Cullen & Vaughn Co. v. Bender Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, C. J.
We will first give consideration to the claim of the Bender Company that the proceeding in the conservancy court was an adjudication of the respective rights of the parties to this controversy. We have already seen that the claims of the parties to this action made in the conservancy court related to entirely different matters — the one claiming for damages for leasehold, the other damages to the freehold — and that they were both represented by the same attorney. True, the claim of the Bender Company was allowed, and the claim of the Cullen & Yaughn Company was rejected. It should be stated…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cornell-Andrews Smelting Co. v. Boston & Providence RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- State ex rel. Long v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- Carnation Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Tolt Land Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1918
- Yakima Water, Light & Power Co. v. HathawayWashington Supreme Court · 1897
- Dreier v. Kaw Valley Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of Kansas · 1925
3Cited by25 opinions
- County of San Diego v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- CHKRS, LLC v. City of Dublin, OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
- ISHA, Inc. v. RisserOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
- State v. New Jersey Zinc Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1963
- 23 Tracts of Land v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1949
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.