author: Bradbury, C. J.

text:
    Bradford Glycerine Company v. The St. Marys Woolen Mfg. Co.

      Nitroglycerine an explosive and dangerous substance — Its storage a menace to property in vicinity — Liability of siorer for damages —Extends to premises beyond those adjacent.

    1. Nitroglycerine is a substance usually recognized as highly explosive and dangerous, the storage of which at any placéis a constant menace to the property in that vicinity. And one who stores it on ,his own premises is liable for injuries caused to surrounding property by its exploding, although he neither violates any provision of the law regulating its storage, nor is chargeable with negligencé contributing to the explosion.
    2. A right of action will exist in favor of all property within the circle of danger, and the fact that the property injured was not on premises adjacent to those on which the explosive substance was stored, will not defeat a recovery.
    (Decided June 20, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.
    This action was commenced before a justice of the peace by the defendant in error to recover of the plaintiff in error damages suffered on account of an explosion of a magazine of nitroglycerine owned by the latter. The plaintiff in error prevailed before the magistrate and the cause was appealed to the court of common pleas where the plaintiff in error again prevailed. The cause was then carried to the circuit court on error where the judgment of the court of common pleas was reversed and a judgment rendered for the defendant in error for the damages it had sustained. Whereupon proceedings were instituted in this court to reverse the judgment of the circuit court. The facts will be stated in the opinion.

      George II. Phelps, for plaintiff in error.
    This case presents but one question, (never yet to knowledge passed upon by this court) whether in the absence of negligence, the owner of a substance of this character becomes liable for an injury resulting from its spontaneous explosion. We say spontaneous, because the record is silent as to the cause of the explosion. The proof simply is,1 that “it is likely to explode” and that “from some cause unknown to the defendant” it did explode.
    If there was a known cause for such explosion, such cause is not alleged in the petition, nor developed in the proof.
    Manifestly the explosion itself was in no sense the act of anybody. If a cause were requisite to effect an explosion, and such cause existed, then before the court could be asked or permitted to infer negligence from such explosion, it is at least requisite that the court shall be advised of the cause, act or omission which produced the explosion, to the end that the court could pass judgment upon the act or omission.
    True, negligence itself is an issuable fact, and when it is charged in pleading, the act or omission becomes the evidence by which the fact is established, but where, as in this instance, no negligence is charged, and no fact, act or omission proved, then of necessity there is no question of negligence in the case.
    So that we come again to the question of liability from the mere fact of the ownership of the property, supplemented by the fact that intervening providence by means of such property produces injury to the property of another.
    The argument of the defendant in error, and the theory upon which the circuit court proceeded, is, in brief, that by the fact of owning and using property of this character, such owner becomes, to all intents and purposes, the insurer against all the consequences which result from its presence.
    It is urged and held that doctrine of the English leading case of Rylands v. Fletcher is applicable to the facts of this case, and that that doctrine or the rule there laid down is in force in this state. Chapter 12, page 598, of Webb’s Pollock on Torts.
    One very important distinction in fact between the case at bar and the English case is found in the fact that in this case there was not the slightest element of trespass.
    The same distinction pervades all the Ohio cases that have come under my observation, which in any degree involved the principle or in which reference to the English case is made. Tiffin v. McCormick, 34 Ohio St., 638; Gas Company v. Andrews, 50 Ohio St., 695; Defiance Water Co. v. Olinger, 54 Ohio St., 532.
    In quoting from the English case, in 54 Ohio St., on page 539, Bradbury, J., uses the words, “natural and anticipated consequences,” as the limit of accountability on the part of one whose property occasions injury by getting upon the premises of another.
    There is a manifest distinction in principle, and upon authority between the empounding and presence of a dangerous and menacing substance for the purely personal convenience of the owner, and the presence of an equally dangerous agency having an element of. public utility in the community where kept. Webb’s Pollock on Torts, pp. 608-9.
    This rule of law has often received interpretation, and been applied to substances possessing every characteristic of the one now under consideration, and it has been universally held that negligence must be the basis of liability for injury re-suiting' from an explosion. 7 American and Eng., Ency. of Law, 517 and notes; Webb’s Pollock on Torts, p. 164 and notes; Cooley on Torts, 589-594; Losee v. Buchanan, 51 N. Y., 476.
    One man’s combustible property is destroyed by reason of its contiguity to that of another; yet, in the absence of malice or negligence, the law affords no remedy; It is damnum absque injuria.

      OulUton c& Smith and J. II. Goeke, for defendant in error.
    We respectfully submit that the judgment of the circuit court was right, and that of the common pleas court and the magistrate was wrong.
    Following higher courts’ authority which will be ■ stated later, the circuit court laid this down to be the law and which we believe is sustained by reason and a vast number of authorities. XV Ohio-Circuit Court Reports, 522.
    It is to be observed here that no active negligence on the part of the plaintiff in error is complained of, other than the negligence which the law fastens upon one who keeps upon his premises substances dangerous and likely to explode. One of the facts agreed upon is that “nitroglycerine is a dangerous substance and likely to explode.” And we contend that no such active negligence on the part of the plaintiff in error.need be alleged or proved to sustain the claim of the defendant in error.

      Fletcher v. Rylands, L. R. 1 Exch., 265, found in Vol. 1 English Ruling Cases, pages 235-272, seems to be the leading case and the one around which the English and American cases bearing upon the point decided in the leading case, cluster. Tiffin v. McCormick, 34 Ohio St., 638; The Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y., 163; 36 Am. Rep., 509-654; 48 Am. St. Rep., 146; Moak’s Underhill on Torts, pp. 12-13; Addison on Torts, p. 308; 58 Am. Rep., 556; 6 Hill, 292; 48 Am. St. Rep., 146; Wood on Nuisance, 142; 89 N. Y., 498; Cahill v. Eastman, 18 Minn., 324 [10 Am. Rep., 184].
    Especial attention is called to this latter case because it fully answers two claims made by counsel for the plaintiff in error in his brief.

      Fvrst — That on account of the distance of the magazine from where the property destroyed was situated the plaintiff in error could not have anticipated injury to such property as the result of an explosion, and,

      Second — Because the Glycerine Company had located its magazine at a place sanctioned by legislative authority and on that account would not be liable in case of an explosion causing damage.
    Both of these claims we think are fully covered by the case above cited and it matters not how great the distance between the magazine and the place where the injury occurred so long as it appears that the explosion caused the injury.
    Nor is it material that the Glycerine Company was using its land in a lawful or ordinary or usual way. If the explosion of its dangerous substance caused the damage and injury, it is liable without respect to its conducting its business in a lawful way. The Minnesota case above cited contains a thorough discussion of the English and American •authorities on this subject. Wilson v. City of Bedford, 108 Mass., 261 or [11 Am. Rep., 352]; Hegg v. Licht, 80 N. Y., 579.
    Noisome vapors floating over one’s premises, if it makes the premises unhealthy, is a nuisance for which a right of action will lie in favor of the party suffering. Upon like reasoning the force that produces the vibrations which have done the damage would be a nuisance. 54 Ohio St., 539; Hays v. The Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y., 159; Carmen et al. v. S. & I. R. R. Co., 4 Ohio St., 417.
    The Glycerine Company has no right to use their lands upon which was stored this dangerous substance so as to interfere with the undisturbed possession and lawful enjoyment of the property of the St. Marys Woolen Manufacturing Co. The Woolen Co. was without fault in the matter. The Glycerine Company was handling a substance of powerful force and destructive character. They were charged with a knowledge of its far reaching destructive and annihilating effects in case it exploded. It actually did explode and caused the damage complained of. The Glycerine Company ought to respond in damages. The question of negligence is not in this case.
   Bradbury, C. J.

