text:
    No. 3249.
    Hunt v. Rich.
    (Decided January 29, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Outcalt, Granger & Hunt, for plaintiff in error.

      Hollister, Roberts & Hollister, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 3277.
    Pepple Adm'r v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided January 29, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      A. &. J. Blackford, for plaintiff in error.

      H. F. Burket, Samuel Williamson and Henry Brown, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the ground that the circuit court found that the verdict of the jury’was not sustained by sufficient evidence. Other questions not passed upon.


text:
    No. 4069.
    Fee, Treas. v. Martin.
    (Decided January 29, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court'of Brown county.

      Moore & Markley, for plaintiff in error.

      White & Campbell, and G. Bambach & Son, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Bradbury and Williams, JJ., dissent.


text:
    No. 4115.
    McManness et al. v. Peterman.
    (Decided January 29, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.

      A. Blackford and John Poe, for plaintiffs in error.

      G. H. Phelps and H. F. Burket, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4156.
    Railway Company v. Quakemeyer.
    (Decided January 29, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.
    Ramsey, Maxwell & Ramsey, for plaintiff in error.

      Symmes & Fox, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Dickman, C. J., dissents


text:
    No. 4187.
    Railway Company v. Nehl.
    (Decided January 29, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      W. B. Tyler and F. G. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

      Boynton & Horr and II. W. Ingersoll, for defendant in error:
   J udgment affirmed..


text:
    No. 2515.
    Thomas v. Fawcett & Co.
    (Decided February 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Estep, Dickey, Carr & Goff, for plaintiff: in error.

      Ong & McMillin, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2528.
    Borges v. City of Cleveland.
    (Decided February 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county..

      J. F. Herrick and Estep, Dickey, Carr & Goff, for plaintiff in error.

      Lawrence, Estep, Weh & Henry, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2759.
    McFarland, adm'r, v. Harper et al.
    (Decided February 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Greene county.

      Snodgrass & Schnebly, for plaintiff in error.

      F. P. Cunningham, John Little, J. F. Harris and Nesbitt & Hartley, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3193.
    Street Railroad Company v. Dussel.
    (Decided February 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Summit county.

      Tibbals & Frank, U. L. Marvin, and F. M. Atterholt, for plaintiff in error.

      R. W. Sadler, and Baird & Voris, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3242.
    City of Toledo et al. v. Newton et al.
    (Decided February 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      C. F. Watts, City Solicitor, for plaintiffs in error.

      G. W Kinney and Barton Smith, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3250.
    Winget v. Burton.
    (Decided February 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Byrne, O'Neill & Wardlow, for plaintiff in error.
    , Peters d Clarke, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3805.
    City of Cincinnati et al. v. Kleine et al.
    (Decided February 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.
    . Theodore Horstman, Corporation Counsel, and John Galvin, for plaintiffs in error.

      Coppock & Gallagher and William C. Herron, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3998.
    City of Cincinnati et al. v. Bartley et al.
    (Decided February 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Theodore Horstman, Corporation Counsel, Frederick Hertenstein and W. H. Whittaker, for plaintiffs in error.
    Miller, Renner & Miller, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3999.
    Bartley v. City of Cincinnati et al.
    (Decided February 5, 1895.)

      Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Miller, Benner da Miller, for plaintiffs in error.

      Theodore Ilorstman, Corporation Counsel, Frederick Ilertenstein and W. II. Whittaker, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4068.
    Butt v. Chambers.
    (Decided February 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Athens county.

      Wood & Wood and Lewis & Price, for plaintiff in error.

      Sleeper & Sayre, Grosvenor, Jones & Worstell and L. M. Jewett, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed. One of the grounds of reversal by the circuit court being that the verdict of the jury was not sustained by sufficient' evidence. Other questions not passed upon.


text:
    No. 4153.
    Cullers v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided February 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Licking county. •

      J. A. Flory and T. W. Phillips, for plaintiff in error.

      Charles H. Kibler and J. H. Godins, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, J., dissents.


text:
    No. 4162.
    Sharon Boiler Works v. McCarthy.
    (Decided February 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Burke & Ingersolls, for plaintiff in error.

      Henderson, Kline & Tollies and F. A. Quail, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Dickman, C. J.,.and Burket, J., dissent.


text:
    No. 3215.
    Vanzile v. Creigh et al.
    (Decided February 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court, of Richland county.

      D. Dirlam and Silas C. Parker, for plaintiff in error.

      R. M. Campbell, Connolly & Laser and Estep, Hickey, Carr & Goff, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2536.
    Jackson Coal Company et al v. Austin, Adm'r, et al.
    (Decided February 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Jackson county.

      Tripp & Moore and Charles C. Pavey, for plaintiffs in error.

      W. A. Hutchins and J. W. Bannon, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2537.
    Jackson Coal Company et al v. Austin, Adm'r, et al.
    (Decided February 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Jackson county.

      Tripp & Moore and Charles C. Pavey, for plaintiffs in error.

      W. A. Hutchins and J. W. Bannon, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2842.
    Jackson Coal Company et al. v. Austin, Adm'r, et al.
    (Decided February 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Jackson county.

      Tripp & Moore and Charles C. Pavey, for plaintiffs in error.

      W. A. Hutchins and J. W. Bannon, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2843.
    Jackson Coal Company et al. v. Austin, Adm'r, et al.
    (Decided February 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court' of Jackson county.

      Tripp & Moore and Charles E. Parey, for plaintiffs in error.
    W. A. Hutchins and J. W. W. Bannon for .defendants in error.
   J udgment affirmed..


text:
    No. 3155.
    Waldau et al. v. Insurance Company et al.
    (Decided February 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Gircuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      T. H. Johnson and A. T. Hills, for plaintiffs in error.

      Lee & Tilden, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3220.
    Dougherty v. Machine Company.
    (Decided February 26, 1895.)
    Error to the' Circuit Court of' Stark county.

      James J. Clark and Ralph S. Ambler, for plaintiff in error.

      Baldwin & Shields, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3234.
    Insurance Co. v. Dawson et al.
    (Decided February 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Henry county.

      Campbell & Van Campen, for plaintiff in error.

      J. V. Guff and Cahill & Donovan, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3235.
    Gillespie v. Bryan et al.
    (Decided February 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Fording & Harris and William R. Day, for plaintiff in error.

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


text:
    No. 3244.
    Wilson et al. v. Chenot et al.
    (Decided February 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.'

      Nat C. McLean, for plaintiffs in error.

      A. M. McCarty, for defendant's in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3275.
    Wheeler et al. v. Stotts.
    (Decided February 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Muskingum county.

      Winn & O’Neal, for plaintiffs in error.

      Charles A. Beard, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3326.
    Newspaper Company v. Moore et al.
    (Decided February 26, 1895)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Henderson, Kline & Tolles, for Plaintiff in Error.

      M. A. Foran and J. F. Farrell, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3751.
    State ex rel. Kearney v. Beatty.
    (Decided February 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Pickaway county.

      John I. Throckmorton, H. M. Daugherty, and H. B. Maynard, for plaintiff in error.

      Mills Gardner, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the authority of Newton v. Hammond, 38 Ohio St., 430; Gorman v. Taylor, 43 Ohio St., 86.


text:
    No. 3955.
    Railway Company v. Purviance, Adm'r.
    (Decided February 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Van Wert county.

      Otto Gresham, for plaintiff in error.

      Sayler & Sayler G. M. Saltzgaber, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4012.
    Railway Company v Sharp.
    (Decided February 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Knox county.

      Harrison, Olds & Henderson, for plaintiff in error.

      F. V. Owen, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2625.
    Bennett v. Chester.
    (Decided March 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      Johnston & Leonard, for plaintiff in error.

      F. G. Johnson and Q. A. Gillmore, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3265.
    Marsh et al. v. Phelan et al.
    (Decided March 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Clark County.

