2. The president of a corporation, to whom a bond has been delivered by the board of directors in trust for sale, has no right to convert such bond to his own use in payment of a claim due him from the corporation, without the consent of the board of directors.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

2. Where such dangerous substances and a 3. A director or stockholder of a corporation, dwelling house, are both situated on the same parcel of land, and subject to the same general may be compelled by an equitable action, to ownership, the dwelling house should be re-surrender to the corporation, a bond which garded, in this connection, as situated on ad- he holds in trust for it, but which he claims to hold in his own right. joining premises, if it is in the possession of and occupied as a family residence by a tenant; even if such tenancy be at will, only, by a servant of such owner, and his occupancy is with qut a fixed rental, but is part of the compensation paid for his services, and such services are performed in or about the business with which such dangerous substance is connected.

4373. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. James H. Smith et al. Error to the circuit court of Licking county. WILLIAMS, C. J.

1. A judgment rendered upon a finding of the issues in an action is conclusive as between

the parties, upon all the material facts involved, and they cannot be contested in any subsequent proceeding in the same action so long as the judgment remains in force.

3. A guest, by the express or implied invitation of such tenant, is rightfully at his residence; and if while there as such guest, such dangerous substance so collected on the adjoining premises escapes by the fault of the person who collected it and injures her person, she may maintain an action against him to re-tory liability of the stockholders of a corporacover damages sustained on account thereof. Judgment affirmed.

2 Where, in an action to enforce the statu

tion, the petition contains appropriate allegations of the am unt and nature of the claims of the plaintiffs, the insolvency of the corporaBURKET, J., dissents to the second syllabus. tion, and the ownership of the stock by the 4100. Isaac S. Meeks v. Roxanna M. Still-defendants with the number of shares owned well et al. Error to the circuit court of Miami county.

SPEAR, J.

1. The rule that delivery of a deed of gift may be to a stranger for the use of the grantee implies that the instrument truly expresses the intention of the grantor. But where the instrument so delivered does not express the real intent of the grantor, and has not been recorded nor actually delivered to the grantee, the grantor may lawfully resume possession of the instrument and correct it so that it will

conform to the real intent.

2. If, after such correction, there is a valid delivery, the grantee's title will be such as is given by the corrected instrument.

3. Equity will not reform a deed of gift so as to give it an effect contrary to the intention of the grantor.

4.

Where husband and wife, being in possession of a homestead, the title to which is in the wife, join in a deed of gift intending that it shall not be delivered until after the decease of both. and the wife attempts to delive such deed during the life of the husband without his knowledge and consent, the right of the husband in the homestead will not be affected by the deed.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plain

tiff in error.

3830. The Greenville Gas Co. v. James A.

Reis et al. Error to the circuit court of Darke ounty.

с

by them respectively, and on the trial there has been a finding that the allegations are true, and the issues for the plaintiffs, followed the amount found due them, as may be apporby judgment that defendants pay the creditors tioned among such of the defendants as are solvent, the judgment, until reversed or vacated by proper authority, is a final determination of the validity of the plaintiff's claims, the insolvency of the corporation, the ownership of the stock and the number of shares held by each owner, that the action was not barred, and that the proper parties were before the court.

3. Appropriate proceedings thereafter, in carrying the judgment into execution, do not tion of fact involved in it, but relate to the apinclude a retrial of, or inquiry into any quesportionment of the liability among the solvent stockholders according to their respective ownerships as determined by the judgment; and a valid assessment cannot be made against a stockholder on any greater number of shares.

Judgment modified by reducing the assessment againt the plaintiff in error, and in other respects affirmed.

3707. Jonas Henline et al. v. William T. Error to the circuit court of Wood

Rees.

county.

WILLIAMS, C. J.

While a ministerial officer is not obliged to serve process in his hauds, when he has

New cases filed in the supreme court since May 20, 1896 :

4999. Charles Cheseldine et al. v. John J. Chester, trus Error to the circuit court of Franklin county. J. T. Holmes and M. R. Patterson, for plaintiffs.

5000.

The Merchants' & Farmers' Bank of

3529. Christopher J. Kuhner et al. v. Mercer D. Naylor et al. Error to the circuit court of Lawrence county. Judgment affirmed. 3781. H. P. Lloyd, Trustee, etc., v. The West-Hicksville, O., v. Marvin H. Sanger, treasurer of ern National Bank of New York. Error to the superior court of Cincinnati. Judgment affimed.

