right.” Dagget v. Hudson, 43 Ohio St., 548. As will ' be seen by the authorities above cited, this-Court-has held that the general assembly has the right to regulate elections, as Avell as to prescribe the form of ballot to be used at all elections. The only question involved, therefore, is whether the form prescribed by the act, whose validity is questioned in this action, is in violation of any specific prohibition of the constitution or interferes with the free exercise of the elective franchise conferred by article 5, section 1, of theeonstitution.
    In 1891 came.the enactment of the Australian system prescribing an official ballot for úse at elections, in voting for candidates for office. Amendments and other questions, however, were still required to be-submitted on separate ballots.
    The authority of the legislature to prescribe this-, form of ballot and this method of expressing the-voters’ choice has been upheld by this Court.
    The act of May 2,1902, whose validity is questioned' in this action, attempts to furnish to the elector, when-amendments to the constitution or other questions-have been submitted, and have been acted upon by his-party in convention, the same facilities in marking his ballot in expressing his approval of. party measures as it furnished him in expressing his choice of party candidates for office. The act also conforms to that provision of article 16, section 1, which requires the amendments to be so submitted as to enable the elector to vote separately on each amendment, by requiring the negative and affirmative answer to' each amendment to be printed in a separate column on the ballot sheet so that independent electors, or electors affiliating with political parties, but not desiring to support the policy of his party in such matters may vote separately on each amendment, by placing a cross mark opposite the answer he desires to give.
    Instead of interfering with the free exercise of the-elective franchise, it facilitates voting, and is calculated to secure a fuller expression of public opinion on the questions submitted, than was possible under the old system, and is so conceded by the relator.

    That there are careless or indifferent voters is a mere presumption of fact, arising from another fact which experience has demonstrated to exist, that many voters at such elections do not vote either for or ¡against the amendments submitted.
    The language of the constitution is: “If a majority of the electors voting at such election shall adopt ■such amendment, the same shall become a part of the constitution;” that is to say, in order that their approval may be effective, those favoring the propositions submitted must affirmatively express such approval by casting a ballot in favor thereof; and this ■even is not sufficient unless there be a majority in favor of such adoption.
    No such requirement is imposed by the constitution upon those opposing the propositions submitted. They may manifest their objection, either by not voting at ■all or by casting- a ballot against the measure.
    The constitution in fact takes no account of the negative vote. If a majority of those voting at the election should vote against the measure proposed, they would fail of course, not because a majority voted ¡against them, but because a majority of the electors voting at such election did not vote to adopt the same. If no votes were cast against it, still the measure would fail if a majority did not vote for it.
    It is true that section 18 of the ballot law requires •amendments to be submitted on a separate ballot, and that this section was not specifically repealed. The -act of May 2,1902, therefore, is said to be inconsistent with this provision of the general statute. But in answer to this objection we quote the language of this Court in Lorain Plank Road v. Cotton, 12 Ohio St., 263; Work v. Massie, 6 Ohio, 503; State ex rel. v. Cincinnati, 19 Ohio, 178; Walker v. Cincinnati, 21 Ohio St., 14; State ex rel. v. Smith, 44 Ohio St., 348.