The cause was submitted to the court of common pleas on the following agreed statement of facts:

“It is hereby stipulated that this case will be submitted to the court upon the following statement of facts as the evidence in this case:
“Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio, and the owner of real estate whereon buildings are erected in the village of St. Marys,. Auglaize county, Ohio, and was such at all times, stated in the petition filed in this action.
“The defendant is a partnership organized for the purpose of doing business in the state of Ohio and owning property therein.
“On or about January 25, A. D. 1896, the defendant was the owner of a magazine and contents containing about fifty quarts of nitroglycerine used by tbe defendant in its business of manufacturing, storing and vending nitroglycerine, which magazine was situated on a tract of land belonging to one W. G. Kishler, and situated something over a mile west of the buildings so owned by the plaintiff in St. Marys, Ohio, and situated about one-fourth (i) of a mile distant from the corporation line of the village of St. Marys, Auglaize county, Ohio.
“That on or about said twenty-fifth day of January, A. D., 1896, while one of the defendant’s servants was upon the premises upon which said maga zine was located engaged in transferring about seven hundred and fifty (750) quarts of nitroglycerine from a wagon loaded with same to said magazine, the said nitroglycerine stored therein, and also the same upon the wagon aforesaid, from some cause unknown to said defendant, exploded with great force and concussion causing vibrations in the atmosphere sufficient in power and violence to break, shatter and destroy three (3) plate glass and three (3) common glass in the buildings owned by the plaintiffs aforesaid of the value of two hundred and forty-four dollars and ten cents ($244.10) by reason of which explosion and the breakage of said glass the plaintiffs were injured and damaged to the extent aforesaid.
“That nitroglycerine is a dangerous substance and likely to explode. That demand of payment ■of said sum has been made by the plaintiff to the defendant and payment thereof has been refused.”

This agreed statement of facts does not show •that the plaintiff in error violated any statute of the state or was in any degree negligent in handling or storing the explosive substance involved. It was nitroglycerine, a well known and highly explosive agency, which the agreed statement of facts shows “is a dangerous substance and likely to explode.” Is one who brings upon his own premises such agency liable for damages caused by its exploding, although such owner is not chargeable with either want of care or an unlawful act in connection with the casualty? This exact question has not heretofore been considered by this court, although a number of cases have been decided by the court that bear a general resemblance to it. Gas Fuel Co. v. Andrews, 50 Ohio St., 695; Defiance Water Co. v. Olinger, 54 Ohio St., 532; Tiffin v. McCormick, 34 Ohio St., 638. Tbe tendency of these cases is towards holding the parties charged with the management of dangerous substances to ,a strict liability. In Tiffin v. McCormick, 34 Ohio St., 638, this court held: “Where the owner of a stone quarry, bjr blasting with gunpowder, destroys the buildings of an adjoining land owner, it is no defense to show that ordinary care was exercised in the manner in which the quarry was worked.” And the same view of the liability of one who by blasting rocks cast fragments thereof against the house of another, was taken by the Court of Appeals of New York in the cases of Hay v. The Cahoes Co., 2nd N. Y., 159, and Tremain v. The Cahoes Co., ib., 163. The court in the first case decided that: “The defendants, a corporation, dug a canal upon their own land for the purposes authorized by their charter. In so doing it was necessary to blast rocks with gunpowder, and the fragments were thrown against and injured the plaintiff’s dwelling upon lands adjoining. Held, that the defendants were liable for the injury, although no negligence or want of skill in executing the work was alleged or proved.” And in the second case that: “The defendants dug a canal upon their own land, and in executing the work blasted the rocks so as to cast the fragments against the plaintiff’s house on contiguous lands. Held, in an action on the case brought to recover damages for the injury, that evidence to show the work done in the most careful manner was inadmissible, there being no .claim to recover exemplary damages, and the jury having been instructed on the trial to render their verdict for actual damages only.”

Counsel for plaintiff in error contend that in respect of the matter under consideration the analogy between the act of blasting rock on one’s premises and storing a dangerous explosive thereon is not close. In the one case the damage is caused by fragments of rock being hurled upon or against the property injured, while in the other case the damage is caused by violent atmospheric vibrations from the explosion. If, however, the explosion caused fragments of thebuilding wherein the explosive material was stored, or other solid substance, to be thrown against the property injured, thereby producing damage, the analogy might be more easily perceived. True it might be said that in the one case the party to be charged was actively engaged in the work that caused the injury, while in the other case he was simply using the premises to store the dangerous substance, not intending that it should explode. These distinctions, however, do not seem to be material. The right of the owner of a stone quarry to blast rock therefrom where that is necessary to a profitable use of his property, or the right of one to make an excavation of any kind on his own property where blasting is a proper and usual mode to accomplish the owner’s purpose, would seem to be of as high and perfect a character as is the right of an owner to use his premises as a storehouse for explosive substances.' Upon what principle should an owner of property hold it subject to the right of another to store on his own premises adjacent to it nitroglycerine, but not subject to the right of that other to blast rock? If one may store nitroglycerine on his own premises and not be liable to adjacent property for damages caused by its exploding unless he has been negligent, while in the case of the owner of the quarry the latter is liable for an injury to an adjacent property resulting from blasting, although free from negligence, then it is plain that the adjacent proprietor holds his. property in the one case subject to the right of his neighbor to store a dangerous explosive, but not to the right of his neighbor to blast rock. In the first supposed case, the liability grows, not out of the storing of the dangerous explosive, but out of the negligence of the person storing it, while in the last supposed case, the liability springs from the manner in which the property is used, i. e., the blasting, and negligence need not be shown. If in the latter instance the party blasting is liable for injuries that resulted from his act, however careful he may have .been, the reasons for absolving the former from liability, unless he has been negligent, are not apparent. The blasting doubtless is a menace to adjacent property, but so is the storing of a highly explosive substance.

In this ease the premises on which the explosive substance was stored and the premises on which the building stood that was injured do not appear to have been adjacent. They were a mile apart, and for anything that appears in the record, many parcels of real estate owned by third persons may have intervened. That, however, does not seem to be material either. One who in blasting rock should cast fragments across a strip of adjacent land owned by a third person against the windows of a more remote proprietor would hardly be heard to say in defense of his act that the property injured was not adjacent. Whatever duty he owed to his neighbor extended equally to all who might fall within the lines of danger. So it would seem that in the case of explosives, the right of all within the circle of danger should be equal, irrespective of whether the property injured was adjacent to the premises upon which the material was stored.

The liability of one who for his own purpose brings upon his own premises substances dangerous to others, if not kept under control, was exhaustively discussed by the judges of England in the case of Fletcher v. Rylands, 1 Exch. L. R., 265, and afterwards on a review of the case in the House of Lords, L. R., 3, H. L., 330.

■ — -Iruth^ Exchequer Chamber Justice Blackburn in giving judgment employed the following language: “ We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff’s default; or perhaps that the escape was the ■consequence of vis mayor, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary ■to inquire what excuse would be sufficient. The general rule, as above stated, seems on principle just. The person whose grass or corn is eaten down by the escaping cattle of his neighbor, or whose mine is flooded by the water from his neighbor’s reservoir, or whose cellar is invaded by the filth of his neighbor’s privy, or whose habitation is made unhealthy by the fumes and noisome vapours of his neighbor’s alkali works, is damnified without any fault of his own; and it-seems but reasonable and just that the neighbor, who has brought something on his own property which was not naturally there, harmless to others so long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows to be mischievous if he gets on his neighbor’s, should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to his own property. But for his act in bringing- it there no mischief could have accrued, and it seems but just that he should at his peril keep it there so that no mischief may accrue, or answer for the natural and anticipated consequences. And upon authority, this we think is established to be the law whether the things so brought be beasts, or water, or filth, or stenches.”

