« PreviousContinue »
Opinion Per Curiam.
tract and its enforcement, and for further proceedings according to law.
NICHOLS, C. J., NEWMAN, JONES, MATTHIAS, JOHNSON and DONAHUE, JJ., concur.
Harth v. DRUGGAN, RECEIVER.
Statute of limitations — Action to enforce stockholder's liability.
(No. 15381 - Decided April 3, 1917.)
ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county
Messrs. Ireton & Schoenle and Mr. Oscar W. Kuhn, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. J. F. Atwood and Mr. Sanford A. Headley, for defendant in error.
Judgment affirmed on authority of Bauman v. Kiskadden, Trustee, 94 Ohio St., 130.
NEWMAN, JONES, MATTHIAS, JOHNSON and
, DONAHUE, JJ., concur.
Opinion Per Curiam.
EMIG V. THE CITY OF TOLEDO.
Court of appeals - Authority to render final judgment — When
reversing for error of trial court — Duty to remand for new trial, when.
(No. 15420 — Decided April 3, 1917.)
ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Lucas county.
Mr. David B. Eppstein and Mr. William H. McLellan, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Harry S. Commager and Mr. Charles T. Lawson, for defendant in error.
This court finds from the record that the judgment of the court of appeals is in effect an adjudication that the judgment of the court of common pleas is against the weight of the evidence and the judgment of reversal is affirmed. But this court on the authority of Stugard, Admr., v. P., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 92 Ohio St., 318, is of the opinion that the cause should be submitted to a jury, and, therefore, the court of appeals erred in rendering final judgment, and the final judgment entered by the court of appeals is hereby reversed.
Coming now to render the judgment that the court of appeals should have rendered, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the court of common pleas be, and the same is hereby, reversed, and this cause is remanded to the court
Opinion Per Curiam.
of common pleas for further proceedings according to law.
WANAMAKER, NEWMAN, Matthias and JOHNson, JJ., concur.
THE STATE, EX REL. TURNER, Atty. GEN., v. THE
OF LONDON, ENGLAND.
Workmen's compensation and employers' liability – Insurance
authorized – Section 9510, General Code - Contracts to indemnify employers — Section 1465-101, General Code (103 0. L., 91) — Provisions to be incorporated in policies - Employers compensating employes direct - Section 1465-69, General Code (103 0. L., 80) — Insurance prohibited — Wilful act or failure to observe lawful requirements - Employers not contributing to state fund — And employers not authorized to compensate direct.
(No. 15075 — Decided April 17, 1917.)
IN QUO WARRANTO.
Mr. Edward C. Turner, attorney general; Mr. Timothy S. Hogan; Mr. George B. Okey and Mr. Hanby R. Jones, for relator.
Messrs. Booth, Keating, Peters & Pomerene, for defendant.
Mr. James Harrington Boyd, amicus curiae, in cases Nos. 15075, 15087, 15091 and 15095.
Opinion Per Curiom.
This day this cause came on to be heard on the demurrer to the answer of the defendant, and was argued by counsel and submitted to the court, and the court being fully advised in the premises finds said demurrer well taken and sustains the same.
And said defendant not desiring to plead further, it is thereupon ordered and adjudged by the court that the defendant be ousted from the further exercise of the franchise of writing indemnity policies to employers of more than five employes, except as follows:
(a) Every such contract of indemnity of an employer for loss or damage on account of injury to an employe by accidental means or on account of the negligence of such employer, or such employer's officer, agent or servant, shall contain a specific provision, as a part of its terms, for the payment to such injured employe “of such amounts for medical, nurse and hospital services, and medicines, and such compensation as is provided by this act for injured employes; and in the event of death shall pay such amounts as are herein provided for funeral expenses and for compensation to the dependents of those partly dependent upon such employe.”
This provision of the contract has reference only to cases of injury where the injured employe elects to accept compensation for his injuries directly from his employer according to the standard fixed in Section 22 of the workmen's compensation act.
Opinion Per Curiom.
(b) The contract of indemnity shall not contain any agreement to indemnify an employer for any civil liability for or on account of the injury to his employe by the wilful act of such employer, or any of such employer's officers or agents, or the failure of such employer, his officers or agents, to observe any lawful requirements for the safety of employes.
This provision of the contract has exclusive reference to cases of injury where the injured employe does not elect to receive as compensation for his injury either the judgment or award of the industrial commission sitting as a board of awards, or from his employer direct, but elects to and does exercise the right to enforce his cause of action against his employer in the courts.
(c) No contract of indemnity shall be written in behalf of an employer of five or more employes for loss or damage, nor an agreement to indemnify an employer for any civil liability, on account of an injury of an employe by accidental means, or on account of the negligence of such employer, his officers, agents or servants, whether the negligence be that of the wilful act, or failure to comply with lawful requirements for the safety of employes or negligence of any other kind or character, if such employer is not a contributor to the compensation fund, or has not legally exercised the option of carrying his own insurance under Section 22 of
It is further ordered and adjudged, that the execution of this decree be postponed for one hun