author: Shaucic, J.

text:
    Pace v. Volk.

      Bill of exceptions — Must be reduced to writing and tiled, when— Duty of clerk and judges directory, merely — Sections 11564 and 11572, General Code — Court procedtire.

    1. Proceedings in error being statutory, the requirement of Section 11564, General Code, that “the party excepting must reduce his exceptions to writing, and file them in the cause, not later than forty days after the overruling of the motion for a new trial” is mandatory; but the provisions of the following sections defining duties of the clerk and of trial judges with respect to a bill of exceptions which a party has so filed within the time required are, as to the time of the performance of such duties, directory merely.
    2. A bill of exceptions, taken upon the trial of a cause in the court of common pleas, and by the exceptor reduced to writing and filed in the office of the clerk within the forty days so limited, will become a part of the record to be considered by a reviewing court if the bill is signed by the trial judge and filed in the office of the clerk in accordance with the requirement of Section 11572, General Code.
    (No. 12874 —
    Decided February 6, 1912.)
    .Error to the Circuit Court of Erie county.

      Pace filed his petition in error in the circuit court on September 17, 1910, praying for the reversal of a judgment which Mrs. Volk had recovered against him in the court of common pleas on May 24, 1910, after a trial to a jury upon issues of fact and after his motion for a new trial had been overruled. In his petition in error he assigned as errors numerous rulings of the court of common pleas upon the trial, in the admission and rejection of evidence, in refusal to instruct the jury as requested, and in overruling the motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the weight of the evidence, the errors appearing only on the bill of exceptions filed in the circuit court with the transcript and original papers on the 23d day of September, 1910. Upon the hearing of the petition in error the circuit court made the following order: “It appearing to the court that the transcript of the proceedings of the court of common pleas filed as a bill of exceptions is not signed, sealed and allowed as provided and within the time required by law, the court find that said transcript is not a proper bill of exceptions and that it is without jurisdiction to consider the same, and it is ordered that said transcript be, and the same hereby is, stricken from the files.” There being then no error upon the record the judgment of the court of common pleas was affirmed. The facts of record upon which the circuit court made that order are as follows: The judgment of the court of common pleas was entered on May 24th, the motion for a new trial having been overruled on the same day. The bill of exceptions which was subsequently found to be correct and signed by the trial judge was prepared by counsel for the plaintiff in error and filed in the office of the clerk on June 30th. The trial judge being sick, the bill of exceptions was sent by the clerk on July "20th to another common pleas judge of the district, by whom no action was taken upon it. On the 23d of September, the trial judge received it from the clerk and upon the same day allowed and signed it and transmitted it to the office of the clerk where it was received on the same day. No objection was ever made to the bill, and it has been, ever since it was filed with the clerk, admitted to be correct.

      Messrs. King & Ramsey, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. John Ray, for defendant in error.
   Shaucic, J.

We seem to find difficulty in escaping from apparently needless difficulties surrounding the conduct of proceedings in error which culminated in Long v. Newhouse, 57 Ohio St., 348. That case is said to have been regarded by the circuit court as authority for the order of which complaint is made here. It is quite true that proceedings in error are statutory, which means that they must be conducted with substantial regard to the requirements of the statute by which they are authorized. More recent amendments of the statute made since the decision in Long v. Newhouse, have shown a manifest disposition on the part of the legislature to relieve the subject of unnecessary difficulties, and the concurrent decisions have recognized the remedial character of the legislation. The recent case of Davies v. New Castle & Lowell Railway Co., 71 Ohio St., 325, proceeds upon the view that when a party desiring to bring his exceptions upon the record for the purpose of prosecuting them in a reviewing court has filed his bill of exceptions in the office of the clerk within the time fixed by statute, a subsequent delay by the clerk .in the performance of the duties which the statute lays upon him will not defeat the bill. The present question arises out of the failure of the judge to sign the bill within the time designated by the statute upon its being filed in the office of the clerk. The trial judge in the present instance being sick at the time at which the bill would naturally have been signed, at the request of the party taking the exceptions the bill was sent to another judge of the district according to the provisions of Section 11568, General Code. For some reason not disclosed by the record the judge to whom it was sent did not sign it, but it was thereafter signed by the trial judge on the 23d day of September, and on that day it was filed in the office of the clerk of the court. This was within four months after the overruling of the motion for a new trial and the rendition of the judgment in the court of common pleas.

There appears no reason why the duties of the clerk with respect to a bill of exceptions should be regarded as directory and those of the trial judge mandatory, for with respect to them, both officers act in a ministerial capacity. In neither case is there any reason why a party who has himself complied with the duties imposed upon him by law should lose a remedy because of the failure of a public officer, and it is quite consistent with the rule that he should not. The correct view seems to be that the party having performed the duty which the statute imperatively imposes upon him with reference to a bill of exceptions, duties which the statute prescribes to be performed by the clerk and judge with respect to the bill, are directory merely, and the bill is effective if signed by the judge and filed in the circuit court in accordance with the requirement of Section 11572, of the General Code. Not only is this view consistent with all the substantial considerations involved in the subject, but it is much encouraged by the provisions of the section lastly cited.

Judgment of the circuit court will be vacated and the cause remanded to the court with direction to consider the bill of exceptions.

Judgment vacated and cause remanded.

Davis, C. J., Spear, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Davis, C. J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Bay v. Bay et al.

      Husband secures divorce by fraud — Decree of divorce conclusive, •when — Wife may open up decree — As to her interest in husband’s property, when.

    Where a husband, by fraud and false testimony, obtains a decree of divorce for the wife’s aggression and the decree also, by reason of the wife’s aggression, so found, bars her of alimony, dower and all other interest in the husband’s property, the decree dissolving the marriage relation is conclusive; but, when the court making such decree did not have jurisdiction of the wife’s person, she may thereafter have said decree and the issues opened up so far as they relate to her interests in the husband’s property and be let in to defend.
    (No. 13034 —
    Decided February 6, 1912.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Putnam county.
    The defendant in error, Christian Bay, on the 20th day of May, 1909, filed in the court of common pleas of Putnam county, Ohio, a petition for divorce from the plaintiff in error, alleging that he was a bona fide resident of that county and had been a permanent resident of the state of Ohio for more than one year last past; and that he was married to Anna C. Bay, at Hart, in the county of Oceona, in the state of Michigan, on the 28th day of August, 1895; and that no children were born as the issue of such marriage; and he stated as the ground for divorce that the said Anna C. Bay had been wilfully absent from the plaintiff for more than eleven years last past and had wholly disregarded all marital duties; and praying for a divorce and other relief. The plaintiff filed an affidavit for publication of notice, in which it is alleged that the .residence and postoffice of said Anna C. Bay is Walkerville, Oceona county, Michigan, and for that reason service of summons and a copy of the petition cannot be made in this state, etc., and there was no service except by publication. On the 3d day of July, 1909, the court of common pleas granted the divorce as prayed, and further ordered, “that, by reason of the acts of aggression of the defendant, Anna C. Bay, and because of the transfer of the property interests to her by this plaintiff, and from the evidence herein, that the defendant be and she is excluded and forever barred from claiming or holding any estate or interest, either vested, inchoate, dower, or inheritance, or otherwise, in the real, personal, or mixed property of this plaintiff, now owned or held by him, or which he may hereafter acquire.” The said Christian Bay died in Lorain county, Ohio, on or about November the 5th, 1910, leaving a will, by the terms of which all his property was disposed of to other parties than the plaintiff in error. On the 24th of December, 1910, Anna C. Bay filed, in the court of common pleas of Putnam county, Ohio, her petition to set aside the decree and judgment aforesaid, and for leave to answer and have the case tried upon the facts which she alleged in an answer in the original case, tendered therewith. In that petition, she avers that Christian Bay was not, and never had been, a bona fide resident of the state of Ohio, or of Putnam county, and that the petitioner had no notice or knowledge of any kind of the pendency of said petition for divorce, until after the death of said Christian Bay, to-wit, on or about December the 16th, 1910. She alleged, in her answer, and amendment thereto, that she had faithfully complied with all the terms and conditions of the marriage contract upon her part, and that the said Christian Bay had neglected and refused to comply therewith on his part, and had been guilty of extreme cruelty toward her, and that he abandoned her, in the spring of 1900, in a helpless condition, wholly unprovided for; that he was then possessed of about twenty thousand dollars in cash and land; that about June the 7th, 1900, she had begun, in the court of common pleas of Wood county, Ohio, a suit for divorce and alimony; and by reason of false and fraudulent representations and inducements made to her by said Christian Bay, she had dismissed the said cause of action and no record was made thereof; that, as a part of the arrangement by which the said suit was dismissed by her, he entered into an agreement in writing with her to live separate and apart, and he was to pay her the sum of thirteen hundred dollars; and she averred that, relying upon the statements as to the amount of property possessed by him, and upon this written agreement, she dismissed her petition and returned to the state of Michigan; and shortly afterward the said Christian Bay came to her home, in Walkerville, Oceona county, Michigan, and desired to live and cohabit with her as his wife, and they did so live and cohabit together as husband and wife until about three years prior to the time of filing this answer. This answer was supported by two affidavits.
    On the hearing of this petition, in the court of common pleas, the said Anna C. Bay, to maintain the issues on her part, introduced her petition, her answer and her amendment to her answer, and the affidavits aforesaid, and also introduced and read to the court the appearance docket and papers in the case, which appear as part of the record in this case, together with certain exhibits, which are attached to the bill of exceptions. And thereupon the counsel for the said defendants in error herein moved the court to dismiss the petition and answer of the said Anna C. Bay, on the ground that said court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the same. On consideration whereof, the court sustained the said motion and dismissed the petition of the plaintiff herein. The circuit court affirmed this ruling, and this proceeding is brought here to reverse the judgment of the said circuit court and court of common pleas.

