Dissenting Opinion, per JONES, J. not specifying a period of duration, is in perpetuity." "Where there is a limitation in the law of the state of duration for which easements in streets can be granted by municipalities, an easement granted for an indefinite period continues for the statutory period. "There is a distinction between a definite grant for a period longer than the law of the state permits and an indefinite grant; while the former may be altogether void as an effort to obtain that which is illegal, the latter is simply limited in duration to the period established by law, and during that time it is protected from impairment by the contract clause of the Constitution of the United States." This distinction is also noted in Old Colony Trust Co. v. Omaha, 230 U. S., 100. Another distinction is that in the Akron case there was a delegated power to the municipal council pertaining to gas-rate stipulations which they could agree upon from time to time, but in the present case the legislature has granted to the board of county commissioners the naked authority of permitting the county commissioners, outside. of municipalities, to grant an easement in the public highways, and to fix terms and conditions of construction. Sections 3438-3443, Revised Statutes. Regulatory powers are lodged in the county boards to make reasonable terms and conditions under which these highways shall be occupied, but they do not permit them to employ at their mere pleasure the destructive power endeavored Opinion Per Curiam. to be utilized in this case. This power is lodged in the legislature of the state. Upon the facts stated plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment of ouster. DONAHUE and NEWMAN, JJ., concur in the dissenting opinion. BARNER V. BARNER. Courts of appeals — Appeal and error―Jurisdiction in alimony — Must be challenged before decree entered, when. (No. 14859-Decided October 26, 1915.) ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county. Mr. Charles H. Olds, for plaintiff in error. Mr. T. J. Moffett and Mr. Paul Howland, for defendant in error. Judgment affirmed on authority of Cadwell v. Cadwell, ante, 23. Judgment affirmed. NICHOLS, C. J., JOHNSON, WANAMAKER, JONES and MATTHIAS, JJ., concur. Opinion Per Curiam. HESS, RECEIVer, et al. v. Beard. Supreme court-Dismissals-Constitutional questions not involved. (No. 14806-Decided November 9, 1915.) ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Miami county. Mr. L. E. Harvey, for plaintiffs in error. The court finds that the jurisdiction of this court in this proceeding in error was based on the allegation in the petition in error that it involves questions arising under the constitution of the United States and of the state of Ohio, and the court finds that the record does not disclose that the disposition of the case requires the consideration of any constitutional question, or that such question is involved. It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that this cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. NICHOLS, C. J., JOHNSON, DONAHUE, WANAMAKER, NEWMAN, JONES and MATTHIAS, JJ., concur. Opinion Per Curiam. HIRSCH V. THE CITY OF CINCINNATI. Supreme court-Dismissals-Constitutional questions not involved. (No. 14882-Decided November 9, 1915.) ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county. Mr. James S. Myers, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Walter M. Schoenle, city solicitor, and Mr. Edwin S. Morrissey, municipal court prosecutor, for defendant in error. The court finds that the jurisdiction of this court in this proceeding in error was based on the allegation in the petition in error that it involves questions arising under the constitution of the United States and of the state of Ohio, and the court finds that the record does not disclose that the disposition of the case requires the consideration of any constitutional question, or that such question is involved. It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that this cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. NICHOLS, C. J., JOHNSON, DONAHUE, WANAMAKER, NEWMAN, JONES and MATTHIAS, JJ., concur. Opinion Per Curiam. HOLMES, PRESIDENT, et al., BOARD OF TRUSTEES Police pensions-Sections 4616 to 4631, General Code-Suspension of payment-By board acting without authority-Mandamus proper remedy-Laches-Statute of limitations-Six yearsSection 11222, General Code. (No. 14954-Decided November 9, 1915.) ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county. Mr. Walter M. Schoenle, city solicitor, and Mr. Saul Zielonka and Mr. Charles Tatgenhorst, Jr., assistant city solicitors, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Denis F. Cash and Mr. Henry T. Hunt, for defendant in error. Judgment affirmed on grounds stated in the opinion of the court of appeals (5 Ohio App., 1). Judgment affirmed. NICHOLS, C. J., JOHNSON, DONAHUE, NEWMAN, JONES and MATTHIAS, JJ., Concur. THE MARYSVILLE WATER & LIGHT Co. v. THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO. Supreme court-Original jurisdiction-Injunction. (No. 14969-Decided December 11, 1915.) IN INJUNCTION. Messrs. Meeker & Gaskill and Messrs. Robinson & Hoopes, for plaintiff. |