« PreviousContinue »
In an action to recover damages
for injuries sustained by plaintiff,
resulting from a collision of care on
a street railway, plaintiff may re.
cover, as part of her damages, the
amount she expended, and what she
may reasonably expect to expend
in order to cure herself of such in-
juries received through the fault or
negligence of defendant. Toledo
Electric Street Ry, Co. v. Tucker.
In such action, the petition need
not allege with definiteness the
amount so expended, and in the ab.
sence of a motion to make it more
definite and certain, plaintiff may
introduce evidence showing what
the expenses were, and it is not
error for the court to charge the
jury that plaintiff "is entitled to re-
cover for any expense that she may
have been to, as shown by the evi.
dence in the case, for medical
services or attendance, in endeav-
oring to cure herself of the injuries
which she has sustained.
Where plaintiff has received an
injury, and as the result of such
weakened so that it will not be able
to do full work again, a verdict for
$1,200, will not be considered ex.
cessive. Toledo V. Higgins.
one of the streets. The grantee
entered into possession and closed
with a fence on the boundary lines,
and thereafter for more than
twenty-one years continued in the
occupation of his premises, using
that part of the street, so included
as an incident to his house and
barn for pasturage and garden
purposes and entirely excluded the
public therefrom, the city in the
meantime making no attempt to
open the street: Held, that his
possession of that part of his
purchase which was included within
the street, as shown upon the plat,
was such as to give him title to
that part of the street by adverse
possession against the city. Mott
It is a fundamental principle of
the construction of deeds, and all
written instruments, that the
expressed intention of the parties,
when ascertained, shall be carried
out. Kirby, et al. v. Brownlee et al.
Where the terms of a deed
come within the rule in Shelley's
case, the clear and unmistakable
expressed intention of the grantor
is not regarded, but an unreasonable
and arbitrary rule of law is applied
to defeat the expressed intention of
the grantor, and this is the rule in
property in Ohio.
When the owner of certain
lands, in contemplation of marriage,
executes a deed by which the grantor
conveys her separate property to a
trustee to be held in trust for the
sole and separate use of such
grantor during her life, and in case
or her death then her husband if
he survive her, is to receive the
rents and profits during such sur.
vivorship, and furher provided
that upon the death of such sur.
vivor the property was to go to the
grantor's lawful heirs: Held, that
such marriage having taken place,
and the grantor having died before
her husband, then such property
would vest in the grantor's lawful
heirs, by force of the statute, and
therefore the rule in Shelley's case
would not apply to a deed of this
A party to a case cannot
compel the opposite party to give
his deposition when he is in good
health and expects to be present at
the trial, and where the deposition
is evidently taken for the purpose
of obtaining information which
will enable such party to prepare
his case for trial, with no idea
of using the testimony itself, unless
it, or some part of it, shall be
found favorable to his notions of
what the truth is. In re Humphrey.
DITCHES AND DRAINAGE-
Where the probate judge ap-
points a committee of freeholders
to assess the amount which the
upper county is obliged to pay the
lower county for the proposed outlet
of a ditch, and such committee
makes a report to the probate
court: Held, that the probate
judge, under the provisions of the
statute, has power to modify such
report, either by increasing or di.
minishing the amount stipulated in
it; or to set aside the report and
send out a new committee to report.
Commissioners V. Commissioners.
DIVORCE AND ALIMONY-
No injunction is necessary to
hold property in an application for
divorce and alimony, where the
property is described and the
owner of the property and the
person having an interest in it are
made parties; that they cannot
thereafter transfer it, although there
is no injunction against such
transfer. Fletcher V. Fletcher.
Under the act entitled, “An act
to prevent corrupt practices at elec-
tion," 92 O. L., 192, an elector is
not entitled to file the complaint
and application forming the basis
proceeding to deprive an
officer of his office because of vio-
lations of the provisions of said
act, unless such elector shall have
been entitled to vote for or against
such officer at the election at
which he was elected. State V.