      Mr. Benjamin F. James; Messrs. Bailey & Lea-sure; Mr. J. W. Smith; Mr. T. S. Gurney and Mr. C. B. Stevens, for plaintiff in error.
    Lest we becloud the issue which is sought to be made, and which it is our province to have this court determine, we herewith reiterate that there is but one question for this court to determine since it has determined that Ohio takes its place alongside of Missouri and subscribed to the doctrine tolerated in no other state, so far as we can discover, that public policy precludes any reconsideration of the reasons which required, in the mind of the trial court, a dissolution of the marriage contract, and that is: can a husband deprive his wife of her property rights gained by her through marriage with her and thrust upon her by the laws of where the marriage is consummated, as well as her marital rights, sometimes denominated “consortium,” by filing a petition and securing a divorce through fraud and perjured testimony in a court without jurisdiction of the parties and without any knowledge on the part of his wife?
    We do not believe that this court has ever answered this question in the affirmative.

      On the other hand, we believe from the date of the decision of Cox v. Cox, 19 Ohio St., 502, every decision of this court has been opposed to this proposition.
    And we submit that if under our practice a wife can procure alimony upon appeal in the circuit court after she has ceased to be a wife because of a divorce decree in the common pleas court prior to any appeal, there is certainly no reason why a widow cannot procure her property rights, whether it be called alimony, dower or otherwise in the same case, in the same court after death has done for her what the divorce court might have done — deprived her of her husband and severed connubial ties.
    In the case of Weidman v. Weidman, 57 Ohio St., 101, we find the court reviewing the authorities prior thereto and the distinction is drawn between the case wherein a divorce is decreed when the court has full jurisdiction of both the parties and the subject-matter, and the case wherein the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant by personal service, and in the latter class of cases fall the following: Mansfield v. McIntyre, 10 Ohio, 28; Cox v. Cox, 20 Ohio St., 439; Woods v. Waddle, 44 Ohio St., 449.
    In line with the foregoing authorities we submit the following authorities, which may be considered advantageous for the reasoning which is contained within them and which we believe strengthens the reasoning which has been shown in the decisions above quoted. Fritz v. Fritz, 6 N. P., 258; Wellington v. Wellington, 7 W. L. B., 20; McGill v. Denting, 44 Ohio St., 645; Schradin
      v. Schradin, 24 C. C., 647, 70 Ohio St., 489; Dittey, Recr., v. Ellifritz, 8 C. C., 278; Doerr v. Forsythe, Admx., 50 Ohio St., 726; Coffman, Admr., v. Finney, Admr., 65 Ohio St., 61.

      Mr. Datus R. Jones; Mr. Franklin P. Riegle; Messrs. Watts & Moore and Mr. Ray D. Avery, for defendants in error.
    It does not seem necessary to cite precedents in support of the proposition, “that a decree of divorce, when rendered by a court authorized to hear and determine such cases, is in this state, final and conclusive.” The following cases have often been cited: Bascom v. Bascom, 7 Ohio (pt. 2), 125; Laughery v. Laughery, 15 Ohio, 404; Tappan v. Tappan, 6 Ohio St., 64; Parish v. Parish, 9 Ohio St., 534; Neil v. Neil, 38 Ohio St., 558; Knapp v. Thomas, 39 Ohio St., 377; John v. John, 53 Ohio St., 656; Casler v. Bowen, 56 Ohio St., 761; Mulligan v. Mulligan, 82 Ohio St., 426.
    We believe the court has no more authority to modify the judgment determining the property matters, than to modify the decree of divorce. This is especially true in a case where the decree makes a final and permanent division of property. Law v. Law, 64 Ohio St., 369; Olney v. Watts, 43 Ohio St., 499.
    In causes for divorce and alimony, whatever contradictions may exist in the decisions from the courts of the several states, they arise from the fact that some courts have attempted to treat these suits as in the nature of actions in personam instead of in rem. Consideration of those decisions will not aid us in arriving at a correct conclusion upon the questions here involved for those courts now find their law in a state of hopeless confusion. Our Ohio courts have always consistently held these cases to be proceedings in rem and so holding, our decisions have been logical and consistent. Benner v. Benner, 63 Ohio St., 220; McGill v. Deming, 44 Ohio St., 657.
    While regarding the divorce and alimony proceedings as a cause in rem, our courts take jurisdiction of two things: 1. The status of the parties if both are before the court or of a party if only one is before the court — that is the marriage status. 2. The property of the parties or of a party before the court where the property is within the jurisdiction. The action is in no sense a personal action. Properly speaking, it has no parties for the court is acting only upon the res.

    The nature of these actions is best illustrated in suits to libel a vessel in admiralty proceedings, in the probating of wills, and in suits to establish status as in habeas corpus. Scott v. Hancock, 13 Mass., 162; Lessee of Pillsbury v. Dugan’s Admr., 9 Ohio, 117; Thompson v. Steamboat, 2 Ohio St., 26; Keating v. Spink, 3 Ohio St., 105; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S., 714; Solomon v. Solomon, 26 C. C., 307.
    The court is judge of its right to take jurisdiction. Lessee of Glover’s Heirs v. Ruffin, 6 Ohio, 255; Solomon v. Solomon, supra; Lessee of Pillsbury v. Dugan’s Admr., supra.

    The decree cannot be vacated for fraud. Michael v. Bank, 84 Ohio St., 370.

      We think that the holdings of the circuit court in Solomon v. Solomon, supra, and Casto v. Casto, 30 C. C., 96, to the effect that Section 5355, Revised Statutes (P. & A. Anno. G. C. § 11632), are not applicable to proceedings had under the chapter relating to divorce and alimony, are correct.
    We contend that our courts have no jurisdiction to hear or determine an application to. reopen a divorce case at a subsequent term, and, coupled with that proposition, is the further fact that the plaintiff in the divorce proceeding had died before any proceeding was brought to reopen the divorce case. Knapp v. Thomas, 39 Ohio St., 393; Woods v. Waddle, 44 Ohio St., 449; Coffman, Admr., v. Finney, Admr,, 65 Ohio St., 61.
    We shall not attempt to reconcile the decisions of all the other states with Ohio in reference to divorce and alimony causes for the reason that some have treated such causes as actions in personam instead of actions in rem. The courts of Ohio have uniformly held such causes to be actions in rem. 2 Bishop on Marriage, Divorce and Separation, Secs. 25, 37, 76; Petersine v. Thomas, 28 Ohio St., 595.
   Davis, C. J.

The relief which the plaintiff sought, by her petition to set aside the decree by the court of common pleas, was not to be let in to defend against the divorce. The marriage relation had already been dissolved by the death of the husband. What she complains of is that she has not had her day in court to be heard upon the adjustment of property rights and the division of property as between her and her late husband.

If this petition, and the answer to be filed in the original case and the amendment thereto, together with the affidavits in support thereof, are to be taken as true, the court was grossly imposed upon and she was fraudulently deprived of an opportunity to defend her rights upon the hearing of the divorce case. But it is conceded that the ruling in Parish v. Parish, 9 Ohio St., 534, which has been steadily adhered to, would preclude any reconsideration of the divorce issue, even if the husband were not now dead.

