COURT RULES.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.

RULE 2-ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The business of the general docket shall be proceeded in as follows:

Section 1. It is hereby made the duty of

the plaintiff, or party holding the affirmative, within five months after the filing of the peti

with; and the brief of defendant in error shall be served on opposite counsel, forthwith upon the filing of the same. All reply briefs must be filed and served on opposite

counsel within eight months after the filing of the petition in error.

Section 4. Proof of service of all briefs

shall be, immediately after the making of such service, filed with the clerk. And failure to so file may be ground for dismissal of the cause.

CHANGE OF RULE 20.

tion in error, to have filed with the clerk ten printed copies of a brief or argument thereon, containing a statement of the questions presented and a succinct statement of so much of the cause, referring to the pages of the printed record, as is necessary to show how the questions arise, with marginal reference to the headings and points made, and whenever the constitutionality or construction of a statute is involved, the brief shall contain a copy of such statute; and for want of such printed copies being so filed, unless good reason be shown to the contrary, the cause will be dismissed for want of prose-nounced, and within thirty days after such cution, or otherwise disposed of at the discretion of the court.

Section 2. It is hereby made the duty of the defendant in error, or party holding the negative, if he desires to be heard, to file ten copies of a like brief, printed with like references, within seven months after the filing of the petition in error.

Section 3. A copy of the printed record and of the brief of the plaintiff shall be served on defendant in error or his counsel forth

It is hereby ordered that the following be substituted for rule 20, as adopted December 2, 1899, viz.:

"No motion can be made or heard for a rehearing. Applications for rehearing must be made at the term at which the decision is an

announcement. The application must be typewritten, and six copies thereof sent to the chief justice, and must be confined strictly to

reasons for rehearing. No reargument of the and no rehearing will be granted unless recause on such application will be considered, quested by one of the concurring judges. Rule 20, as adopted December 2, 1899, is abrogated."

December 19, 1902.

Borders, Illinois Southern R. Co. v. (Ill.).. 382
Bornmann v. Star Co. (N. Y.).

Carter, Riggs v. (N. Y.)..

1115

723

Carter, State v. (Ohio)..

537

Boseker v. Chamberlain (Ind. Sup.)..
Boston Baptist Social Union v. Trustees of
Boston University (Mass.)..
Boston Elevated R. Co., Baker v. (Mass.) 711
Boston Elevated R. Co., Silva v. (Mass).. 808
Boston El. R. Co., Burns v. (Mass.). 418
Boston El. R. Co., Wadsworth v. (Mass.) 421
Boston Steel & Iron Co. v. Steuer (Mass.) 646
Boston Woven Hose & Rubber Co., Flint
v. (Mass.)

592

Boston & P. R. Corp., Bailey v. (Mass.).. 203
Boston & P. R. Corp., Johnson v. (Mass.).. 203
Botkins, Aspy v. (Ind. Sup.).
Bottoms, Ingle v. (Ind. Sup.).

Cary, Cottle v. (N. Y.)...
Cashman, Garant v. (Mass.).
Cassem v. Heustis (Ill.).
Cassin v. City of New York (N. Y.).
Cattano v. Metropolitan St. R. Co. (N.
Central Lumber Co. v. Kelter (Ill.).
Chamberlain, Boseker v. (Ind. Sup.).
Chapman, Williams v. (Ind. Sup.).
Chappell v. Jasper County Oil & Gas
(Ind. App.)

Chase, In re (N. Y.).
Chauvet v. Ives (N. Y.)...
Chew v. People (Ill.).

448

.1106

599

714

462

1069

160

Bourke v. Hefter (Ill.).

.1084

Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Ives (III.). 940 Chicago City R. Co. v. Loomis (Ill.). 348 357 Chicago Horseshoe Co. v. Gostlin (Ind. 413 App.)

...

514

Boyajian, Najarian v. (Mass.).

413

Boyd, Brack v. (Ill.)...

.1073

Chicago, I. & L. R. Co., Postal Telegraph
Cable Co. v. (Ind. App.).

919

Boyd, Diamond Flint Glass Co. v. (Ind.
App.)

Chicago, I. & L. R. Co., Wright v. (Ind.

479

Sup.)

454

Boyden, Commonwealth v. (Mass.).
Boylan Mfg. Co. v. State (N. Y.).

202

.1105

Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., Goddard v. (III.)

1119

Brack v. Boyd (Ill.)..

1073

Bracken, J. Wooley Coal Co. v.

(Ind.

App.)

775

Bradlee, Stone v. (Mass.).

708

Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Flaherty (Ill.).
Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Gore (I).

.1083

1063

City of Boston, Leonard v. (Mass.).
City of Carthage v. Duvall (Ill.).
City of Chicago v. Carpenter (Ill.).
City of Chicago v. Singer (Ill.).
City of Chicago, Dodge v. (Ill.).
City of Chicago, Espert v. (Ill.).
City of Chicago, Gage v. (Ill.).
City of Chicago, Gordon v. (Ill.).
City of Chicago, Gorton v. (Ill.).
City of Chicago, McChesney v. (III.).
City of Chicago, Washburn v. (Ill.).
City of Chicago, Wells v. (Ill.).

596

.1099

362

874

367

212

374

823

541

217

1033

1056

Brotherhood Acc. Co. v. Notter (Ohio).
Brown, Hopper v. (N. Y.)..

528

.1110

City of Greensburg, McKee v. (Ind. Sup.). 1009
City of Middleton, Farrell v. (N. Y.).....1107
City of Muncie, Muncie Natural Gas Co.
v. (Ind. Sup.).

436

Brown, Oliver v. (Ill.)..

837

Brown, Southern Indiana R. Co. v. (Ind.
App.)

915

Brundige v. Dodge Mfg. Co. (Mass.).
Bryson, Town of Clay City v. (Ind. App.).
Burford v. First Nat. Bank (Ind. App.)...

604

Burgard, Harms v. (N. Y.).

.1109

Burgess, Lake Street El. R. Co. v.

(Ill.).. 215

Burke v. Schreiber (Mass.).

1104 City of New York, Cassin v. (N. Y.). 1109 City of New York, Coleman v. (N. Y.). City of New York, Crawford v. (N. Y.)...1106 City of New York, Downs v. (N. Y.). ..1107 City of New York, Flynn v. (N. Y.)... .1109 City of New York, Fortunato v. (N. Y.)..1109 411 City of New York, Griffith v. (N. Y.).....1109 235 City of New York, Haven v. (N. Y.). .1110 833 City of New York, Hopfensack v. (N. Y.).. 11 418 City of New York, O'Connor v. (N. Y.)...1113 .1105 City of New York, O'Keeffe v. (N. Y.).... 194 .1113 City of New York, Reisert v. (N. Y.).

City of New York, Bank of Staten Island v. (N. Y.)..

.1106

Burton, Janeway v. (Ill.).

337

Buswell v. Newcomb (Mass.)..

592

349

Call v. People (Ill.)....

City of Terre Haute, Heinl v. (Ind. Sup.).. 450 243 City of Valparaiso v. Kyes (Ind. App.)... 175