4015. Abram Flory et al. v. Frederick Voglemier. Error to the circuit court of Licking county. Judgment affirmed.

4075. John C. Goodman v. Alice G. Black. Error to the circuit court of Ashland county. Judgment affirmed.

4148. L. T. Paine et al, as Trustees of Montville Township v. A. C. Norton. Error to the circuit court of Geauga county. Judgment affirmed.

4159. E. C. Chaney v. Cannon, Radebaugh & Co. Error to the circuit court of Franklin county. Judgment affirmed.

4796. Joseph C. Shields, Treasurer, v. Isaac N. Topliff. Error to the circuit court of Cuyahoga county. Judgment affirmed on the authority of Hunter, Treas., v. Borck, 51 Ohio St., 320.

Motion Docket.

the state of Connecticut et al.

Error to the

circuit court of Defiance county. Harris & Cameron, for plaintiff. B. B. Kingsly, John W. Winn, Henry Hardy, Harris & Cameron, D. E. Doyle, W. II. Hubbard, McCauley & Welier and S. T. Sutphin, for defendants.

5001. The Broadway & Newburgh Street Ry. Co. v. Joseph H. Schmitt, Adm'r. Error to the circuit court of Cuyahoga County. F. Jay Pinney, for plaintiff. Kline, Carr, Tolles & Goff, for defendant.

5002. Charles J. Weaver v. The C., S. & II. Ry. Co. Error to the circuit court of Franklin county. J. L. Hampton and L. D. Addison, for plaintiff. Harrison, Olds & Henderson, for defendant.

5003. Owen McGrath et al. v. Catherine Cowen et al. Error to the circuit court of Hamilton county. Kramer & Kramer, Kamsey, Maxwell & Ramsey, for plaintiffs John son & Levy, for defendants.

5004. John B. Harrison et al. v. H. H. Vance. Error to the circuit court of Fayette county. Joseph Hidy, for plaintiffs. Humphrey Jones, for defendant.

5005. James V. Magers, Assignee, v. Francois
Error to the circuit court of Seneca
George E. Seney, Thomas L. Magers,
Leahy, for plaintiff.

Lannoy. county. John W.

2655. The Stranahan Brothers Catering Co. V. Frank R. Coit. Motion by plaintiff to reinstate cause No. 3880, on the general docket. Motion allowed. 2656. William L. Robinson v. The Board of Trustees, Richland township, Henry county. 5006. James V. Magers, Assignee, v. Pauline Motion by plaintiff to reiitstate cause No. Lannoy Berthe. Error to the circuit court of 4145, on the general docket. Motion over-Seneca county. George E. Seney, Thomas L. ruled. Magers and John W. Leahy, for plaintiff,

2657. The N. Y. & O. R. R. Co. et al. v. John 5007. The National Union v. Emma RothMcGovern. Motion by defendant to advance ner. Error to the circuit court of Cuyahoga cause No. 4927, on the general docket. Mo-county. Burton & Dake, William Howell, for tion allowed. Briefs to be filed within plaintiff. E. J. Ingersoll, J. F. Clark, for derules.

fendant.

THE OHIO DECISIONS SERIES,

COVERING EVERY BRANCH OF OHIO CASE LAW.

SUPREME COURT. One volume a year advance sheets of decisions announced by the Supreme Court.

FEDERAL COURTS. One volume a year of cases decided in Federal Courts held in Ohio, covering Ohio cases.

CIRCUIT COURTS. One volume a year containing all reported cases decided by the Circuit Courts of Ohio.

LOWER COURTS. One volume a year made up of select cases decided in the Superior, Common Pleas and Probate Courts.

This series began in 1894, but will e filled soon by reprints of earlier cases, with additions of many unpublished ones.

THE PROMINENT FEATURES OF. THIS SERIES ARE: Large Volumes. No reports ever published in Ohio have had half the amount of matter, or the completeness and correctness.

Advance Sheets. The cases decided each week are put in type by us as fast as received, and advance sheets of the matter for the different volumes printed, and sent out weekly as a supplement to the OHIO LEGAL NEWS, free to all its subscribers.

Permanent Bound Volumes take the place of returning the weekly parts or binding, as the advance sheets are upon poor paper, not for binding, and may be destroyed when the bound volumes are received. In this way, instead of having the weekly parts loose about the office, some of which become lost, and the whole inaccessible, you get indexed volumes for quick reference, as soon as complete.

