Avery v. Vansickle
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the District Court of Huron county. The original action was brought to subject the separate estate of Ann Avery, wife of Charles Avery, to the payment of the sum found due on their promissory note, which was in the following words and figures: “$1,030. New IjOKDOn, Huron County, O., July 6, 1870. “Two years after date, we promise to pay to the order of George Vansiclde the sum of one thousand and thirty'dollars, with interest payable annually in Now London, Ohio.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Huron county. The original action was brought to subject the separate estate of Ann Avery, wife of Charles Avery, to the payment of the sum found due on their promissory note, which was in the following words and figures: “$1,030. New IjOKDOn, Huron County, O., July 6, 1870. “Two years after date, we promise to pay to the order of George Vansiclde the sum of one thousand and thirty'dollars, with interest payable annually in Now London, Ohio. Value received. Int. to commence July 27, 1870. “ Charles Avert, “Am Avert.” The note was secured by a mortgage executed…
1Opinion of the CourtBoynton, J.
The first error assigned upon the record is that the action below was one in which the parties were *273entitled to a trial by jury, and, consequently, that the same was not appealable to the district court. This question was, in effect, settled by Jenz v. Gugel, 26 Ohio St. 527, and. Allison v. Porter, 29 Ohio St. 136. In the latter case, it. was held that section 28 of the code, as amended March 30, 1874, did not create a new cause of action in favor of, or against, a married woman, where none existed before,, but that the section, as amended, was intended to prescribe-the eases in which she…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Ballin v. . DillayeNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Allison & Townsley v. PorterOhio Supreme Court · 1876
- President of Columbus v. HartOhio Supreme Court · 1855
- Reynolds v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1876