      Mr. Wade H. Ellis, for the respondent.
    We contend that the “JLongworth act” is constitutional.
    First. It may be considered that the language of the constitution (article 16, section 1) forbids the submission of constitutional amendments in Ohio upon the same ballot with the names of candidates. This is a mistake. The requirement is not that the amendments shall be submitted separately from other questions, but that the amendments shall be so submitted that the elector may make a separate choice for or against each. In other words, the requirement of the ■constitution is that amendments must not be submitted so that the elector is required to vote either in favor of all, or against all. The possible wrong that was intended to be avoided was the submission to a •single vote of two or more amendments, thus giving to a less desirable amendment the advantage of the ■popularity of another submitted with it. The purpose •of the makers of the constitution was to prevent “rid■ers” in the submission of amendments.
    • Second. It may be suggested that this provision of the constitution is intended to deny to an elector the right, by one act, to vote for all the amendments or >against all the amendments. There is no justification for such a view. The purpose of the constitutional provision must be held to be to facilitate the*exercise -of the electoral function; to extend the freedom of the voter rather than to restrict it. The constitutional provision was adopted for the benefit of the 'elector, and not to put him at a disadvantage. It is a limitation upon the legislature, and not a limitation upon the elector.
    ■ Third. It may be suggested that this constitutional provision intends that when more than one amendment is submitted at the same time, they shall be so submitted as to require the elector to vote on each amendment separately. This is the gist of the whole controversy, if there is any! The constitutional provision declares simply that such amendments shall be so submitted as to enable the elector to vote on each amendment separately. The constitutiop does not require either that the elector shall vote separately on each amendment, or that the amendments shall be so submitted as that the elector must, of necessity, vote separately on each. The provision merely declares that the amendments shall be submitted so that the elector may, if he desires, vote separately on each. In other words, the requirement of the constitution is that the legislature must give the elector the chance to vote separately, and not that the legislature must require him to vote separately.
    It will thus be seen that by the rules prescribed in this act, the elector is enabled to vote separately on each amendment submitted. If he votes accox’ding to the first, second or fourth of the methods provided,, his choice is separately expressed and recorded by him,, either for or against each of the amendments. If he votes according to the third method, his choice is registered either for or against each of the amendments upon which his party has expressed its judgment or policy, and in accordance therewith; and as to the amendments upon which his party has expressed no jxxdgment or policy, he has declined to vote, and his silence has the effect of a negative vote.
    It is not a doubt of the constitutionality of an act that should avail; it is the certainty of its unconstitutionality that alone can condemn it. If the only question that can be raised about this act is a doubt as. to its constitutionality, then it must be upheld. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87; McCormick v. Alexander, 2 Ohio, 75; Lewis v. McElvain, 16 Ohio, 347; Railroad Co. v. Clinton Co., 1 Ohio St., 77; Telegraph Co. v. Mayer, 28 Ohio St., 521; State v. Kendle, 52 Ohio St., 346; Lehman v. McBride, 15 Ohio St., 573; Mason v. State, 58 Ohio St., 30; Baker v. Cincinnati, 11 Ohio St., 534; State ex rel. v. McCann, 21 Ohio St., 198; Bloom v. Xenia, 32 Ohio St., 461; State v. Frame, 39 Ohio St., 399.
    Within the legislative power is, of course, the conduct of elections, including the regulation of the character and contents of the ballot.
    It may finally be urged as an objection to this act that the legislature makes use of political party organizations in eliciting an expression of the will of the people upon constitutional amendments. I submit that there is nothing either in the letter or the spirit of the supreme law of the state against such a course. Indeed, it seems peculiarly in harmony not only with that instrument, but with the best spirit and ideals of republican institutions. This is a government of majorities, and political progress and reform are best attained by the conflict of party organizations. Public policies and principles, which otherwise might be dissipated as floating theories, become tangible issues and take concrete and practical form in party platforms. If it is wise or expedient that candidates for office should be put forward by the action of political parties, and should receive party indorsement and support, how much more fitting is it that policies and principles should, in this more direct way, receive the sanction and support of party organizations. Woodworth, In re, 16 N. Y. Supp., 147; State ex rel. Plimmer v. Poston, 58 Ohio St., 620.
   Davis, J.

In the constitution of this state there is no limitation upon the legislative power to provide by general laws the manner of submitting to a vote of the people a proposed amendment to the constitution, except that when there is more than one amendment to be submitted they shall be so submitted that the elector shall be enabled to vote separately on each. This does not mean that each amendment must be upon a separate ballot or be deposited in a separate ballot box, nor that each or all of the proposed amendments may not be voted for on ballots on which are the names of candidates for office who are voted for by the elector. It merely requires that the elector shall be “enabled” to record his vote upon each amendment separately if he so desires, that is, that he may vote for one or more and against one or more at the same time if he chooses so to do. If, being so enabled, he chooses not to vote at all upon any or all of the amendments, such failure to vote necessarily operates as a negative vote, because amendments to the constitution must be adopted by a majority of all 'the votes cast at the election. It was not the design or intention of the constitution to put a premium on ignorance or indifferentism at the same time that it is the duty of every citizen to inform himself and to vote upon every matter submitted to a vote of the people. Out of the proposition that a constitution adopted by the people can be amended only by a majority of the people, it naturally follows that of all the people voting at an election when an amendment to the' constitution is submitted^ only those should be counted for the amendment who expressly so vote, and this is the whole scope of article 16, section 1, of the constitution of Ohio.