SUBSCRIPTION PRICE.

Volumes bound in full sheep, delivered to subscribers, $2.50 per volume. With volumes one, two and three, the Ohio Digest for 1895 without charge.

The Cheapest, Fullest and Best Ohio Reports, and as official as possible, as every decision is read and approved by the rendering court before final publication.

THE LANING PRINTING CO., Publishers,

NORWALK, OHIO,

if desired: but no advance sheets of the Ohio Decis-give his opinion concerning the right of the ions will be supplied back of the commencement of state board of dental examiners to grant a

The circuit court of Cuyahoga county reduced the verdict of Miss Agnes Gleason which was

Entered at the Postoffice, Norwalk, Ohio, as second awarded her by the jury in the common pleas

Our supreme court has adjourned till June 9.

The application of the attorneys of Levi J. Martin, now in the penitentiary annex under sentence of death for murder, for leave to file a petition in error, has been granted by the Martin was entenced to be hanged June 5, but the granting of this application will postpone his execution. The heating on the petition in error will take place October 7.

supreme court.

The supreme court has laid down an interesting principle of law in its decision of the case of the village of Conneaut v. Louis Y. Nacf. The finding in this case is that one who goes voluntarily upon an accumulation of ice on a walk of a village, cannot maintain an action against such village for the personal injuries resulting to him, if the source of the damage was plainly visible. The case, it will be seen, is governed by the question of contributory negligence.

In the recent case of Newbegin v. Pullman Palace Car Co., which arose by Newbegin beThe case of the State v. J. Bohu, which was ing put off the car in the middle of the night recently tried in the lower courts of Cuyahoga because he had the wrong ticket, and being county, has been carried to the supreme court thinly clad, he alleges that he thereby caught Bohu, who had been arrested and fined $25 for cold, and in consequence his health was im- the alleged removal of one-third of the fatty paired, for which he asked damages to the ex-substance of cocoa and the substitution therefor tent of $1800 and recovered a verdict of $1, which was affirmed in the circuit court, and the supreme court affirmed the judgment of the

circuit court.

of glucose, starch and other substances. The Justice held that Bohn was guilty of adulteration within the meaning of the law; it was carried to the common pleas court which af

cuit court overruled the holding of the two lower courts, and held that Bohn had not committed adulterations within the meaning of the law. The state has asked leave to file a petition in error in the supreme court. As the law is not exactly settled on this point the decision of the supreme court will be awaited with in

For a woman to be tried as an habitual erim-firmed the holding of the justice, but the cirinal is something not heard of very often. Such a case is now being tried by the Franklin county common pleas, and the unfortunate woman who is being tried goes by the name of Maggie Costello, who has been indicted for pocket picking, and the indictment also charges her with being an habitual criminal. She seems to be greatly affected in her present trial, and while the impanelling of the jury was going on, she seemed to feel the gravity of her situation, for if she is convicted of the charge of being an habitual criminal she will go to the penitentiary for life. It is not often that a female becomes so hardened as to be placed in the category of habitual criminals.

terest.

The Dow tax law has brought forth a great many perplexing, as well as interesting, questions of law for the county auditors to decide. A question involving the above named law was recently handed by the county auditor of Cuyahoga county to County Solicitor Kaiser for his decision. The question reads as follows: "A brewer who manufactures lager, etc., desires to

purpose of bottling and selling beer in bottles by the case. Is he liable under the Dow law, and must he pay the Dow tax if he sells in quantities of one gallon or more at one time?"

Dealers in cigarettes throughout the state are at sea as to whether the act which prohibits the sale of these articles to minors under six-start a bottling works near his brewery for the teen years of age applies to girls. A great many of the dealers are of the opinion that it is applicable only to the boys, and with this mistaken idea, the dealers have been as they thought, evading the law by selling cigarettes to little girls, who have been sent to purchase them by their brothers. The question has been brought to the notice of the attorney general, who holds that the law is applicable to both boys and girls, as it says "minors under sixteen years of age," and makes no discrimination as to sex. How the dealers could have anrived at such an erroneous conclusion is hard ➜ conceive.

The question did not seem to be a very ifficult one for the solicitor to answer, as he immediately penned the following to the auditor: "The phrase 'trafficking in intoxicating liquors' does not include the manufacture of intoxicating liquors from the raw material, and the sale thereof at the factory by the manufacturer of the same in quantities of one gallon or more at any one time. The brewer is liable."