Seely v. State
Ohio Supreme Court
This case is a proceeding in the nature of a Bill in Chancery, and was before the court at the last term. It is reported in llih Ohio Reports, 501. At that term the following decree was entered ; This case came on to be heard upon the bill of the complainant, and. the exhibits thereof; the answer of the said defendant, the testimony of witnesses, the report of the master, and the exceptions thereto.
Read the full summary
This case is a proceeding in the nature of a Bill in Chancery, and was before the court at the last term. It is reported in llih Ohio Reports, 501. At that term the following decree was entered ; This case came on to be heard upon the bill of the complainant, and. the exhibits thereof; the answer of the said defendant, the testimony of witnesses, the report of the master, and the exceptions thereto. Upon consideration whereof, it is the opinion of the court that the complainant is entitled to recover for the cost of the construction of said tail-race, or canal and basins thereon so by him…
1Opinion of the Court
Birchard, Judge.
This case is the same that is reported in 11 Ohio, 501, and is before us on a petition for rehearing, which, by consent, is to be treated as a bill of review, and on exceptions to the master’s report.
It is contended that the court erred, on the first hearing, in determining that a good cause of action was made by the case, and that the proper parties were before the court.
The basis of the first supposed error is the alleged want of a contract unperformed by the state. In determining the ease, as reported in 11 Ohio, all the points now presented, and not arising upon the report…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. MacDanielSupreme Court of the United States · 1833
- United States v. FillebrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1833
- Heirs of Emerson v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Milnor v. MetzSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
3Cited by1 opinion
- Westfall v. DunganOhio Supreme Court · 1863