      Keifer & Keifer, for plaintiffs in error.

      Pringle & Johnson and Chase Stewart, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3280.
    Gale, Executor, v. Board of Education et al.
    (Decided March 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      John C. L. Pugh and H. A. Axline, for plaintiff m error.

      Gilbert H. Barger, Florizel Smith, Paul Jones, Ellsworth C. Irvine and B. F. Martz, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3294.
    Russell & Company v. Knabe.
    (Decided March 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Wilson & Herrlinger, for plaintiffs in error.

      Charles W. Baker, for defendant in error.
   J udgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3295.
    Russel & Company v. Knabe.
    (Decided March 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Wilson & Herrlinger, for plaintiffs in error.

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


text:
    No. 3296.
    Russell & Company v. Knabe.
    (Decided March 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Wilson & Herrlinger, for plaintiffs in error.

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


text:
    No. 3297.
    Burgess Steel & Iron Works v. City of Portsmouth.
    (Decided March 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Scioto county. .

      Holcomb & Dawson, for plaintiff in error.

      Harry Ball, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3467.
    Hunter, Treas, v. Newman.
    (Decided March 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      J. A. Barber, Charles E. Sumner and N. E. Warwick, for plaintiff in error.

      Doyle, Scott & Lewis, Clayton W. Everett and L. E. Knisely, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3468
    Hunter, Treas. v. Newman.
    (Decided March 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      J. A. Barber, Charles E. Sumner and N. E. Warwick, for plaintiff in error.

      Doyle, Scott & Lewis, Clayton W. Everett and I. E. Knisely, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3737.
    Ludwick, Adm'r. v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided March 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Putnam county.

      W. W. Sutton and Sheets & Ogan, for plaintiff in error.

      R. D. Marshall and A. V. Watts, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3936.
    City of Youngstown et al. v. Dennison.
    (Decided March 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      George F. Arrel, John A. L. Campbell and I. A. Justice, for plaintiffs in error.

      Hine & Clarke, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed for the reason that for ought that appears in the record the corner lots in question may abut and front on Bryson street, between Lincoln avenue and Madison avenue, in the city of Youngstown.


text:
    No. 4090.
    Jones v. Tague.
    (Decided March 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Perry county.

      Hollingsworth & McDermott, and Ferguson & Johnston, for plaintiff in error.

      Butler & Butler and Donahue, Spencer & Donahue, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4107.
    Street Railway Co. v. Schwarz, Adm'r.
    (Decided March 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Kittredge, Wilby, Simmons and Paxton, Harrington & Boutet, for plaintiff in error.

      John W. Wolfe and Thomas L. Michie, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shauck and Burket, JJ., dissent.

Spear, J., not sitting.


text:
    No. 4118.
    Krause et al. v. Morgan.
    (Decided March 5, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Day, Lynch & Day, for plaintiffs in error.

      Meyer & Piero and Webber & Turner, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the ground that it does not appear but that the circuit court reversed the judgment *bf the common pleas, for the reason that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Other questions not passed upon


text:
    No. 2618.
    Railroad Company v. Kearney et al.
    (Decided March 12, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Thomas W. Sanderson, for plaintiff in error.

      S. L. Clark, R. B. Murray and W. S. Anderson, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2629.
    Cincinnati Times-Star Company v. Kahn.
    (Decided March 12, 1895.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Thornton M. Hinkle and Rufus B. Smith, for plaintiff in error.

      Kramer & Kramer, and Shay, Jackson & Cogan, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Minshall, C. J., and Shauck, J., dissent.

Spear, J., not sitting.


text:
    No. 2636.
    Railroad Company v. Owens.
    (Decided March 12, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Thomas W. Sanderson, for plaintiff in error.

      S. L. Clark, R. B. Murray and W S. Anderson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2910.
    Easthope v. Fordyce.
    (Decided March 12, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Trumbull county.

      George P. Hunter, for plaintiff in error.

      J. K. Pickering and M. Woodford, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Spear, J., not sitting.


text:
    No. 3268.
    Fuller v. Zollinger et al.
    (Decided March 12, 1895.)

      Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Peters & Clarke, for plaintiff in error.

      Richards & Sullivan, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3292.
    Kuntz v. Hammel.
    (Decided March 12, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      S. T. Crawford, for plaintiff in error.

      Edward Dienst, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3298.
    Harmon et al. v. V. Wardlow, Receiver.
    (Decided March 12, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Jones & Jones, for plaintiffs in error.

      J. T. Holmes, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4168.
    Grove v. McDonald et al.
    (Decided March 12, 1894)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      G. J. Marriott, for plaintiff in error.

      Donaldson & Bussing, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the authority of Grove v. Commissioners, 8 O. C. C. Rep., 166.


text:
    No. 4252.
    Bronson v. The State.
    (Decided March 12, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Defiance county.

      Hurd, Brumbach & Thatcher, John W. Winn, S. T. Sutphen and L. B. Reaslee, for plaintiff in error.

      J. K. Richards, Attorney General, James B. Woods, Prosecuting Attorney, and B. F. Enos, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4374.
    Thompson v. State ex rel. Richards.
    (Decided March 12, 1895.)
    Error to. the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      J. T. Holmes, J. E. Safer and Curtis C. Williams, for plaintiff in error.

      John K Richards, Attorney General, Tod B. Gabloway, S. A. Webb and Frank A. Davis, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed for the reasons contained in the . opinion of Thompson v. The State, 9 O. C. C. Rep., 161.

Burket, J., dissents.


text:
    No. 2637.
    Insurance Company v. Maloney
    (Decided March 19, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Delaware county.

      Finch & Finch and F. M. Marriott, for plaintiff in error.

      E. F. Poppleton, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Spear and Burket, JJ., dissent. •


text:
    No. 2648.
    Morrison, Guardian v. Paul et al.
    (Decided March 19, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Morrow county.

      John A. Garver, for plaintiff in error.

      J. C. Laser, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2658.
    Williams v. City of Salem.
    (Decided March 19, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

      Wallace & Billingsley, and Ambler Son, for plaintiff in error.

      A. W. Taglor and J. R. Carey, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3254.
    National Bank v. Lovell et al.
    (Decided March 19, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Morgan county.

      E. M. Stanbery, A. D. Follett and Neroell Corner, for plaintiff in error.

      J. B. Stonesypher and Moses B. Granger, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3344.
    Railway Company v. Stoddard.
    (Decided March 19, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Warren county,

      Brasee & Brasee, for plaintiff in error.

      Bunyan & Stanley, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.'


text:
    No. 3345.
    Savings Institute v. Fancher et al.
    (Decided March 19, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Bissell & Gorrill, for plaintiff in error.

      A. W. Eckert, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4056.
    Upson Coal Company v. Peterson, Adm'x.
    (Decided March 19, 1895.)

      Error to the Circuit Court of Perry county.

      J. B. Jones and Ferguson & Johnston, for plaintiff in error.

      Butler & Butler and W. T. Lewis, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4131.
    Railroad Company v. Pulley, Adm'r.
    (Decided March 19, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lorain county.

      Joel W. Tyler and William B. Tyler, for plaintiff in error.

      Walter J. Hamilton, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2659.
    Ross, Moyer & Company v. Sibley et al.
    (Decided March 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Baker & Goodhue, for plaintiff in error.
    Ramsey, Maxwell & Ramsey, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2662.
    Belford, Clarke & Company v. Lithographing Company.
    (Decided March 26, 1895.)

      Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

      Lowrey Jackson, Shay, Jackson & Cogan and Kramer & Kramer, for plaintiffs in error.

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


text:
    No. 2667.
    Railroad Company v. Phillips.
    (Decided March 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Samuel E. Williamson, for plaintiff in error.

