Forbes & King v. Espy, Heidelbach & Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the superior court of Cincinnati. The original action was brought by the plaintiffs in error, against the defendants in error, upon a draft for $168.82 drawn by the defendants upon their correspondent in New York city, in favor of Cochran, Holmes & Co., and by them indorsed to Charles Clark, (a fictitious name) and in that name indorsed in blank.
Read the full summary
Error to the superior court of Cincinnati. The original action was brought by the plaintiffs in error, against the defendants in error, upon a draft for $168.82 drawn by the defendants upon their correspondent in New York city, in favor of Cochran, Holmes & Co., and by them indorsed to Charles Clark, (a fictitious name) and in that name indorsed in blank. The draft was presented, payment refused, by previous directions of the defendant, and protested, and due notice given to defendants. The issues joined by petition and answer were submitted to the court below upon an agreed statement of…
1Opinion of the CourtMcIlvaine, J.
There is no objection made as to the-length of time this bill was in circulation before it was transferred to plaintiffs; and it is admitted that they received it without any knowledge of the fraudulent practices of Mara,, and that they paid full value for it.
The question, then, in the case, is this: Can the defendants, as against the plaintiffs, who are bona fide holders for value, set up the fraud practiced by Mara upon Cochran, Holmes & Co. as a defence to this action ? It is conceded, that the defendants may do so if Cochran, Holmes & . Co. could set it up if the action were against them;…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lane v. KrekleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
- Frazier v. MasseyIndiana Supreme Court · 1860
- Keegan v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867