This language was approved in the House of Lords when the cause came up for consideration there, Lord Cranworth saying: “My Lords, I concur with my noble and learned friend in thinking that the rule of law was correctly stated by Mr. Justice Blackburn in delivering the opinion of the Exchequer Chamber. If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbor, he does so at his peril. If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage.”

The doctrine in this case (Rylands v. Fletcher, supra) has not been accepted by some of the courts of this country. Marshall v. Welwood, 38 N. J. L., 339; Swett v. Cutts, 50 N. H., 439; Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Sanderson, 113 Pa. St., 121; Losee v. Buchanan, 51 N. Y., 476; but has been approved in Shipley v. Fifty Associates, 106 Mass., 194; Gorham v. Gross, 125 Mass., 232; Meors v. Doll, 135 Mass, 510; Cahill v. Eastman, 18 Minn., 324.

In the case above cited from. New York, Losee v. Buchanan, 51 N. Y., 476, and that from New Jersey, Marshall v. Welwood, 38 N. J. L., 339, a!, casualty occurred from an explosion of steam ^ boilers. "■

To my mind the analogy between the act of storing so highly explosive and dangerous an agency as nitroglycerine on one’s premises and that of conducting a business thereon, which requires for its successful operation the use of steam, is not complete, although each is an explosive. Doubtless both are dangerous agencies, when control over them is lost. The use of steam has, however, so generally been employed in every productive industry that every owner of real property may reasonably be held to contemplate the contingency of its being employed upon adjacent premises, and to enjoy his property subject to that risk. In a great city like New York or Chicago, where numerous and varied industries are conducted, there are doubtless many thousands of places where steam is employed. The entire population of such a city is interested and most of them directly or indirectly benefited by these industries. Large numbers of them labor by day in factories where steam furnishes the motive power, and many of them sleep at night in buildings containing engines in active operation. The modern steam boiler and engine cannot be said to be such & menace to property and human life as to constitute a nuisance per se. They cannot as such be driven from the centres of population. Not so, however, with gunpowder and nitroglycerine. These latter agencies on account of their dangerous character may be, and usually, if not universally, are driven into the suburbs of towns and cities, remote from human habitations and valuable structures. Under the circumstances that surround the productive arts and industries of to-day a modification of the strict rule of liability in favor of those who employ steam in such arts or industries, may not be inconsistent with its assertion against those who store gunpowder and nitroglycerine, or blast rocks adjacent to the property of others. That public policy which seeks to secure the welfare of the many may demand such modification.

Whether upon such grounds or for any other reasons such a modification of the rule should •obtain in the case for the use of steam is not, of course, before the court, and the question is only considered in this brief way to show that there may be no irreconcilable conflict between the cases that have absolved the owners of boilers from liability for the consequences of an explosion occurring without their fault, and the conclusions reached by us in the case under consideration. Doubtless gunpowder, nitroglycerine and other dangerous explosives are useful agencies in many industries, as well as steam, but conceding that in the case of steam boilers the extensive and varied uses to which steam is devoted, the comparatively slight danger arising from its use, require on principles of public policy, which regards the interests of the great body of the people, that every owner of real property should be held to possess-it subject to the right of his neighbor to erect a manufactory and employ steam on adjacent premises, yet it does not necessarily follow that such owner should possess his property also subject to the right of his neighbor to erect a powder or nitroglycerine magazine in his vicinity.

The existence of a manufacturing establishment^ although it employ steam as a motive power, may and doubtless is in many instances a positive benefit to real property in its vicinity, and instead of diminishing- may enhance its value, while on the contrary, the erection and use of a nitroglycerine magazine could have no other than a disastrous effect on the value of all real property in its vicinity. We think, therefore, the right to-maintain the former may be placed upon grounds that cannot apply to the latter. The general doctrine upon the subject stated in Fletcher v. Rylands, supra, seems to be just and fair in its-general operation. The syllabus of that case, as announced by the House of Lords, L. R. 3, H. L.,. 330, seems to recognize a distinction in this respect between an ordinary and an extraordinary use of his premises by their owner, and had that learned tribunal then had before it a case where-damages were sought on account of injuries resulting from an explosion of a steam boiler in a. manufacturing establishment, it might have denied the liability in the absence of proof of negligence, on the ground that the owner was using his premises in an ordinary manner.

But whatever might have been done by the-House of Lords in the case supposed, we are of the opinion that the storing of nitroglycerine should be deemed to be an extraordinary and unusual use of property, and we can see no principle upon which an exception to the general doctrine laid down in Fletcher v. Rylands, supra, can be held to exist in favor of one who stores upon his own premises that or any other dangerous explosive..

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, J., dissents.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: By the Court:

license: Public Domain

text:
    Adair, Assignee, etc., v. Blackburn, Treasurer, etc.

      Asstgmnent of personal property for benefit of creditors — Taxes on property at time of assignment take priority over mortgage given two months previous to assignment.

    Where personal property included in an assignment for the benefit of creditors is incumbered by a mortgage made by the assignor within two months next prior to the assignment, to create a preference, or secure a pre-existing debt, taxes on the property, charged against the assignor at the time of the assignment, are entitled to priority, on the distribution of the proceeds of the property by the assignee, over the claim o f such mortgage.
    (Decided June 20, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Wayne county.
    On the fifth day of December, 1894, J. H. Bush made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors to Robert L. Adair, who duly filed the assignment, qualified, and entered upon the execution of his trust. On the same day the assignment was made, but prior thereto, Bush made three mortgages on the property assigned, to certain of his creditors, to give them preference and secure to each of them a pre-existing debt. These mortgages were given in good faith to secure bona fide indebtedness, and were filed before the execution and filing of the assignment. The property was sold by the assignee, and the proceeds being in his hands for distribution, he made application to the probate court for an order determining the priority of liens, and direction as to distribution of the fund. The treasurer of Wayne county was made a party to that proceeding, and set up a claim for taxes charged against the assignor at the time of the assignment upon the property assigned, to the amount of $108.40. The mortgagees, who were also made parties, set up their claims, and the question between them and the treasurer was whether the taxes had priority over their claims. The probate court directed that the taxes be first paid ; and the fund being insufficient to pay the taxes and the mortgages, the mortgagees prosecuted error in the court of common pleas, where the order of the probate court was reversed ; then the treasurer prosecuted error to.the circuit court where the judgment of the common pleas was reversed, and that of the probate court affirmed. The question here is whether the taxes have preference over the claims of the mortgagees.

      Adair & Adair, for plaintiff in error.

      Boss W. Bunch, for defendant in error.
   By the Court:

The controversy between the parties is determined by section 6355, of the Revised Statutes, which reads as follows :

‘ ‘All taxes of every description assessed against the assignor upon any personal property held by him before his assignment, shall be paid by the assignee or trustee out of the proceeds of the property assigned, in preference to any other claims against the assignor; and every person who shall have performed any labor as an operative in the service of the assignor shall be entitled to receive out of the trust funds, before the payment of the other creditors, the full amount of the wages due to such person for such labor performed within twelve months preceding the assignment, not exceeding three hundred dollars. But the foregoing provisions shall not prejudice, or in any way affect, securities given, or liens obtained, in good faith, for value; but judgments by confession on warrants of attorney rendered within two months prior to such assignment, or securities given within such time to create a preference among creditors, or to secure a pre-existing debt, other than upon real estate for the purchase money thereof, shall be of no force or validity as against such clai ms for labor to the extent above provided, in case of assignment.”

