No. 11598.

Without Opinion.

MURRAY 7. MAHAN ET AL., PartNERS. Decided February 15, 1910. ERROR to Circuit Court of Trumbull county. Mr. Warren Thomas, for plaintiff in error. Mr. A. E. Wonders, for defendants in error. Judgment affirmed. SUMMERS, C. J., CREW, SPEAR, DAVIS and SHAUCK, JJ., concur.

No. 11841. RIDGWAY 7. THE STATE OF OHIO. Decided February 15, 1910. ERROR to Circuit Court of Greene county. Mr. H. C. Armstrong and Messrs. Fitzgerald & Spriggs, for plaintiff in error. Mr. William F. Orr, prosecuting attorney; Mr. G. W. Crabbe; Mr. W. B. Wheeler and Mr. J. A. White, for defendant in error. Judgment affirmed. SUMMERS, C J., CREW, SPEAR, DAVIS, SHAUCK and PRICE, JJ., concur.

No. 12085. HIRSH ET AL., PARTNERS, v. THE STATE OF OHIO. Decided February 15, 1910. ERROR to Circuit Court of Hancock county. Mr. G. W. Ross, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. John E. Priddy and Mr. Charles A. Blackford, for defendant in error. Judgment affirmed. SUMMERS, C. J., SPEAR, DAVIS, SHAUCK and PRICE, JJ., concur. CREW, J., dissents.

No. 11285. NEUZEL V. THE VILLAGE OF COLLEGE HILL ET AL. Decided February 23, 1910. ERROR to Circuit Court of Hamilton county. Mr. A. L. Herrlinger; Mr. Constant Southworth and Mr. Edward T. Dixon, for plaintiff in error. Mr. C. Hammond Avery, for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

entry.

Cases Reported

Grounds stated in journal

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed. An order granting a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, made in an appropriation proceeding by a municipal corporation, is not an order affecting a substantial right, for the reversal of which a petition in error can be prosecuted before the final disposition of the case. Conord v. Runnels, 23 Ohio St., 601, followed. SUMMERS, C. J., DAVIS and PRICE, JJ.,

concur.

DAVIS V. BIRCHARD.

No. 11360. Decided February 23, 1910. ERROR to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county. Mr. William Howell, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Smith, Taft & Arter, for defendant in error. Judgment affirmed. SUMMERS, C. J., DAVIS and PRICE, JJ., concur.

No. 11609. THE SCIOTO VALLEY TRACTION Co. v. KENNEDY. Decided February 23, 1910. ERROR to Circuit Court of Franklin county. Messrs. Daugherty & Todd, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Addison, Sinks & Babcock, for defendant in error. Judgment affirmed. SUMMERS, C. J., CREW and PRICE, JJ., concur. SPEAR, J., not participating.

No. 11610. SCHULTZ, GUARDIAN, v. HUBER, EXECUTOR, ET AL. Decided February 23, 1910.

Without Opinion.

ERROR to Circuit Court of Hamilton county. Messrs. Bates & Meyer, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Coppock & Coppock, for defendants in error. Judgment affirmed. SUMMERS, C. J.,

CREW and PRICE, JJ., concur.

No. 11616. PARKS ET AL. 7. FENTON ET AL. Decided February 23, 1910. ERROR to Circuit Court of Trumbull county. Mr. William A. Spill, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Charles Fillius and Mr. Ward Sager, for defendants in error. Judgment affirmed. CREW, SPEAR, DAVIS, SHAUCK and PRICE, JJ., concur.

No. 11849. THE EDWARD H. EVERETT Co. v. THE GERMAN AMERICAN INSURANCE Co. Decided February 23, 1910. ERROR to Circuit Court of Licking county. Messrs. Flory & Flory and Mr. Robbins Hunter, for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. W. Mooney, for defendant in error. Judgment affirmed. SUMMERS, C. J., DAVIS and SHAUCK, JJ., concur.

AL.

No. 11916. THE STATE OF OHIO v. MEAD ET Decided February 23, 1910. ERROR to Circuit Court of Sandusky county. Mr. E. C. Sayles, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. J. D. Finch, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Kinney, O'Farrell & Rimelspach and Messrs. Garver, Garver & Garver, for defendants in error. Judgment of the circuit court reversed and judgment of the court of common pleas affirmed. SUMMERS, C. J., DAVIS, SHAUCK and PRICE, JJ., concur.

INDEX.

ABSTRACTER—

An action against an abstracter to recover damages for negligence
does not sound in tort, but must be founded on contract-An
abstracter, as a general rule, can be held liable for negligence
only to the person who employed him. See Thomas v. Trust
Co., 432.

ABUSE OF DISCRETION—

Where a board of public service advertises and receives bids
for street improvements, and adopts a resolution finding a bidder
the lowest and best, then rescinds the resolution and orders
another advertisement, there is no abuse of discretion-Man-
damus will not lie to compel the board of public service to enter
into a written contract with such bidder-In such case the
resolution does not constitute a contract-Section 1536-679,
Revised Statutes, construed. See State v. Board, 218.

ABUSE OF FEMALE-

On a trial under a prosecution for carnal abuse of a female under
sixteen with her consent, evidence of similar prior acts is
admissible to show relation of parties, and to corroborate testi-
mony as to particular act charged in indictment. See Boyd v.
State, 239.

ABUTTING LOT-

In an action jointly against a municipality and the owner of a
lot abutting upon a street, to recover for injuries resulting from
falling over a retaining wall, the parties are misjoined, when-
When it appears that a pit or excavation complained of does
not adjoin the street and is on the grounds of an abutting
owner, no action will lie at common law against the municipality
or the said owner for injuries sustained by one who strays from
the street. See Village v. Gilbow, 263.

575