Courts of equity will correct
mutual mistakes in contracts where
such action does not injuriously
affect the right of other parties,
which have subsequently accrued.
Goldsmith v. Cincinnati.
A party is not favored in gain.
ing rights by his own wrong, or
its own neglect of duty in a court
of equity. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v.
A proceeding in error will be
dismissed for failing to bring up
all the parties in interest in the
original action. Tennessee Lumber
Co. v. Marcy.
The right or cause of a pro-
ceeding in error accrues at the time
of the rendition of the judgment or
making of the final order, and under
sec. 6723, Rev. Stat. such proceedings
must be commenced within six
months from that time. Collins V.
The overruling of a motion for
new trial is not a final order to
which error can be prosecuted. Ib.
Where, by the transcript of a
case, it nowhere appears that a final
judgment or order has been entered
in the case, such case cannot be
brought into the circuit court, before
it is finally determined, or a final
judgment or order is made in the
common pleas court. Autenreith v.
Where the sentence of a court
is erroneous in part, error may be
prosecuted to the part which is er-
roneous and this to be the exclusion
of relief by habeas corpus. In re
The prosecution of error con-
templates the correction of that
part of a proceeding which is
wrongful and illegal.
Refusal of a justice to discharge
an attachment cannot be reviewed
on error, when there was no ex
ception to such ruling and no bill
of exceptions taken, setting out
the evidence submitted. Bradley V.
It is error for a justice of the
peace for failing to discharge an at.
tachment, where the only evidence
was the affidavit of the plaintiff
averring the grounds of the at-
tachment, and defendant's affidavit
denying those averments.
Proof that defendant, prior to
the commission of the allegedt
crime, had seduced deceased, is in.
competent, unless it affirmatively
appears that such seduction was in
some way connected with said
crime as motive thereof or other-
wise. Rose v. State.
That the deceased was a person
of tender years and of weak mind
at the time of such seduction. were
facts wholly irrelevant to any issue
in the case.
A conversation had with de-
fendant while in jail awaiting trial,
whereby certain prejudicial state-
ments made by others are com-
municated to him, cannot be given
in evidence against him in the
absence of any admission of, or
acquiescence in their truth by him,
and in the absence on his part, of
any conduct or demeanor indicatis
of guilt in connection with suci
as a result
Where the only effect of the
proof of such conversation is to
show that a person not competent
to be a witness had in fact malle
such prejudicial statements, its all-
mission is error.
The fact that defendant was
seen and recognized at a certain
time and place cannot be proved Ly
showing that the party making such
recognition shortly thereafter stated
to the witness who the person was.
Nor is such evidence competent
in corroboration of a witness testi.
fying to having made such recog.
If, after the commission of an
offense, threats are made by the de-
fendant against the prosecuting
attorney, evidence of such allege 1
threats are not admissible, unless
it appears that they were made
under such circumstances and are
of such character as to manifest a
consciousness of guilt. Gawn .
In an action for injuries from
a defective sidewalk, it is not error
to allow witnesses to testify that
they were in the habit of passing
along the street, and that the
sidewalk, in the immediate vicinity
of the place where the injury
occurred, had been taken up and
relaid, and that the planks were
unequal and that there were some
holes in the sidewalk; such evidence
being received for the purpose of
showing knowledge on the part of
the city of the defects in the
sidewalk, Toledo V. Higgins. 29.
To establish the former mar.
riage of one on trial for bigamy,
where it is not claimed that such
marriage was in conformity with
the statute, the same circumstances
are admissible in evidence as are
admissible to establish the same
kind of a marriage in a civil case.
Swartz v. State.
Conversations between parties
interested upon one side of a cor-
troversy, at which the other party
was not present and had no means
of knowing of it, would not be com
the arrest there had been
person or persons prowling about
the houses in his neighborhood and
peering into windows and that such
persons acted as the accused was
acting at the time of his arrest.
