Douglas v. Waddle
Ohio Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration was by the indorsee of a promissory note against his. immediate indorser; it contained also the common money counts. The cause was tried in the supreme court of Ross county, and a verdict given for the defendant. A motion was made for a new trial, and the decision of the motion referred to this court for decision.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration was by the indorsee of a promissory note against his. immediate indorser; it contained also the common money counts. The cause was tried in the supreme court of Ross county, and a verdict given for the defendant. A motion was made for a new trial, and the decision of the motion referred to this court for decision. The facts were these: On the 6th of October, 1818, a note, drawn by James Barnes, payable to the plaintiff, Douglas, and indorsed by Douglas and the defendant, Waddle, was discounted by the office of discount and deposit of the Bank…
1Opinion of the Court
*By the Court :
The principle that the indorsee of a negotiable promissory note may sustain an-action against a previous indorser, upon the indorsement alone, without showing other consideration, was originally settled upon sound and correct notions of justice. And, in its application to a proper case, it is a rule which ought not to be disturbed. A promissory note was created as evidence of a real debt due from the maker to the payer. It was received and held as such. If transferred or indorsed by the payee, the indorsement, was a real, separate contract between the indorser and indorsee of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Renner v. Bank of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. OlinIdaho Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. OlinIdaho Supreme Court · 1987
- Smead v. BurnetOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1854
- Kelley v. FewOhio Supreme Court · 1849