Page images
PDF
EPUB

Board of County Commissioners—Breach of Contract.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-Continued.

is abrogated by act of April 21, 1904 (97 O. L., 254). See

Thorniley v. S'ate, 108.
The fees of the sheriff of a county to which a criminal prosecu-

tion has been removed for trial, for services rendered in such
case, should be allowed and paid by the commissioners of the
county in which the indictment was found. See Thurlow v.
Board, 447.

BOARD OF PUBLIC SAFETY-
A contract entered into by the directors of public safety of a

municipal corporation, under an ordinance which appropriates
money and grants authority to enter into contracts for an
authorized purpose, does not have to be approved by council.
See City v. Dobson, 66.

BOARD OF PUBLIC SERVICE-
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-
Mandamus 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.

BONDS-
Under Section 2835, Revised Statutes, a municipal corporation

may issue bonds in order to equip buildings of fire department
with apparatus other than, or in addition to, fire engines-
The provisions of Section 1536-205, Revised Statutes, that no
order for expenditure of money shall be passed by council of a
municipal corporation, unless the auditor shall first certify that
the money required is in the treasury, does not apply to an
ordinance appropriating money obtained by council, from a
sale of bonds made by it, to the purpose for which the bonds
were sold. See City v. Dobson, 66.

BREACH OF CONTRACT-
An action to recover for breach of written contract, in which

default judgment is rendered by a justice of the peace, and
which is appealed to common pleas court and determined,
cannot under Section 5226, Revised Statutes, be appealed to the
circuit court for a trial de novo. See Winters v. Ruff, 257.

Breach of Contract-Brothers.

BREACH OF CONTRACT_Continued.
Where a passenger of a carrier which is the owner of tracks,

is injured by the negligence of another carrier which is ad-
mitted to joint use of such tracks, the owning company is
liable-In such case the liability of owning carrier for breach
of contract of carriage, and the liability of the other for negli-
gence, may be enforced in same action. See Light Co. v.
Montgomery, 426.

BROKERS-
1. Chattel mortgage and salary loan brokers-May be licensed,

whenThe state may, in the exercise of the police power,
license and regulate chattel mortgage and salary loan brokers;
and it may delegate authority to do so to municipal corporations.

Sanning v. City, 142.
2. Ordinance requires detailed record of loansNot violatite of

Section 14 of Bill of Rights-Not unreasonable-Section 1536-
100, Revised Statutes—An ordinance under the power conferred
by Section 1536-100, Revised Statutes, to regulate and license
chattel mortgage and salary loan brokers, requiring every
person engaged in such business to file with the auditor of the
city, weekly, a detailed record of every loan made during the
week preceding, to remain there as a permanent record open to
the inspection of the mayor and chief of police, is not violative
of Section 14 of Bill of Rights which provides, “The right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
possesssions against unreasonable searches and seizures shall
not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing
the place to be searched and the person and things to be seized,”

and is not unreasonable. Ib.
3. Power of municipal corporations to license-Business of loaning

on chattel mortgages-Section 1536-100, Revised Statutes, con-
strued-Section 1536-100, Revised Statutes, authorizing municipal
corporations to license and regulate chattel mortgage and salary
loan brokers, does not authorize the exaction of a license from
persons engaged, otherwise than as brokers, in the business of
loaning money upon loans secured by mortgages on personal
property. French v. City, 160.

BROTHERS-
The half-brothers and half-sisters of the ancestor are included in

words “brothers and sisters of such ancestors," in subdivision 5,
of Section 4158, Revised Statutes, in respect to descent.

Brothers—Carnal Abuse of Female,

BROTHERS—Continued.

(Cliver v. Sanders, 8 Ohio St., 501, approved and followed.)
See Stockton v. Frazier, 227.

BUILDING
A description on a return of an order of attachment of property

levied upon, to-wit: “Building and land, $800.00, lot about
25 ft. by 75 ft.," is insufficient. See Green v. Coit, 280.

BURDEN OF PROOF-
Where, in an action on a promissory note, the defense is that

there was no valuable consideration, the burden of proof rests
upon the plaintiff, at every stage of the case, to show a con-
sideration by a preponderance of the whole evidence. (Klunk
v. Railway Co., 74 Ohio St., 125, approved and followed;
Dalrymple v. Wyker, 60 Ohio St., 108, distinguished.) See Ginn
v. Dolan, 121.

BUSINESS TAXED-
Section 4364-9, Revised Statutes (98 O. L., 100), in effect

April 10, 1906, applies to the business of trafficking in malt
liquors, whether intoxicating or non-intoxicating See LaFollette
v. Murray, 474.

