Section 16 of the Mechanics' Lien Law of 1877, 74 O. L., 668, now sec. 3203, Rev. Stat., includes all as- signments of whatever character and whenever made. Bank v. Cin- cinnati. 545 Under the foregoing rules the liens for material furnished tractors with a municipal corpora- tion in the construction of a sewer are not defeated or postponed by an assignment by the contractors their claims against the city to a bank, to secure advances to carry on the work, although such assignment was made prior to the time when the liens were acquired. Ib.
The words "who has furnished," as used in said section, are not in- tended to designate or fix qualifica- tions of time with reference to the assignments that are governed by but the act, are intended as descriptio personarum.
Ib. The delivery contemplated by the Mechanics' Lien Law, is a deliv- ery which vests in the head contract- or the title or ownership of the ma terials for which a lien or claim to priority is sought. Ib.
A party who, in good faith, fur- nished 1,849,000 brick under an es- timate that 1,900,000 would be re- quired for a certain sewer improve- ment, the brick being delivered on the cars and hauled by the contract- or to where they were needed for the work, is entitled to a lien for the full amount of his claim, although 55,000 of the brick, after they had passed out of his possession, were diverted and used in another improvement; and although, under the circum- stances stated, he knew that the bricks were so used and made no ob- jection. Ib.
The delivery of brick along the line of a proposed improvement, where the time in which it was to be completed was uncertain and the quantity of brick to be used could not be determined in advance, and where the brick were received sub- • ject to approval by the city engineer, amounts to a simple tender of the
material and the delivery, which the statute will run against the lien of the material man, is not complete until the material is ac- cepted by the city engineer.
An action to foreclose a mort- gage given to secure a promissory note is not triable by jury. Brigel v. Creed. 214
But one satisfaction of the debt can be had and any attempt upon the part of plaintiff to impose upon the defendant by securing a double sat- isfaction would be prevented by a court by proper proceedings.
Before the decree in the fore- closure suit was entered the same plaintiff brought another action on his note in which he sought a per- sonal judgment against the defend- ants. The same defenses were set up in the second action as in the first. Upon the trial of that case, in order to prove the indebtedness of the defendants to him, the plaintiff introduced the record in the other case, in which appears the finding of the amount due on the note. The court allowed the introduction of the record and held it to be conclusive on the question of the amount due. Ib.
In an action to foreclose the de- cree may contain a provision that if the proceeds of sale shall not be suf- ficient to pay the costs and the in- debtedness, the plaintiff shall have an execution for the deficiency. Ib.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-
An ordinance, granting a fran- chise to operate a natural gas plant, where the terms of eight members of the council expired before it was fi- nally passed and the terms of fifteen other members expired before it could take effect by publication, is void under sec. 1691, Rev. Stat., whereby a council is prohibited from entering into a contract which is not to go into full operation during the term for which all members were elected. Kerlin Bros. Co. v. Toledo. 509
Bids for a natural gas plant, owned by a municipal corporation, indivisible parts of one transaction; contract of sale not completed until the passage of the franchise and gas rate ordinances; and where the con- tract was not so completed during
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-Con. the term for which all members of the council were elected, all pro- ceedings relative to a sale void. Ib.
Where the bidders included in their bid the granting of an ordi- nance fixing satisfactorily to them- selves the price they should charge for gas, and such ordinance was not mentioned in the advertisement, for bids, there was no competition as to that ordinance and it was not com- petent for the council to enter into a contract based on such a bid. Ib.
Where a natural gas plant own- ed by a municipal corporation is of- fered for sale, which must be made under sec. 2673a, Rev. Stat., some action of the council, by order, reso- lution or ordinance, indicating intention to offer the plant for sale, is necessary, inasmuch as, by ex- press terms of the statute cited, the offer can be made only upon vote of three-fifths of the members of the council. Ib.
A resolution directing the city clerk to advertise for bids for a nat- ural gas plant, is a resolution of both a general and a permanent nature, within the meaning of sec. 1694, Rev. Stat. Ib.