In view of all of the provisions of 'this statute, its effect, we think, is to give preference over the mortgages set up in this case, to claims for labor performed for the assignor within the twelve months preceding the assignment, not exceeding three hundred dollars, and to give the taxes priority over the claims for labor. So that, where, as in this case, the mortgages were given within two months prior to the assignment to create a preference or secure a pre-existing debt, the taxes are entitled to priority over the claims of the mortgagees, and should first be paid as ordered by the probate court, although no claims for labor were presented.

Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5557.
    Einstein & Co. v. Efinger.
    (Decided February 21, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Nat. C. (& J. 8. McLean, for plaintiffs in error.

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


text:
    No. 5822.
    Railway Co. v. Leppla.
    (Decided February 21, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Holmes county.

      G. W. Sharp and Squire, Sanders <& Dempsey, for plaintiff in error.

      Stillwell (& Duer, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6106.
    Patton v. The State.
    (Decided February 21, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      J. E. Eater and Rankin & Rector, for plaintiff in error.

      F. E. Monnett, Attorney General, and E. B. Kinkead, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5535.
    Campbell et al. v. Simington, Admx., et al.
    (Decided February 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      R. B. Murray, for plaintiffs in error.

      King, Me ~Vey d¡ Robinson; Volney Rodgers and G. JD. Hine, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5545.
    Miller v. Strouse et al.
    (Decided February 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Seneca county.

      Lutes c& Lutes and Charles L. Guernsey, for plaintiff in error.

      Brewer dt Brewer, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5551.
    City of Cleveland v. Barkwill et al.
    (Decided February 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Miner G. Norton and Ford, Boyd do Crowl, for plaintiff in error.

      Everett, Weed, Meeds do Sluss; Noble, Pinney do Willard; Wilcox do Collister and E. C. Schwan, for defendants in error. •
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5573.
    Kerr v. County Commissioners of Franklin County.
    (Decided February 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      C. T. Clark, for plaintiff in error.

      Charles W. Voorhees, Prosecuting Attorney; Florizel Smith and William J. Ford, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5574.
    Kingman v. Kingman et al.
    (Decided February 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Morrow county.

      8. C. Kingman; L. K Powell and J. A. Carver, for plaintiff in error.

      Marian do Wood, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5584.
    Foutz v. McGee et al.
    (Decided February 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Perry county.

      Donahue, Spencer & Donahue, for plaintiff in error.

      Herbert Butler and II. D. Coclaran, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5586.
    Hull et al. v. Hill.
    (Decided February 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Jackson county.

      E. B. Bingham and John T. Moore, for plaintiffs in error.

      T. A. Jones and James M. Tripp, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6259.
    Ward, Admr., v. Emma Coal Company.
    (Decided February 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Jackson county.

      J. A. Scott and E. C. Powell, for plaintiff in error.

      T. A. Jones and M. R. Patterson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6358.
    State of Ohio v. Pusateri.
    (Decided February 28, 1899.)
    Exceptions of the prosecuting attorney to ruling of the Court of Common Pleas of Scioto county.

      Uervry Bannon, for plaintiff.

      Theo. K. Funk, for defendant.
   Exception overruled.


text:
    No. 5212.
    Griffith et al. v. Goldsoll & Bro. et al.
    (Decided March 7, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Carpenter <& Young and J P. Bawley, for plaintiffs in error.

      Kline, Carr, Tolies & Goff and W. 3. Kerruish, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5468.
    American Accident Company v. Card, Admx.
    Decided March 7, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Williamson & Cushing, for plaintiff in error,

      John 0. Winship, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5496.
    State ex rel. Hewitt v. Bader et al. Commissioners.
    (Decided March 7, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Jones (& James, for plaintiff in error.

      Rendigs, Foraker <& Dinsmore, for defendants in error.
   Judgment reversed and injunction allowed on the authority of Mott et al. v. Hubbard, Treas. et al., 59 Ohio St., 199 and State ex rel. Iliff v. Bader et al., 56 Ohio St., 780.


text:
    Hutchinson v. City of Columbus et al.
    (Decided March 7, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      F. L. Dewitt; F. G. Hubbard and F. 0. Randall, for plaintiff in error.

      SelwynH. Owen; F. G. Irvine; Charles J. Pretzman and Paul Jones, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, J., dissents.


text:
    No. 5532.
    Hadlow et al. v. Beavis, Exr
    (Decided March 7, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Prentiss <& Voree, for plaintiffs in error.

      William H. Beavis; George S. Kain and H Hughes Johnson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5590.
    McCue v. Smith.
    (Decided March 7, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Tuscarawas county.

      Rowley dk Bradley, for plaintiff in error.

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


text:
    No. 5599.
    Chandler v. Grand Lodge op Ohio et al..
    (Decided March 7, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      L. A. Willson and Wilcox, Gollister, Hogan dk Pa/rmeVy, for plaintiff in error.

      Smith do Baker; Andrew Squire; Allen Andrews; J. H. Sater and Barton Smith, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on grounds stated in Hershiser v. Williams, 6 C. C. R., 147; 3 Circ. Dec., 389.


text:
    No. 5600
    Anderson v. Grand Lodge of Ohio et al.
    (Decided March 7, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      L. A. Willson and Wilcox, Gollister, Hogan do Parmely, for plaintiff in error.

      Smith do Baker; Andrew Squire; Allen Andrews; J. H. Sater and Barton Smith, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5601.
    Gilbert v. Grand Lodge of Ohio et al.
    (Decided March 7, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      L. A. Willson and Wilcox, Collister, Hogan do ParmeVy, for plaintiff in error.

      Smith do Barker; Andrew Squire; Allen Andrews; J. E. Safer and Ba/i'ton Smith, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6075.
    Baughman v. Youngstown Street Railway Company.
    (Decided March 7, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      George F. Arrel and James Kennedy, for plaintiff in error.

      King, Me Vey do Robinson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5527.
    City of Cleveland v. Electric Railway Company.
    (Decided March 14, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cugahoga county.

      Elinor G. Horton and Ford, Boyd & Growl, for plaintiff in error.

      Squire, Sanders do Dempsey, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the ground that the statute giving to the city of Cleveland the power to require 'a greater amount of paving by a street railway than can be required in other cities, is’ unconstitutional.


text:
    No. 5538.
    Railway Company v. Collins.
    (Decided March 14, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Licking county.

      Kibler <& Kibler, for plaintiff in error.

      Samuel M. Hunter, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5547.
    Cincinnati Transfer Company v. Railway Company.
    (Decided March 14, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit; Court of Hamilton county.

      Jones da James, for plaintiff in error.

      Simrall & QaVoin, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed


text:
    No. 5552.
    Sutor, Receiver, v. McKim.
    (Decided March 14, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Washington county.

      Wye da Follett and Frank A. Durban, for plaintiff in error.

      Jabea Belford, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5608.
    Bowe et al v. Daub.
    (Decided March 14, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Sandusky county.

      Kinney <& (P Farrell and Garver & Garver, for plaintiffs in error.

      Meek, Dud/row & Worst, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5611.
    Harkesheimer et al. v. Bergman, by next Friend.
    (Decided March 14, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Jason Blackford <& Byal and F. T. Dunn, for plaintiffs in error.

