Ohio Decisions (Volume 10)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1904. Excerpt: ... Action or Suit--Animals. ACTION OR SUIT--Continued. an abutting owner whose property rights will be impaired thereby, is not required to file a claim with the clerk of the city council under Sec. 5-1 of the municipal code, setting forth his damages, unless the improvement is to be paid for by special assessments, l'resentation of such a claim where such section is not applicable, and its refusal by the clerk on the ground that the time limit for its filing has ex-pired, does not bar the abutter's rignt to recover his damages. Ib. Action for tuition under 95 O. L. 71 should be brought against the town-ship board of education alone. Board of Ed. v. Hoard of Ed. 62 Mere privilege to apply for a cer-tificate to practice dentistry under a previous act, but not acted upon until after the enactment of a new law is not a cause of proceeding under Sec. 79 Rev. Stat. State v. Board of Deut. Exam. 245 ADVANCEMENTS--A defense to an action between the original parties on a promissory note alleging the consideration therefor to be advancements, made from a father to his daughter, its execution and de-livery as a mere receipt or memorandum thereof, and the mutual uuderstand-ing of the parties to such effect, is not irrelevant or immaterial as it shows a want of consideration or a fraud, although the answer does not express-ly so charge. Martin v. Scuddcr. 283 ADVERSE POSSESSION--When the statute of limitations once begins to run in favor of a predecessor in title who claims adversely, such adverse user continues in favor of subsequent grantees. Happ v. Rail-way. 172 An intention to hold by adverse pos-session must be shown by the most clear and satisfactory evidence where the possession is claimed by one with-out title or color of title, and where the possession is mere...