Railway Co. v. Cronin
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to tbe District Court of Ross County. The defendant in error commenced an action against the plaintiff in error, before a justice 'of the peace, on July 24, 1876. In his bill of particulars he states his cause of action in the following language: “ The said plaintiff, Dennis Cronin, says, that the firm of Spotts, Frank & Co., contractors for building a part of the Scioto Yalley Railway, was indebted to him, said Dennis Cronin, in the sum of $15.43, for work and labor…
Read the full summary
Error to tbe District Court of Ross County. The defendant in error commenced an action against the plaintiff in error, before a justice 'of the peace, on July 24, 1876. In his bill of particulars he states his cause of action in the following language: “ The said plaintiff, Dennis Cronin, says, that the firm of Spotts, Frank & Co., contractors for building a part of the Scioto Yalley Railway, was indebted to him, said Dennis Cronin, in the sum of $15.43, for work and labor bestowed by said plaintiff in grade-making upon the line of said railway. That said amount is yet due to said plaintiff,…
1Opinion of the CourtLongworth, J.
The cause of action upon which suit was originally brought was created by the act of March 31, 1874 (71 Ohio Laws, 51), entitled “ an act to secure pay to persons performing labor and furnishing materials in constructing railroads,” and the solution of the questions raised in this court depends upon the proper construction of its terms. These questions we shall treat in the following order.
1st. Was the bill of particulars sufficient?
2d. Was parol evidence of the contents of the notice properly received ?
*1253d. Was the written notice sufficient under the statute 3
4th. Did the lapse of more than…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lessee of Holt's Heirs v. Hemphill's HeirsOhio Supreme Court · 1827