Ludwig Hommel & Co. v. Incorporated Village of Woodsfield
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
It is conceded that the orders listed in the petition, signed in several instances by every member of the board of public affairs of the village of Woodsfield, were sent to the electrical company; that the supplies were furnished in accordance with the orders; that the village accepted each shipment of goods, and used the meters, without complaint. The controlling question in the case is whether plaintiff should be denied recovery because of the fact that bids were not advertised for and authority of council not received for entering into the contract, under the provisions of Section 4328 of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Morse v. Commissioners of Granite CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1897
- Hill County v. Shaw & Borden Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1915
- Gaddis v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
- Gilbert v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
3Cited by15 opinions
- Richard Olsen v. Gerald T. McFaul SheriffCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
- Brown v. Columbus Stamping & Mfg. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1967
- Layne-Western Co. v. Buchanan CountyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936
- Worldwide Asset Purchasing v. Sandoval, 2007-Ca-00159 (7-14-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- Village of Eastlake v. DavisOhio Court of Appeals · 1952
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.