Volume 31 — Ohio Circuit Court Reports, New Series

<p>APPEAL FROM REFUSAL OF COMPENSATION TO INJURED WORKMAN.</p> <p>Workmen’s Compensation Law — Appeal from Refusal of Industrial Commission to Allow .Compensation — Appeal—How Perfected— Employer Required to he Made Defendant — When Employer May he Made Defendant After More than Thirty Days from Date of Filing Appeal.</p> <p>1. Where an employee was injured on the 1st day of April, 1917, in the service of an employer who had elected to pay compensation directly to its injured employees and upon refusal of the employer to pay compensation, a claim for an allowance was filed with the Industrial Commission which also denied compensation and on the first day of March, 1918, notified claimants that: “Compensation is denied,” and an appeal is tafeen to the court of common pleas within thirty days from the date of final action hy the Commission, the act or amendment óf 1917 (107 O. L., 157-162) passed March 20, 1917, effective June 28, 1917, applies with reference to whom should he made defendant, rather than the act or amendment of 1913 (103 O. L., 88, Section 43; Section 1465-90, General Code), and therefore the employer instead of the Industrial Commission should be made defendant, although the cause of the action arose under the act of 1913.</p> <p>2. An appeal from the final action of the Industrial Commission is perfected under Section 1465-90, General Code, when within 30 days after notice of rejection by the Commission a claimant files his notice or declaration of appeal in the Court of Common Pleas showing the refusal of such Commissinn to allow compensation.</p> <p>3. Where an appeal is filed hy a claimant for compensation, within 30 days after notice of final action hy the Commission under the act or amendment of 1917 (107 O. L., 157-162) and the commission instead of the employer is made defendant and later, on motion, is dismissed, the appeal is effective against the employer who may, by proper amendment, be made defendant hy leave of court, and out of rule, as in other civil actions, and more than thirty days from the date of filing the appeal.</p>

<p>AUDITOR’S CERTIFICATE NECESSARY TO VALIDATE CONTRACT FOR A PUBLIC BUILDINC.</p> <p>Clerk’s Certificate When Bonds are LaiofuTly Authorised — Sections 5660 and 5661 Construed — Restrictive Statutes to he Strictly Construed.</p> <p>1. Under the provisions of Section 5660 of the General Code, when money for a public building is to be derived from the sale of lawfully authorized bonds, a contract for such improvement, or any part thereof, is void unless the auditor or clerk of the board first certifies that the money required for the payment of such obligation or appropriation is in the treasury to the credit of the fund from which it is to be drawn.</p> <p>2. Where there is only one bond issue authorized, but several separate contracts are entered into with separate contractors, the auditor or clerk must file, a separate certificate for each of such contracts.</p> <p>3. The restrictive statutes of the state are enacted for the general good, and for the protection not only of the contractor but also of the tax-payer, and their provisions will be strictly adhered to, and it devolves upon those who deal with public officials to see for themselves that the statutes have been complied with.</p>

<p>HABEAS CORPUS DOES NOT LIE TO SECURE RELEASE OF A DEPENDENT CHILD.</p> <p>Dependent Child — Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court — Citation to Parent not Necessary — Remedy of Parent — Habeas Corpus does not Lie.</p> <p>1. Service of citation upon the parent of a child in a proceeding under Sections 1647 and 1648, General Code, is not a eendition precedent to jurisdiction over the child.</p> <p>2. Such parent,'who has not been cited, must seek his remedy in the first instance in the juvenile court of which such child is a ward.</p> <p>3. An action in habeas corpus in the court of common pleas can not be maintained to secure the custody of a child committed by the juvenile court.</p>

<p>HABEAS CORPUS CAN NOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A PROCEEDING IN ERROR.</p> <p>Habeas Corpus — Does not Lie for Release of One Convicted in a Court Without Jurisdiction — Defendant a Minor Who Should have been Taken Before the Juvenile Court.</p> <p>1. Proceedings in babeas corpus will not be allowed to take tbe place of proceedings in error. If a judgment in a criminal case is "erroneous, but not absolutely void, it can not be collaterally attacked.</p> <p>2. Habeas corpus will not lie to secure tbe discharge of a minor wbo was indicted for a felony and convicted in tbe court of common pleas but wbo did not challenge tbe jurisdiction of the court until motion for a new trial, or prosecute error on tbe ground that be was under eighteen years of age and should have been first taken before tbe juvenile court in accordance with tbe provisions of Section 1659.</p>

<p>MONEY DEPOSITED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER.</p> <p>Trusts — 'Voluntary Express Trust Created by Deposit of Money for Benefit of Another, When — Pass Book Retained by the Depositor — No Power to Revoke the Trust, When,</p> <p>1. Where one declares an intention to deposit money in a savings account for the ‘benefit of another and makes the deposit in his own name in trust for such other person and subsequently declares that fact; then, although the person making the deposit, retains the pass-book and withdraws from the account certain sums by check, such declarations, coupled with the deposit in presentí creates a voluntary express trust which is completed by the deposit and the designation of the one making the deposit as trustee.</p> <p>2. It is not necessary to a completion of such trust that the settlor part . with the possession of the trust property.</p> <p>3. The withdrawal by the settlor of certain sums by check from the money on deposit does not annul such trust; there being no power of revocation reserved in' the creation of the same.</p>

<p>ILLEGAL REGULATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT OF BARBER SHOPS.</p> <p>Constitutional Law — Police Power Must be Exercised Within Constitutional Limitations — Ordinance Regulating Barber Shops as a Sanitary Measure — Made Violative-of Constitutional'Rights by its Drastic Provisions.</p> <p>Police powers are not superior to constitutional limitations, and legislative action based on such power is subject to judicial review; and where action thus taken is unreasonable, oppressive, confiscatory and in contrayention of the right to carry on an occupation with due regard to law and the health of the community, injunction lies against its enforcement.'</p>

<p>EFFECT ON DEFEATED PARTY OF HIS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT.</p> <p>Motion for Directed Verdict — Submitted ' by Both Parties — Too Late for Defeated Party to• Withdraw Motion after Adverse Decision Tnereon..</p> <p>After both plaintiff and defendant have moved the court for an instructed verdict in their favor and the court has granted the motion in favor of one of the parties, it is too late for the other party to withdraw his motion and have the case submitted to the jury.</p>