Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1862-02-20

non william y. Peck Hoo william u 1lho,sn.V
~ ,i sy'p SFiakerhoa judges. h, orl ehasd, a.
II e~., III TcHD.y. Feb is, 1862.
Ia55 I'd GENERAL DOCKET.
b sSi lol, Joseph F,sser y. Jacob Brown. Error d
IN m vommon Pies. Of FAfaed county. :
| reserved 10 the D strict CourL OF th.t oountv
bhiHkEaHore . Held. ~ JI' T''-' T.
~ lhe nbsenee Of express contract and po,ltiv,
sooi 10 bstwsen propretors OF adj nlnE Iands tk,
~ REQ gniSss no ooelayo ights In Iespeci t under
'oauo sa.en pefovating otElng or dltsrlne throust
.s No sat'nl hence where lard owner oIgs hoIep o.
osp Anq orpurposea Connected with the so ~ h,I
oEn l'nd thereby cutting Oh or dyortine M
Waers which have awa been AGO stoned 10 na,coIais
sna oose through his land to ths pd o. an
YIoPneo ana mere TO 70 m the roo OF svri snd
nvnle AZ dama.e thereby ocoasoned 10 anon e,nI
proprietor is ddp11unt d6sQEs tnJnrfs.
.xn 1s a ao.|to VT the tte y his o~n prOpeny-bsIns
IN ,. .sn me motive with which the aet doss Is,
AZ ulenei would hive ade any differences 10 law n
s e noleg mad been ong from motives " unmxed mai.
or ns We, desned for no purpose Of either
In the absence Of Spsc d. Allegations making ca..
- unI x, malice, such malice VIII Dot, on dsmurror
:. The doctrine Of preso rip,op, or pre,uupuou Al,
s,snI hsm lapse Of time, can have no application 10
Judgment affirmed. g..
no il6. Oolumbus Gas and Coke 90 v. Jacob Ytoa
iaoa. IN enor 20 Superior court OF FnnkIin cuunt.
Suotegh' y. what amount o. annoyance or inconve
nisloe WI oonellln anu "a 90 bei question Of o..
elssIv deensS cannot bs pre-
Mnere. IN an action tor buIsancs the judge 10 his
We said ip substance that the degree u
70 when the plAinth Wa, entlted was tbat or.
apaIy eD yed oy other pers ms IN his hood
oerNse similarly situated, and that acts VI The defend
a.. 'ns wonld constitute anuisanee-Held
hA ntendea 70 caution the Jury TO ADOPT the oFdina
standard OF comtort and cOnvenienoe-to regard the
notiobs of emort and oonvsn snee by per
.on. geneIAy o. Ordinary tastes and susospubllties
rWaaNa kuNa 81.
o jury into pssTe compa lson Of the Situation OF
tne plantin Tith that VI hl nsiKhborsino an inoury
sn@Py whether any dinel was pereeptble-hhd
ofm no real ques ion, whethet the consequouee O.
90 ing from tho acts OF the derence Of
eployment Any we're found to txise-consIitutsd an
acssH damage, they we're caiculsted to msiead The
Judgment reversed.l i.
bhiNkE1Hoor ana ecoTT. J. j.. dlsssnled az 10 the
CO. spts.oa gwen to the charge Of the court bsloE.
roI 70 the D sIrot court Of FsirHsld county. '
burtur, ,o.J The plaintiff nled her petition against
ne oeiena' NJ % heir and administrator oil ming oowsr
died se Esd. The answer set rth a. dsfsnse IA rand
reasonable antsnuphaI CONTRACT entered INTO By the
pAinun and intssta In view Z msfd- ge, made few
o.yh prsyIu' thereto, by whch it was ssIstd among
osnsr ,ings tnat the properly, real and personal Of
"a wnch 10 about equal should be br ught toge her
and enjoyed during oovsrture and q. the ,orntnaon
me personal property should be ssparatsd snc
uVeeo ootWepn the survivor Hnd representa- ives Of
ns tntesate, and the survivor should hold his or hri
.Atd ptoPefy real and personal and shou thsteater
nave no night or intere In the pfopsrty the IN
@ re.son OF said ooysrturs, tha the contraeth b ID
Deea performed BY the parties thereto dune coVsrnre
snd that snee he decease OF the ntes ale the petit
o. hed claimed go rsesvsd from hia TspressnistveI
net ehare oi the proper ano tie beoenL OF Gu pro.
nslons Of said con nct 10 her iavor-Hsdi
fnAt tne foregoing ;acs slthou not wi hin section
% secuon OF the bower oct Of 1924 nsitate Il
seinc en answer, And good equitable dsfsoss 70
petition.
Judgment affirmed.
2 No. 90. Propeller osoots '. Wick 4 Moran. Er.
Fos s,n 70 cn ne D,:trie oouit Of RE county.
ktk OuRh1. Heidi .ra
\, Wheo an appeal is srroneousiy dismissed By ths
Disuct Court, and, St the same term, notion 10 mad
me app llant 10 reinstate ca on tho docket
the sroUpd that the erred IL ds sing the appeal
-tnn To- In eject motion 10 vaca the oruer dtSmss.
Ing the appeals and when such motion IS ued 70
snosrqusnt Term and then ovsrraltd the appellant 10
not oarTotot bis remedy h. die petition 10 eT IL
motion.
Q, Creighton Harden. 10 O. 81. R. $40, aud Bentley
Y. Doreas. u o. 81. 3o6 followed a approved.
Ordsf Dstr OF COURT overnling the ion vacate
ORDER oisntssng appeal reversed oIdsr dlamisSi ap
peal aud case rsinstatvd docket Of District
Court tor rial.
No IL. James Z. Burohv. VIM. v. Barr etM 10
onAncsIy' hsser' cd 10 Hamilton county Decree foI
complainant establishing the hen OF Lis Ruge row
the cato OF Tecordiig; and rsm4ndlng Case t. the
strict court TO determine TO aby iens c4iDsd to be
OF 40 orEio prior u that date. No further report vii
6e made IN the case.
MOTION DOCKET.
no. lo1 Allen and wife y, shaoleltor Leave grant
ed TO Ole Tetitio1 in error.
No JOB. Cubsidy y. II, a or 4 Chappell. Leave 10
hls petition In SrTor refused.
No. ITO. Hoteyman y Welhridgs's executon.-
Leave refused 10 die peiuoa 10 error.
adjourned untii ThursdAy mOrnins 10 O'Clock.