The question still remains, Can the defendant be at the same time thus fraudulently deprived of her property rights without remedy? We see nothing in the judgment or in the reasoning in Parish v. Parish which would justify its extension to this phase of the present case. That case was expressly limited in the opiliion as follows: “We therefore feel compelled, though reluctantly, to hold that sound public policy in this class of cases, forbids us from setting aside a decree of divorce a vinculo, though obtained by fraud and false testimony, on an original bill filed at a subsequent term.” We think that it would be doing violence to the language of the court to hold that “sound public policy” would protect the fruits of fraud and perjury beyond the mere severance of the marriage relation.

An analysis of the cases will disclose the fact that this court has always clearly distinguished the reviewable nature of a judgment in a divorce proceeding respecting property interests, from the finality of the divorce; and that it has gone beyond this, in certain cases and in furtherance of justice, to declare that the wife may maintain an action for alimony as “wife” although by reason of a previous dissolution by a decree of divorce the matrimonial relation no longer exists. See Mansfield v. McIntyre et al., 10 Ohio, 27; Cox v. Cox, 19 Ohio St., 502; Cox v. Cox, 20 Ohio St., 439; Woods v. Waddle, 44 Ohio St., 449; McGill v. Deming, 44 Ohio St., 645; Weidman v. Weidman, 57 Ohio St., 101; Doerr v. Forsythe, Admx., 50 Ohio St., 726; Coffman, Admr., et al., v. Finney, Admr., et al., 65 Ohio St., 61; Hassaurek v. Markbreit, Admr., 68 Ohio St., 554. None of these cases is, in all its facts, like the one at bar; but through all of them there runs, clearly marked and broadly stated, the doctrine that the decree of divorce is immutable, whether obtained by fraud or not, yet that the judgment as to property rights is not conclusive unless both the parties had their day in court. In Doerr v. Forsythe, Admx., supra, this court said: “The decree of divorce granted in the state of Indiana, acted only on the marital relation between the parties, and did not affect, nor purport to affect the property rights of the wife, in the state of Ohio. * * * But if it were otherwise, as she had no opportunity to defend, all that can be claimed for that decree, is that it dissolved the marriage relation between the parties, and restored the husband to the status of an unmarried man. This the court could do; but, as it had no jurisdiction of the person of the wife, it was not competent to the Indiana court to affect such rights as she had acquired in the property of the husband under the laws of this state. Mansfield v. McIntyre, 10 Ohio, 27; McGill v. Deming, 44 Ohio St., 645.”

In Weidman v. Weidman, supra, the court said: “In cases where there is no jurisdiction of the person of one of the parties, there can be no adjudication in personam of the question of alimony; and therefore in such cases, while the divorce may be valid, the question of alimony remains unadjudicated, and the wife may, under proper circumstances, maintain an action for alimony.” And while we have this case in hand, we may as well make another quotation from it, which is pertinent to the present case, viz: “After an absolute divorce in an action in which the court had jurisdiction of both parties, she is no longer ‘the wife’ and does not come within the provisions of the statute. Strictly speaking, the same, is true in cases in which the divorce was obtained by the husband in an ex parte proceeding, but as the wife has not had her day in court as to alimony, nor as to her equitable interest in his property, this court, by a liberal construction in her favor, has allowed her in such cases to maintain a separate action against her divorced husband for the recovery of alimony, which • is in its nature an equitable allowance out of his property.” See further on this last proposition, Cox v. Cox, supra, and Woods v. Waddle, supra, opinion by Follett, J., pp. 456-457. Similar reasoning is applied to the cases of Coffman, Admr., v. Finney, Admr., supra, in which both the parties to the divorce proceedings were dead, and Mansfield v. McIntyre, supra, and McGill v. Deming, supra, in both of which cases the property right involved was dower.

The record in the divorce case shows that the only service on the defendant was a constructive notice by publication. But the affidavit for publication, sworn to by the plaintiff, gives the place of residence and postoffice address and gives it correctly. There was therefore no authority to give notice by publication. Section 5693, Revised Statutes; P. & A. Anno. G. C. § 11984. By the same section it is made the duty of the plaintiff to forthwith deposit in the postoffice, directed to the defendant, a summons and a copy of the petition. This does not appear to have been done; and since the defendant alleges in her petition to open up the judgment, and in her answer and the affidavits in support thereof, that she had neither notice nor knowledge of the pendency of the petition for divorce, until after the- death of her husband, she has a right to be heard upon all questions arising upon this alleged fraudulent judgment as to her rights in the property of Christian Bay.

The judgments of the circuit and court of common pleas are reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Spear, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    The State of Ohio v. Born.

      Trial for manslaughter — By running automobile in crowded portion of city — Contrary to municipal ordinance — Ordinance not competent proof, when — Sections 12604 cmd 12608, General Code.

    Where a person is on trial for manslaughter, by running an automobile in a business and closely built up portion of a municipality at a greater rate of speed than is permitted by the statute (General Code, Section 12604), it is not competent to prove such fact by an ordinance of the municipality defining what are the business and closely built up portions thereof (General Code, Section 12608).
    (No. 13174 —
    Decided February 6, 1912.)
    Exceptions to the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga county.
    The defendant was indicted for manslaughter. He was charged with driving an automobile on a street in Cleveland, at a greater rate of speed than is allowed by law, within a district which was defined by ordinance as a business and closely built up portion of the city, and while so driving the automobile, ran down and killed one H. C. Cornelius.

      Mr. John A. Cline, prosecuting attorney, and Messrs. C. H. Olds, Ezra Brudno, Thos. E. Greene and W. E. Minshall, assistants, for the exceptions.

      Mr. W. H. Boyd, contra.
   Davis, C. J.

On the trial of this case the state offered to prove, by an ordinance of the city of Cleveland, which was enacted by virtue of Section 12608, P. & A. Anno. G. C., and which declared that the locality where the automobile driven by defendant killed Cornelius, was a “business and closely built up portion” of the city, that the defendant was running his automobile at a greater rate of speed than was authorized by Section 12604, P. & A. Anno. G. C. The court ruled out the ordinance; and we think that the ruling was clearly correct. Whether the locality concerned was or was not a business and closely built up portion of the city, is a material fact to be determined upon the issue raised on the charge' in the indictment, that the defendant unlawfully killed the deceased. The defendant had the right to have that fact determined by the jury upon evidence, and not by the declaration by the city council, however lawfully enacted, nor however effective it might be for some purposes, that the place was within such a district as described in the statute.

Exceptions overruled.

Si-iauck, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.

Spear and Donahue, JJ., dissent.


text:
    No. 11831.
    Kuhns et al. v. Leihgeber.
    Decided October 3, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

      Messrs. McMahon & McMahon, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. Charles H. Kiimler and Messrs. Young & Young, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12417.
    The City of Cincinnati v. Mildner et al.
    Decided October 3, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. Charles H. Urban, police prosecutor, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. David Davis, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12779.
    The Ohio Galvanizing Co. v. Szenyei.
    Decided October 3, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Trumbull county.

      Mr. T. I. Gillmer and Mr. T. H. Gillmer, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. W. R. Stewart, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed for error in reversing and in not affirming the judgment of the court of common pleas of Trumbull county in the cause of Daniel Szenyei v. The Ohio Galvanizing Co., this court finding that the record does not show affirmatively that the requests to charge complained of were in fact given by the court to the jury.

It is further considered and adjudged that the said judgment of the court of common pleas in such cause be and the same is hereby affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12803.
    The Cambridge Collieries Co. v. Spaid.
    Decided October 3, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Guernsey county.

      Mr. Charles S. Turnbaugh and Mr. R. T. Scott, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. John P. Turner and Mr. J. H. Mackey, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12856.
    The City of Dayton v. Huber.
    Decided October 3, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Montgomery county,

      Mr. Frank S. Breene; Mr. Albert J. Dwyer and Mr. John Roehm, for plaintiff in error.

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

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12878.
    Allen et al. v. The Board of Commissioners of Greene County et al.
    Decided October 3, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Greene county.

      Mr. Charles L. Darlington, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. Frank L. Johnson, prosecuting attorney; Mr. R. L. Gozvdy and Messrs. Munger & Kennedy, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12885.
    Geiger v. The State of Ohio.
    Decided October 3, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Allen county. Messrs.

      Armstrong & Armstrong, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. James J. Weadock, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. B. F. Welty, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12987.
    The State of Ohio v. Messer.
    Decided October 3, 1911.
    Exceptions to the Common Pleas Court of Lawrence county.

      Mr. John C. Riley, for the exceptions.

