« PreviousContinue »
An action pending in the superior court of Cincinnati, on and before November 1, 1893, and in which a judgment was entered on June 20, 1894, ten days before the law of May 16, 1894, took effect, cannot properly be appealed to the circuit court, and motion to dismiss such appeal will be sustained and the case stricken from the docket. Thompson v. Building Assn.
68. Where an appeal has been perfected, and the court has acquired jurisdiction of the parties, but no pleadings having been filed within the rule days for filling pleadings in such cases, the defendant may either move to dismiss the appeal or file his answer, asking for judgment upon the answer for failure of plaintiff to file his petition. Parker V. Haight.
609. A petition on appeal may be amended. Bausch v. McConnel.
547. An appeal bond from the pro bate court to "the appellate court" is vacated when the judgment which follows in the common pleas is re versed and a different judgment rendered by the circuit court. Miller v. Ryan.
319. APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY
Where railroad has taken possession of land for its right of way without the owner's consent, such property belongs to the owner up to the time he tenders the deed, and, if, at the time of tendering the deed, he elected to hold the company for the land and receive for it the compensation due him for its value, his cause of action arose by that election, and he had the right to bring and maintain his suit, and damages should be awarded of the date when the title of property passed, that is, for the value of the land to the owner at that time. W. & L. E. Ry. Co. v. Fries et al. 297.
In such case it is error to allow testimony to be offered as to the value of the land when the railroad went into possession, in that it was offered and directed to a point of time prior to the time when the cause of action accrued. Such tes. timony should have been confined to the time when the deed was delivered.
Ib. It is error to refuse to charge the jury that in such case plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages to land not taken by the railroad, but
is restricted to compensation for land taken.
Ib. In determining the market value of lands sought to be appropriated by a city for water-works, the jury are precluded from considering its enhanced value, from the fact that it was adapted for a reservoir, which was the very purpose for which it was being appropriated, and the jury is not permitted to make any use of the fact that such lands may have increased in value by the proposal or construction of the work for which it is to be taken. Gibson V. Norwalk.
6. When a municipal corporation seeks to appropriate private property under sec. 2235, Rev. Stat., as amended (91 O. L., 127), the mort. gagees of such property are not necessary parties to be notified of the resolution before the passage of the same. Put-in-Bay v. Stimmel.
380. Where plaintiff, a municipal corporation, seeks to enjoin a party from cutting trees on certain lands, which plaintiff alleges in its petition it has commenced proceedings to appropriate, and defendant answered denying the allegations in the petition and also sets up a crosspetition asking for
а counter injunction enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting their aforesaid appropriation proceedings: Held, that defendants could not maintain a cross-petition enjoining plaintiff from prosecuting another suit in the same court for any reasons grounds which might have been set up as a defense to the appropriation proceedings. Put-in-Bay v. Webb et al.
478. Where a municipal corporation has commenced appropriation pro ceedings of land for park purposes under the provisions of sec. 2232 as amended (91 0. L., 213), relating to the appropriation of land, in such case: Held, that it is not necessary for the corporation clerk to file, before appropriation proceedings are commenced, certificate showing that the money required to be paid for the appropriation of the land in question was then in the treasury to the credit of a fund for that purpose.
To constitute probable cause so as to warrant the arrest of a person for the commission of a crime there must be such circumstances and sur. rounding facts as will lead a person
of ordinary prudence to believe in the guilt of the person arrested, and if the facts show that to be the case, then there is probable cause for arrest. Britton v. Granger. 182.
Where an officer finds one violating a law or ordinance, and then and there arrests him, and thereafter files an affidavit charging him with the offense he was found committing, the prosecution begins with the filing of the affidavit and not with the arrest. If such officer, before making the affidavit, takes the advice of an attorney-at-law, upon full and fair disclosure of the facts and follows his advice in making an affidavit, and prosecuting
so charged, the officer is entitled to tbe benefit of such consultation and advice, in determining whether he had reasonable or probable cause for the prosecution.
Ib. Where a person is arrested on view, without a warrant, for violation of an ordinance, and trial and conviction followed for the identical offense for which the arrest was made the officer making such arrest is accorded the same protection from a civil action for damages for the injury resulting from the arrest, by the party arrested, as if the arrest had been made under the authority of a warrant. Billington v. Hoverman.
358. Where an affidavit charging & person with the commission of a crime, describes the accused by ini. tials merely, and a warrant is issued upon such affidavit, such warrant is not void for that reason, the same being regular in form in all respects to constitute it a valid warrant for tho arrest of the accused and the officer having such warrant to execute is clothed with the authority to make the arrest. State v. Miller, 552.
In attempting the arrest of one accused with the commission of a crime, who is found expecting the officer and is armed with deadly weapons to resist the arrest, it is the right of such officer to use necessary strategy to disarm the accused before producing the warrant.
Where an owner of premises abutting upon a street leases them with the provision that the lesseo, in addition to annual rental, is to pay all taxes and improvement assessments, and the street is afterwards paved when a street railway secures a franchise in said street,
and in return agrees to repay the assessments that were made for paving, such money belongs and should be paid to the property owner. Harkness v. Schiely. 108.
The street assessment on a triangular corner lot should not exceed its greatest breadthwise frontage. Thompkins et al. V. Village of Norwood.
416. An assessment for paving a street and for building a side walk adjoining the lot is an assessment for two separate improvements, and there being no statute limiting the amount of an assessment, or percentage of an assessment for two different improvements, such as the above, therefore, there is no limitation which will render either invalid because the sum of the two shall exceed twenty-five per cent. of the value of the lot. Hunt v. Hunter.
495. The twenty-five per cent. limi. tation, as found in sec. 2271, applies to the construction of sidewalks, and, therefore, where a sidewalk is constructed and an assessment is levied, such assessment shall not exceed twenty-five per cent. of the value of such lot at the time the sidewalk was built.
Ib. Under sec. 2272, a lessee of property is not the owner of such property for the purpose of signing a petition for the improvement of certain streets, making the assessments binding upon the interest of the owners of such lots. Kemper v. (village) St. Bernard.
617. Such lessee can only represent his own interest therein, and not that of his lessor, and such lessor is not bound by the act of the lessee in signing such petition.
Ib. The lessee is not the agent of the lessor for the purpose of signing & petition asking for the improvement of certain streets.
Ib. ASSIGNMENT FOR CREDITORS
A deed of assignment conveying lands of the assignor situate in an. other county of the state than that of his residence takes effect as to all persons from the time of its delivery to the probate court of the county in which the assignor resided at tho time of its execution. Harrison v. Chatfield.
692. It is not necessary that it be also filed for record with the recorder of the county where the land is situats.
The claim for damages in an
In an action for the recovery
In a bastardy proceeding testi.
shown a disposition to have sexual
disturb a judgment of $1,300. Ib.
The failure of a justice to
A bill of exceptions must be in
occurring in a trial in court. Ib.
No action can be maintained
party relying upon such payment
motion or Ole one on their own
In an action to enjoin a municipal
Under sec. 6830, there are two
Where a surveyor makes a plat
If there is a shortage on a plat
Where a person purchasing a
by the conductor, such passenger
Brothers and sisters the
It is not error for a court to
therefore, error for the court to