Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Anderson v. Poindexter

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1856Published

In error to the district court of Clermont county. The action below was assumpsit, brought to recover the amount of two promissory notes given to the plaintiff, dated August 22, 1848, each for $100, one payable in two, and the other in three years-after date. Poindexter was the principal in the notes, and Thomas C. G-owdy, Jackson "White, and Francis Donaldson were sureties.

Read the full summary

In error to the district court of Clermont county. The action below was assumpsit, brought to recover the amount of two promissory notes given to the plaintiff, dated August 22, 1848, each for $100, one payable in two, and the other in three years-after date. Poindexter was the principal in the notes, and Thomas C. G-owdy, Jackson "White, and Francis Donaldson were sureties. Poindexter was not served with process, and the suit has been prosecuted against and defended by the sureties. The general issue and two special pleas were filed by the defendants. *The first special plea alleges that the…

1ConcurrenceBrinkerhorr, J.

For the reason that the principles involved, in this case are of great moment, and are now regarded with general and peculiar interest, I will so far depart from the ordinary usages of the court as briefly to state separately the grounds on which I place my concurrence in the judgment we are about to render.

The case made in the pleadings and proof is this:

Henry Poindexter, held as a slave in Kentucky, executed, together with his co-defendants as sureties, to the plaintiff, Anderson, who claimed a legal right to hold him, the promissory note sued «on in the common pleas of Clermont county, in…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Collins v. AmericaCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1849

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

Powered by the Exa API