Lewis v. State ex rel. Harrison
Ohio Circuit Courts
cited: 94 O. L., 396; Sec. 20, Art. 2, Const.; Sec. 2813a, Rev. Stat; 94 O. L-, 622; Sec. 1078, Rev. Stat. Henderson v. Commissioners, 4 Col. App., 301- [35 Pac. Rep. 880] ; State ex rel. v. Raine, 49 Ohio St., 580 [31 N. E. Rep. 741 ]; Mechem on Pub. Off., Sec. 826; 1 Dillon on Mun.
Read the full summary
cited: 94 O. L., 396; Sec. 20, Art. 2, Const.; Sec. 2813a, Rev. Stat; 94 O. L-, 622; Sec. 1078, Rev. Stat. Henderson v. Commissioners, 4 Col. App., 301- [35 Pac. Rep. 880] ; State ex rel. v. Raine, 49 Ohio St., 580 [31 N. E. Rep. 741 ]; Mechem on Pub. Off., Sec. 826; 1 Dillon on Mun. Cor., 315; Evans v. Trenton, 24 N. J. L., 764; Strawn v. Commissioners, 47 Ohio St. [26 N. E. Rep. 635]; Anderson v. Jefferson Co., 25 Ohio St., 13 ; McClave v. Miller, 25 Ohio St., 14; In re Lease’s Claim, 2 Circ. Dec. 386, (4 R.3); Halpin v. Cincinnati, 3 Dec. (Re.), 58; Debolt v. Cincinnati Tp., 7 Ohio St.,…
1Opinion of the CourtJelke, J.
The question in these cases is whether or not an allowance of five dollars per day can be made to the auditor, each of the county commissioners and the county surveyor, as members of the decefmial county board of equalization, under what is known as the Hendley-Royer law, viz., Sec. 2813, Rev. Stat., as amended by the Hendley law, 94 O. L., 246; and by the Royer law, 94 O. L., 336; and construed by the Supreme Court in State ex rel. Guilbert, Auditor, v. Halliday, Auditor, 63 Ohio St., 165.
It is contended by counsel for the auditor that the defendants in error are all county officials, and…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United States v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Hope v. Hamilton CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1898
- State ex rel. McGrath v. WalkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- McBride v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- City of Detroit v. RedfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.