Clinton Bank ex rel. Rhodes v. Neil
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a writ of error, reserved in the county of Franklin. *The original action was assumpsit, and was tried in the court of common pleas of that county. The case was tried by the court, without the intervention of the jury upon an agreed statement of facts, and judgment rendered-for the defendants.
Read the full summary
This is a writ of error, reserved in the county of Franklin. *The original action was assumpsit, and was tried in the court of common pleas of that county. The case was tried by the court, without the intervention of the jury upon an agreed statement of facts, and judgment rendered-for the defendants. The agreed statement, including the copy of the note, is as follows : . “April 16, 1846. “ $600. Three months after date, we, or either of us, promise to pay the president, directors, and company, of the Clinton Bank of Columbus, or order, $600, at their bank, for valued received. [Signed,] “E.…
1Opinion of the Court
^Birchard, C. J.
The first assignment of error presents
the question, whether the agreed facts in this case are properly a. *242■part of the record. In the case of the Bank of Virginia v. Bank of Chillicothe, decided at this term, it was held that when .a cause was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury to try the facts as well as determine the law, the finding of the court upon the facts can not be brought under review by writ ■of error, unless the evidence be made part of the record by bill of ■exceptions. It is urged that this case is like that, and concluded by it. A slight…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Miller v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Bank of Rutland v. BuckNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Utica Bank v. GansonNew York Supreme Court · 1833