      John Poe, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5612.
    Harkesheimer et al. v. Bergman.
    (Decided March 14, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Jason Blackford & Byal and F. T. Dunn, for plaintiff in .error.

      John Poe, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5634.
    Prudential Insurance Company v. McCullam.
    (Decided March 14, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Meyer <& Mooney, for plaintiff in error.

      Hart da Canfield, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6210.
    Rundt, Admr., v. Pennsylvania Company.
    (Decided March 14, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Frease da Frease, for plaintiff in error.

      J. R. Cw'ey, and F. J. Mullins, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6313.
    Britt v. Lewis, Auditor, et al.
    (Decided March 14, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Howard Douglass and W. M. Ampl, for plaintiff in error.
    Rendigs, Foraker da Dinsmore, county solicitors, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5554.
    Ricketts et al. v. McArtor et al.
    (Decided March 21, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Perry county.

      John Fm-geson; O. W. Aldrich; E. 0. Ricketts and M. U. Ricketts, for plaintiffs in error.

      Donahue, Spencer da Donahue and Edward Kibler, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5558.
    Phillips et al. v. Wagner et al., Trustees.
    (Decided March 21, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Sterling & Wertz and Nat. C. <& J. S. McLean, for plaintiffs in error.

      Day, Lynch da Day,. for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5560.
    Carter et al. v. City of Zanesville.
    (Decided March 21, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Muskingum county.

      King da Browning, for plaintiffs in error.

      C. A. Maxwell and Durban da McDermott, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5594.
    Hippel v. Darling et al.
    (Decided March 21, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Jackson county.

      J. W. Bannon; John T. Moore; T. A. Jones and J. M. McGilUvray, for plaintiff in error.

      Powell A Eubanks, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5762.
    Caldwell v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided March 21, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Bine A Olarke, for plaintiff in error.

      Thomas W. Sanderson and Jones A Anderson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5966.
    Village of Pleasant Ridge v. Harrison, Assignee et al.
    (Decided March 21, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      J. J. Aeomb, for plaintiff in error.

      Ba/rrison A Aston; W. E. Bundy; Wilson A Berrlinger and Beaky A Brannan, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5967.
    Village of Pleasant Ridge v. Harrison, Assignee et al.
    (Decided March 21, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      J. J. Acomb, for plaintiff in error.

      Harrison cfe Aston; W. K Bundy; Wilson da Herrlinger and Healy da Brannan, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5992.
    State ex rel. Heffner v. Halliday, Auditor.
    (Decided March 21, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      A. L. Balston, for plaintiff in error.

      Dyer da Williams, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6288.
    State ex rel. Cook v. Smalley
    (Decided March 21, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Crawford county.

      Beer, Bennett da Monnette and Finley da Gallinger, for plaintiff in error.
    Z. 0. Feighner; Anson Wickham and D. G. Oahill, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the ground that the answer stated a good defense, and the demurrer to it was properly overruled.


text:
    No. 5568.
    Gaskill v. Watts et al.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mercer county.

      John IT. Koenig, for plaintiff in error.

      A. D. Ma/rsh and John W. loree, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5570.
    Bitzer et al v. Morrow et al
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Fayette county.

      Post c& Reid and Humphrey Jones, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mills Gardner, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5577.
    Tangeman v. Conklin.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Miami county.

      George A. Brooks and Byrkett da DeWeese, for plaintiff in error.

      Allen L. Marshall, O. D. Wright and A. F. Broomhall, for defendant in error.
   J udgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5581.
    Head v. Chesbrough.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      King da Tracy, for plaintiff in error.

      Clayton W. Everett, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5582.
    Brush Electric Light Company v. Dalton.
    (Decided March 28, 1899 ).
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.
    Paxton, Warrington do Boutet, for plaintiff in error.

      Bateman do Harper, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Burket JJ., dissent.


text:
    No. 5636.
    Ettinger v. Tracy, Trustee, et al.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      Donnell té Marriott, for plaintiff in error.
    Jenner, Jenner do Weldon. for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5637.
    Lightwalter v. The State.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Tuscarawas .county.

      F. S. Bomig, for plaintiff in error.

      John A. Buohanan; John A. Hostetler and D. Bcvrelw/i for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6540.
    South v. Fair et al.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Ashland county.

      W. T. Bevor and George A. Niool, for plaintiff in error.

      Mg Gray c& Mg Gray and O. J. Kenny, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5641.
    Owens v. Hosmer.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      M. B. Barnhart, for plaintiff in error.

      Voorhees & Voorhees. for defendant in error
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5645.
    Maxwell, Trustee, v. Revenaugh et al.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Muskingum county.

      J. T. Crew, for plaintiff in error.

      Harry C. Shepperd, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5647.
    Rudershauser v. Pagels.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Keam d> Keam, for plaintiff in error.

      Burch c& Johnson and Scott Holmes, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5649.
    Southern v. Hartness et al.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      White, Johnson, McCaslin da Cannon and J. H. Shourds, for plaintiff in error.

      Kline, Carr, Tolies <& Goff, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5650.
    Southern v. Hartness et al.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.
    White, Johnson, McCasUn do Oannon and J. K. Shourds, for plaintiff in error.
    Mine, Garr, Tolies do Goff, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5657.
    Pixley v. Armstrong et al.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the circuit Court of Scioto county.

      JV. W. Evans and D. Livingston, for plaintiff in error.

      T. G. Anderson; J. P. Purdum and William B. Grioe, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Martin et al. v. Roney et al., 41 Ohio St., 141, and Cincinnati v. Emerson, 57 Ohio St., 132.


text:
    No. 5677.
    Castor et al. v. Farmers’ Bank of Loudonville.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Ashland county.

      Me Gray do Me Gray and O. J. Kenny, for plaintiffs in error.

      J. R. EPissem and F. N. Patterson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5680.
    Keefer & Coon v. Myers et al., Assignees.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Sterling c& Werntz, for plaintiffs in error.

      Baldwin <& Shields, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5707.
    Fries v. Railroad Company et al.
    (Decided March 28, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Huron county.

      <}. T. Stewart, for plaintiff in error.

      Swayne, Hayes c& Tyler and O. P. Wickham, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed, because one ground assigned by the circuit court for reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas was that the latter court erred in overruling the motion for a new-trial, and it appears that one ground for a new trial, stated in the motion, was that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.


text:
    No. 5578.
    Railroad Company v. Cousins.
    (Decided March 31, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      J. P. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

      Woolf <£> Moore; B. B. Murray and W. S. Anderson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, J., dissents.


text:
    No. 5664.
    Brown v. Adams Brothers Company.
    (Decided March 31, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Jason Blackford & Byal, for plaintiff in error.

      W. IT. McEkoaine, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5681.
    City of Newark v. McDowell.
    (Decided March 31, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Licking county.

      T. B. Fulton, for plaintiff in' error.

      B. G. Smythe and F W. Phillips, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed»


text:
    No. 5695.
    Harrington et al. v. Watkins, Receiver.
    (Decided March 31, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Ashtabula county.

      Tuttle c& Tuttle and Northway & Perry, for plaintiffs in error.

      Hoyt & Munsell, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5733.
    McCullough et al. v. Marshall et al., Admrs.
    (Deeided March 31, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Shelby county.

      John F. Wilson, for plaintiffs in error.
    /S'. Z. Wiooff, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5691.
    State of Ohio v. Ridenour et al.
    (Decided April 11, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Paulding county.

      W. F. Corbett, for plaintiff in error.

      Snook <& Wilcox, for defendants in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed, and that of the common pleas affirmed on the authority of Lewis v. The State, 57 Ohio St., 189.


text:
    No. 5716.
    Kerr v. Ohio City and Olmsted Plank Road Company et al.
    (Decided April 11, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      C. LL. Foster and Lawrence c& Estep, for plaintiff in error.

