DAVIES v. PARTRIDGE. (No 6,474.) __(Supreme Court of Ohio. Jan. 30, 1900.) Error to circuit court, Licking county. J. R. Davies, for plaintiff in error. Kibler & Kibler, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of the circuit -court vacated, and cause remanded to that court, with instructions to consider the bill of exceptions.

DUMM v. COLUMBUS CENT. RY. CO. (No. 5,983.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Oct. 24, 1899.) Error to circuit court, Franklin county. J. H. Collins and H. R. Wilson, for plaintiff in error. Merrick & Tompkins and Geo. C. Blankner, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

EISMAN et al. v. TRACY. (No. 6,655.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Jan. 9, 1900.) Error to circuit court, Scioto county. N. W. Evans and Duncan Livingstone, for plaintiffs in error. Henry Bannon, Pros. Atty., and Oscar W. Newman, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

EQUITABLE NAT. BANK v. JACOBS CORDAGE CO. et al. (No. 5,911.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Oct. 10, 1899.) Error to superior court of Cincinnati. Healy & Brannan and Edmund K. Stallo, for plaintiff in error. Follett & Kelley, Wilson & Herrlinger, and Goebel & Bettinger, for defendants in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

FARMERS' NAT. BANK OF FINDLEY V. DOTY. (No. 6,085.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Jan. 30, 1900.) Error to circuit court, Hancock county. Blackford & Byal and J. R. Metzler, for plaintiff in error. J. A. & E. V. Bope and Doty & Kibler, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

FIRST NAT. BANK OF NORTH BALTIMORE, OHIO, v. CENTRAL PRESS-BRICK CO. et al. (No. 5,942.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Dec. 22, 1899.) Error to circuit court, Wood county. Frank Taylor, E. H. Westenhaver, and Seney, Johnson & Friedman, for plaintiff in error. Baldwin & Harrington, H. F. Burket, and Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, for defendants in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, the record not presenting the -questions argued.

HAUSER et al. v. CURRAN et al. (No. 6,388.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Oct. 17, 1899.) Error to superior court of Cincinnati. Drausin Wulsin and Frank O. Suire, for plaintiffs in error. C. W. Baker, for defendants in

error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversing judgment at special term affirmed, and final judgment for defendants in error. And, the court being of the opinion that the evidence offered by the defendants below did not constitute a defense to the action, nor entitle the defendants to any legal relief by way of damages, and did not support the amended answer and cross petition by such proof as would have warranted the reformation of the written agreement between the parties, and its rejection would not therefore be prejudicial to the defendants, it is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the general term, reversing that of the special term, be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs to be taxed. And, proceeding here to render the further judgment that the general term, as well as the special, should have rendered upon the admitted facts, it is ordered and adjudged that the plaintiffs below recover of the defendants below the sum of $535, with interest at the rate of 8 per cent. from November 22, 1886, which amounts upon October 17, 1899 (the date of this judgment), to the sum of $1,086.63. It is further considered that the plaintiffs below recover of the defendants their costs in the court, and in the general and special terms of the superior court, to be taxed.

Neal and Albert Douglas, for plaintiff in error. W. H. Wiggins, for defendants in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

STANDARD OIL CO. v. KENNEDY et al. (No. 6,663.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Jan. 16, 1900.) Error to circuit court, Hamilton county. Kittredge & Wilby and Stallo, Richards & Shaw, for plaintiff in error. Pogue & Pogue, C. W. Baker, John W. Wolfe, J. Shroder, and George H. A. Lyford, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. As to Standard Oil Company, judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and that of the common pleas affirmed. As to Devere Electric Company, judgment of the circuit court affirmed. As to Drach's administrator, judgment of circuit court affirmed. From the judgment against the Electric Company, BURKET, DAVIS, and SHAUCK, JJ., dissent. MINSHALL, J., dissents from reversal of judgment against the Standard Oil Company.

STATE ex rel. ASHTABULA BANK CO. v. WILKINSON. (No. 5,996.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Oct. 24, 1899.) Error to circuit court, Lake county. Theodore Hall, for plaintiff in error. Wade & Betts, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, on authority of Board v. Andrews, 51 Ohio St. 199, 37 N. E. 260.

STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL V. RAILROAD CO. (Supreme (No. 6,860.) Court of Ohio. Dec. 12, 1899.) Quo warranto. F. S. Monnett, Atty. Gen., Barlett & Wilson, Hunt & De Ran, and Finch & Dewey. for plaintiff. Kinney & O'Farrell, John F. Kulmer, King & Guerin, and Henry A. Haigh, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. Demurrer to petition sustained, and petition dismissed, on the ground that the statute authorizes the consent given by the commissioners to the construction of the trolley road upon the turnpike.

STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. OF MINNESOTA. (No. 5,475.) SAME v. HOME INS. CO. OF NEW YORK. (No. 5,476.) SAME v. ROYAL INS. CO. OF LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND. (No. 5.489.) SAME v. LIVERPOOL & L. & G. INS. CO. OF LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND. (No. 5,490.) SAME v. LONDON & L. INS. CO. OF LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND. (No. 5,491.) SAME v. NORTH BRITISH & MERCANTILE INS. CO. OF LONDON AND EDINBURG, GREAT BRITAIN. (No. 5,492.) SAME v. CALEDONIAN INS. CO. OF EDINBURG, SCOTLAND. (No. 5.493.) SAME v. BRITISH AMERICA ASSUR. CO. OF TORONTO, CANADA. (No. 5,494.) SAME V. WESTERN ASSUR. CO. OF TORONTO, CANADA. (No. 5,495.) SAME V. MANCHESTER FIRE ASSUR. CO. OF MANCHESTER, ENGLAND. (No. 5.515.) SAME v. BUFFALO GERMAN INS. CO. OF BUFFALO, N. Y. (No. 5,519.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Dec. 12, 1899.) Quo warranto. F. S. Monnett, Atty. Gen., E. B. Kinkead, and Smith W. Bennett, for plaintiff. Harrison, Olds, Henderson & Harrison, Paxton, Warrington & Boutet, and M. R. Patterson, for defendants.

PER CURIAM. Causes dismissed on the ground that the evidence does not support the averments of the petitions.