COURT RULES. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. RULE 2-ORDER OF BUSINESS. The business of the general docket shall be proceeded in as follows: Section 1. It is hereby made the duty of the plaintiff, or party holding the affirmative, within five months after the filing of the petition in error, to have filed with the clerk ten printed copies of a brief or argument thereon, containing a statement of the questions presented and a succinct statement of so much of the cause, referring to the pages of the printed record, as is necessary to show how the questions arise, with marginal reference to the headings and points made, and whenever the constitutionality or construction of a statute is involved, the brief shall contain a copy of such statute; and for want of such printed copies being so filed, unless good reason be shown to the contrary, the cause will be dismissed for want of prosecution, or otherwise disposed of at the discretion of the court. Section 2. It is hereby made the duty of the defendant in error, or party holding the negative, if he desires to be heard, to file ten copies of a like brief, printed with like references, within seven months after the filing of the petition in error. Section 3. A copy of the printed record and of the brief of the plaintiff shall be served on defendant in error or his counsel forth66 N.E. (V) with; and the brief of defendant in error shall be served on opposite counsel, forthwith upon the filing of the same. All reply briefs must be filed and served on opposite counsel within eight months after the filing of the petition in error. Section 4. Proof of service of all briefs shall be, immediately after the making of such service, filed with the clerk. And failure to so file may be ground for dismissal of the cause. CHANGE OF RULE 20. It is hereby ordered that the following be substituted for rule 20, as adopted December 2, 1899, viz.: "No motion can be made or heard for a re hearing. Applications for rehearing must be made at the term at which the decision is announced, and within thirty days after such announcement. The application must be chief justice, and must be confined strictly to typewritten, and six copies thereof sent to the reasons for rehearing. No reargument of the and no rehearing will be granted unless recause on such application will be considered, quested by one of the concurring judges. Rule 20, as adopted December 2, 1899, is abrogated." December 19, 1902. v. (N. Y.).. .1104 Carpenter, City of Chicago v. (Ill.). 362 716 343 Borders, Illinois Southern R. Co. v. (Ill.).. 382 592 Boston & P. R. Corp., Bailey v. (Mass.).. 203 ... ... Cary, Cottle v. (N. Y.).. Chase, In re (N. Y.).. Carter, Riggs v. (N. Y.).. .1115 723 Carter, State v. (Ohio). 537 448 1106 599 462 1069 160 .1084 Bowen v. John (Ill.). Boyajian, Manzigian v. (Mass.). Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Ives (Ill.). Chicago City R. Co. v. Loomis (Ill.). 357 Chicago Horseshoe Co. v. Gostlin (Ind. 413 App.) 940 348 514 Boyajian, Najarian v. (Mass.). Boyd, Brack v. (Ill.).. .1073 413 Chicago, I. & L. R. Co., Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. (Ind. App.). 919 Boyd, Diamond Flint Glass Co. v. (Ind. Chicago, I. & L. R. Co., Wright v. (Ind. App.) 479 Sup.) 454 Boyden, Commonwealth v. (Mass.). 202 Boylan Mfg. Co. v. State (N. Y.). .1105 Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., Goddard v. (III.) 1119 Brack v. Boyd (Ill.)... .1073 Bracken, J. Wooley Coal Co. v. (Ind. App.) 775 Bradlee, Stone v. (Mass.). 708 Bradley v. Lightcap (Ill.).. Bradley, Coulter v. (Ind. App.). Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Flaherty (Ill.). 1083 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Gore (Îll). 546 Chicago & A. R. Co., Hogan v. (Ill.). 184 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Clapp (Ill.). 1063 Bradsby v. Wallace (II.).. .1088 Brantingham v. Huff (N. Y.). Brantingham v. Huff (N. Y.).... Branyan, State v. (Ind. Anp.).. .1105 Brazil Block Coal Co. v. Gibson (Ind. Sup.) 882 App.) .....1070 223 Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Wallace (Ill.). ..1096 620 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., Goddard v. (Ill.). 1066 Chicago & S. E. R. Co. v. Wood (Ind. 923 93 643 Cincinnati, H. & I. R. Co. v. Worthington 5 (Ind. App.) .1113 City of Boston, Leonard v. (Mass.). 530 City of Carthage v. Duvall (III.). City of Chicago v. Carpenter (Ill.). City of Chicago v. Singer (Ill.). City of Chicago, Dodge v. (Ill.). City of Chicago, Espert v. (Ill.). City of Chicago, Gage v. (Ill.). City of Chicago, Gordon v. (Ill.). City of Chicago, Gorton v. (Ill.). City of Chicago, McChesney v. (Ill.). City of Chicago, Washburn v. (Ill.). City of Chicago, Wells v. (Ill.). City of Greensburg, McKee v. (Ind. Sup.). 1009 .1117 City of Middleton, Farrell v. (N. Y.).. .1107 Brotherhood Acc. Co. v. Notter (Ohio). 528 City of Muncie, Muncie Natural Gas Co. Brown, Hopper v. (N. Y.). .1110 v. (Ind. Sup.). .1104 395 478 596 .1099 362 874 367 212 374 823 541 217 ..1033 ..1056 436 City of New York, Bank of Staten Island v. (N. Y.).. City of New York, Cassin v. (N. Y.). City of New York, Coleman v. (N. Y.).. City of New York, Crawford v. (N. Y.)...1106 City of New York, Downs v. (N. Y.). City of New York, Flynn v. (N. Y.).. ..1109 City of New York, Fortunato v. (N. Y.)..1109 411 City of New York, Griffith v. (N. Y.)... .1109 235 City of New York, Haven v. (N. Y.). .1110 833 City of New York, Hopfensack v. (N. Y.).. 11 418 City of New York, O'Connor v. (N. Y.)...1113 .1105 City of New York, O'Keeffe v. (N. Y.).... 194 ..1113 City of New York, Reisert v. (N. Y.).... 731 City of New York, Rogers v. (N. Y.).... City of New York, Sweeny v. (N. Y.). 101 City of North Adams, Miller v. (Mass.).. 197 City of Paxton v. Bogardus (Ill.). City of Rochester v. Bloss (N. Y.). .1104 .1109 .1106 .1107 .1115 Call v. People (Ill.)..... 853 ...1105 City of Terre Haute, Heinl v. (Ind. Sup.).. 450 243 City of Valparaiso v. Kyes (Ind. App.).... 175 |