The act of the general assembly entitled “An act to-provide for the maimer of submission of constitutional amendments and other questions to a vote of the people,” passed May 2, 1902 (95 O. L., 352)., enables the elector to vote with or against his party, on each or all of the amendments, -or to vote separately upon each and every proposed amendment, or to not vote at. all if he so desires. So far as we have been able to-discover the act is not in any respect in conflict withi the constitution, and not irreconcilably in conflict with the joint resolutions adopted by the general assembly submitting propositions to amend the constitution. - ■

Demurrer to petition sustained and■ petition dismissed.

Burket, O. J., Spear, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.. ■


author: Creav, J.

text:
    Baker et al. v. Carpenter, Executor.

      Devisee of will—Dies during lifetime of testator—Leaving issue— Such issue takes devise subject to indebtedness of primary,' devisee—Law of wills—Section 597r, Revised Statutes.

    Under the provisions of section 5971, Revised Statutes, where a/ devisee named in a will, dies during the lifetime of the testator, leaving issue, such issue takes the estate so devised “in the same manner the devisee would have done if he had survived the testator.” And if such primary devisee is indebted to the-estate of the testator, his issue is entitled under said statute-to have and take only so much of the amount bequeathed to-the parent, the primary legatee, as is left after the payment of his debt.
    (No. 7883
    Decided October 13, 1903.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Greene county.
    On April 25, 1900, A. G. Carpenter, as executor of the will of Jacob W. Baker, deceased, under favor of ¡section 6202, Revised Statutes, commenced an action in the court of common pleas of Greene county, Ohio, for the purpose of obtaining the judgment and direction of said court as to the proper distribution to be made by him as executor, of the property and estate to be by him administered under the provisions of the will of said Jacob W. Baker. Plaintiff attached to his petition, and made part of it, a copy of the will ■of said Jacob W. Baker, which will is in the words and .figures following, to-wit:
    “I, Jacob W. Baker, of Greene county, Ohio, do ■make and publish this my last will and testament:
    “Item 1. After the payment of all the just debts, ■I will and bequeath to my son, John Q. A. Baker, as ■compensation and in lieu of all claims he might have ¡against my estate on account of care, nursing and attention given and to be given me, the sum of three 'dollars per week from January 1, 1891, to January 1, 1893, and the sum of six dollars per week from January 1, 1893, till my death, if I shall so long remain with him, but if I shall not remain with him and receive his care, nursing and attentidn so long, then till I shall go elsewhere.
    “Item 2. After payments aforesaid, I bequeath the residue of my estate equally between my three children, share and share alike; that is to say, one-third to Justice L. H. Baker, one-third to John Q. A. Baker, ¡and one-third to Mary P. Taylor.
    “Item 3. I will and direct that my executor cause my farm to be appraised by three disinterested appraisers to be appointed by the probate court of said •county in parcels; that is to say, so much thereof as lies' on the north side of the Xenia and South Plymouth road in one parcel, and so much as lies on the ¡south side of .said road in the other parcel. It is my will that my son John Q. A. Baker be allowed to take such north portion at the appraisement, and my son Justice L. H. Baker be allowed to take the south portion at the appraisement—each on the terms of one-third cash, one-third in one year, and one-third in two years—deferred payments to be secured 'by mortgage on premises and to bear six per cent, interest. But the probate court may modify these terms, if it deems the same proper to do in respect to times of payment. Should either or both my sons decline to take said respective portions at the appraisement, then the same shall be sold under order of said court—that is, the untaken portion or portions.
    “Item 4. I nominate and appoint A. G. Carpenter the executor of my will.
    “In testimony whereof witness my hand this April 17,1894.
    “Jacob W. Baker.
    “Signed by us as witnesses in the presence of all at the request of said Jacob W. Baker at the date aforesaid, he acknowledged the same as his last will.
    “Thomas L. Morris,
    “F. TY Ocian.
    In his petition the plaintiff alleged that at the time of the execution of said will, to-wit: April 17, 1894, J. Q. A. Baker, Mary P. Taylor and Justice L. H. Baker, the legatees therein named, were all in full life. That thereafter, and during the lifetime of the testator, Justice L. H. Baker died leaving surviving him, as his children and only heirs-at-law, G. O. Baker, Elma R. Bush, Anna R. Baker, John L. Baker, Emma J. Baker, Frank Baker, Justus W. Baker, Wilbur C. Baker and Zola Baker. It further appears from the averments of said petition that Justice L. H. Baker, a legatee under said will, and the father of the plaintiffs in error, was at the time of his death indebted to the testator, Jacob W. Baker, upon two promissory, notes in the sum of about $1,400, and the prayer of the petition was that plaintiff might have “the direction and judgment of the court in the matter of his duties respecting said notes. Whether the amount due thereon is to be taken as a part of the assets of the estate of his testator, Jacob W. Baker, and whether such amount is to be deducted from the distributive share that would be coming to the children and heirs of said Justice L. H. Baker, deceased.” The answer, so called, which was filed by the children of Justice L. H. Baker, who are plaintiffs in error herein, does not controvert or deny the allegations of the petition, but asserts the claim only: “That one-third of the entire estate of said Jacob Baker, after the payment of certain debts and charges, was by his said will devised to said J. L. H. Baker without being subject to any other or further charges, debts, or deductions; and that these defendants by reason of the death of said J. L. H. Baker after the execution of said will and prior to the death of said testator, take the estate devised to said J. L. H. Baker (their father) without any charges, debts, or deductions by reason of, or on account of, said promissory notes mentioned in said petition.”
    Upon the hearing of this cause in the court of common pleas that court found and adjudged that said notes were due the estate of said Jacob Baker, deceased, that they were assets in the hands of plaintiff as his executor, and directed plaintiff to deduct and retain the amount due thereon from the distributive share belonging to the children and heirs-at-law of said Justice L. H. Baker, deceased, under the provisions of said will. The case was appealed by defendants beIoav, plaintiffs in error here, to the circuit court,, and a like order and judgment was made and entered by that court. To reverse this finding and judgment of the circuit court this proceeding in error is prosecuted.

