Pierce v. Harper
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the Uijited States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio; John 1VL Killits, Judge. Action at law by Cora H. Harper against E. C. Pierce. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Suit toy Cora H. Harper against If. C. Pierce upon a promissory note.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the Uijited States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio; John 1VL Killits, Judge. Action at law by Cora H. Harper against E. C. Pierce. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Suit toy Cora H. Harper against If. C. Pierce upon a promissory note. Defendant Pierce purchased from E. L. Hart an interest in the firm, of Dart & Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, and agreed to pay for such interest the sum of §10,000 “ouc of the profits of the business of Hart & Co.” He gave his promissory note for §10,000, payable to E. E. Hart “out of the…
1Opinion of the CourtSessions, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The defense pleaded was that the note was given and obtained without consideration. Hence the burden was upon paintiff to establish by a preponderance of the evidence a valuable consideration for the note. Ginn v. Dolan, 81 Ohio St. 121, 90 N. E. 141, 135 Am. St. Rep. 761, 18 Ann. Cas. 204. Has she sustained that burden ?
[1,2] The note itself, when produced and introduced in evidence, carried with it the presumption that it was given for a valuable consideration. Section 8129, General Code of Ohio. Such consideration may consist either of an advantage or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Weissinger Tobacco Co. v. Van BurenCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
3Cited by4 opinions
- Jones v. Alvin State BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1960
- Wentz v. ScottCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1926
- Sharick v. SzefcykOhio Court of Appeals · 1934
- Hance Hardware Co. v. HowardSuperior Court of Delaware · 1939