Legal Opinion

Cannon v. Miller Rubber Products Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 21, 1934No. 24275PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The essential question for our determination is, did the petition state good and sufficient causes of action against the plaintiffs in error?

This case comes within the provisions of Section 8125, General Code, being also Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, reading as follows:

"When [where] the instrument contains or a person adds to his signature words indicating that he signs for or on behalf of a principal, or in a representative capacity, he is not liable on the instrument if he was duly authorized. But the mere addition of words describing him as an agent, or as filling a…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Jump v. SparlingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
  2. New Georgia National Bank of Albany, Georgia v. J. & G. LippmannNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
  3. Briel v. Exchange Nat. BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
  4. Miller v. RoachMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
  5. Somers v. HansonOregon Supreme Court · 1915

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. v. ConnellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1939
  2. Ruwisch v. TheisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1945
  3. Bold Home Products, LLC v. CarbonKlean, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2022
  4. Fifty West Broad Street v. PoulsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1944
  5. Kaspar American State Bank v. Oul Homestead Ass'nAppellate Court of Illinois · 1939

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API