Stump v. Rogers
Ohio Supreme Court
This was a bill in chancery, adjourned here from Pickaway county. The facts, material to be reported, were as follows: In the year 1816 the complainant and others indorsed a note for the defendant, W. Rogers, which was discounted by the Bank of Chillicothe. It was not paid, and separate suits were brought, and separate judgments rendered. Part of the amount was made upon-execution against W. Rogers, and part against the other indorsers.
Read the full summary
This was a bill in chancery, adjourned here from Pickaway county. The facts, material to be reported, were as follows: In the year 1816 the complainant and others indorsed a note for the defendant, W. Rogers, which was discounted by the Bank of Chillicothe. It was not paid, and separate suits were brought, and separate judgments rendered. Part of the amount was made upon-execution against W. Rogers, and part against the other indorsers. Nothing was paid by tli'e complainant upon the judgment’against him. The bill was brought to subject certain real estate, charged to have been fraudulently…
1Opinion of the Court
The court decided the question of fraud in favor of the complainant. Whether the complainant could come into a court of equity to charge the principal debtor’s estate with the debt, not having acquired at law a right to sue the principal by payment of the money, was a question which arose in the consideration of the cause, and the court held that a security might ask a court of chancery to aid in subjecting the estate of the principal to the payment of the debt, without first advancing or paying the money, as he must do before he could sue an action at law.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co. v. KeysOhio Court of Appeals · 1932
- McConnell v. ScottOhio Supreme Court · 1846
- Schick v. OttOhio Circuit Courts · 1905