Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1863-02-07

Supreme OOuHt OF Ohio.
Hon. Milton sutli9, Chief Justcei Hen. William v.
and Hon. Josiah Scott, Judges.
L. J. oritchneld, Esq Reporter.
TUKsDAy, February 3, 1868.
GENERAL DOCKET.
No. %. John Manuel OF al. v. Robert Manuel. In
chaneey Reserved In the District Court Of Hamilton
county
Scott, j.:
M, domiclled in Ohio, made will Of personally In
the Geographic form valid by the laws OF Lousiana,
He returned to his donnie lie In Ohio and died there In
1s48. The will sent to New Orleans and there I'D.
mtted to probate. An authenticated copy Of the will
and probate brought to 0ho and admitted to record
here. On bill filed for the purpose Of setting aside
the will as invalid by the laws Of this state-Held
That the copy Of the will wa. improperly admitted to
record In this State That by the settled rule Of inter-
national law, the jurisdiction to determine the validity
or invadiy Of the will belonged to the courts OF this
Sate and that the 2eth section Of the Wills Act Of
record In this State Of auhentcated copies Of Wills
executed and proved according to the laws Of any State
Territory OF the United etates relates only to Wills
gT0ved in court to which the jurisdiction to make
original probate in the properly belongs under the
established rule Of law.
Decree for complainants.
Judge Ghoison did not sit In this case.
90. George W. Wasson and wife v. O. Hefner ct al
Reserved In District Court Of Franklin county.
petition was fled in the Court Of Common Pleas OF
ETnnklln 10 contest tno VRuully Oh
Robert Armstrong. Answers were filed and an Issue
made. At the March term, 1856 the iS.ue was submit
ted 10 the court, there finding for the WILL judg
At the January term, 1857 of the District Court the
following entry was made: 'By consent Of parties to
this suit 1t s ordered that this be and the same is
hereby remanded the Court Of Common Pleas Of this
county for trial and further proceeding, and from the
Anal Judgment Of which court appeal shall be taken
by either party" Proceedings were afterward had In
the case in the Court Of Common Pleas and At the teb
llama ya there
was verdict sustaining the validity OF the will and
Judgment on the verdict Notice OF appeal was entered
the court Gxed the penalty Of the appeal bond ana
made to dismiss the sppea which was reserved for decs
ion to this court
By the Court:
The consent Of the parties In this case cannot oust the
District court Of its appellate Jurisdiction. The regu
ary Of the proceeding In the Court OF Common Pleas
before the first appeal In dsposing Of the issue without
Jury, and Of the action OF the District Court In re-
manding pending on appeal to be again tried In
the Court Of Common Pleas, Ia questionable but taken
In any view the District Court has now jursdction Of
the case and the motion to dismiss the appeal must be
No. SO. william Zee v. The Big sand Iron Company.
Error to the District Court Of Yinton county.
By the Court-Held
l. The mode prescribed by section 66 Of the code for
the service Of summons against corporation Supeedes
the mode previously provided by section g OF the
poraton act OF May 1st 1882 and thereby secures uni
formity IN the PRACTICE.
g. 10 make the service Of summons against coIpo-
ration by service upon one Of Ito subordinate officers
specified in section 66 Of the code "by copy left at
The office OF usual place Of business Of such corporation
with the person having charge thereof good, must
10 substance arnatvey appear from the r turn OF ser
vice 10 the st case that the chief officer cf the corpo
ration could not be ound and In the second case that
none Of the specified oficen-nether chief subor
dnate-could be found In the county. H.
g. II after judgment by default against defendant
fectlye service Of the defendant appears In
court give notice Of appeal and has 1t entered on the
record he thereby appears in the action and submits to
Jurisdiction Of the court, and cannot afterwaTdbe al
| lowed to deny such jurildiction
Evans " lies Ohio 81: Rep. $685. and Marsden " 3d.
per, IL Ohio St. Rep. 5O3i followed and approved
No. 81. william stanberry Y. George b. smythe.
