Volume 9 — Ohio Circuit Court Reports, New Series

<p>SPECIFICATIONS ON BIDDING ON PUBLIC WORK MUST BE DEFINITE.</p> <p>1. The provision in 97 O. L., Ill, and 98 O. L., 53, requiring a judge or judges of the court of common pleas to appoint the four members of a court house commission (other than the county commissioners) and to fix their salaries does not render these acts unconstitutional in that legislative and executive powers are thereby conferred.</p>

<p>Error to Medina Common Pleas Court.</p>

Tbis action was to recover for the royalty upon a large' number of tons of coal mined and shipped by the Hutson Coal Company. The action was by Ann Hughes, Fanny Johns and Askenas L. Davies, heirs at law of John A. Davies, deceased.

While the opinion announced in this case at a former hearing and reported in 6 C. C. — N. S., 426, may possibly be construed as holding that the failure of the plaintiff to look down and observe where she was stepping, was, under any circumstances of the case, as matter of law contributory negligence; yet it is manifest that the court did not intend to so hold, else it would have rendered judgment for the defendant instead of remanding the case for a new trial, as the fact…

“The defendant must have maliciously shot Abram E. Freeman as charged in the indictment, and the shooting must have been done with the intent either to maim, wound or kill the said Abram E. Freeman.” Now, as I have said, a great many authorities have been cited, and we can not take time to discuss them. I call attention to them, however, so that the stenographer may preserve them. They are: 32 Atl. Rep., 787, a Maine case,- 58 O. S., 676; 22 Ala., 9, found in 58 Am.

<p>AWARDING OF CONTRACTS BY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.</p> <p>County Commissioners — Bids and Bidding — For County Bridges — Mandamus to Compel Award to the Lowest Bidder — Discretion of Commissioners — Contracts which Need not he Awarded to the Lowest Bidder.</p> <p>1. It is not improbable that mandamus will lie to compel county commissioners to award a contract for a public improvement to the lowest and best bidder, when th'e statute requires such action on their part, and it appears by undisputed evidence, or concession in pleadings, that one of the bidders is the lowest and best, and that the commissioners are fraudulently colluding for the award of the contract to another bidder.</p> <p>2. But where the petition fails to disclose that the contract is one which the commissioners are required to award by public bidding, the fact that they did advertise in regular form for bids with a reservation of the right to reject any or all, does not afford ground for compelling them to accept the lowest and best bid, or for complaint because an amendment was permitted to one of the bids after expiration of the time fixed for their filing, whereby better figures were obtained for the county.</p>

As I have said, this property consisted of the equipment of certain oil leases, situate in Hancock county. It is averred that these were sold under a foreclosure sale, and that Mr. Percy was the purchaser. It, was sold as the property of Mr. Niece. Mr. Niece was formerly the owner of the leases and equipment, and it was sold under incumbrances on account of debts contracted by Niece.

<p>TRUSTS FOR. CHARITABLE PURPOSES.</p> <p>2. The individual beneficiaries of a charitable trust must necessarily be vague and uncertain, and it is sufficient if a class is designated from whom the trustee can select.</p> <p>3. A trustee clothed with the power of administering a trust fund for such public charity has, without special delegation thereof, incidental authority to select from the classes named the individual beneficiaries thereof.</p> <p>5. Direction given trustee in' administration of his trust.</p>

<p>[Circuit Court of Lucas County.]</p>

This case comes into this court by appeal. From the evidence we find that the plaintiff, and those under wrhom he claims title, have used, without let or hindrance, a right of way over and across the premises- of the defendants, from his property to the public road, for a period largely in excess of twenty-one years next preceding the commencement of this action.

This is an action for specific performance and is in this court on appeal. It was heard on demurrer to the petition, although an answer of the defendant was submitted and contained admitted facts which the court might consider in the event that the demurrer was overruled and leave given the defendant to answer.

This case, as specially provided by statute, is in the nature of an appeal from the report and finding of the board of deputy state supervisors of Brown and Clermont counties, which counties constitute a common pleas subdivision. The petition challenges the report made by the boards, of the result of the election for judge of common pleas court at the November election, 1906.