      P. LL. Kaiser and Boynton <& Ilorr, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5583.
    Terry v. Davy.
    (Decided April 18, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Eranklin county.

      Harvey Terry, for plaintiff in error.

      D. T. Barnsey and J. V. Lee, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5682.
    Settle et al., Trustees, v. Albers.
    (Decided April 18, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      J. T. JDeMar and Oliver B. Jones, for plaintiffs in error.

      Wilson db Herrlinger and Healy c& Brannan, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5697.
    City of Toledo v. Mott et al.
    (Decided April 18, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      W. A. Mills and Julian H. Tyler, for plaintiff in error.

      Hamilton <& Kirby and George A. Bassett, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
      No. 5698.

    City of Toledo v. Rowland et al.
    (Decided April 18, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      W. A. Mills and Julian U. Tyler, for plaintiff in error.

      Potter & Emery and Hamilton do Kirby, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5713.
    DuLawrence v. Guelker.
    (Decided April 18, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Wilson do David, for plaintiff in error.

      Kline, Ca/rr, Tolies do Goff, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5722.
    Railroad Company v. Lear, Admx.
    (Decided April 18, 1899.
    Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

      B. D. Marshall, for plaintiff in error.

      John Boehm and W.- A. Hallanan, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5739.
    Norwalk Savings Bank Company v. Norwalk Metal Spinning and Stamping Company et al.
    (Decided April 18, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Huron county.

      Bentley db St&wart and Steioa/rt da Bowley, for plaintiff in error.

      A.- M. Beattie and C. P. da L. W. Wickham, for. defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed. ■


text:
    No. 5776.
    Lynn, Exr., v. Church’s Exrx. et al
    (Decided April 18, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

      Emery Lynn and J. P. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

      Ensign N. Brovm and George Arrel, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5779.
    Railway Co. v. McTeague.
    (Decided April 18, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of .Perry county.

      Boyle db Lewis and Donahue, Spencer db DonoAue, for plaintiff in error.

      H. B. Oochran, 0. LI. Buerhaus and J. E. Johnson,, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed.


text:
    No. 5860.
    Street Railway Co. v. Neiland.
    (Decided April 18, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Paxton, "Warrington do Boutet and Kittredge do Wilby, for plaintiff in error.

      Matthews, Cleveland <& Bowler and Tugman do Baker, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the superior court of Cincinnati affirmed.


text:
    No. 6182.
    Railway Company v. Moreland.
    (Decided April 18, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Harrison county.

      J. Dunba/)\ for plaintiff in error.

      D. A. Hollingsworth, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6190.
    Butler, Admr., v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided April 18, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Allen county.

      G. B. Adgate; J. C. Ridenour and D. C. Render-son, for plaintiff in error.

      John B. Goohrum; W B. Riehie and W. R. Leete, for defendant in error.
   Judgment for defendant in error on the special verdict reversed. Judgment of reversal affirmed, and cause remanded to the court of common pleas for a new trial.


text:
    No. 6320.
    Gitskey v. Newton
    (Decided April 18, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Moses 6. Bloch, for plaintiff in error.

      Kinney dk Newton, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6336.
    Carpenter Bros. v. O’Conner et al.
    (Decided April 18, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Darke county.

      Martz & Bv/pe and Trainor dk Hoffman, for plaintiff in error.

      John 0. Olawh and Anderson dk Bowman, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5663.
    Snyder v. The First National Bank et al.
    (Decided April 25, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Pendleton da Whiteley, for plaintiff in error.

      J. A. da E. V. Boye, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, J., not sitting.


text:
    No. 5717.
    Gary, Assignee, v. Howe, Agent.
    (Decided April 25, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      M. B. Gary and J. A. d? E. V. Bope, for plaintiff in error.

      R. F. Burket and Doyle <& Lewis, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5747.
    Seaton, Receiver, v. Marble et al.
    (Decided April 25, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyanoga county.

      I. T. Biddall and John Porter, for plaintiff in error.

      Kline, Ga/rr, Tolies & Goff, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    5751.
    Reid & Son v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided April 25, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Miami county.

      Olyde c& McPherson, for plaintiffs in error.

      A. F. Broomhall and R. D. Marshall, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    5753.
    Hipple Coal Company v. Moores et al.
    (Decided April 25, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Clark county.

      Pringle da Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

      M. 11. W. P. Jones, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5758.
    Kerr v. Keil.
    (Decided April 25, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Allen county.

      Prophet da Eastman and P. B. Kerr, for plaintiff in error.

      Hoaglancl & Greps, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed on the authority of McLees et al. v. Morrison, 29 Ohio St., 155.


text:
    No. 5763.
    Rawlinson et al. v. Osborn et al.
    (Decided April 25, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Knox county.

      Critohfield da Pevin and Arnold do Morton, for plaintiffs in error.

      John Adams, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5815.
    Mustill v. Thornton, Guardian.
    (Decided April 25, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Summit county.

      Andrew J. Wilhelm and Edwin F. Voris, for plaintiff in error.

      Young <& Wanamaker, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5829.
    Cook et al. v. Aiken et al.
    (Decided April 25, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Logan county.

      Eernan da Cassidy, for plaintiffs in error.

      Dow Aiken, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6363.
    State of Ohio v. Hervey.
    (Decided April 25, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Ashtabula county.

      H. E. Starkey, Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles Lawyer, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

      Hoyt da Munsell, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed.


text:
    No. 5604.
    Trustees of Union Township v. State ex rel. Wagy.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Licking county.

      Kibler da Kibler, for plaintiff in error.

      Samuel M. Hunter, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5606.
    Heidorn et al. v. Wright.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      O. W. Baker, for plaintiffs in error.

      Kramer da Kramer and Patter eon da Reece, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5609.
    Sachs et al. v. Cordes et al.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Burch da Johnson, for plaintiffs in error.

      Kllie B. Gregg and Frank M. Ooppock, for defendants in error.
   On consideration whereof, the court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs below, Samuel B. Sachs and Benedict Frenkel, are entitled to the injunction prayed for in their petition, on the ground that, applying the reason and purpose of the agreement between the parties, whereby the private way was established, to the. changed conditions of things of which the defendants in error were promoters, the said plaintiffs below have the same right to maintain gates at Erie avenue as they had, and now have, at either end of the said private way. Its privacy cannot otherwise be maintained. It is therefore considered that so much of the judgment of the superior court and the affirmance thereof by the circuit court as deprives the plaintiffs below of the right to maintain gates at Erie avenue, be and the same is hereby reversed with costs. And rendering the judgment the superior court should have rendered, it is ordered and adjudged that the defendants below be and they are hereby enjoined from interfering with the gates of the plaintiffs below, as prayed for in their petition, of the kind and character described in the contract of February 25, 1869.

And it is further ordered and adjudged that the plaintiffs in error recover of the defendants in error, their costs in this behalf expended, in this court and in the circuit court and in the superior court to be taxed.

Judgment reversed.


text:
    No. 5668.
    Lindt v. Fraser.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to thé Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      George A'. Groot, for plaintiff in error.

      Wilcox & Oollister, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5669.
    Lindt v. Caley.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      George A. Groot, for plaintiff in error.

      Wilcox (& OolUster, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5765.
    Conrad et al. v. Dieterle.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Miami county.

      Long & Kyle, for plaintiffs in error.