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


text:
    No. 2676.
    Calhoun v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided March 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Caldwell & Caldwell, for plaintiff in error.

      Samuel E. Williamson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Burket, J., dissents


text:
    No. 3653.
    Black, Receiver, v. Boyd.
    (Decided March 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Powell, Rickets <& Black, for plaintiff in error.

      Merrick c& Tompkins, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4074.
    Railway Company v. Flenner.
    (Decided March 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Jones & Anderson, for plaintiff in error.

      Kennedy & Graham, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4137.
    Railway Company v. Bycraft.
    (Decided March 26, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      Thomas W. Sanderson, George C. Greene and O. G. Getzendanner, for plaintiff in error.

      IT. S. Anderson and I). F. Anderson, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shauck and Burket, JJ., dissent.

Spear, J., not-sitting.


text:
    No. 4175.
    Montgomery et al., v. Clark.
    (Decided March 26, 1895)

      Error to the Circuit Court of Wood county.

      Troup & Dunn, George H. Phelps, for plaintiff in error.

      Baldwin & Harrington, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shaucn and Burnet, JJ., dissent.

Spear, J., not sitting.


text:
    No. 4151.
    Brewing Company v. Hagerty, Auditor.
    (Decided March 29, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Maxwell & Creed, Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadley and Paxton, Warrington & Boutet, for plaintiff in error.

      Thornton M. Hinkle, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the reasoning of the Circuit Court in same case, 8 Ohio C. C. Rep., 330.


text:
    No. 2665.
    Burtenshaw v. Furnace Company.
    (Decided April 9, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Vinton county.

      W. A. Hutchins .and J. M. McGillivar, for plaintiff in error.

      C. H. Grosvenor, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2677.
    Railway Company v. Roberts, Admr.
    (Decided April 9, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.
    Ramsey, Maxwell & Ramsey and E. W. Strong, for plaintiff in error;

      Campbell & Earner, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2678.
    Smedes v. Davey, Assignee.
    (Decided April 9, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Wilby & Wald, for plaintiff in error.
    Ramsey, Maxwell & Ramsey, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed


text:
    No. 2687.
    Robertson v. Deming et al.
    (Decided April 9, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Foran & Datoley, for plaintiff in error.

      C. A. Hetcalf and Boynton, Hale & Horr, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3276.
    Platt v. Hazzard.
    (Decided April 9, 1895.)
    Error to tñe Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      James M. Williams and Samuel G. Luccock, for plaintiff in error.

      Ong & Hamilton for defendant in error.
    Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3384.
    Cummings, Assignee, v. Ritter.
    (Decided April 9, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      Cummings & McBride and L. Brucker, for plaintiff in error.

      J. C. Laser, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed on the authority of Beecher v. Dunlup, ante 64.


text:
    No. 4163.
    Railway Company v. Taggart.
    (Decided April 9, 1895.)
    ERROR to the Circuit Court of Stark county.

      Fording & Harris, for plaintiff in error.

      J. W. Crane, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4369.
    Hudson v. The State.
    (Decided April 9, 1895.)

      Error to the Circuit Court of Fairfield county.

      C. W. McCleery, for plaintiff in error.

      John M. Wright, prosecuting attorney, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3111.
    Ford v. Porter, Adm'r.
    (Decided April 16, 1895.)
    Error to the _ Circuit Court of Muskingum county.

      Charles A. Beard, for plaintiff in error.

      J. T Crew, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3233.
    Combes v. Miller.
    (Decided April 16, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      E. Sowers, for plaintiff in error.

      R. D. Updegraff, for defendant, in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3262.
    Insurance Association v. Crandall.
    (Decided April 16, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lake county.

      Burrows & Jerome, for plaintiff in error.

      G. M. Alvord, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3423.
    Sheetz & Co. v. Endslow et al.
    (Decided April 16, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Crawford county.

      Fidley & Bennett, for plaintiff in error.

      A. Wickham, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3451.
    Lothscheutz et al. v. Lothscheutz et al.
    (Decided April 16, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Clark county.

      Kiefer & Kiefer, for plaintiffs in error.

      Summers & Beard, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3966.
    Knighton, Adm'r v. Railroad Company.
    (Decided April 16, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Vinton county.

      J. M. McGillivray, for plaintiff in error.

      F. W Strong and R. W. Coultrap, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4099.
    Railroad Company v. Sutherland.
    (Decided April 16, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Huron county.

      J. H. Collins, for plaintiff in error.

      Warren Severance, G. R. Walker, and Doyle, Scott, & Lewis, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4345.
    Herman et al. v. City of Cincinnati.
    (Decided April 16, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Miller, Renner & Miller, for plaintiffs in error.

      Frederick Hertenstein, corporation counsel, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed on the opinion of the Circuit Court, by Smith, J.


text:
    No. 2689.
    WINTERMUTH ET AL. v. BROWN.
    (Decided April 23, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Knox county.

      A. R. McIntire, for plaintiffs in error.

      F. V. Owen and William M. Koons, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2704.
    Collins v. Miller.
    (Decided April 23, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Shelby county.

      C. M. Hughes, G. A. Marshall, Royon & Hess and J. B. Foraker, for plaintiff in error.

      Wilson & Wilson, Davies & Hoskins and John A. McMahon, for defendant in error.
   Upon the uncontradicted testimony in the case, and particularly that of plaintiff below, Hartmen Miller, he is not, upon the authority of Trimble v. Doty, 16 Ohio St., 118, and of Pride v. Andrew, 51. Ohio St., 405, entitled to any relief.

The cause is therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings.


text:
    No. 2706.
    Norton & Son v. Heyns.
    (Decided April 23, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Wilby & Wald, for plaintiffs in error.

      Herman Muller and C. K. Browne, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed,


text:
    No. 2716.
    Weil, Joseph & Company v. Gilchrist.
    (Decided April 23, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Henderson, Kline & Tolles and Emil Joseph, for plaintiffs in error.
    White, Johnson & McCaslin, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2730.
    SCHAUWEKER v. STILLWELL.
    (Decided April 23, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Holmes county.

      D. Dirlam, for plaintiff in error.
    Harrison, Olds & Henderson, and William Reed and Byron Stillwell, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3353.
    Williams et al. v. Swartz.
    (Decided April 23, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of-Summit county.

      Kohler & Musser, for plaintiffs in error.
    Green, Grant & Seiber, for defendant in error.
   Judgment reversed, and judgment for defendant below on second cause of action.


text:
    No. 3401.
    Natural Gas Company v. Sheibley et al.
    (Decided April 23, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      Doyle, Scott & Lewis, for plaintiff in error.

      Pratt & Wilson and J. C. Winn, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3418.
    Sheppard et al. v. Lindsay et al.
    (Decided April 23, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Ben B. Dale and J. H. Bates & H. P. Kaufman, for plaintiffs in error.
    Roelker & Kelke, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3844.
    City of Cincinnati et al. v. Eicher et al.
    (Decided April 23, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Theodore Horstman, Corporation Counsel, for plaintiffs in error.

      William M. Ampt, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3846.
    City of Cincinnati et al. v. McDonald, etc.
    (Decided April 23, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county,

      Theodore Horstman, Corporation Counsel, for plaintiffs in error.

      William M. Ampt, for defendants in error.
   .Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3847.
    City of Cincinnati et al. v. Coney, et al.
    (Decided April 23, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Theodore Horstman, Corporation Counsel, for plaintiffs in error.

      William M. Ampt, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4351.
    Railroad Company v. Johnson's Adm'x.
    (Decided April 23, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

      J. P. Wilson and G. F. Arrel, for plaintiff in error.

      W. S. Anderson and James Kennedy, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Btjrket and Spear, JJ., dissent.


text:
    No. 2684.
    Hayes v. Locke et al.
    (Decided April 30, 1895.)

      Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      King & Tracy, for plaintiff in error.

      Huntsberger & Ashley, for defendants in error.
   Judgment reversed, and judgment for plaintiff in error.


text:
    No. 2746.
    Wilson v. Cook, Treas.
    (Decided April 30, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Fayette county.

      J. J. Harper, for plaintiff in error.

      John Logan, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2751.
    McIlvain, Admx., v. Leyman et al.
    (Decided April 30, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.
    Geddes, Dickey & Geddes, for plaintiff in error.

      W. S. Kerr and W. L. Sewell, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2752.
    Railroad Company et al. v. Clark et al.
    (Decided April 30, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Licking county.

      J. H. Collins, and Kibler & Kibler, for plaintiffs in error.

      S. M. Hunter, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2755.
    Gilcher et al. v. Kranz.
    (Decided April 30, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Erie county.

      Colver & King, for plaintiffs in error.
    Bowen, Stone & Reiter, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2802.
    Tuttle v. Davis.
    (Decided April 30, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      Watson & Huggins, for plaintiff in error.

      J. T. Holmes and Hawley J. Wiley, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3399.
    Trustees of Troy Township v. Shauck.
    (Decided April 30, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.

      Cummings & McBride, and Bell, Brinkerhoff & Mengert, for plaintiffs in error.

      J. C. Laser, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, J., did not sit in the ease.


text:
    No. 3415.
    Railroad Company v. Scahill.
    (Decided April 30, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Belmont county.

      J. H. Collins and Perry & Smith, for plaintiff in error.

      James C. Tallman, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3419.
    Kasmirsky v. Steinmetz et al.
    (Decided April 30, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

      J. A. McMahon, and Munger & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error.

      William Craighead, City Solicitor, and Corwin & Corwin, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3420.
    Iddings v. Kerr et al.
    (Decided April 30, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Miami county.

      H. H. Williams, for plaintiff in error.

      George S. Long and Ellis H. Kerr, for defendants in error.
   Judgment reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas affirmed; and judgment rendering the judgment the Common pleas should have rendered, reversed and cause remanded to the court of common pleas for a new trial.


text:
    No. 4377.
    State of Ohio v. Penn.
    (Decided April 30, 1895.)
    Exceptions to the rulings of the Court of Common Pleas of Perry county.

      T. B. Williams, Prosecuting Attorney, for plaintiff in error.
    Donahue, Spencer & Donahue, for defendants in error.
   Exceptions by the prosecuting attorney to the rulings of the court of common pleas of Perry county overruled.


text:
    No. 4422.
    City of Cleveland v. Stoper.
    (Decided April 30, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      James Lawrence and Estep, Higley & Henry, for plaintiff in error.

      Burk & Ingersolls, for defendant in error.
   It is adjudged by this court that the judgments of the said circuit court and of the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county be reversed, for the reason that the evidence shows that at and before the time of the accident, the defendant in error had full knowledge of the condition of the crossing which he charges to have been dangerous.


text:
    No. 2699.
    Insurance Company v. Johnson.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Belmont county.

      Finch & Finch and L. Fanford, for plaintiff in error.

      James M. Rees, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2700.
    Insurance Company v. Johnson.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Belmont county.

      Finch & Finch and L. Fanford, for plaintiff in error.

      James M. Rees, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2738.
    Dunkin v. Self.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Madison county.

      McCloud & Converse and Harrison, Olds & Marsh, for plaintiff in error.

      L. J. Critchfield and John F. Locke, for defendant in error.
   J udgment ‘affirmed.


text:
    No. 2791.
    George v. Hillier, Admx.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.

      A. W. Eckert, for plaintiff in error.

      Alexander L. Smith, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2818.
    Gill Car Manufacturing Company v. Roberts et al.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      W. J. & C. R. Gilmore, for plaintiff in error.

      Harrison, Olds & Henderson, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2819.
    Gill v. Roberts, et al.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.

      W. J. & C. R. Gilmore, for plaintiff in error.

      Harrison, Olds & Henderson, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 2822.
    National Bank v. National Bank.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Brewer & Palmer, for plaintiff in error.

      Wilby & Wald and Stearns & Kelley, for defendant in error.
   J udgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3398.
    Stevenson v. Wells Fargo & Co.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Sandusky county.

      Bartlett & Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

      James H. Fowler, for defendants in error.
   Judgment of the circuit court reversed, and that of the common pleas affirmed, on the authority of Gaines v. The Union Transportation & Insurance Company, 28 Ohio St., 418.


text:
    No. 3413.
    Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Hall.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

      Henderson, Kline & Tolles, for plaintiff in error.

      H. C. Bunts, for defendant in error,
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3453.
    State ex rel. Freeman v. Board of Trustees.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Scioto county.

      N. W. Evans, for plaintiff in error;

      Bannon & Bannon and F. C. Searl, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4183.
    City of Cincinnati v. Turnpike Company.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton countyt

      Frederick Hertenstein and W. H. Whittaker, for plaintiff in error.

      Morrow & Oldham, for defendant in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4231.
    Burkhardt et al. v. Village of Avondale et al.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Outcalt, Granger & Hunt, for plaintiffs in error.

      C. K. Shunk and Jones & James, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4232.
    Freidberg et al. v. Village of Avondale, et al.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.
    Outcalt, Granger & Hunt, for plaintiffs in error.

      C. K. Shunk and Jones & James, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4233.
    Hafer et al. v. Village of Avondale et al.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.
    Outcalt, Granger & Hunt, for plaintiffs in error.

      C. K. Shunk and Jones & James, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 4234.
    Kellogg et al. v. Village of Avondale et al.
    (Decided May 7, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

      Outcalt, Granger & Hunt, for plaintiffs in error.

      C. K. Shunk and Jones & James for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 3174.
    Sabin, Adm'r, et al. v. Cocoran et al.
    (Decided January 15, 1895.)
    Application for a rehearing at a subsequent term,

      Nesbitt & Hartley and Charles H. Kyle, for plaintiffs in error.

      Charles Darlington, for defendants in error.
   An application for a rehearing will not be entertained when made at a term subsequent to that at which the judgment is rendered, notwithstanding such rehearing is requested by one of the judges.


author: Shacjcb:, J.

text:
    Snyder et al. v. The Chamber of Commerce et al.

      Private corporation — Articles of incorporation not for profit — Effect of provisions as to capital stock — Personal liability of trustees or directors.

    The declaration in the articles of incorporation of a Chamber of Commerce, that it “is formed not for profit,! ’ is not inconsistent with a provision for capital stock, nor with a declaration that it is intended to promote the prosperity of the city in which it is located; and the trustees or directors o'f such corporation are personally liable for all its debts by them contracted.
    (Decided May 14, 1895.)