Where part of a natural gas plant consists of real estate, and the council offers it for sale as an en- tirety, in order to make a valid con- tract, it is necessary to proceed un- der sec. 2673a, Rev. Stat., requiring advertisement for bids; and in order to secure free and fair competition the bids should respond to the ad- vertisement. Ib.
Under the governmental act for the city of Columbus, an ordinance which had been read on two sep- arate days before the regular elec- tion for councilmen, may, after the annual organization of the council following said election, be read a third time and passed. The unfin- ished business of the old council does not die with the expiration of the terms of the old members, although under the law in question, the terms of all members, save where by operation of law a successor is not elected and qualified, expire at the same time and an entirely new membership is elected. Smith v. Railway Co. 441
A vote on the passage of an ordi- nance of a general or permanent nature without having such ordi-
nance read on three different days, or such reading properly dispensed with, is a vain and useless act, and, whether favorable or unfavorable to the ordinance, is a nullity. Ib.
Advertising for bids is not a misapplication of corporate funds, where individuals have subscribed a sufficient sum to meet the expense thereof, and the sum is subject to the order of proper officials. Aydelote v. Cincinnati. 710
The provisions of sec. 2473, Rev. Stat., requiring the owners of two- thirds of the ground of a square to petition for an ordinance blocking such square against the erection of wooden buildings, are jurisdictional and without such a petition the council has no right to act. Bed- ford v. Tarbell.
A widow owning a dower inter- est in such a square, is an owner within the meaning of the statute to the extent of such interest and may petition therefor; but such widow has no right to sign for the remaind- er of the property. Ib.
Section 2473, Rev. Stat., permit- ting municipal councils, upon proper petition, to pass ordinances prohibit- ing the erection of wooden buildings whose outer walls are not of iron, stone, brick, cement or mortar, or some of them, does not authorize an ordinance prohibiting the erection of "any wooden building" and an or dinance to that effect is void. Ib.
A property owner is not estop- ped from contesting the validity of such ordinance, on any ground, by having signed and filed the petition therefor. Ib.
An injunction granted on a pe- tition by a municipality to prevent defendant from completing a wooden building within a square blocked by an ordinance against the erection of wooden buildings, which ordinance was held to be invalid and the in- junction to have been wrongfully granted, was ancillary and only the expenses incurred by the injunction itself, not the expenses in contest- ing the suit, can be allowed in a suit on the bond. Tarbell v. Ennis. 346
A municipality has no power to make the violation of such an ordi- nance criminal or to make the or- dinance penal in its nature. Such power, if it exists, must be delegat- ed in specific terms. Cline v. Spring- field. 389
Municipal Corporations - Negligence.
The term "any gas company," when used in such an ordinance, is general and comprehends natural as well as artificial gas companies, al- though, at the time of the passage of the ordinance, the use of natural gas was unknown. Ib.
The mere fact that city officials effected a saving to the city by the adoption of a certain method of con- tracting, would not make an act valid which the law declares is in- valid or authorize payment under the ordinance in question. Scio (Vil.) v. Hollis. 99 ordi-
Under an appropriating nance, in a city of the first grade, first class, containing the following item: "For Main Pipe Extension: Salaries and wages $5,000; material and supplies, $9,200," the work of laying main pipe could not be done by one who undertakes to do a cer- tain amount of work for a fixed sum, over which work the city authori- ties would have no power except to see that the terms of the contract were complied with, because money SO paid is neither "salary" nor "wages." Ib.
Nor could the material and sup- plies be paid for under the ordinance in question, inasmuch as they are not bought by the city by direct and independent contract, but are includ- ed in and to be paid for with the completed job. Ib. See also REAL PROPERTY; WIT-
NATURAL GAS TRUSTEES-
See OFFICES AND OFFICERS.