Error to the District COURT of Licking county
By the COURT
self to o. before due and for valuable consideration;
but with notice that B. then held assignment Of
deposit account by D., for caAh deposited BY D. with A.,
which assignment had not been shown to accepted
by A. O. sued B. upon said note In action Of debt be-
fore the Oode-Held:
That the deposit account so assigned to B. could not
be sci of in said action on the note and JoTtorS
that set-of could not be enforced II the assignment
was Of only part Of the deposit account Of D. with
O.. also that set- Of part only Of an entire demand
could not DO allowed the suit had been prosecuted for
the benefit Of A.
Judgment affirmed.
No. 22 Richard B Hopplssv, The Trustees of Brown
Township, Delaware County.
The act Of March 81 1861 (4s o. L. 294 Incorporating
the springfield and Mansfield Railroad Company, en-
powers the county commissioners Of any county through
which the railroad might be located, to subscribe to the
capital stock Of tie company any not exceeding fifty
thousand dollars If authorized to do so by majority Of
the electors Of the county voting at the annual election
held next after the publication OF at least twenty days
The act further provides that II the county commits
sones should not be authorized to make such sub.
scrptiou them the trustees Of any township through
which the road might be located, may subscribe TO said
stock any not exceeding nifty theusand dollars IL
authorized to do by like vote OF the electors Of the
township the like annual election and to provide for
the payment Of the subscription in the same manner
that the county commissioners authorized TO do,
wis: by the issue Of township bonds.
The further provides that the total amount which
may be subscribed By any county and the townships
therein on the line Of the road shall exceed one
hundred thousand dollars.
the vote by county township to be taken at special
election called twenty days notice. And further
provides that II the county commissioners shall be
horized by the vote to make the subscription for the
county then the question Of subscriptions may he sub
mltted to the electors at the special township election
The railroad was located through Delaware county and
Brown township therein.
On June I7sis5l the electors Of Delaware county
special election then held, voted In favor OF subscrip
ton Of fifty thousand dollars by the County Comms.
sone and the Ah day OF August, 1851 the subscrp
ton was made and bonds OF the county were issued pay
On July H. 1851 the electors Of Brown township at
special election then held decided against any township
su bseriptlon.
On the both Of August 1851 the electors Of the town
ship held another special election, which resulted in ia
Of the township subscribing seventeen thousand dol
lars to the stock OF the sompaDy.
9he township subscription was made by the Trustees,
who issued bonds to pay It, In different suns payable
the railroad company its assgnees at the office Of the
Township Treasurer, 0c ls7l with seven per cent.
interest," payable semiannualy Janury lst and July ls
The bends recie the purpose for which they issued
On mandamus on the action OF H., claiming TO be q
bona fde holder of some Of the bonds to compel the
Township Trustees to lsvy tax to pay the interest
Held:
That upon construction all the provisions of the acts
the County Commissioners having been authorized by q
vote OF the equity TO subscribe stock, the contingency
upon which the township might subscribe did not arise,
and that the proceedings Of the voters Of the township
and Of the Township Trustees without authority Of
law and the writings purporng to be the bonds Of the
township are void and created obligation In the hands
Of the company or Of the present holder.
for defendants
No. 90. A. q. swsatlandv. Big sand Iron Company
aud,
Ne. e5l. J.K. & D. Will v. same; and,
No. 259. John r. Newton Y. same; and,
No. 1853. r. Hannigan v. same; and, M
No. 254. Thomas 0'Harrow v. same; and,
No. 255. James Sullivan " samei
Decided by NO. 80 above.
No. IA. Ohio ex rel George D. Smythe. Quo warranto
Demurrer to information sustained with leave to
No. a. Robert q. o'Neil v. John B. shaunafelt.
Error. Reserved In Belmont county. Judgment Of
Common Pleas affirmed No further report Of the case
will be made.
Fifty more cases on the General Docket beginning with
Nc 1875, were called to-day.
MOTION DOCKET.
~ l. mt ~