Such evidence goes to show the ex.
ercise of probable cause by the
officer in making the arrest. Britton
A person who causes the arrest
of another may show the bad char-
acter of the person arrested. Such
evidence goes to show the likelihood
that the accused committed the
In order to convict a person
charged with an assault with intent
to rape, it must appear from the
evidence that an assault was made
upon the prosecutrix, and that what
was done was done against her
will. Martin v. State.
The specifications given to the
contractor by the city, showing
how the work of laying the sidewalk
should be done, and the written
report of the engineer, showing the
excavation necessary to be made, are
not competent evidence of the
depth of the excavation, and should
have been excluded. Moon V. Mid-
Statements of employees
charged with specific duties cannot
be offered in evidence to bind de-
fendant, when it appears that such
employees had no control or author-
ity as would make their admissions
competent. Ohio Oil Co. v. McCrory.
Statements made to com.
mercial agency, and also statements
made by the agency to its sub-
scriber, the purchaser, are proper
to be introduced in evidence to en-
able the jury to say whether the
agency stated to the purchaser
those things which it had been au.
thorized to state to the latter or to
anybody else who had any good
reason for inquiring. Wilmot v.
Lyon & Co.
to be signed by him, may be put in
issue by "an affidavit that such in.
strument of writing was not made,
given, subscribed, accepted, or
dorsed by him." Beers & Co. v.
A hypothetical question must
be based upon facts assumed to
have been proved in the case on
trial. Commissioners v. Commis-
Testimony as to a conversation
by telephone between the prose-
cuting witness, and his agent, in
the absence of the accused, and
without his knowledge, is wholly in-
competent. Limerick v. State. 664.
It would be most unjust to the
rights of a defendant on trial for a
grave offense, to allow evidence of
the guilt of other parties to be
shown without some evidence to
connect him with such parties, or
make him responsible in some way
for their conduct, and great caro
should be exercised by the court in
Evidence of the acts or decla-
rations of persons alleged to be co-
conspirators with the defendant on
trial, cannot properly be received
against him, until the judge is sat-
isfied that apart from them, there
are prima facie grounds for believing
in the existence of the conspiracy.
to them is encumbered by and
subject to this lien. Corey v. Hayes.
stitutes proceedings to sell the real
estate of the decedent to pay all
proper charges and allowances, and
the widow having a dower interest
in such estate gives a bond properly
executed under the provisions of
sec. 6146, Rev. Stat., for the purpose
of avoiding the sale of such rear
estate, and afterwards pays to the
administrator the amount of all
valid claims and debts of the de
cedent: Held, that such widow is
not a mere volunteer, but is per.
sonally and directly interested in
the real estate, and is therefore en-
titled to stand in the place of the
administrator with respect to a lien
against the real estate of the de-
cedent, to the end that she be saved
from any loss and the debts fullv
discharged from the rightful
One who takes and keeps upon
his own premises, material or
substance which in itself is danger.
ous and liable to explode and do in.
jury to person or property on
adjoining premises, or on premises
in the neighborhood or vicinity.
and it does explode, such person is
liable in damages for the injury
directly caused thereon by such ex.
plosion without proof of negligence
in storing or caring for such ma-
terial substance. St. Mary's
Woolen Mfg. Co. V. Bradford Gly.
In a bastardy proceeding, evi-
dence of mere opportunities to have
sexual intercourse is inadmissible.
Ely v. Ott.
Oral statements or declarations
of an alleged donor are not com:
petent, as against innocent third
persons, to prove a gift of real
estate, or of an appurtenance to real
estate; nor, are such declarations
admissible in evidence where they
have a tendency to discredit the
title to the real estate theretofore
conveyed, in due form, by such al.
leged donor. Hall v. Geyer. 436.
Endorsement of credit on
note is not prima facie evidence of
payment. Keel, Exr., v. Rudisell.