      Mr. J. 0. Yates, against the exceptions.
   Exceptions overruled on authority of Staight v. The State, 39 Ohio St., 496.

Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 13196.
    The State, ex rel. Lindemuth et al., v. The State Board of Appraisers and Assessors.
    Decided October 3, 1911.
    In mandamus.

      Messrs. Nevin, Nevin & Kalb fus and Messrs. Mattern & Brumbaugh, for petitioners.

      Mr. T. S. Hogan, attorney general, and Mr. C. D. Laylin, for defendant.
   Peremptory writ awarded.

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


text:
    No. 13245.
    The State, ex rel. Gott, v. The Board of Deputy State Supervisors and Inspectors of Election.
    Decided October 3, 1911.
    In mandamus.

      Mr. A. A. Stearns; Mr. D. H. Tilden; Mr. H. H. Johnson; Mr. W. L. Flory and Mr. D. E. Green, for relator.

      Mr. T. S. Hogan, attorney general, and Mr. 'C. D. Laylin, for defendant.
   Demurrer sustained and petition dismissed.

Davis, Price, Jopinson and Donai-iue, JJ., concur. Spear, C. J., and Shauck, J., dissent.


text:
    No. 11820.
    Kithcart, etc., v. Ratcliff et al.
    Decided October 10, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Jefferson county.

      Mr. Ernest L. Finley and Messrs. Lentz, Karns, Linton & Hengst, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. A. C. Lewis and Mr. J. W. Jordan, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 11838.
    The Euclid Park National Bank v. Dryfoos et al., Exrs.
    Decided October 10, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Messrs. Blandin, Rice & Ginn, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. McGraw, Hauxhurst & Saeger, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spiauck, Price, Jopinson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 11842.
    Horseman et al. v. Horseman et al.
    Decided October 10, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Fairfield county.

      Mr. H. C. Drinkle; Mr. W. T. McClenaghan and Mr. M. A. Daugherty, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. C. W. McCleery, for defendants in error.
   Judgment reversed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed because the order setting aside the verdict of the jury is not a final order from which error can be prosecuted.

And this cause is remanded to the court of common pleas of Fairfield county for further proceedings according to law.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur. Donapiue, J., not participating.


text:
    No. 11888.
    The Stark Electric Railway Co. v. The City of Canton.
    Decided October 10, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Messrs. Webber & Turner, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. John T. Blake, city solicitor, and Mr. Ed. L. Smith, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur. Donahue, J., not participating.


text:
    No. 12675.
    Dreher v. Howland et al., Partners.
    Decided October 10, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Messrs. Silbert & Morgenstern, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs.

      Howland, Moffett & Niman, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shaucic, Price, Jopinson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12681.
    Pierce et al. v. Swan et al.
    Decided October 10, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Preble county.

      Messrs. Risinger & Risinger and Mr. David-Pierce) for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. James L. Sayler and Mr. Hugh R. Gilmore, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shaucic; Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12787.

    The Standard Table Oil Cloth Co. v. Rees, Jr., Admr.
    Decided October 10, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Trumbull county.

      The Gilmers and Messrs. Arrel, Wilson & Harrington, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Gillmer & Gillmer; Mr. A. L. Phelps and Mr. Gharles Koonce, Jr., for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed. Ground stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same is, hereby affirmed, the court being of opinion that, if the clauses of the charge to the jury complained of are erroneous, they were not, taking the whole record together, prejudicial.

Spiauck, Price, Johnson and Donapiue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12883.
    The Berger Manufacturing Co. v. Gruber.
    Decided October 10, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Messrs. Lynch & Day, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Webber & Turner, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12961.
    Reeves v. Taylor.
    Decided October 10, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

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

      Mr. F. M. Dotson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 13024.
    The State of Ohio v. Suttles.
    Decided October 10, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Knox county.

      Mr. L. T. Cromley, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. F. V. Owens, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Wm. M., Wm. G. & H. W. Koons, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed; on the ground that according to the language and terms of either of the journal entries found in the record as an entry of the judgment of the circuit court, the case presented to this court involves the weight of the evidence which we do not consider.

This cause is remanded to the common pleas court for further proceedings according to law.

Davis, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 11892.
    Erie Railroad Co. v. City of Youngstown.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Messrs. Hine, Kennedy & Manchester, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Frank L. Oesch, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Sitauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 11899.
    Pennsylvania Co. v. Hamilton.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Messrs. Arrel, Wilson & Flarrington, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. M. C. McNab and Messrs. W. S. Anderson & Son, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 11917.
    Kuhn et al. v. Steinbicker Brothers.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. Oscar W. Kuhn, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Reemelin & Hosbrook; Mr. Frank FI. Kunkel and Mr. lames G. Stewart, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Sitauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 11922.
    Burke v. Sterling Planing Mill & Lumber Co.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Ross county.

      Mr. N. P. Clyburn and Mr. Walter W. Boulger, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Seaton & Paine and Mr. H. W. Woodrow, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Davis and Sitauck, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12082.
    Anderson v. Fugman et al.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. J. J. McCormick, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Smith, Taft & Arter and Mr. C. K. Fauver, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Shauck and Donai-iue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12687.
    The Lima Locomotive & Machine Co. v. Gallant.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Allen county.

      Messrs. Prophet & Eastman and Messrs. Cable & Parmenter, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Half-hill, Quail & Kirk, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12694.
    McConnell, Special Constable, et al. v. The Hallet & Davis Piano Co.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. Fred Desberg, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. PI. W. Bell and Mr. William Hoivell, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Spiauck, Price, Joi-iHson and Donai-iue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12697.
    McKeown et al., Partners, v. Watson.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Jefferson county.

      Messrs. Miller & Miller, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. A. C. Lewis and Mr. I. 0. Naylor, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12699.
    The Trotter Lumber Co. v. Carstens & Earles, Inc.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Messrs. Marshall & Fraser, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Frederick J. Flagg, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Si-iauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12073.
    Reed et al. v. The National Cash Register Co.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. R. C. Linder, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Stearns, Chamberlain &■ Royon, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of McClelland v. Bishop, 42 Ohio St., 113.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Si-iauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12710.
    The Grabler Manufacturing Co. v. Leahy.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Messrs. Weed, Miller & Rothenberg, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Tanney & Barber, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12711.
    Fletcher, by etc., v. The Northern Ohio Traction & Light Co.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Tuscarawas county.

      Mr. John A. Buchanan, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Welty & Albaugh and Messrs. Mitchell & Mitchell, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12714.
    The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Reed.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Richland county.

      Messrs. Cummings, McBride & Wolfe, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Kramer & Jarvis and Mr. W. S. Kerr, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12784.
    Lee v. Benedict.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. John A. Thompson, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. George A. Groot, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12935.
    The City of Cincinnati v. Niemes et al.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. Edward M. Ballard, city solicitor; Mr. Jonas B. Frenkel and Mr. Constant Southworth, assistant solicitor, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Hoffman, Bode & LeBlond; Messrs. Littleford, James, Frost & Foster; Messrs. Morse, Tutle & Harper; Mr. Fred E. Niederhelman; Mr. Chas. M. Leslie; Mr. James J. Muir; Mr. George Hartke; Mr. JLenry Bentley; Mr. Joseph L. Adler; Mr. 0. K. Jones; Mr. Frank H. Kunkel; Mr. Wm. Hartley P%igh; Mr. Charles W. Baker; Mr. Elliott Pugh and Mr. Jos. W.

      O’Hara, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12936.
    Herrmann et al. v. Niemes et al.
    Decided October 17, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. E. M. Ballard, city solicitor; Mr. Jonas B. Frenkel and Mr. Constant Southworth, assistant solicitor, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Hoffman, Bode & LeBlond; Messrs. Little ford, James, Frost & Foster; Messrs. Morse, Tutle & Harper; Mr. Fred E. Niederhelman; Mr. 'Chas. M. Leslie; Mr. James J. Muir; Mr. George Hartke; Mr. Henry Bentley; Mr. Joseph L. Adler; Mr. 0. K. Jones; Mr. Frank H. Kunkel; Mr. Wm. Hartley Pugh; Mr. Chas. W. Baker; Mr. Elliott Pugh and Mr. Jos. W. O’Hara, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12685.
    The Midvale Goshen Coal Co. v. Cerri, Admr.
    Decided October 24, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Tuscarawas county.

      Mr. J. G. Patrick and Mr. P. S. Olmstead, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. B. D. Nicola and Mr. Harry F. Payer, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Whitacre, 35 Ohio St., 627.

