Oakwood city v. Fulton

Counsel for plaintiff in error in support of his contention that pro rated dividends be allowed upon the full amount of the claim as of the date that the Superintendent of Banks took charge without deductions cites the case of Myers v Bank, 173 U. S., 131. There is no question that this authority supports the contention of plaintiff in error, but is this the law in Ohio?

It is a well recognized principle that if the Supreme Court of Ohio has promulgated and announced a legal principle it is binding on all inferior courts in the State, even though it may be contrary to the rule announced in the…