Spafford v. Bradley
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the Supreme Court of Hamilton county. *Tho plaintiff in error brought suit in the commercial court of Cincinnati, upon two promissory notes given to him by the defendant, Bradley, and dated, “Detroit, November 8, 1847”—the first in the sum of $158.67, payable in three months, and the second for $159.12, at four months; and both made payable at the Commercial Bank in Cincinnati.
Read the full summary
Error to the Supreme Court of Hamilton county. *Tho plaintiff in error brought suit in the commercial court of Cincinnati, upon two promissory notes given to him by the defendant, Bradley, and dated, “Detroit, November 8, 1847”—the first in the sum of $158.67, payable in three months, and the second for $159.12, at four months; and both made payable at the Commercial Bank in Cincinnati. The defense was, that the notes were given on a transfer of stock in “the Cincinnati and Presque Isle Mining Company of Lake Superior,” which stock was claimed to be without value, and, consequently, it was…
1Opinion of the CourtSpalding, J.
The record before us nowhere shows that the decision of the Supreme Court on the circuit turned exclusively upon the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial.
We find, however, that this is the only matter assigned for error deserving of much consideration, and, in our examination of the subject, will assume the proposition of plaintiff’s counsel to be true; that no other sufficient cause of reversal was found by the court to exist in the record.
By the act of March 12, 1845, entitled “ an act to regulate the judicial courts and the practice thereof,” it is provided that in all cases…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Cresswell v. McCaigNebraska Supreme Court · 1881
- Sternberger v. HannaOhio Supreme Court · 1884