Spear, C. J., Shauck, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur. Donahue, J., not participating.


text:
    No. 12702.
    The City of Steubenville v. Castner.
    Decided October 24, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Jefferson county.

      Mr. John A. Huston, city solicitor, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. D. M. Gruber, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12717.
    The City of Hamilton v. Blum.
    Decided October 24, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Butler county.

      Mr. John F. Neilan, city solicitor, and Mr. J. B. Connaught on, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Edgar A. Belden, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12721.
    Meeker v. Shaw et al.
    Decided October 24, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Delaware county.

      Messrs. Jewell & Benton, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Marriott, Freshwater & Bliss, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur. Donahue, J., not participating.


text:
    No. 12726.
    Fox et al. v. The City of Cincinnati et al.
    Decided October 24, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Messrs. Fox & Fox, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. Edward M. Ballard, city solicitor; Mr. Fyffe Chambers, assistant solicitor; Mr. Henry T. Hunt, prosecuting attorney; Mr. Alfred Bettman and Mr. Stanley W. Merrill, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12728.
    Behrend v. Sommer et al.
    Decided October 24, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Messrs. Smith, Taft & Arter, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Higley & Maurer and Messrs. Ong, Thayer & Mansñeld, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12734.
    Williams v. Crockett.
    Decided October 24, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. Wallace Burch and Mr. Simeon M. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Charles A. J. Walker, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12740.
    The Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church, etc., v. Bevan et al.
    Decided October 24, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Delaware county.

      Messrs. Overturf & Hough and Messrs. Jewell & Benton, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Marriott, Freshwater & Bliss for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck and Johnson, JJ., concur. Donahue, J., not participating.


text:
    No. 12819.
    The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Nutting.
    Decided October 24, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Knox county.

      Mr. F. A. Durban; Mr. Robert J. King and Messrs. Waight & Moore, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Wil

      liam M. Koons; Mr. Harry W. Koons and Mr. F. V. Owens, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12980.
    The Forest City Provision Co. v. Blaha.
    Decided October 24, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Messrs. Sea-ton & Paine, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. W. B. Beebe and Mr. A. W. Lams on, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 11977.
    Hoffman v. The Village of Nottingham.
    Decided October 31, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Messrs. Herrick & Hopkins, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Geier, Farrell & Edwards, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12004.
    The Cincinnati Traction Co. v. DeGarmo.
    Decided October 31, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Messrs. Kittredge, Wilby & Stimson, for plaintiff in error.

      'Mr. Horace A. Reeve and Messrs. Cogan & Williams, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed and judgment of the common pleas affirmed on authority of Perry v. The M. O’Neil & Co., 78 Ohio St., 200.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Johnson and Donapiue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12094.
    Taplin v. Emery.
    Decided October 31, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. C. F. Taplin, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Cook, McGowan & Foote, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12095.
    Edgar v. Schoch, Admr., etc.
    Decided October 31, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. John A. Thompson and Mr. Frank L. Kuhn, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Pierce D. Metsger and Messrs. Green & Zmunt, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Hinkle et al., Exrs., v. Sage, 67 Ohio St., 256.

Spear, C. J., Shaucic and Jopinson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12595.
    The Indianola Ice Co. v. Ferree et al., Partners.
    Decided October 31, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Mr. John R. Horst and Mr. Jerry Dennis, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. H. C. Moore and Mr. N. W. Dick, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Donapiue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12676.
    The Cincinnati Traction Co. v. DeGarmo.
    Decided October 31, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Plamilton county.

      Messrs. Kittredge, Wilby & Stimson, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Horace A. Reeve and Messrs. Cogan & Williams, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed on authority of case of same parties, No. 12004 of this term.

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


text:
    No. 12753.
    Sutton v. Willett.
    Decided October 31, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Logan county.

      Mr. M. G. Bell, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. John A. Price, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12772.
    Marriott et al. v. Tuller et al.
    Decided October 31, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Mr. T. E. Powell and Messrs. Stewart & Stewart, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. C. O. Hunter; Mr. Harrison Wilson and Mr. John F. Wilson, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12773.
    Marriott et al. v. Tuller et al.
    Decided October 31, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Mr. T. E. Powell and Messrs. Stewart & Stewart, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. C. O. Hunter; Mr. Harrison Wilson and M. John F. Wilson, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12957.
    The Hocking Valley Railway Co. v. Ruble.
    Decided October 31, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Messrs. Wilson & Rector, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. John

      Morrissey and Mr. Ralph Merchant, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 11986.
    The City of Cincinnati v. Cavey, an Infant, by etc.
    Decided October 31, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. Edward M. Ballard, city solicitor; Mr. Constant Southzvorth, assistant solicitor, and Mr. Albert■ H. Morrill, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Horace A. Reeve; Mr. Smith Hickenlooper and Messrs. Cogan & Williams, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 11944.
    The E. A. Pflueger Co. v. The Enterprise Manufacturing Co.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Summit county.

      Messrs. Kline, Tolies & Morley and Messrs. Sldbaugh, Sieberling & Huber, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Musser, Kimber & Huffman and Messrs. Ford, Snyder & Tilden, for defendant in error.
   Judgment modified as provided in the journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, modified so that it shall read as follows:

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant company, its officers, agents and employes, be and they are hereby perpetually enjoined from either directly or indirectly using or causing to be used the word “Pflueger” whether in print or other graphic form in connection with its business; provided, however, that it may use its present corporate name and the name of Ernest A. Pflueger as its officer in connection with said business, upon the following terms and conditions, and not otherwise: the word “Pflueger” therein shall never be made more conspicuous than the rest of such name. It is further ordered and adjudged that the relief prayed for against Ernest A. Pflueger individually be and the same is denied and the petition is dismissed against him.

Spear, C. J., Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 11998.
    McGraw v. Fordyce et al.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Mr. W. R. Stewart, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Wm. W. Zimmerman, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12016.
    Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co. v. Arnoldi.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Allen county.

      Mr. Charles A. Schmettau; Messrs. Wheeler & Bentley and Mr. Clarence Brown, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Horace A. Reeve, for defendant in error.
   Judgment, affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12022.
    Powers v. The Hocking Valley Railway Co. et al.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Mr.

      Harvey Scribner and Mr. James H. Southard, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. King, Tracy, Chapman & Welles; Mr. C. 0. Hunter; Mr. Richard Inglis and Messrs. Doyle & Lewis, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Si-iauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12040.
    The Akron Selle Co. v. Jost.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Summit county.

      Messrs. Musser, Kimber & Huffman, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Charles P. Kennedy and Mr. Edwin F. Voris, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12042.
    O’Dell v. The McCrillis Handle Co.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Pluron county.

      Messrs. C. P. & R. D. Wickham, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. A. V. Andrews and Messrs. Seaton & Paine, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12057.
    The Village of Franklin v. Hunter.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Warren county.

      Mr. Patrick Gaynor, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. W. C. Shepherd, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12058.
    The Village of Franklin v. Maybe.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Warren county.

      Mr. Patrick Gaynor, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. W. C. Shepherd, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck and Joi-inson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12088.
    Davis v. The Domestic Coal Co.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Jackson county.

      Mr. T. S. Plogan and Mr. Joseph McGhee, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. McGillivray & Armstrong, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12096.
    The Toledo, Angola & Western Railway Co. v. The Cincinnati Equipment Co.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Messrs. King, Tracy, Ghapman & Welles, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Joseph B. Kelley and Messrs. Smith & Beckwith, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of circuit court modified and that of the common pleas affirmed as shown by journal entry.

This cause came on to be heard upon the transcript of the record of the circuit court of Lucas county, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, the court find that there is no error intervening in said record to the prejudice of plaintiff in error, and, that therefore, the judgment of the circuit court, in so far as it affirms the judgment of the court of common pleas of Lucas county vacating the judgment entered by said court upon the award of the arbitrators, is affirmed, and said cause coming on further to be heard on the cross-petition of the defendant in error, the transcript of the record of the circuit court of Lucas county and briefs and argument of counsel. On consideration whereof the court find there is error prejudicial to the rights of the defendant in error in this, to-wit: that said circuit court erred in reversing that portion of the judgment of the court of common pleas vacating and setting aside the award of T. B. Fogg and W. L. Kelly as arbitrators rendered February 24, 1908, and said part of said judgment of the circuit court, in so far as it reverses the judgment of the common pleas court, is reversed, set aside and held for naught, and the judgment of the common pleas court is affirmed as to each and all of the several matters and things therein adjudged.

Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12100.
    Carter v. The Mueller Baking Co. et al.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Messrs. Closs & Luebbert and Messrs. Dempsey & Nieberding, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Ferdinand Jelke, Jr., and Mr. Albert E. Fouts, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12107.

    Smith et al. v. The Ohio Mutual Savings & Loan Co. et al.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. J. M. Downey and Mr. Walter 'C. Ong, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. James Hossack and Mr. Charles J. Estep, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12110.
    Stark et al. v. Stark.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Seneca county.

      Mr. Alexander Kiskadden, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Dore & Dore and Messrs. Platt & Black, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12111.
    The Forest City Savings & Trust Co. v. Campbell.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Messrs. Smith, Taft & Arter, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Westenhaver, Boyd, Rudolph & Brooks, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12754.
    Wilson v. The Tri-State Land Co.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Knox county.

      Messrs. Waight & Moore, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. D. B. Grubb, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12757.
    Sargeant et al., Partners as The Tip Top Oil & Grease Co., v. The Tropical Oil Co.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Messrs. Kerruish & Kerruish, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Carpenter, Young & Stocker, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12761.
    Shannon et al. v. Shannon et al.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Greene county.

      Mr. M. J. Hartley, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. Marcus Shoup, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12777.
    The State, ex rel. Waite, Prosecuting Attorney, v. Poland et al., Deputy State Board of Supervisors of Elections, et al.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Champaign county.

      Mr. George Waite, prosecuting attorney, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. George W. Poland and Mr. Louis D. Johnson, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Speár, C. J., Davis, Shauck and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12780.
    Souder v. Jay.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Mr. Daniel Clotts, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. T. E. & J. M. Lewis, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12794.
    The Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Russell, Admr.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Ashtabula county.

      Messrs. Hoyt, Mun-sell & Hall, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. H. E. Starkey and Mr. E. Jay Pinney, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12800.
    Serhant v. Englebry.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Geauga county.

      Mr. Berkeley Pearce, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Robert M. Morgan, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Spiauck, Price, Jopinson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12806.
    Geisse v. The State of Ohio.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

      Mr. W. F. Lones, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. W. A'. O’Grady, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed and cause remanded. Ground stated in journal entry.

The court find that there is error in the judgment of the said circuit court in this, to-wit: in affirming and not reversing the judgment of the mayor before whom the case was tried. And proceeding to render such judgment as the circuit court should have rendered, it is considered and adjudged that the judgment of the mayor in the proceeding pending in the name of the State of Ohio against said Emma Geisse be and the same is hereby reversed for error in assuming to take judicial notice without sufficient evidence thereof, that the county in which the prosecution was pending had voted under the Rose Law and is therefore what is termed dry territory, and this case is remanded to the mayor of Wellsville, Ohio, for further proceedings according to law.

Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12807.
    French v. Genung.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Lake county.

      Mr. Harry E. Hammar and Mr. 'Conway W. Noble, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Alvord '& Blakely, for defendant in error.
   Judgment aL firmed.

Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12810.
    Allbritain, Trustee, v. Seright et al.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Muskingum county.

      Mr. H. E. Buker, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Southard & Riley, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12811.
    Morris v. Landis et al.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Ashland county.

      Messrs. McCray & McCray, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Kean & Adair, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12812.
    Masters v. Shipley.
    Decided November 14, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Guernsey county.

      Messrs. Rosemond & Bell, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. E. W. Mathews, Jr., for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12069.
    Moran et al., Partners, v. Hart.
    Decided November 21, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Harrison county.

      Mr. R. H. Minteer and Mr. D. Cunningham, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. Robert S. Shields and Mr. D. A. Hollingsworth, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, = Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12074.
    Cain v. The National Supply Co. et al.
    Decided November 21, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Harrison county.

      Messrs. Hollingsworth & Worley, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Taber, Longbrake & O’Leary, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12089.
    The A. G. Corre Hotel Co. v. Sullivan, Admx.
    Decided November 21, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Messrs. Paxton, Warrington & Seasongood and Mr. James J. Muir, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr.

      Horace A. Reeve; Mr. Thomas J. Cogan and Mr. Charles F. Williams, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12097.
    McGovern v. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen et al.
    Decided November 21, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Messrs. Mathews & Orgill and Mr. D. B. C%dl, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Stearns, 'Chamberlain & Royon, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Tisch v. The Protected Home Circle, 72 Ohio St., 233.

Spear, C. J., Si-iauck and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12123.
    McMyler v. The Beckman Co.
    Decided November 21, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Messrs. White & Crosser, for plaintiff in error,

      Messrs. Weed, Miller & Rothenberg, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12149.
    Smith et al. v. The Ohio Savings Bank & Trust Co. et al.
    Decided November 21, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Messrs. Seney & Thurstin, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Hamilton & Kirby, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12818.
    Buzzard et al. v. Glass.
    Decided November 21, 1911.
    Error to Circúit Court of Ashland county.

      Messrs. McCray & McCray and Messrs. Mykrantz & Patterson, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Chapman & Taggart, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12822.
    Davis, Jr., v. The Ohio Christian Missionary Society.
    Decided November 21, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Scioto county.

      Messrs. Evans & 'Crawford, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Oscar W. Newman, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12823.
    Davis v. The Ohio Christian Missionary Society et al.
    Decided November 21, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Scioto county.

      Messrs. Evans & Crawford, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Oscar W. Newman, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12824.
    Davis v. The Ohio Christian Missionary Society et al.
    Decided November 21, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Scioto county.

      Messrs. Evans & Crawford, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Oscar W. Newman, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 13088.
    Miller et al. v. Badger et al.
    Decided November 21, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Wayne county.

      Messrs. Weiser & Ross and Mr. A. D. Metz, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Critchñeld & Hay; Mr. John McSweeney; Messrs. Meek & Stalter; Mr. James B. Taylor and Mr. Joseph 0. Fritz, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the ground of defect in the Mil of exceptions.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12102.
    Palmer, Admr., v. The Erie Railroad Co.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. Walter C. Ong, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Cushing, Siddall & Palmer, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12104.
    Palmer, Trustee, v. Weinberger et al.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. Walter C. Ong and Mr. D. M. Badger, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Hidy, Klein & Harris, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the ground that a determination of the questions argued would require a weighing of the evidence, there being only a general finding of the issues by the trial court.

Spear, C. J., Shauck, Davis, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12105.
    Pogue et al., Partners, v. Hellman et al.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. C. B. Matthews and Messrs. Pog%ie & Pogue, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. J. M. Dawson, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12106.
    Pogue et al., Partners, v. Hellman et al.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. C. B. Matthews and Messrs. Pogue & Pogue, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. J. M. Dawson, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12112.
    Doyle v. The Toledo Furnace Co.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Mr. Stephen Brophy, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. King, Tracy, Chapman & Welles, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12122.
    Stoner et al. v. Stoner.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Allen county.

      Mr. T. R. Hamilton, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. Miner A. Atmur and Mr. D. C. Henderson, for defendant in error.
   Dismissed for want of proper plaintiffs in error. Grounds stated in journal entry.

This cause having, at the request of the counsel for plaintiffs in error, been assigned for oral argument at this date, comes on to be heard upon the record of the circuit court of Allen county. Thereupon come the counsel for defendant in error (the plaintiff in error not being present either in person or by counsel) and shows to the court, by evidence adduced in open court, that John Stoner, plaintiff in error herein, deceased about one year ago at this date; that shortly after such decease an executor of the last will and testament of said John Stoner was appointed by the probate court of Allen county; that no effort has been made in behalf of the plaintiff in error for a revivor of this proceeding in error in the name of said executor, and that therefore there is a defect of parties plaintiff in error in this proceeding.

It is therefore considered and adjudged that the petition in error herein be dismissed for neglect in making the proper parties on the part of plaintiffs in error.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12133.
    Hassman et al. v. Geese et al.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Coshocton county.

      Mr. W. S. Merrell and Mr. L. M. Staats, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. Henry Bowers; Messrs. Duncan & Voorhees and Mr. F. E. Pomerene, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12134.
    Dawson, Exr., v. Stafford et al.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Mr. J. M. Dawson and Mr. T. H. Bushnell, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. W. L. Parmenter; Mr. W. M. Duncan and Messrs. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12136.
    Dawson v. Seiberling.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Summit county.

