Combes v. Chandler
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the District Court of Summit county. The action, having been appealed to the district court, was there tried, and the following are the material facts: Benjamin Thompson, who is one of the defendants, made 'his four promissory notes, for $2,000 each, dated May 22, 1868, and payable March 20, 1870, 1871, 1872, and 1873. These notes were made “ to Frank A. Combes, as guardian of ITiram A. Combes and Samuel M. Combes,” and were non-negotiable.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Summit county. The action, having been appealed to the district court, was there tried, and the following are the material facts: Benjamin Thompson, who is one of the defendants, made 'his four promissory notes, for $2,000 each, dated May 22, 1868, and payable March 20, 1870, 1871, 1872, and 1873. These notes were made “ to Frank A. Combes, as guardian of ITiram A. Combes and Samuel M. Combes,” and were non-negotiable. Frank A. Combes, thus having the notes, in a trade with Samuel F. and "William E. Chandler, defendants, turned over three of them to the…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
Whether or not Woods was a bona fide •holder, we will not discuss at any length. Erom the evidence, it seems he resided in Massachusetts, and had loaned the Chandlers a considerable amount of money, for which he had their chattel mortgage. They offered to transfer him the Thompson notes, if he would cancel the mortgage, which was done. The Chandlers state that Woods knew nothing of the circumstances of the fraud.
Upon the evidence, the district court found that Woods was such bona fide holder. This was a question of fact, and we must regard the finding of the court below in the nature of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- McNeil v. . the Tenth National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Moore v. . Metropolitan National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- J. A. Hayward & Co. v. StearnsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870