      ERROR to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.
    The plaintiffs in error, who are partners, brought suit in the common pleas court of Hancock county, against the Chamber of Commerce of Find-lay, O., a corporation under the laws of the state of Ohio, and twenty-five ojbher defendants, who were joined as trustees of the Chamber of Commerce which was alleged to be a corporation not for profit, to recover the. amount due on a bill for fireworks sold to the board of trade.
    Two of the defendants, the Chamber of Commerce and C. C. Howell, did not answer. The other defendants filed separate answers in substance, denying the averments of the petition generally, and specifically denying that they had contracted the obligation, and in one of the answers it is alleged that the Chamber of Commerce is a corporation organized for profit, having a capital stock of $50,000, divided into shares of $100 each, of which $10,000 had been subscribed.
    On the trial, evidence was offered by the plaintiff tending, as to some of the defendants at least, to show that they had participated in the meeting-to promote the “Celebration of the Application of Natural Gas to the Mechanical Arts,” at which the fireworks were used, and had otherwise promoted the celebration under the auspices of the Chamber of Commerce. The plaintiffs also introduced the articles of incorporation of the Chamber of Commerce, containing the following statement of its purposes:
    ' ‘£ First — The name of the said corporation shall be The Chamber of Commerce of the City of Find-lay.
    “ Second — The location of said Chamber of Commerce shall be the said city of Findlay, where its principal business is to be transacted.
    “ Third — The said The Chamber of Commerce of the city of Findlay, of the county of Hancock, and state of Ohio, is formed not for profit, but for the purpose of effecting- an organization to be composed of the merchants, business men and others interested in the welfare of said city of Findlay, in its ■ progressive growth, in the advancement of its business, in providing a place of common resort during business hours of those interested in the mutual prosperity of the said city and of the people residing and doing business therein, and for the interchange of opinions, the conduct of commercial affairs, the transaction of daily business in such a hall as may be erected and provided for the use of said Chamber of Commerce, and for the doing of all other things that will enhance the interests of said city and promote the convenience and welfare of all business men trading therein, and for the doing of and carrying out the purposes for which such organizations are usually organized within and under, and so far as the same may not conflict with, but which may be in accordance with the laws of the state of Ohio.
    “ Fourth — The amount of the capital stock of the said The Chamber of Commerce of the city of Findlay shall be fifty thousand ($50,000) dollars, divided into shares of one hundred ($100) dollars each, which same shall be issued to all members who may choose to become such, and adopting its constitution, rules and by-laws may avail themselves of the privileges afforded them by the said The Chamber of Commerce.”
    The constitution of the corporation provides:

      “ARTICLE I.
    “Section 1. This association shall be known as The Chamber of Commerce of the citjr of Findlay.
    “ARTICLE II.
    “Section 1. Theobjects of The Findlay Chamber of Commerce are to collect, preserve and circulate valuable and useful information relating- to the business of Findlay, and especially the facts relating- to its manufacturing interests; to encourage wise and needful legislation, and to oppose the enactment of laws likely to be prejudicial to the manufacturing and commercial interests ; to study the working’s of our system of transportation, upon which our commercial prosperitjr so larg-ely depends, and endeavor to remedy, by all proper means, the defects and abuses existing- therein; to secure fair and equitable rates of freight to and from the city, the discontinuance of vexatious and unjust overcharg-es, and prompt settlement of damages on goods shipped; to facilitate the adjustment of differences, controversies and misunderstandings between its members and others; and tp strive in all ways to promote the manufacturing, commercial and other industrial interests of Findlay.
    “ARTICLE III.
    “Section 1. Any person, if recommended by a member of the association, and elected by the board of directors, may become an active member of the association upon the payment of the fees and dues prescribed by the by-laws.”
    Evidence was also introduced to show that ten per cent of the capital stock was subscribed and an organization effected by the election of the defendants as directors.
    The purchase of the articles mentioned in the petition, and the liability of the corporation to pay therefor were admitted.
    The plaintiffs requested the following instructions :
    4 ‘ First — 4 In this case we request the court to charge as a matter of law that the defendant corporation is a corporation created for purposes other than profit. ’
    4 4 Which request the court refused to give to the jury, and to which refusal to so charge the plaintiffs at the time excepted.
    ■ 4 4 Second — 4 If you find from the evidence that the defendant corporation was formed not for profit, but for the purpose of effecting an organization to be composed of the merchants, business men and others interested in the welfare of the city of Find-lay in its growth, in the advancement of its business, in providing a place for resort during business hours of those interested in the mutual prosperity of the city of Findlay, and of the people residing and doing business therein, and for the interchange of opinions, the conduct of commercial affairs, the transaction of daily business in such hall as may be erected and provided for the use of said Chamber of Commerce, and for the doing of all other things that will enhance the interests of said city, and promote the convenience and welfare of all business men trading therein, and for the doing of and carrying out of the — ¡^irposes for which such organizations are usual!® organized within and under and so far as the same may not conflict with, but which may be in accordance with the laws of the state of Ohio, then you must find the defendant corporation to be a corporation created for purposes other than profit. ’
    “Which request, also, the court refused to give to the jury, to which refusal to- so charge the plaintiffs at the time excepted.
    “ Third — ‘A corporation created for purposes other than profit may have a capital stock, and if you find from the evidence that the defendant corporation had a capital stock, that fact of itself will not be sufficient to relieve the defendants from personal liability from a debt of the corporation by them contracted. ’
    “Which request, also, the court refused to give to the juiy, to which refusal to so charge, plaintiffs at the time excepted.
    The court gave, with others of like tenor, the following propositions:
    “ First — ‘The records of the Chamber of Commerce, produced and read in evidence, conclusively show that said corporation was organized with a capital stock with a long list of subscribers thereto, and a board of directors and other officers, and that it was, in fact, so organized for business purposes and for profits, either directly or indirectly, notwithstanding the defect in its name and the statement in its charter that it is a corporation not for profit. ’
    “To which charge the plaintiffs' at the time excepted.

      “Second — ‘It is therefore, upon the face of the records and papers produced, to be deemed and held as a matter of law to be a business corporation, controlled by its board of directors under section 3248, Revised Statutes, and hot by trustees. ’

      ‘ ‘ To which charge also, plaintiffs at the time excepted.”
    The jury returned a verdict in favor of all the defendants except the corporation and Howell. A motion for a new trial was overruled and judgment entered upon the verdict. This was affirmed by the judgment of the Circuit Court, and the reversal of both judgments is sought here.

      Frank A. Dams, John F. Alforcl and J. M. Platt, for plaintiffs in error.
    Corporations organized under the laws of Ohio are of two classes:

      First — Corporations organized for profit which must have a capital stock- owned by stockholders.

      Second — Corporations organized for purposes other than profit consisting of members associated together for a lawful purpose.
    Corporations created for purposes other than profit may again be divided into two classes, to-wit: Those which have a capital stock and those that do not. It is apparent from the statutes themselves that corporations not. for profit may have a capital stock. A corporation not for profit, and having’ a capital stock, was before this court in the case of The Ohio College of Dental Surgery v. Rosenthal, 45 Ohio St., 183.
    The fact then that this corporation had a capital stock, in no way determines or assists in the determination of the question, whether the organization was or was not for profit. The proposition, that a private corporation can exercise no power but such as are expressly given to it by its charter, or such as are necessary to carry into execution the powers conferred by express provision, is so well settled in this state that it does not seem necessary to cite authorities in its support. Straus et al. v. Eagle Insurance Co., 5 Ohio St., 59; White's Bank of Buffalo v. Toledo Insurance Co., 12 Ohio St., 601; Franklin Bank v. Commercial Bank, 36 Ohio St., 350; Lessee of Overmyer v. Williams, 15 Ohio, 26; Bonham v. Taylor et al., 10 Ohio, 108; Bank of Chillicothe v. Swayne et al., 8 Ohio, 257 ; Ehrman v. Insurance Co., 35 Ohio St., 324; State v. Vanderbilt, 37 Ohio St., 590; Railroad Co. v. Hinsdale, 45 Ohio St., 556; Railway Co. v. Iron Co., 46 Ohio St., 44; Niagara County Bank v. Baker, 15 Ohio St., 68; Kilbreth v. Bates, 38 Ohio St., 187; Morawetz on Private Corporation, section 316; Waterman on Corporations, vol. 1, p. 113; Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S., 82; Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat., 518.
    The individual defendants, therefore, of this corporation would be personally liable for all debts by them contracted either directly or indirectly, by the intervention of an agent. It may be contended that because this corporation claims to have had a capital stock that the liability is upon the stock and not upon the trustees individually. This will not do. The statute does not so read. If that construction was true, then the statute, would read, the trustees of a corporation created for purposes other than profit and not having a. capital stock shall be personally liable, etc. The section in its terms includes the trustees of all corporations not for profit, whether they have a. capital stock or not.