      Messrs. Musser, Kimber & Huffman, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Slabaugh, Seiberling & Pluber, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Spiauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12154.
    The Cincinnati & Columbus Traction Co. v. Males et al., Partners.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. C. B. Matthews, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. David S. Oliver, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12194.
    Snyder, Guardian, v. Shoemaker et al.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Mr. Harvey F. Ake and Mr. Luther Day, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Welty & Albaugh, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12820.
    The Stark Electric Railroad Co. v. Rhoads.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Messrs. Webber & Turner, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Craine & Snyder, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur. Donahue, J., not participating.


text:
    No. 12826.
    Remick, Auditor, et al. v. Haas.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Ashtabula county.

      Mr. F. R. Hogue, prosecuting attorney, and Messrs. Perry & Hitchcock, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. Allen M. Cox and Mr. Mott G. Spaulding, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12836.
    Stafford v. Suber.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Henry county.

      Mr. L. E. Long; Messrs. Donovan & Dittmer and Mr. F. H. Kirtley, for plaintiff in -error.

      Messrs. Donovan & Warden, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Yeager et al. v. Tuning et al., 79 Ohio St., 121.

Davis, Shauck and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12836.
    Fauver et al. v. Seward, Admr.
    Decided November 28, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      Mr. D. B. Symons and Mr. F. M. Stevens, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. Frits Rudin, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12135.
    See v. Galigher et al.
    Decided December 5, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Muskingum county.

      Messrs. Winn & Bassett, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. E. W. Allen and Mr. EL. W. Kuntz, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur. Donahue, J., not participating.


text:
    No. 12144.
    Barber et al. v. Harper.
    Decided November 5, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Fulton county.

      Messrs. Files & Paxson, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. Frank S. Ham and Mr. W. W. Campbell, for defendant in error.

   Judgment affirmed.

Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12245.
    The Jones Coal Co. v. Jenks, Admr.
    Decided December 5, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Jackson county.

      Messrs. Seaton & Paine and Messrs. McGillivray & Armstrong, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Joseph McGhee and Mr. T. S. Hogan, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12828.
    The Logan Light & Power Co. v. Wasson.
    Decided December 5, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hocking county.

      Mr. Eugene Wright and Mr. C. V. Wright, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. H. M. Whit craft, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12838.
    The State, ex rel. Welty, Prosecuting Attorney, v. Scott.
    Decided December 5, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Allen county.

      Mr. James J. Weadock, prosecuting attorney, and Messrs. Welty & Downing, for plaintiff in error.

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

Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12840.
    The Treasurer of Darke County et al. v. Fisher.
    Decided December 5, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Darke county.

      Mr. John F. Maher, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. T. A. Billingsley, for plaintiff in error.

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

Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12852.
    Fleming v. King.
    Decided December 5, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Muskingum county.

      Mr. C. T. Marshall, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Edward R. Meyer, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12853.
    Denial v. Henderson.
    Decided December 5, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Ashtabula county.

      Mr. Mott G. Spaulding and Mr. Allen M. Cox, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Taylor & Soules and Mr. C. W. Appleby, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12145.
    The City of Cincinnati et al. v. The Marmet Company.
    Decided December 12, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. Edward M. Ballard, city solicitor; Mr. John R. Schindel and Messrs. Waite & Schindel, for plaintiffs in error.

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

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shaucic, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12146.
    Gregg, Guardian, v. Zimmerman et al.
    Decided December 12, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Fayette county.

      Messrs. Gregg & Gregg and Messrs. Post & Reid, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. PJumphrey Jones and Mr. Frank A. Chaffin, for defendants in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed on authority of Powell v. State, 84 Ohio St., 165.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shaucic, Johnson and Donai-iue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12161.
    Hamilton, Mayor, v. The State, ex rel. Maple.
    Decided December 12, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Coshocton county.

      Mr. U. G. Denman, attorney general; Mr. J. C. Adams, city solicitor; Mr. W. S. Merrell and Mr. Levi Williams, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Duncan & Voorhees and Messrs. Glenn & Reasoner, for defendant in error.

   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Price and Joi-inson, JJ., concur. Donahue, J., not participating.


text:
    No. 12181.
    The City of Salem v. Green.
    Decided December 12, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

      Mr. John E. Scott and Mr. S. W. Ramsey, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. K. L. Cobourn and Mr. W. S. Anderson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12183.
    The City of Salem v. Cobourn.
    Decided December 12, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

      Mr. John E. Scott and Mr. S. W. Ramsey, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. K. L. Cobourn and Mr. W. S. Anderson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12190.
    The Columbus Railway & Light Co. v. Shaw, an Infant, by etc.
    Decided December 12, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Messrs. Booth, Keating, Peters & Pomerene, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. G. J. Marriott and Mr. John A. Connor, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12199.
    Popp v. Popp.
    Decided December 12, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

      Messrs. Fitzgerald & Sprigg and Mr. D. B. VanPelt, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Mat-tern & Brumbaugh and Messrs. McKemy & Cline, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court vacated and cause remanded on the grounds stated in the journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, vacated on the ground that the court erred in the rejection of evidence offered by the plaintiff in error and in holding that it was without jurisdiction to try the question as to the division of the property, in holding that such division of property was not alimony, and the cause therefore not appealable; and this cause is remanded to the circuit court of Montgomery county with direction to proceed to hear the cause upon its merits, and further proceedings according to law.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12203.
    Barrett et al. v. Taylor et al.
    Decided December 12, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Wayne county.

      Mr. M. L. Spooner and Mr. Atlee Pomerene, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. Mahlon Rouch; Mr. A. D. Metz and Messrs. Taylor & Taylor, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Price, Shauck and Johnson, JJ., concur. Donahue, J., not participating.


text:
    No. 12854.
    The City of Elyria v. Good.
    Decided December 12, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      Mr. PL. A. Pounds and Mr. S. M. Douglass, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. G. B. Findley, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12855.
    The Citizens Gas & Electric Co. v. The City of Elyria.
    Decided December 12, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      Mr. S. M. Douglass and Mr. George H. Chamberlain, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. H. A. Pounds, for defendant in error.
   Judgment afaffirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Price, Sitauck, and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12858.
    Raudabaugh v. The Incorporated Village of Celina.
    Decided December 12, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Mercer county.

      Mr. I. F. Raudabaugh, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. J. D. Johnson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Johnson and Donai-iue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12174.
    Liggett v. Long et al.
    Decided December 19, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Carroll county.

      Messrs. Fimple & Eckley, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. T. JJ. Loller and Messrs. McDonald & Oglevee, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12192.
    The County Commissioners of Hardin County et al. v. Saylor et al.
    Decided December 19, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hardin county.

      Mr. James R. Stillings, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Smick & Hoge, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12209.
    Happ v. Rhode Island Insurance Co.
    Decided December 19, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Mr. O. S. Brumback, for plaintiff- in error.

      Mr. J. W. Mooney and Messrs. Doyle & Lewis, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Joi-inson and Donapiue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12210.
    The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Cummins, Admx.
    Decided December 19, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Sandusky county.

      Messrs. Wilson, Hunt & Gam; Mr. L. J. Hackney and Mr. Frank L. Littleton, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Garver, Garver & Garver and Mr. E. L. Bogue, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12221.
    Ireland et al. v. Wells.
    Decided December 19, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Van Wert county.

      Messrs. Blachley & Kerns and Messrs. Smith & Baker, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. H. L. Conn and Mr. W. FI. Dailey, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed for error in reversing and in not affirming the judgment of the court of common pleas of Van Wert county in the case of Edgar R. Wells v. Charles Ireland et al. And this court being of opinion that, by the evidence of the plaintiff below, it is shown that no duty was owed to him on the part of the defendants to protect him from injury under the circumstances of the case, and that plaintiff below was himself guilty of negligence proximately contributing to his injury, the court of common pleas did not commit error in sustaining the motion of the defendants below, at the conclusion of all the evidence, to direct a verdict for the defendants; and therefore the judgment of said court of common pleas is affirmed.

It is further considered and adjudged that the petition of plaintiff below be and the same is hereby dismissed at his costs, and it is further considered and adjudged that plaintiffs in error go hence and recover of defendant in error their costs in this court and in the courts below.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Si-iauck, Price, Jopinson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12224.
    Sheidler v. The Joint Board of County Commissioners of Putnam, Henry, Hancock and Wood Counties, et al.
    Decided December 19, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Putnam county.

      Mr. A. A. Slabaugh and Messrs. Bailey & Leasure, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Charles Blackford; Mr. Thomas Muscahy; Mr. William Dunipace and Mr. I. W. Smith, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12860.
    Dum v. Snyder.
    Decided December 19, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Fairfield county.

