Legal Opinion

Case v. Heffner

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1840PublishedCited by 1 opinion

This is an action of assumpsit from the'comity of Franklin. The suit was brought upon a bill of exchange by the holder 181] *against an indorser. The bill was made in New York, and all the original parties to it are, and were at the-time, citizens and residents of that state. The bill was indorsed before maturity by the defendant in the State of Ohio, and both the parties to the record are, and were at the time of indorsement, citizens of this state.

Read the full summary

This is an action of assumpsit from the'comity of Franklin. The suit was brought upon a bill of exchange by the holder 181] *against an indorser. The bill was made in New York, and all the original parties to it are, and were at the-time, citizens and residents of that state. The bill was indorsed before maturity by the defendant in the State of Ohio, and both the parties to the record are, and were at the time of indorsement, citizens of this state. On the day tne hill fell due, it was protested in the city of New York for non-payment, of which notice was duly given to the indorser. On the…

1Opinion of the CourtHitchcock, J.

Two questions are raised for the consideration of the court in this case.

1. Whether the protest was properly admitted in evidence.

2. Whether, under the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is entitled to six per cent, damages.

*These two questions are intimately connected, and the [183 decision of one must operate, in a great measure, to decide the *184other. If the protest was competent evidence, it is because the bill is considered as a foreign bill, and, if a foreign bill, then the plaintiff is entitled, under our statute, to the damages claimed. This statute makes a distinction between…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Townsley v. SumrallSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
  2. Buckner v. Finley & Van LearSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
  3. Slacum v. PomerySupreme Court of the United States · 1810
  4. Union Bank v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
  5. Miller v. HackleyNew York Supreme Court · 1810

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Opinion No. 77-210 (1977) Ag, Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1977

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API