      Mr. W. A. Paxson and Mr. T. L. Magruder, for plaintiffs in error, cited and commented upon the folloAving authorities:

      Townsend’s Exrs. v. Townsend, 25 Ohio St., 477; McKelvey v. McKelvey, 43 Ohio St., 217; Isherwood v. Isherwood, 8 Circ. Dec., 409; 16 C. C. R., 279 (affirmed by Supreme Court without report, 38 Bull., 280); sec. 5971, Rev. Stat.; Woolley v. Paxson, 46 Ohio St., 307; Shumaker v. Pearson, 67 Ohio St., 330; 3 Washburn on Real Property, 4; 4 Kent’s Com., 373; Martin v. Martin, 56 Ohio St., 333; Parsons v. Parsons, 52 Ohio St., 470; Woodbridge v. Banning, 14 Ohio St., 328; Douglass v. Miller, 4 Dec., 414; 3 N. P., 220; White v. Agnew, 1 O. S. C. D., 644; 38 Bull., 47 (Supreme Court without report); Norwood v. Mills, 3 Dec., 356; 1 N. P., 314; Banning, Exr., v. Gotshall, 62 Ohio St., 210.

      Mr. Chas L. Spencer; Messrs. Snodgrass & Schnebly and Mr. H. L. Smith, for defendants in error, cited and commented upon the following authorities r
    Section 5971, Rev. Stat.; Parsons v. Parsons, 52 Ohio St., 470; Martin v. Martin, 56 Ohio St., 333; Keener v. Hunter, 62 Ohio St., 616.
   Creav, J.

The question presented for decision in this case involves the construction of section 5971 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio. That section provides as follows:

“When a devise of real or personal estate is made to any child or other relative oí the testator, if such child or other relative shall have been dead at the time of the making of the will, or shall die thereafter, leaving issue surviving the testator, in either case such issue shall take the estate devised in the sanie manner as the devisee would have done, if he had survived the testator; or if such devisee shall leave no such issue, and the devise be of a residuary estate to him or her, and other child or relative of the testator,the estate devised shall pass to, and vest in such residuary devisee surviving the testator, unless a different disposition shall be made or required by the will.”

