Banks v. De Witt
Ohio Supreme Court
.MaNDAMus. On June 23, 1884, Banks & Brothers, of New York, made application to this court for a writ of mandamus, and presented a petition therefor, which, omitting caption, signature of counsel and verification, is as follows : “ Your petitioners, David Banks & A. Bleeeker Banks, partners as Banks & Brothers, respectfully' represent, that on April 17, 1882, the general assembly of Ohio passed the following joint resolution : ‘Joint Resolution providing for the publication…
Read the full summary
.MaNDAMus. On June 23, 1884, Banks & Brothers, of New York, made application to this court for a writ of mandamus, and presented a petition therefor, which, omitting caption, signature of counsel and verification, is as follows : “ Your petitioners, David Banks & A. Bleeeker Banks, partners as Banks & Brothers, respectfully' represent, that on April 17, 1882, the general assembly of Ohio passed the following joint resolution : ‘Joint Resolution providing for the publication of the Ohio State Reports and the advance sheets of the same. Be it resolved by the general assembly of the state of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The sole question here is whether, under the contract set forth in the petition, Banks & Brothers, in view of the admitted facts contained in the statement of the case, have a right to publish vols. 41 and 42 Ohio State Reports. In holding that they have such right we will simply state our conclusions.
1. The assignment of the contract by H. W. Derby & Co. to Banks & Brothers, and the acts of the state in accepting the latter in place of the former as contractors, operated as a complete novation, so that Banks & Brothers assumed the *274obligations and acquired the rights of H. W.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- City of St. Louisex rel. Sullivan v. ClemensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Cummings v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1871