McComb v. Kittridge
Ohio Supreme Court
This case comes before this court on motion for a new trial, reserved in Huron county.' The cause was tried at the August term of the Supreme Court, 1845, and a verdict found for the defendant, under the charge of court. The facts, and law of the case, were reserved for consideration at court in bank, upon a written agreement as to what papers and depositions should be in evidence.
Read the full summary
This case comes before this court on motion for a new trial, reserved in Huron county.' The cause was tried at the August term of the Supreme Court, 1845, and a verdict found for the defendant, under the charge of court. The facts, and law of the case, were reserved for consideration at court in bank, upon a written agreement as to what papers and depositions should be in evidence. The note upon which suit is brought, was given by Moses Kim-ball, John Miller, Picket Latimer, and the defendant Kittridge, to James Gilruth, for $2,000, dated September 1, 1836, payable November 26, 1836, indorsed…
1Opinion of the CourtRead, J.
The pleadings admit, and. the proof shows, beyond doubt, that Kittridge was surety. Gilruth swears that the note was given for money loaned ; that the whole negotiation was with Kimball, with whom he always dealt in relation to the demand ; that the note continued his property until September 18, 1837. This was long after it was due, about ten months.
The part of Gilruth’s testimony upon which the defense mainly relies, is as follows: On February 9, 1837, the witness was at Norwalk when the note was given, and called upon Kimball for pay, who excused himself, and wanted delay; and it was…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Evans v. IngersolOhio Supreme Court · 1864