CAR-
In an action for ejectment from a street car, evidence that pas-

sengers left the car on account of plaintiff and companions, and
complained to the conductor, whether within the hearing of
plaintiff or not, is competent, when. See Power Co. v. Matheny,
204.

CARE-
In determining whether a barrier should be erected in order to

make a highway safe, the test is whether a traveler in passing
and exercising ordinary care, would be subjected to danger,
etc.-One who departs from a known safe way and goes across
a street upon the abutting land and is injured, is guilty of
contributory negligence. See Village v. Gilbow, 263.

CARNAL ABUSE OF FEMALE-
Trial of defendant for carnal abuse-of female under sixteen-

Evidence of similar acts-Admissible as corroborative of testi-
mony of prosecutrix-Evidence-On the trial of an indictment

Carnal Abuse of Female-Certifying Title.

CARNAL ABUSE OF FEMALE-Continued:

charging defendant with having carnally known and abused a
female person under sixteen years of age with her consent,
evidence of similar prior acts of sexual intercourse between the
accused and the prosecutrix within a period of two months
immediately preceding the date laid in the indictment, is admis-
sible for the purpose of showing the relation and intimacy of
the parties, and as corroborative of the testimony of the prose-
cutrix touching the particular act relied upon for a conviction.
Boyd v. State, 239.

CARRIERS-
A common carrier which owns a track and admits another carrier

to the joint use thereof, is liable to its passenger who is injured
by negligence of the other carrier-In such case liability of
both companies may be enforced in the same suit. See Light
Co. v. Montgomery, 426.

CAVEAT EMPTOR-
A custom which would relieve a purchaser from obligation

imposed by doctrine of caveat emptor, is contrary to law. See
Thomas v. Trust Co., 432.

CERTAINTY OF CHARGE-
An indictment which apprises the accused of the charge so that

he may know what he is expected to meet and will be required
to answer, is not void for uncertainty. See State v. Toney, 130.

CERTIFICATE OF AUDITOR-
The provisions of Section 1536-205, Revised Statutes, that no

obligation shall be entered into, and no resolution or order
shall be passed by council of a municipality, involving the ex-
penditure of money, unless the auditor shall first certify that
the money is in the treasury, does not apply to an ordinance
appropriating money, obtained by council from a sale of bonds,
to the purpose for which the bonds were sold. See City v.
Dobson, 66.

CERTIFYING TITLE-
An action against an abstracter to recover for negligence in

making or certifying an abstract of title must be founded on
contract; and the general rule is that an abstracter is liable
only to the person who employed him. See Thomas v. Trust
Co., 432.

Change of Venue-Chattel Mortgage Brokers.

CHANGE OF VENUE-
The fees of the sheriff of a county to which, under Section 7264,

Revised Statutes, a criminal prosecution has been removed, for
services in such case, should be allowed and paid by the com-
missioners of the county in which the indictment was found. See
Thurlow v. Board, 447,

CHARGE IN INDICTMENT-
Section 7076, Revised Statutes, which makes it an offense to

obtain by any false pretense with intent to defraud, anything
of value, applies to a charge for obtaining title to real estate
situate in this state-An indictment which apprises the party
accused of the charge so that he may know what he is expected
to meet and will be required to answer, is not void for uncer-
tainty. See State v. Toney, 130.

CHARGE TO JURY-
In an action for ejectment from a street car, it is error for the

court to instruct the jury to disregard evidence that passengers
left the car on account of plaintiff and complained to the con-
ductor, when-It is error for the court to charge the jury that
if the ejectment was not justified, but was without malice or
insult, only compensatory damages could be awarded. See
Power Co. v. Matheny, 204.

CHARTER OBLIGATION-
Where a corporation is formed for the purpose of transporting

gas to certain named cities, towns and villages, and to others,
it is not one of the charter obligations of such corporation to
furnish gas to all of such cities, towns and villages. See Gas
Co. v. City, 33.

CHATTEL MORTGAGE BROKERS-
The state may license and regulate chattel mortgage and salary

loan brokers, and delegate authority to do so to municipalities-
An ordinance under Section 1536-100, Revised Statutes, to
license and regulate chattel mortgage and salary loan brokers,
requiring to be filed with the auditor of the city a detailed
record of every loan, to remain there open to inspection, is not
violative of Section 14 of the Bill of Rights, and is not unreason-

able. See Sanning v. City, 142.
Section 1536-100, Revised Statutes, does not authorize municipal

corporations to exact a license from persons engaged, otherwise

« PreviousContinue »