Armstrong v. Deshler
Ohio Supreme Court
This was an application for a Writ of Error to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Clarke county. Suit was brought by Deshler against Timothy Lyon, Peter A. Springman, Cyrus Armstrong, and Absalom Mattox, as joint makers of a promissory note, payable to the plaintiff or his order, at the Clinton Bank of Columbus. Process issued against all, and was returned, not served, as to Lyon. Springman, Mattox, and Armstrong, appeared and plead the general issue, verified by affidavit.
Read the full summary
This was an application for a Writ of Error to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Clarke county. Suit was brought by Deshler against Timothy Lyon, Peter A. Springman, Cyrus Armstrong, and Absalom Mattox, as joint makers of a promissory note, payable to the plaintiff or his order, at the Clinton Bank of Columbus. Process issued against all, and was returned, not served, as to Lyon. Springman, Mattox, and Armstrong, appeared and plead the general issue, verified by affidavit. The cause was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, and upon the trial, the following bill of…
1Opinion of the Court
Mason and Torbert argued in support of the application.
It was held that Lyon is an incompetent witness for the defendants, on the ground that, if a recovery should be had against them, he could be made a party to the judgment, by a proceeding in scire facias.
We contest this proposition, and on two grounds :
First: There is but one mode in which Lyon can be made a party to the judgment. This mode is prescribed by statute. Certain things must concur to render it available as a remedy. The deféndant must 477] “ reside” or, at least, be within reach of the ^process of the court. The writ of scire…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sheehy v. Mandeville & JamessonSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Robertson v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1821
- Le Roy, Bayard & Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Penny v. MartinNew York Court of Chancery · 1820
- President of the Bank of Columbia v. NewcombNew York Supreme Court · 1810
3Cited by32 opinions
- Alabama Great Southern Railroad v. CarrollSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
- Soltz v. Colony Recreation CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1949
- St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. v. GainesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
- Marysville Exempted Village School District Board of Education v. Union County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- Tierney v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.