Spink v. Keating

Ohio Supreme Court

Spink v. Keating

6 Ohio St. (N.S.) 206

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 15, 1856·Published

Opinion

Bartley, C. J.

This motion is overruled. It is not deemed necessary to assign the reasons for this decision. In the case of Thompson v. Steamboat Julius D. Morton, 2 Ohio St. 26, as well as in the case of Keating v. Spink, this court held that the jurisdic[207]*207tion of the state courts, under the water-craft law of Ohio, was •concurrent with that exercised by the federal courts. We are not disposed to depart from these well-considered decisions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bartley, C. J.

This motion is overruled. It is not deemed necessary to assign the reasons for this decision. In the case of Thompson v. Steamboat Julius D. Morton, 2 Ohio St. 26, as well as in the case of Keating v. Spink, this court held that the jurisdic[207]*207tion of the state courts, under the water-craft law of Ohio, was •concurrent with that exercised by the federal courts. We are not disposed to depart from these well-considered decisions.

Spink v. Keating, 6 Ohio St. (N.S.) 206 (Ohio 1856).

Pincite

6 Ohio St. (N.S.) 206 (Spink v. Keating) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.