      A. Blackford, E. T. Dunn and II. F. Burket, for defendants in error.
    With powers in the charter the most ample for profit, with a capital stock ample in amount to make profit, divided into shares well calculated for profit, opening books for subscription to-capital stock, indicating- profit, subscribing for capital stock in amounts from one hundred to two thousand dollars, indicating an expectation of division of profits in proportion to amount of capital stock held 'by each, and electing- directors instead of trustees, can it be said that all these indications-of a corporation for profit are to be overcome by the single recital of the charter that the corporation desire to become incorporated under the laws of Ohio for purposes other than profit? If such was their desire they failed to carry that desire into effect.
    If we are right in our confident claim that this is a corporation for profit, then there is no error in the record, and the judgments should be affirmed. If it was a corporation not for profit, then there is an utter failure of proof that the defendants were the trustees of the corporation. All. the record evidence clearly shows that these defendants in error were elected as directors and not as trustees. The difference between a director and a trustee, is wide and marked. Proof that a. man has been elected director does not prove that-he was elected a trustee; and proof that he accepted the office of director does not prove that he-accepted the office of trustee.
    Although the debt may have been contracted b}7-trustees of a corporation not for' profit, it would be the debt of the corporation, and the trustees-would only be collaterally liable for it. Wright v. McCormick, 17 Ohio St., 87; Walbrecht v. Puckelat,, 9 Law Bull., 335; Brown v. Hitchcock, 36 Ohio St., 667.
    The difference in the imposing liability upon the-trustees is because of the difference between the

      two classes of corporations, those of this class having no capital stock, but the liability is in our opinion of the same nature, to be resorted to by creditors, only when the debt cannot be made ag'ainst the corporation itself. But it is not sufficient merely to show an act of insolvency or failure because notwithstanding a failure to meet an obligation, the property may remain.
   Shacjcb:, J.

The claim of the plaintiffs is that the defendants are liable in this action under the provisions of section 3261 of the Revised Statutes : “The trustees of a corporation created for a purpose other' than profit, shall be personalty liable for all debts of the corporation by them contracted. ”

The view of the trial court, as indicated by the instructions given and by its refusals to instruct as requested, was that although the articles of incorporation of the chamber of commerce declared that it was “formed not for profit,” that declaration is not entitled to controlling effect, because of the provision for capital stock and because •of the declaration in the articles that the corporation was formed for the purposes of doing such things as would ‘ ‘ enhance the interests of the city and promote the convenience and welfare of all business men trading therein.”

Bjr the provisions of section 3S32, corporations of this character are authorized to acquire such real estate as may be for their interest, which would require, capital, and certificates' of stock would be convenient evidence of the interests of the several members therein. That the existence of capital stock does not conclusively indicate that the corporation is for profit is made clear by the provisions of section 3262: “A corporation for profit, after its original capital stock is fully paid up, or a corporation not for profit, having- a capital stock, may increase its capital stock or the number of shares into which its capital stock is divided.” This provision of the statute makes it clear that the proposition of law contained in the third request is sound.

Nor was the view of the trial court justified by the fact that the corporation was intended to promote the growth and prosperity of the city, and-thus to confer incidental benefit upon its members and officers in common with others owning property in the city or doing business therein. The corporation, though authorized to own or lease real estate for its general purposes, was not authorized to deal therein, nor could it transact any business out of which profits payable as dividends could be realized. The ownership of stock was not necessary to membership in the corporation, nor to officjal participation in its management. Since those who, as directors or trustees, incur the debts that may be incident to the management of a corporation of this character do not necessarily bear the liability which the statute imposes upon stockholders, they are within the provisions of section 3261 of the statutes. Corporations for profit within the meaning of the statute are those which are formed for the prosecution of business enterprises with a view to realizing gains to be distributed as dividends among the shareholders in proportion to their contributions to the capital stock.

For error in the instructions given and in refusing to instruct as requested, the judgments of the circuit court and court of common pleas are reversed.

Bürket, J., having- been of counsel, did not sit.


author: Bradbury, J.

text:
    Coal Company v. Rosser.

      Attorney’s fee in action for wages — Appeal by defendant and recovery by plaintiff — Additional attorney's fee included in costs — • Section 656Sa (89 Ohio Laws, 59), declared unconstitutional and void — Constitutional law.

    Section 6563a Revised Statutes, providing : “If the plaintiff' in any action for wages recover the sum claimed by him in his bill of particulars, there shall be included in his costs such fee as the court may allow, but not in excess of five dollars, for his attorney. But no such attorney fee shall be taxed in the costs unless said wages have been demanded in writing, and not paid within three days after such demand. If the defendant appeal from any such judgment, and the plaintiff on appeal recover a like sum exclusive of interest, from the rendition of the judgment before the justice, there shall be included in his costs such additional fee, not in excess of fifteen dollars, for his attorney, as the court may allow,” is unconstitutional and void.
    (Decided May 14, 1895.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Athens county.
    On August 22, 1893, the defendant in error commenced an action before a justice of the peace of Athens county, to recover against the plaintiff in error $6.82, upon a claim for work and labor, and also an attorney fee of five dollars, demanded by virtue of section 6563a, Revised Statutes, because the plaintiff in error failed to pay the sum claimed as wages within three days after payment thereof had been demanded in writing.
    The defendant in error recovered judgment before the justice of the peace for the amount of his claim for wages, and also an attorney fee of five dollars, as lie had demanded. The plaintiff in error appealed the cause to the court of common pleas, where the defendant in error again prevailed and was allowed by that court an additional attorney fee of five dollars.
    This judgment was affirmed by the circuit court, whereupon the plaintiff, in error instituted proceedings in this court to reverse the same.

      L. D. Tickers and Arnold, Morton da Guerin, for plaintiff in error.
    This statute is unconstitutional.
    1. Because it authorizes the taking of private property without just compensation.
    2. Because it authorizes the taking of private property for private purposes without the owner’s consent, and authorizes the transfer of one person’s property to another without the consent of the owner.
    3. Because it authorizes the taking- of private property without due process of law.
    4. Because it is a statute which is general in its character but does not have a uniform operation throughout the state.
    5. Because it denies to certain persons within the jurisdiction of the state the equal protection of the law, and is therefore in conflict with the first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States.
    This statute authorizes the court to order the transfer of five dollars before the justice and. fifteen dollars in the common pleas court ($20.00 in all), from the Hocking Valley Coal Company, .plaintiff in error here, to Hiram Rosser.