      Mr. C. A. Radcliffe and Mr. Ben R. Dolson, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Clarence C. Curtain; Mr. M. A'. Daugherty and Mr. Irvin F. Snyder, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on authority of Andrews v. Lembeck, 46 Ohio St., 38, and Barber v. Knowles, 77 Ohio St., 81.

Spear; C. J., Davis, Spiauck, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur. Donahue, J., not participating.


text:
    No. 12875.
    The Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. Decker.
    Decided December 19, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Messrs. Addison & Addison, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. W. H. Iones and Mr. L. J. Hegelheimer, for defendant in error.
   Judgment of the common pleas and circuit courts reversed, and judgment for plaintiff in error. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed for error in affirming and in not reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas of Franklin county in the case of Andrew Decker v. The Columbus Gas & Fuel Company. And this court finding that, by the evidence introduced by the plaintiff below, the said plaintiff was himself guilty of negligence contributing directly to his injury, the plaintiff below, having full and entire knowledge of the dangers of the situation as was shown by his own evidence. And proceeding to render the judgment which said circuit court should have rendered, it is considered and adjudged that the judgment of the court of common pleas in said cause be, and the same hereby is, reversed and final judgment is here entered in favor of the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, dismissing the petition of the defendant in error, at his costs.

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


text:
    No. 12952.
    Wilson et al. v. Barr, Clerk, et al.
    Decided December 19, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Messrs. Pugh & Pugh and Messrs. Wilson & Rector, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. E. L. Weinland, city solicitor, and Mr. Charles A. Leach, assistant city solicitor, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Donahue; JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12181.
    The J. Walker Brewing Co. v. Schmidt.
    Decided December 22, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Greene county.

      Mr. W. L. Miller and Mr. C. T. Coppock, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. M. A. Broadstone and Mr. Horace L. Smith, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12191.
    Bowlus, Trustee, v. Rosendaul.
    Decided December 22, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Defiance county.

      Mr. John B. Stahl and Mr. E. L. Bogue, for plaintiff in error. Mr.

      Charles E. Scott, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Price and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12226.
    The Concordia Insurance Co. v. Kuebeler, Sole Surviving Partner of Jacob Kuebeler & Co.
    Decided December 22, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Erie county.

      Messrs. King, Guerin & Ramsey and Mr. J. W. Mooney, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. George C. Beis, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed. Grounds stated in the journal .entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed for the following reasons: That the testimony of the witness Louise Price, as objected to on pages 37 to 40 of the printed record, was incompetent and that said testimony as admitted does not prove a denial of liability.

And this court proceeding to render the judgment which the said circuit court should have rendered, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the court of common pleas be and it hereby is reversed for the reasons aforesaid, and this cause is remanded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings according to law.

Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12228.
    The Luhrig Coal Co. v. Allison, Executor.
    Decided December 22, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Athens county.

      Messrs. Dempsey & Nieberding; Mr. W. E. Peters and
      Messrs. Grosvenor, Jones & Worstell, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. E. A. Tinker and Mr. I. M. Foster, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12234.
    Erie Railroad Co. v. The Etna Insurance Co. et al.
    Decided December 22, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Portage county.

      Messrs. Cushing, Siddall & Palmer, for plaintiff in error.

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

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12235.
    Conaway, Trustee, v. Smith et al.
    Decided December 22, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      Mr. J. C. Conaway and Mr. Anthony Nieding, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Quincy A. Gillm'ore, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12336.
    Hart, Exr., v. Barry.
    Decided December 22, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Morgan county.

      Mr. John J. Adams and Messrs. Ivers & Danford, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Frank H. Southard; Mr. L. J. Weber and Mr. George W. Barry, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12333.
    The Concordia Insurance Co. v. Kuebeler, Sole Surviving Partner of Jacob Kuebeler & Co.
    Decided December 22, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Erie county.

      Messrs. King, Guerin & Ramsey and Mr. J. W. Mooney, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. George C. Beis, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12861.
    Kent v. Erwin et al.
    Decided December 22, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Scioto county.

      Mr. Noah J. Dever and Mr. James S. Thomas, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Oscar W. Newman, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck, Price and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 13091.
    Allen et al. v. Nichols et al.
    Decided December 22, 1911.
    Error to Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

      Messrs. Billingsley, Clark & Moore and Messrs. Long, Yarlott & Souder, for plaintiffs in error.

      Mr. C. S. Speaker; Mr. George T. Farrell; Messrs. Metzger & Smith; Mr. Edward Nichols; Mr. Ross W. Firestone and Mr. W. G. Wells, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12051.
    Biedinger, Admx., v. Bowen et al., Exrs.
    Decided January 9, 1912.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. J. B.

      Foraker and Mr. Charles Phares, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. William H. Jones and Mr. Clyde P. Johnson, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12238.
    The Ohio Iron & Steel Co. v. Paglia, Admr.
    Decided January 9, 1912.
    Error to Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Mr. Myron A. Norris and Mr. George E. Rose, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Frank Jacobs and Mr. D. J. Hart-well, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12244.
    The Muskingum Valley Transportation Co. v. Ethel, Admr.
    Decided January 9, 1912.
    Error to Circuit Court of Muskingum county.

      Mr. F. A. Durban, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. Elmer E. Murphy and Mr. A. A. George, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

The court finds that said circuit court erred in reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas in said cause and the court further finds that the court of common pleas was correct in sustaining the demurrer of the defendant below to the amended petition filed by the plaintiff below and in rendering final judgment for the defendant below-. It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged by this court that the said judgment of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby reversed, and coming now to render the judgment that the said circuit court should have rendered,

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the court of common pleas in said cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12815.
    Del Pizzo, Guardian, v. The Northern Ohio Traction & Light Co.
    Decided January 9, 1912.
    Error to Circuit Court of Summit county.

      Mr. B. D. Nicola, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Rogers & Rowley, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, C. J., Spear, Spiauck, Price and Jopinson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12867.
    Irick v. The Village of West Rushville.
    Decided January 9, 1912.
    Error to Circuit Court of Fairfield county.

      Mr. D. E. Sites; Mr. J. S. Sites and Mr. M. A. Daugherty, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. C. W. McCleery, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 13177.
    The State of Ohio v. Shelley.
    Decided January 9, 1912.
    Error to Circuit Court of Medina county.

      Mr. George Frey, prosecuting attorney; Mr. C. H. Workman; Mr. N. M. Wolfe; Mr. W. J. Wirick and Mr. N. H. McClure, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. F. V. Owens; Mr. Frank Heath and Mr. F. N. Patterson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the grounds of reversal stated by the circuit court.

Davis, C. J., Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur


text:
    No. 12186.
    Jones et al. v. Swanson.
    Decided January 16, 1912.
    Error to Circuit Court of Clermont county.

      Mr. H. H. Hosbrook and Mr. Eli H. Speidel, for plaintiffs in error.

      Messrs. Frazier & Flicks and Mr. H. S. Stevenson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Siíauck and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12247.
    The Big Cuyahoga Light, Heat & Power Co. v. The Turner, Vaughn & Taylor Co. et al.
    Decided January 16, 1912.
    Error to Circuit Court of Summit county.

      Mr. Willis Bacon and Mr. George M. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Allen, Waters, Young & Andress, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12285.
    The Edmondson Concrete Machinery Co. v. Walker.
    Decided January 16, 1912.
    Error to Circuit Court of Williams county.

      Mr. L W. Pressler and Mr. R. P. Hays, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. J. D. Hill and Messrs. Newcomer & Gebhard, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12782.
    The Model Dairy Co. v. Meer et al., Partners.
    Decided January 16, 1912.

      Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. Albert Bettinger, for plaintiff in error.

      Messrs. Renner & Renner and Mr. Eugene Heim, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Johnson, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12857.
    The State, ex rel. Spaller, v. Moodey, Auditor, et al.
    Decided January 16, 1912.
    Error to Circuit Court of Lake county.

      Mr. Harry E. Hammar, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. J. B. Burrows and Mr. Homer Harper, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

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


text:
    No. 12873.
    Bose v. Gibson.
    Decided January 16, 1912.
    Error to Circuit Court of Crawford county.

      Mr. R. V. Sears and Mr. Benjamin Meek, for plaintiff in error.

      Mr. L. C. Feighner and Mr. Anson Wickham, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Davis, C. J., Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.


text:
    No. 12879.
    Ransom, an Infant, by etc., v. Haberer & Co.
    Decided January 16, 1912.
    Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Mr. Scott Bonham, for plaintiff in error.

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

Davis, C. J., Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.