Case Name: Casey et al. v. Painter
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1893-10-10
Citations: 50 Ohio St. 527
Docket Number: 
Parties: Casey et al. v. Painter.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 50
Pages: 527–528

Head Matter:
Casey et al. v. Painter.
Intoxicating liquors—Notice to dealer in—What is sufficient to charge.
(Decided October 10, 1893.)
Error to the Circuit Court of Fayette county.
The action below was by a wife under §4357, Revised Statutes, to recover damages for an injury to her means of support, caused by the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors to her husband by the defendant below. The notice required by the subsequent section, to liquor dealers, was filed with the township clerk of Union township, in the county, and the sales were made by the defendants at their place of business in the city of Washington, C. H., therein; but no such notice was filed with the corporation clerk of the city; and for this omission it is claimed that the"¡action will not lie.
C. A. Palmer and J. J. Harper, for plaintiff in error.
Mills Gardner, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
By The Court:
Under section 4357, Revised Statutes, a notice filed with the township clerk is notice to a person selling liquors in a municipal corporation within the territorial limits of the township, though not filed in the office of the clerk of the municipal corporation.
Judgment affirmed.