      Private property cannot be taken from one person and transferred to another for private purposes, without the owner’s consent, even upon the payment of just and full compensation. McCoy v. Grandy, 3 Ohio St., 463; Gilpin v. Williams, 25 Ohio St., 283; Reeves v. Treasurer of Wood County, 8 Ohio St., 333; Shaver v. Starrett, 4 Ohio St., 494; Giesey v. Railroad Co., 4 Ohio St., 308; Matter of Deansville Cemetery Association, 66 N. Y., 569; Matter of Albany Street, 11 Wend., 149; Bloodgood v. Railroad Co., 18 Wend., 59; Enbury et al. v. Conner, 2 N. Y., 511; Taylors. Porter, 4 Hill, 147; Matter of John and Cherry Street, 19 Wend., 659; Sec. 19 Bill of Rights, Ohio Constitution.
    As a third proposition of law we claim that this statute authorizes the taking of private property without due process of law.
    Due course of law or due process .of law is defined to be a law which hears before it condemns;, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. Cooley’s Con. Lim., 353;, Clark v. Mitchell, 64 Mo., 564; Railroad Co., 6 Neb., 37; Jones v. Perry, 10 Yerg., 59; Turnpike Co. v. Parks et al., 50 Ohio St., 568; Wilburn v. McCally, 63 Ala., 436; Zeigler v. Railroad Co., 58 Ala., 594; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S., 97.
    Again, it is said that due course of law or due process of law, mean's, by the general law of the land, and that these terms are interchangeable. 3 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law 714, note; Murray's Lessees v. Hoboken Land Co., 18 How., 276; Ervin’s Appeal, 16 Pa. St., 256; Parsons v. Russell, 11 Mich., 129; Sears v. Cottrell, 5 Mich., 251; Banning v. Taylor, 16 Pa. St., 292; Wynchamer v. People, 13 N. Y., 378; 64 Mo., 564; 10 Yerger, 59. This general law of the land must have a uniform operation throughout the state. Ohio Con., art. 2, sec. 26; Kelley v. The State, 6 Ohio St., 270.
    The fifth proposition made by us upon this statute is, that it is in violation of the first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States.
    It was not the purpose of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution to-interfere with the police power of the state. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S., 27. The police power of the state is defined to be the right of the state to prescribe regulations for the good order, peace, protection, convenience and comfort of the communitju New Orleans v. Hart, 20 Am. & Eng. Cor. Cases, 258. This police power should be’ carefully guarded and restricted. Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S., 465; The Georgia R. R. and Banking Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S., 174;. Millet v. People, 15 Am. & Eng. Cor. Cases, 1.
    Questions of power do not depend upon the degree to which it may be exercised. If exercised at all it must be exercised at the will of those in whose hands it is placed. Brown v. State, 12 Wheat., 419; Application of Jacobs, 98 N. Y., 108. See also dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Chase, and of Field, Swayne and Bradley, judges, 16 Wall., 18; Corfield v. Coryell 4 Wash., 380; First Cooley’s Blackstone, 125; Van Zant v. Waddel, 2 Yergers, 260; Towel's Case, 5 Leigh, 748; Chicago v. Rimypff, 45 Ill., 90; Norwich Gas Light Co. v. Norwich City Gas Light Co., 26 Conn., 19; Mayors. Thorne, 7 Page, Ch. 361; Live Stock, etc., Asso. v. Crescent City, etc., Co., 1 Abb. (U. S.), 388.
    It is said by Washington, judge, in 4 Wash., 381, that the right to be exempt from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by other citizens of the state is one of the fundamental rights of every person. Cooley’s Con. Lim., 6 Ed. 485, 486; State v. Indianapolis, 69 Ind., 375; Warner v. Curran, 75 Ind., 309; Boyd v. Alabama, 94 U. S., 645; Coal Co. v. People, 147 Ill., 66; State v. Loomis, 115 Mo., 313; Nichols v. Walters, 37 Minn., 264; Railroad Co. v. Duggan, 109 Ill., 537; 6 Neb., 37; Railroad Co. v. Morris, 65 Ala., 193; Wilder v. Railway Co., 70 Mich., 382; Darkee v. Janesville, 28 Wis., 464; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat., 519; 33 W. Va., 188; Millet v. People, 117 Ill., 294; Austin v. Murray, 16 Pick., 121; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S., 27; 8 Sawyer, 251; 113 U. S., 31; Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall., 388; Railway Co. v. Wilson, 19 S. W., 910; Wally v. Kennedy, 2 Yerg., 554; Longwroth v. Asken, 15 Ohio St., 376.

      I. M. Jewett, Asher Buckley and J. C. Pettit, for defendant in error.
    Can there be any plainer provisions made for a fair and impartial trial than is required by the act now under consideration ? It provides for a trial by the tribunal furnished by our laws for actions of this character. In brief,' it gives the plaintiff and defendant their day in court, subject to all the legal regulations that each of said parties are entitled to under our laws. One of the conditions precedent to the recovery of an attorney fee is that the plaintiff shall recover the sum claimed by him in his bill of particulars, and there is no fixed sum required of the court, though it must not exceed $5.00, and in ease it reaches the court of common pleas, the fee must not exceed $15.00.

      There has been a great deal of discussion among law writers as to the meaning of the phrase due process of law. We think it means what is here set forth, a fair and impartial trial under the constitution and laws .of our state; Due process of law is right of trial according to the processes and proceedings of common law, or law in its regular course of administration, through the courts of justice. Ex parte Grace, 79 Am. Dec., 529; Rison v. Farr, 87 Am. Dec., 52; Great West Mining Co. v. Woodmus, 13 Am. St., 205; 12 Col., 46; Landen v. Townshend, 112 N. Y., 93; 8 American State, 712; Flint River S. S. Co. v. Foster, 48 Am. Dec., 272.
    There, is no necessity for further following up the first proposition laid down by counsel for plaintiff in error. The second proposition is that the act is.not a uniform and general one, affecting all equally. The language of the act is “If any plaintiff in any action for wages,” etc. The term wages has a well defined meaning. Wages are money payable by the master to the servant in respect for services. 2 Rapalje’s Law Diet., 1342. The wag'e earners of Ohio may safely be said to constitute a large majority of the population affected by the laws and constitution of this state, and it is, we assume, elementary law, that if a master employs labor, he should, at least, before entering into a contract of, that character, by the plainest principles of common honesty make provision for the payment of the labor he so employs.
    The court will protect attorney fees when the attorney has contributed his skill and services in obtaining a judgment for his, client. Diehl v. Friester, 37 Ohio St., 477; Head v. Hargrave, 105 U. S., 45; McBride v. Brucker, 5 C. C. Rep., 12.

      The wage earner is not a special class. It is a general class and forms and constitutes almost the entire body politic of the state. The statute is one that places the laboring man in some degree upon an equal footing with his employer. That laws of a general nature must have a uniform. operation cannot be gainsaid. 45 Ohio St., 63, 663; 1 C. C. Rep., 365.
    The fact so strenuously urged by counsel that the statute imposes a burden or damage upon the master, in addition to the payment of interest, does not necessarily make the same unconstitutional. Railway Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S., 26; Railroacl Co. v. Gibbs, 142 U. S., 394; Life Ins. Co. v. Pendleton, 115 U. S., 338; People v. Ewer, 141 N. Y., 129.
    Courts will uphold statutes, unless they are so plainly and palpably in conflict with the constitution as to leave no doubt or hesitation in the judicial mind as to their invalidity. Railway Co. v. Dey, 82 Iowa, 312.
   Bradbury, J.

The defendant in error on August 22, 1893, filed before R. R. Patterson, a justice of the peace in and for Athens county, Ohio, the following bill of particulars:

Hiram Rosser, plaintiff v. The Hocking Valley Coal Company, defendant.

“The defendant is a corporation, duly organized under the laws of Ohio, and doing business in Nelsonville, Ohio. Defendant is indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $6.82 for work and labor done and performed in and about the coal mines of said defendant . during the months of July and August, 1893, and at the request of said defendant. • Said sum is due and unpaid; frequent requests have been made for payment of the same. On the 18th day of August, 1893, plaintiff served upon defendant a notice in writing, demanding payment of said sum within three days thereafter. Said defendant has neglected and refused to pay said sum within three days thereafter in compliance with said demand.

“Therefore plaintiff prays judgment against said defendant for said sum of $6.82, and for his costs in this action, and for his attorney’s fee of $5.00, and interest from August 10, 1893.

“Buckley & Pettit,

“Attorneys for Plaintiff.”

The defendant below, plaintiff in error in this court, was duly served with summons, but did not appear before the justice at the time of trial nor make any defense against the claim of the plaintiff below. Whereupon the justice of the peace, upon the testimony presented by the plaintiff below, rendered judgment for him and against the defendant below for $6.82, the exact amount claimed, together with costs of suit and an attorney fee of five dollars.

Plaintiff in error appealed the cause to the court ■ of common pleas, where a petition was filed similar in all respects to the bill of particulars before quoted, except that an attorney fee of fifteen dollars was demanded instead of one of five dollars, as in the bill of particulars.

