30 Ohio C.A.
Volume 30 — Ohio Court of Appeals
5 opinions
- 30 Ohio C.A. 7Industrial Commission v. Ware (1919)
<p>EMPLOYEE OF OHIO COMPANY INJURED OUTSIDE OF THE STATE.</p> <p>Workmen’s Compensation Act — Not Applicable to Employee of Ohio Company — But Injured Outside of the State, When — Claim of Lawful Wife not Barred by Bigamous Marriage — Evidence—Jury May not Return a Yerdiot Fixing Compensation to be Paid in a Lump Sum.</p> <p>1. The Industrial Commission of Ohio is not liable for the death of a workman occurring outside the state, when he was neither hired in Ohio, nor employed to work there, merely because he was in the employ of a concern that complies with the Ohio workmen’s compensation law.</p> <p>2. The workmen’s compensation law may have some extra territorial operation.</p> <p>3. The fact that the decedent had contracted a bigamous marriage does not bar the claim of his lawful wife.</p> <p>4. A question to a witness is not improper as tending to impeach a witness previously called by the same party merely because the .answer might incidentally reflect upon such other witness, if the evidence to be elicited thereby tends to prove any fact relevant to the issues.</p> <p>5. In cases arising by way of appeal from the decision of the Industrial ■Commisison denying the right of a claimant to participate in the state insurance fund, a jury is without power to return a verdict fixing compensation to be paid in a lump sum.</p>
- 30 Ohio C.A. 81City of Mount Vernon v. Berman (1918)
<p>RESTORATION OF STREETS AFTER REMOVAL OF TRACKS.</p> <p>Street Railways — Abandonment of Line and Removal of Tracks — Parties Buying Rails and Ties for Junk — May be Required to Insure Restor ation of Streets to Normal Condition — Statutory Obligation of Municipality to keep its Streets Free from Nuisance — Implied Obligation of Railioay Company to Protect the City and Its Property Owners — Grounds for an Injunction — Insolvency of Defendants— Sufficient Remedy at Law — Provisions of Contract Embodied in Ordinance should be Construed in favor of the Municipality.</p> <p>Where a traction company voluntarily abandons the privileges granted to it by a municipal franchise, bond may be required securing the city that its streets will be left in as good condition as before the ties and rails were removed.</p>
- 30 Ohio C.A. 273Reefy v. City of Elyria (1913)
<p>CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORDS “ OPPOSITE POLITICS.”</p> <p>Newspapers — Qualifications of, for Publication of Municipal Advertising — W7iere the Statute Requires Papers of “Opposite Politics.”</p> <p>Whether two newspapers are of "opposite politics,” within the meaning of the statute relating to municiipal advertising, will be determined by their conduct and policy at a time when partizanship has sway and party organization and discipline finds expression in party platforms and declarations, rather than during a period when party feeling is quiescent and there is little or no political activity; and where a municipality enters into a contract for such advertising during the year following a presidential campaign, the question whether the two papers chosen are opposite or antagonistic in polities will be judged by their record during the campaign of the preceding year.</p>
- 30 Ohio C.A. 465Burnett v. State (1917)
<p>VIEWS OF VENIREMEN AS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MERCY</p> <p>Jury — Examination of Veniremen on Voir Eire in First Eegree Murder Oases — May he Questioned as to Their Vieios on Recommendation of Mercy.</p> <p>Inquiry by counsel for the state during examination of veniremen on their voir dire as to views which they may entertain as to recommending mercy if the evidence and the law require a verdict of murder in the first degree is proper for the purpose of ascertaining any bent of mind on the part of a venireman which might make him a fit subject for peremptory challenge.</p>
- 30 Ohio C.A. 481Chache v. Chache (1919)
<p>DIVORCE OBTAINED BY WIFE FROM NON-RESIDENT HUSBAND.</p> <p>Husband and Wife — Right of Wife to Acquire a Residence in Another State — Benefit of Divorce Laios Acquired by Her — Non-Resident Husband Bound by the Decree — Status of Such a Decree in other States.</p> <p>1. When a wife is justified in separating from her husband by reason of his aggression, she may lawfully select and acquire a residence separate from his.</p> <p>2. If the wife removes into this state and acquires a bona fide residence herein for the length of time required by our Code, she is entitled to the benefit of our divorce laws, although during all of the time she lived with her husband he was a resident of another state and continued to reside therein.</p> <p>8. Such a decree of divorce is binding within this state on both husband and wife, although the husband did not enter his appearance in the case and no service was had upon him other than by publication, as required by the Code in divorce proceedings.</p> <p>4. Such a decree of divorce is not entitled to obligatory enforcement in other states under the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution, but it may be given such degree of efficacy therein under the principle of comity as their own conception of duty and public policy may require.</p>