      PL. LI. Williams and A. F. Broomhall, for defendant in- error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5770.
    City of Dayton v. Harmon.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

      Edwin P. Matthews, City Solicitor, 'for plaintiff in error.

      Dickson c& Clark, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, J,, dissents.


text:
    No. 5777.
    Village of Norwood v. Baker.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      William E. Bundy, for plaintiff in error.

      C. W. Baker and M. G. Ileintz, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5778.
    Hansberger v. Railway Company.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Seneca county.

      Bohn <& Baker, for plaintiff in error.

      8. 0. Bayless and McCaidey <& Weller, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5787.
    Pence v. Henderson et al.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Logan county.

      Charles E. Buroker and James Kernan, for plaintiff in error.

      Howenstein & Huston, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5805.
    Findlay Window Glass Company v. City of Findlay et al.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      A. Blackford and John AT. Doty, for plaintiff in error.

      Geor'ge W. Ross and W. II. Kinder, for defendants-in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5808.
    Hurlbut et al. v. Ohio Oil Company.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Sandusky county.'

      Beard do Beard, for plaintiffs in error.

      Bandlett do Wilson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5809.
    Hebble v. Greene, Admr.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Greene county.

      J. A. Cook, for plaintiff in error.

      Gunckel, Rowe do Bhuey, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5833.
    Hudson v. Martin et al.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Union county.
    ' IF. T. Uoopes and D. W. Ayers, for plaintiff in error.

      Porter da Porter, for defendants in error.
   J udgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5842,
    Zoological Park Company v. Haggerty.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Smith dt Blake, for plaintiff in error.

      For an d¡ McTighe, L. Pood Loomis and J. P. Dawley, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5857.
    Moffitt et al., Executors, v. Moffitt.
    (Decided May 2, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Poss <& Kinder, for plaintiffs in error.

      Meehan & Jordan and John Poe, for defendant In error.
   Judgment affirmed


text:
    No. 5614.
    Wilson et al. v. Fountain City Oil and Gas Company.
    (Decided May 9, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Williams county.

      M. M. Boothman and Edward Gaudern, for plaintiffs in error.

      Boioersox <& Starr, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5626.
    Bryant et al., Executors, v. Firemen’s Fund Insurance Company.
    (Decided May 9, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Xittredge <& Wilby, for plaintiffs in error.

      Stephens (&. Lincoln; Paxton, Warrington & Boutet and Richards & Richards, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5672.
    Snyder et al., Executors, v. Snyder.
    (Decided May 9, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Holmes county.

      McClure & Smyser and George W. Sharp, for plaintiffs in error.

      Reed & Hanna and Atlee Pomerene, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5810.
    Gary, Assignee, v. Briggs.
    (Decided May 9, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      M. B. Gary; II. F. Burket and J. A. Bope, for plaintiff in error.

      Jason Blackford <& Byal, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5811.
    Prudential Insurance Company v. Ewing.
    (Decided May 9, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      J. 'W. Oraine, for plaintiff in error.

      W. M. Roach, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5821.
    (Decided May 9, 1899.)
    Guthridge Brothers v. Locke, Assignee.
    Error to the Circuit Court of Guernsey county.

      Fred L. Rosemond, for plaintiffs in error.

      John L. Locke, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5847.
    Eureka Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. McFarland.
    (Decided May 9, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Auglaize county.

      Craighead da Craighead, for plaintiff in error.

      Layton & Stueve, for defendant in error.
   J udgment ■ affirmed.


text:
    No. 6359.
    State of Ohio v. Slavens.
    (Decided May 9, 1899.)
    Exceptions to the rulings of the Common Pjeas Court of Scioto county.

      Henry Bannon, Prosecuting Attorney, for plaintiff.

      Noah J. Hever, for defendant.
   Exceptions overruled.


text:
    No. 5588.
    Stewart v. Dyer et al.
    (Decided May 16, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Madison county.

      B. II. Me Cloud and Watson, Burr da Livesay, for plaintiff in error.

      C. W. Wilson, for defendants in error.
   Spear, Burket and Shauck, JJ., dissent.


text:
    No. 5618.
    Winship et al. v. West, Admr., et al.
    (Decided May 16, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      John C. Winshvp, for plaintiffs in error.

      Lawrence da Estep, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5632.
    Louisville Trust Company, Assignee, et al., v. Block et. al.
    (Decided May 16, 1899.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith da HoadVy and ■Burch da Johnson, for plaintiffs in error.

      Jacob Shroder and • Stephens da Lincoln, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5689.
    Kuhns v. Riegler et al.
    (Decided May 16, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Hay, Lynch da Hay and B. A. Harrison, for plaintiff in error.

      Clark, Ambler da Clark, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Freeman v. Allen et al., 17 Ohio St., 527.


text:
    No. 5729.
    Anschutz v. Foster et al.
    (Decided May 16, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Van Wert county.

      G. L. Marble, for plaintiff in error.

      H. G. Glenn, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed, the merits of the controversy not being presented by the record.


text:
    No. 5761.
    Bausman v. Swick & Greenwald Wheel Co.
    (Decided May 16, 1899)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county. .

      Wright c& Ozias, for plaintiff in error.

      McMahon <& McMahon, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5807.
    Schausten, Admr., v. Street Railway Co.
    (Decided May 16, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Hamilton <& Kirby, for plaintiff in error.

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


text:
    No. 5874.
    Megrue et al. v. County Commissioners.
    (Decided May 16, 1899.)
    Error fco the Circuit Court of Putnam county.

      W. B. Richie; W. H. Leete and Dan M. Bailey, for plaintiff in error.

      James R. Leasure, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5895.
    Conrad, Guardian, v. Stouder et al.
    (Decided May 16, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Miami county.

      A. R. Byrhett; A. W. DeWeese and J. A. Davy, for plaintiff in error.

      Little c& Spencer, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5900.
    Thomas v. Kirkbride.
    (Decided May 16, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Totten & Cole; G. LI. Phelps and Judge Seney for plaintiff in error.

      John Poe, lor defendant in error.
   Judgement affirmed.


text:
    No. 6554.
    Ampt v. City of Cincinnati et al.
    (Decided May 16, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      W. M. Ampt, for plaintiff in error.*

      Thomas MeDougall; Ellis G. Kinkead; Wade H. Ellis and J. B. Frenkel, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5644.
    Meader, Trustee, v. Blymer.
    (Decided May 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.
    Paxton, Warrington <& Boutet and William Worthington, for plaintiff in error.

      Wilby <& Wald, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5877.
    Bartram v. Osbun.
    (Decided May 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Marion county.

      Bartram <& Ba/rtram, for plaintiff in error.

      G. F. Ga/rberson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that •of thé common pleas affirmed.


text:
    No. 5885.
    Gates et al. v. Moorhouse.
    (Decided May 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county..

      J. M. Reed and Cummings & McBride, for plaintiffs in error.

      Bradford & Moorehouse and Donnell c& Marrioifr for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5886.
    Northern Railroad Company v. Manner et al.
    (Decided May 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county..

      Cummings <& McBride, for plaintiff in error.

      H. T. Manner and J. M. Reed, for defendants in ,error..
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5891.
    Davis, Guardian, v. Holcomb, Admr.
    (Decided May 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Scioto county.

      J. P. Pwrdum and A. C. Thompson, for plaintiff in error.

      T C. Anderson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5892.
    Connolley v. Holcomb, Admr.
    (Decided May 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Scioto county.

      J. P. Purdum and A. G. Thompson, for plaintiff in error.

      T O. Anderson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5893.
    Davis v. Holcomb, Admr.
    (Decided May 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Scioto county.