It is the claim of counsel for plaintiff in error in" this case that by force of the provisions of this section, that on the death of Justice L. H. Baker, their father, the interest and estáte bequeathed to him by the will of Jacob W. Baker, vested in them as the children of said Justice L. H. Baker, directly and immediate]y under the will of their grandfather, as a devised estate, and that they take the same unincumbered by, and discharged of, any debt due the testator from their father.

The sole question Ave are called upon to consider and determine in this case is, Avliether these plaintiffs in error, ayIio are not named in the will of Jacob W. Baker as devisees or legatees, but are such only by Avay of substitution and by force of the provisions of above section 5971, take the property or estate bequeathed to their father subject to the equities which Avould have existed against it in his hands had he survived the testator, or whether they take it in their own absolute right, and discharged of all such equities. There can be no doubt, and counsel for plaintiffs in error concede, that if Justice L. H. Baker, the primary legatee named in this avíII, Avere here in person ask-mg to recover his legacy, or his distributive share of his father’s estate under said will, that the court would say to him, if you would have your legacy you must pay your debt, if you will not pay you must suffer your legacy to be applied in discharge of it, and such decree would not only be in accord with justice and sound reason, but would be in keeping and harmony with the principle of equality which pervades our laws of descent and distribution. Such then being the standard by Avhich the rights of a primary legatee thus situated must be measured and determined, are these plaintiffs in error, Avho are devisees or legatees only by substitution, entitled to have or to hold a better or more advantageous position in the distribution of this estate than could their immediate ancestor, the primary legatee? The answer is to be found in the construction and interpretation, proper to be given to above section 5971, Revised Statutes.- What then is the true interpretation, meaning and effect of this statute? In the' construction and interpretation of statutes of this character—remedial statutes—' and as an aid both in determining the legislative intent and the meaning and effect proper to be given to the statute itself, it is helpful and important to inquire AAfhat Avas the old laAV, ÁAdiat the mischief which existed under it, and what the remedy intended to be applied by the legislature by the enactment of the particular statute, the interpretation of which is being considered. Before the enactment of section 5971, under the rule of the common law, if a legatee should die before his testator his legacy would lapse, and such lapsed legacy would fall into the residuary fund, if any, of testator’s estate,, and thus might pass to those Avho had no natural or rightful claim whatever upon the testator’s bounty. Prior to the time of the enactment of this section, such was the law of this state that if a father made a will distributing his estate as he thought proper among his children, and one of them should die in the father’s lifetime, leaving children, unless the testator was wise enough and thoughtful enough to anticipate and provide in his will for such contingency, the children of his deceased child would take nothing, but the children of the testator who survived him, would take the whole estate. To remedy this imperfection and to relieve .against this harshness and injustice of the common law our statute was passed.

The statute, as its title shows, was designed and intended to relieve against a hardship, by preventing the lapsing of devises and legacies, and its sole purpose and effect, as we think, was and is, upon the happening of the contingency therein mentioned to place the grandchildren of a testator in their parent’s stead, and to give to them the right to take what such parent would have taken if he had survived the testator. But certainly we think it was not the purpose, and could never have been the intention of the legislature, by the enactment of this statute to secure to the grandchildren of the testator greater rights and privileges than their parent—the primary legatee—could have had; nor may we reasonably assume that it was the intention of the legislature to give to such grandchildren rights against other beneficiaries under the will which the person in whose place they stand, and for whom they are substituted, never would himself have been permitted to assert. Yet such result must inevitably follow if the statute under consideration is to have the construction and interpretation contended for by the plaintiffs in error. The rule of construction is .elementary, that statutes must always be construed so as to give effect to the intent and object of the legislature. The statute now under review, as we have seen, was designed to relieve from a hardship, .and should, therefore, be so read and interpreted as to cure the mischief it was intended to remedy, but its meaning and effect must not be enlarged or extended by construction beyond the purpose of its enactment. The plaintiffs in error in this case are not named in the will of Jacob W. Baker as legatees, nor anywhere designated in said will as beneficiaries of the testator; they are mere “statute made” legatees, who by force of the provisions of section 5971 take the place of their father and are given what, but for his death, would have gone to him as primary legatee under said will, and as such substituted legatees they must bear the burdens and be subject to the same equities that would have existed against him if he had survived the testator. In other words, in the language of the statute itself, they “must take in the same manner as he would Tiave done had he survived the testator.” The circuit court in this case having so found and adjudged, its judgment is

Affirmed.

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