The plaintiff in error made no defense in the court of common pleas, and that court gave judgment against it for $7.00 and costs, including an attorney fee of ten dollars, five dollars of which was for services of an attorney in the court of common pleas, and five dollars for such services rendered in the proceedings before the justice of the peace.

■ The plaintiff in error objecting to that part of the judgment of the court of common pleas which required it to pay attorney fees for the benefit of its adversary, moved the court to retax costs by striking out the items relating to such fees. The co'urt of common pleas overruled the motion, and exceptions were duly noted. This ruling of the court of common pleas having been sustained by the circuit court, the cause was brought to this court to reverse the action of those courts, upon the ground that the statute upon the provisions of which their rulings rest is unconstitutional and therefore void.

This statute, 89 Ohio Laws, 59, section 6563<rq provides:

“If the plaintiff in any action for wages recover the sum. claimed by him in his bill of particulars? there shall be included in his costs such fee as the court may allow, but not in excess of five dollars for his attorney. But no such attorney fee shall be taxed unless said wages have been demanded in writing and not paid within three days after such demand. If the defendant appeal from any such judgment and the plaintiff on appeal recover alike sum exclusive of the interest from the rendition of the judgment before the justice, .there shall be included in his costs such additional fee not in excess of fifteen dollars for his attorney as the court may allow.”

By virtue of the provisions of this statute, any claimant of wages may, in the first instance, determine the amount due him for wages from his employer, make written' demand for its payment, which, if not complied with within three days, subjects the employer to the penalty of an attorney fee, if an action is afterwards brought to enforce the demand and the amount claimed is recovered therein. The amount due may, and often does, depend upon a numerous train of facts and circumstances, many of which may be in dispute between the parties. The most obvious of which is the number of days, weeks or months, during which the service had been continued, the rate of wages agreed upon, or, if no rate had been fixed,, the reasonable value of the services rendered;. whether payments had been made from time to-time on account, or whether a set off or counter claim existed between the parties by which the amount otherwise due would be reduced or entirely extinguished. Mutual accounts may have run be: tween the employee and employer for years, become complicated, and of doubtful and difficult solution. Whether this condition of things exists, or whether the claim is simply for the wages of a single day or week at a fixed price, is immateral in the purview of this statute. In either case by its terms the employee may in the first instance-fix the amount of his demand, and if he does this,, and serves the written notice prescribed, the employer contests the claim at his peril.

The language of the statute is imperative: “If the plaintiff * * * recover the sum claimed by him in his bill of particulars there shall be included in his costs such fee as the court may allow,” not to exceed five dollars in the court of the justice of the peace, or should the defendant'appeal the case a total of'fifteen dollars by the court of common pleas. The language requiring that the fee be allowed is mandatory; the court or justice has no discretion in this respect; it must allow an attorney lee, the amount only is discretionary, within the limit prescribed; and that means that within such limits, the tribunal by which the judgment is rendered is bound to allow the value of the services rendered. Under the statute, to entitle the plaintiff to have an attorney fee taxed against the defendant, he is not required to show that the debtor had funds, which he wilfully or arbitrarily or even carelessly refused to apply to pay his debt, nor that a vexatious or dilatory defense had been made to defeat or delay the judgment. No other misconduct by the defendant is required than such as may be implied from a failure to comply with the peremptory written demand made upon him.

Whether the debtor interposes a vexatious defense, whether he makes an honest though unsuccessful one, or whether he makes none at all, but instead suffers judgment to be taken against him by default are all equally immaterial; in either case the statute denounces against him a penalty called an attorney fee, if an action is brought on the claim and judgment recovered for the sum demanded. The debtor may even acknowledge the debt and be solicitous for its payment, but, owing to straightened circumstances, fails to pay within the prescribed time, nevertheless the penalty is incurred.

In the case under consideration it appears by the bill of particulars that the written demand prescribed by the statute was made and that it was not complied with, within the three days. No other ground was alleged as the basis of the penalty. The record does not show any denial of the debt, by debtor, at the time the demand was made or afterwards, or that it had funds with which it ,-could have paid the sum demanded. Afterwards, when an action was brought in the justice’s court on the claim, no defense was made, or obstacle whatever interposed to delay or embarrass the proceedings. Under these circumstances no intent to vex, or harrass the claimant, or delay the action, can be imputed to the plaintiff in error. The question submitted by it to the circuit court, and to this court, shows that its object in taking an appeal from the judgment of the justice of the peace, may be fairly attributed to its desire to be relieved from paying an attorney fee for the benefit of its antagonist, and thereby assert and vindicate an equal right to the protection of the courts of the state. • ’

Upon what principle can a rule of law rest which permits one party, or class of people, to invoke the action of our tribunals of justice at will, while the other party, or another class of citizens, does so at the peril of being mulct in an attorney fee, if an honest, but unsuccessful defense should be imposed?

A statute that imposes this restriction upon one citizen, or class of citizens, only, denies to him or them the equal protection of the law.

It is true that no provision of the constitution of 1851 declares in direct and express terms that this may not be done, but, nevertheless, it violates the fundamental principles upon which our government rests as they are enunciated and declared by that instrument in the Bill of Rights. The first section of the constitution declares that the right to acquire, possess and protect property is inalienable, and the.next section declares, among other things, that “Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit” of every person, while section 16 of article 1 provides that “All courts-shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his lands, goods, persons or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law,' and justice shall be administered without denial or delay. ’ ’

The .right to protect property is declared, as well as that justice shall not be denied, and that every one is entitled to equal protection. Judicial tribunals are provided for the equal protection of every suitor. The right to retain property already in possession is as sacred as the right to recover it, when dispossessed. The right to defend against an action to recover money is as necessary as the right to defend one brought to recover specific real or personal property. An adverse result in either case deprives the defeated party of property.

If the general assembly has power to enact the statute in- question, it could also enact one providing that lawyers, doctors, grocers, or any other class of citizens might make out their accounts, demand in writing their payment within a short time, which, if not complied with, would entitle the plaintiff to an attorney • fee in addition to his claim if he recover the amount demanded. We do not-think the general assembly has power to discriminate between persons or classes respecting the right to invoke the arbitrament of the courts in the adjustment of their respective rights.

The legislative power to compel an unsuccessful party to an action — generally the defendant — to pay an attorney fee to his opponent has received the attention of a number of courts of last resort, as well as laws which impose as a penalty double damages or' some similar penalty for some wrongful or negligent act injurious to another. Where the penalty has-been imposed for some tortuous or negligent act the statute has generally, though not always, been sustained, but on the contrary, where no wrongful or negligent conduct was imputed to the defeated party any attempt to charge him with a penalty has not prevailed.

Millett v. People, 117 Ill., 294; State v. F. C. Coal & Coke Co., 33 West V., 188; Durkee v. City of Janesville et al., 28 Wis., 464; S. & N. Alabama R. R. Co. v. Morris, 65 Ala., 193 ; Wilder v. The C. & W. Michigan Ry. Co., 70 Mich. 382; Braceville Coal Co. v. The People, 147 Ill., 66; Wally's Heirs v. Nancy Kennedy, 2 Yerger (Tenn.), 554, Id. 260; The Atchinson & Nebraska R. R. Co., v. Baty, 6 Neb., 37; The State v. Loomis, 115 Mo., 307; San Antonio & A. P. Ry. v. Wilson, 19 S. W. Rep. (Texas), 910; Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Ry. Co. v. Duggan, 109 Ill., 537.

Various phases of this subject have received attention in the foregoing cases, as well as in some others, to which we do not deem it necessary to refer. The general tendency of these authorities is towards the result we have reached; but whether they do or do not support our conclusions, we are satisfied that the fundamental principles of government, declared by our bill of rights, clearly aiid unequivocally prohibits legislation of the character of that involved in this case.

Judgment alloioing an attorney fee reversed.