      J. P. Purdum and A. O. Thompson, for plaintiff in error.

      T G. Anderson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5894.
    Davis v. Holcomb, Admr.
    (Decided May 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Scioto county.

      J. P. Purdum and A. G. Thompson, for plaintiff in error.

      T. G. Anderson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5915.
    Brown, Executor, v. Brown.
    (Decided May 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      I. A. Webster, for plaintiff in error.

      W B. Bedortha, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5659.
    (Decided June 6, 1899.)
    Railway Company v. Troutwine.
    Error to the Circuit Court of Butler county.
    Millikin, Shotts db MilliMn, for plaintiff in error.

      Donell/y db Bhonemus and Morey, Andn'ews db Morey, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5665.
    Fostoria Stave and Barrel Company v. Western Assurance Co.
    (Decided June 6, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Seneca county.

      Mg Oauley db Weller, for plaintiff in error.

      Doyle db Leiois and J. F. Bunn, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, J., not sitting.


text:
    No. 5666.
    Fostoria Stave and Barrel Company v. Trans-Atlantic Fire Insurance Company.
    (Decided June 6, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Seneca county.'

      Mo Gciuley & Weller, for plaintiff in error.

      Doyle c& Lewis and J. F. Buñn, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, J., not sitting.


text:
    No. 5667.
    (Decided June 6, 1899.)
    Fostoria Stave and Barrel Company v. Germania Insurance Company.
    Error to the Circuit Court of Seneca county.

      Mg Oauley <& Weller, for plaintiff in error.

      Doyle <& Lewis and J. F. Bunn, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, J., not sitting.


text:
    No. 5799.
    Schieble v. Schieble.
    (Decided June 6, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

      Kennedy <& Munger, for plaintiff in error.

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


text:
    No. 5840.
    (Decided June 6, 1899.)
    Riley et al. v. Walker et al.
    Error to the Circuit Court of Butler county.

      MilUkin, Shotts <& MilUkin, for plaintiffs in error. JEdward 3. Jones, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5856.
    Merchants’ Insurance Company v. Morgan.
    (Decided June 6, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Summit county.

      Hamilton, Hamilton <& Smith, for plaintiff in error.

      Arbogast c& JEsgate, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5924.
    John Church Company v. Lewis.
    (Decided June 6, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Thomas MoNamara, Jr., and S. M. Thompson, for plaintiff in error.

      Lawthers <& McUab, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the authority of Speyer v. Baker, 59 Ohio St., 11.


text:
    No. 5931.
    Ludwig, Receiver, v. R. Rothchild’s Sons Co. et al.
    (Decided June 6, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Putnam county.

      George Fritz and A. V. Watts, for plaintiff in error.

      Krauss da Eastman, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5938.
    Board of Education v. Board of Education.
    (Decided June 6, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      A. B. Webber and Lee Stroup, for plaintiff in error.

      E. G. Johnson and Quincey A. Gillmore, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5675.
    American Express Company v. Aultman, Miller & Company.
    (Decided June 13, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Williamson, Cushing da Clarke, for plaintiff in error.

      Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5692.
    Peabody v. Bending Manufacturing Company et al.
    (Decided June 13, 1899.)
    Error to .the Circuit Court of Franklin County.

      J. II. Collins; A. B. Billon and Bichard Jones, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

      John J. Chester; Augustus T. Seymour and John J. Sioddari, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5875.
    Scheu v. Heath et al.
    (Decided June 13, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Goebel c& Bettinger, for plaintiff in error.

      George W. Heading and Howard Bouglass, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5908.
    Guthrie, Sheriff, v. Black.
    (Decided June 13, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      Cummings & McBride and Bell c& Brinherhoff, for plaintiff in error.

      Laser <& Huston, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5944.
    Morlock v. Hortsman et al.
    (Decided June 13, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Blackford <& Blackford, for plaintiff in error.

      Seney <& Sayler and John Sheridan, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5948.
    Quigley, Admr., v. Pawling et al.
    (Decided June 13, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      Douglass c& Mengert, for plaintiff in error.

      Bell cb Br inker hoff and J. P. Seward, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5949.
    Tischler v. Seeley.
    (Decided June 13, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.-

      Bowers <& Black, for plaintiff in error.

      Farter <& Bowers, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6314.
    City of Mt. Vernon v. Lafever.
    (Decided June 13, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Knox county.

      William E. Thompson and J. B. Waight, for plaintiff in error.

      Lewis B. Eouoh and F. Y. Owen, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6319.
    Ferris v. Anton et al.
    (Decided June 13, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.
    Paxton, Warrington da Boutet, for plaintiff in error.

      Gorman dt Thompson; Warmer M. Bateman; John E. Smith; E. G. McBurney and J. A. Runyan for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6435.
    Railway Company v. Burroughs, Admx.
    (Decided June 13, 1899.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Maxioell do Ramsey, for plaintiff in error.

      Jones ds James, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5916.
    (Decided June 20, 1899.)
    Skeel v. Wilmott et al.
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Johnson <& Hackney, for plaintiff in error.

      M. H Mason and Arnold Oreen, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6324.
    Mulcahy v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided June 20, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Hurd, Brumback da Thatcher; Einley, Beer da Bennet and John M. Doty, for plaintiff in error.

      Doyle da Lewis; Jason Blackford; W. E. Hackedorn and John B. Goclw'um, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6453.
    Railway Company v. Hudson.
    (Decided June 20, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      John T. Dye; E. O. Johnson and L. J. Hackney, for plaintiff in error.

      Skiles da Skiles and A. B. Webber, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6457.
    Fenton v. The State.
    (Decided June 20, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Trumbull county.

      E. B. Taylor; Charles Eillius and C. M. Wilkins, for plaintiff in error.

      Thomas H. Qillmer and E. E. Roberts, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6626.
    Staley, Mayor, etc., v. State ex rel. Village of Pleasant Ridge.
    (Decided June 20, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      James R. Mack, for plaintiff in error.

      John J. Aoomb, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5752.
    Beach, Surviving Partner, v. Lott, Sheriff, et AL.
    (Decided June 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Clark county.

      John L. Plummer and Oscczr T. Martin, for plaintiff in error.

      George C. Rawlins and John II. McKee, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5837.
    Hazen et al. v. O’Conner.
    (Decided June 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      littleford, Morris, Ballard & Siuayer, for plaintiffs in error.

      William Z. Dickson and Frank D. Goodhue, for defendant in error.
   Judgmént affirmed.


text:
    No. 5910.
    Brinkerhoff, Assignee, v. American Box Machine Company.
    (Decided June 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      Gummings <& McBride and Bell <& Brinkerhoff, for plaintiff in error.

      Kerr dc ZaDow, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed, the question argued not being presented by the record.


text:
    No. 5936.
    Simmons et al. v. Moore, Admr, et al.
    (Decided June 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Ashtabula county.

      Hoyt c& Munsell, for plaintiffs in error.

      G. W. Belkna/p and A. G. White, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 5971.
    Hay, Admr. v. Hyatt, Admx. et al.
    (Decided June 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      Pendleton <& Whiteley and Edwin B. Hay, for plaintiff in error.

      John Poe, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6125.
    Railway Company v. Lavelle.
    (Decided June 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Summit county.

      Tibbals <& Frank, for plaintiff in error.

      Edgerton <& Anderson and William A. Mcvrtm, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 6408.
    Electric Railway Company v. Hunter.
    (Decided June 23, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      Willcox, Collister, Hogan & ParmeT/y and E. G. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

      W. IF. Boynton and P. H. Boynton, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.