The law requires the utmost care and skill which prudent men are accustomed to use under similar circumstances, but the rule is not to
be pressed to an extent whica would make the conduct of a business so expensive, as to be wholly imprac- ticable. Dussel v. Street Rd. Co. 631
In an action for personal inju- ries caused by the negligence of de- fendant, it is not necessary for plain- tiff to allege that the injury was caused without negligence on her part, but having as pleaded, and is- sues having been taken thereon, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the defense of contributory negli- gence, the same as if affirmatively alleged in the answer.
"Proximate cause" from which a man of ordinary ex- perience and sagacity would foresee that the result would follow, that the injury was of such a character as might reasonably have been fore- seen or expected as the natural and ordinary result of the negligence complained of. ib.
There is no absolute rule requir- ing one driving along a street upon which are the double tracks of a street railroad, to either stop, look or listen before crossing such tracks, or to look back one or more times before going upon the tracks, to as- certain whether or not there is a car operated by electricity coming from behind, in such a manner as to prob- ably or inevitably bring about a col- lision. The question whether or not the conduct of a party in driving up- on the tracks of a street railroad constitutes negligence should, in each case, be submitted to the jury. Lewis v. Street Railway. 53
It is not negligence per se to ride upon the platform of a railroad car: and where a passenger in a crowded railway car surrendered his seat to a lady and went out upon the platform, intending to go into an- other car, and it is alleged that the other cars were also crowded, and it is also alleged that plaintiff could not get back into the car which he had left on account of its crowded condition, it cannot be said that he was negligent in remaining on the platform. Shrum v. Railway Co.
Where a petition alleges that a car was so overcrowded that the plaintiff was obliged to ride upon the platform, and that the train broke in two, and the passengers inside the ca rushed out and crowded the plaintiff off of the car, causing him
The fact that an employee in a factory, after being caught in a cyl- inder, did not use the devices for his safety, in the form of a rope or lever which would have stopped the cyl- inder, would not be such negligence as would prevent recovery, provid- ing the defendant was guilty of neg- ligence. Connors v. Golding. 614
To recover in an action against the owners of a factory for personal injuries caused by the negligence of an employee, it is necessary to prove that he was the representative of the defendant for the time being at least and that he had authority to direct and control the plaintiff, but it is immaterial by what man- ner he was commissioned with such authority, whether by express di- rection or not. Ib.
The burden is on the plaintiff to show that the injury was caused by the negligence complained of, with- out regard to whether the defendant was negligent in other respects. Ib.
A railroad conductor, in the dis- charge of no duty connected with his employment, riding on a pass upon another train than his own, from the point of destination of his train to his place of residence, with the consent, permission and knowl edge of the conductor of the other train, is not a fellow servant of such conductor; and the negligence of the latter will not defeat a recovery by the former for injuries caused by the negligence of the conductor in control of such train. Railway Co.
See also RAILROADS.
An error in overruling a motion for a new trial, which the court de- clines to grant unless applicant will give bond, is waived by subsequently giving the bond and obtaining the new trial. American Exchange Bank v. Brenzinger. 208
A party who voluntarily, with- out fraud or mistake, gives a bond required as a condition to a new trial, granted in furtherance of jus- tice and to which applicant was not legally entitled, and who receives the benefit of a new trial, is estopped from denying liability under the bond. Ib.
The granting of a new trial, un- der circumstances stated, where no legal right thereto existed in favor of the applicant, constitutes a suffi- cient consideration for the bond re- quired. Ib.
It is not the duty of the court in all cases to either absolutely grant or overrule the motion for a new trial. Cases frequently arise where the motion for a new trial is address- ed to the discretion of the court and in such cases, if a new trial is grant- ed, it may be granted upon condition. Ib.
Where the applicant for a new trial, through the inadvertence or misapprehension of his attorney, failed to offer material evidence up- on the first trial and voluntarily, without fraud or mistake, gives a bond to pay any judgment rendered against him in a new trial, which is granted upon the giving of the bond, not because applicant was entitled thereto, but solely in furtherance of justice, such bond, unless prohibited by statute, constitutes a valid com- mon law obligation. Ib.
