McGonigale v. City of Defiance
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio
At Law. This is an action brought by the plaintiff, as receiver, on the 29th day of April 1904. After the ordinary allegations giving the court jurisdiction, the gravamen of the petition is as follows : “Plaintiff says that said defendant heretofore, by its certain ordinance and contract duly passed and published August 17, 1887, leased and rented of one Samuel R. Bullock & Co., their associates, successors, and assigns, one hundred and thirty (130) fire hydrants, and such…
Read the full summary
At Law. This is an action brought by the plaintiff, as receiver, on the 29th day of April 1904. After the ordinary allegations giving the court jurisdiction, the gravamen of the petition is as follows : “Plaintiff says that said defendant heretofore, by its certain ordinance and contract duly passed and published August 17, 1887, leased and rented of one Samuel R. Bullock & Co., their associates, successors, and assigns, one hundred and thirty (130) fire hydrants, and such other and additional fire hydrants in excess of said one hundred and thirty (130)' as might thereafter be furnished at…
1Opinion of the CourtTayler, District Judge
(orally). I want to say, in a preliminary way, that I appreciate the vast amount of intelligent and informing work that has been done by counsel in connection with this case. And it would seem that the court ought to be fairly well advised, at least, as to the views of counsel who have given to the case so much attention. Of course, I realize, as counsel do, that it is not possible for a court to give that degree of attention to the many and very important questions involved in this case which they have given. This is a case, not only at nisi prius, but before a jury, compelling a speedy…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Defiance Water Co. v. City of DefianceOhio Supreme Court · 1903
- Manhattan Trust Co. v. City of DaytonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1893
- Defiance Water Co. v. City of DefianceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio · 1898
3Cited by2 opinions
- Baxter, Trustee v. Village of ManchesterOhio Court of Appeals · 1940
- Wiese & Hanley v. City of Cincinnati, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1913