Juror listening to the conversa- tion of an interested party addressed to some third person, which may have been prejudicial to a party to the case, sufficient cause to warrant the court in granting a new trial, even though it is not shown, as a matter of fact, to have influenced the verdict. Briggs v. Rowley. 177
A petition for a new trial filed under sec. 5309, Rev. Stat., must set out the issues upon the former trial and the evidence given thereon, to- gether with the newly discovered evidence; setting forth merely the newly discovered evidenc is not suf- ficient. Ib.
If the character of newly discov- ered evidence merely tends to im- peach that of a witness upon a for- mer trial, it is not newly discovered evidence within the meaning of the term, as used in sec. 5309, Rev. Stat., and will not avail as a ground for a new trial. Ib.
New Trial-- Offices and Officers.
The rule with regard to all nui- sances is, that the injury occasion- ed thereby must be real and sub- stantial, and such as impairs the or- dinary enjoyment, physically, of the property within its sphere. Thus, where the effect of vibrations, caus- ed by the use of drop hammers in a factory, when it reaches residences in the neighborhood, is so slight as to be almost imperceptible, no action lies therefor. Shaw v. Forging Co. 107
In deciding whether noises con- stitute a nuisance, the test is wheth- er the noise is of such a character as would be likely to be physically an- noying to a person of ordinary sen- sibilities, or whether the trade out of which such noise arises, is carried on at such unreasonable hours as to disturb the repose of persons dwell- ing within its sphere; and regard must also be had to the quality as well as to the quantity of the noise.
The operation of drop-hammers in a factory in a residence neighbor- hood results in a degree and kind of noise that would be productive of ac- tual physical discomfort and annoy- ance to a person of ordinary sensi- bilities. Ib. There is a time for work and a time for rest and where one seeks to work all the time, to the discom- fort and disquietude of his neighbor and to a deprivation of the natural rest to which the neighbor is enti- tled, as by the operation of a factory, in a residence district, both night and day, there is a material inter- ference with the neighbor's rights, for which he is entitled to a remedy. Ib.
Where a nuisance is sought to be enjoined, and the injury com-
plained of is the destruction of the comfortable use and enjoyment of plaintiff's homes, by reason of noises resulting from the operation of ma- chinery by defendant, it is not neces- sary that the plaintiff, before apply. ing for equitable relief, should estab- lish his right by an action at law. Ib.
In an action to enjoin a nui- sance, the defendant cannot avail itself of the fact that the plaintiff located in the vicinity subsequent to the establishment and operation of defendan's plant, when it appears that the nuisance complained of is caused by increased noises caused by a change of methods in operating the plant and made subsequent to plaintiff's location. Ib.
An injunction restraining a nui- sance should be withheld for a rea- sonable time to give the defendant an opportunity to abate the nuisance if he so desires. Ib.
OFFICES AND OFFICERS—
Public officers, as such, have no right to bring suits in their own names, unless authorized to do so by statute; and as the statute no- where gives natural gas trustees such authority, they have no power to bring suit to enjoin the sale of a natural gas plant belonging to the corporation. Kerlin Bros. Co. v. To- ledo. 509
While public officers may be des- ignated as trustees, or directors, or agents, they are not in any sense trustees of an express trust. Nat- ural gas trustees, therefore, have no authority, by virtue of sec. 4995, Rev. Stat., providing that the trus- tee of an express trust may bring an action without joining the person for whose benefit the suit is prose- cuted, to bring suit to enjoin the sale of a natural gas plant by the corpo- ration. Ib.
Section 2966-3, Rev. Stat., pro- viding for the appointment, qualifi- cation, etc., of deputy state super- visors, is not unconstitutional from a lack of uniformity in eliminating from its operation cities governed
by other statutes. Under the au- thority of State ex. rel. v. Buckley, 60 Ohio St., 273, when a statute upon a subject of a general nature is made to extend to the whole state in one part thereof, and in another part an attempt is made to limit its opera- tion to territory less than the state,
« 이전계속 » |