Board of Education v. Thompson
Ohio Supreme Court
Error reserved in the District Court of Trumbull county; The plaintiff brought an action against-the makers, on-a promissory note, of which this- is a copy: “ $828.48. Ten months after date I promise to pay the Board of Education of Hartford Township, eight, hundred, and twenty-eight dollars and forty-eight cents, for value received, at seven per cent, per annum. “ Hartford, April 22,1872. “ H. B. Thompson, “A. O. "Woodkord, “Asa Newman.” Thompson makes no defense.
Read the full summary
Error reserved in the District Court of Trumbull county; The plaintiff brought an action against-the makers, on-a promissory note, of which this- is a copy: “ $828.48. Ten months after date I promise to pay the Board of Education of Hartford Township, eight, hundred, and twenty-eight dollars and forty-eight cents, for value received, at seven per cent, per annum. “ Hartford, April 22,1872. “ H. B. Thompson, “A. O. "Woodkord, “Asa Newman.” Thompson makes no defense. Woodford and Newman jointly file an answer, setting up two defenses, as follows : 1. “ That they are sureties merely of Thompson,…
1Opinion of the Court
Johnson, Chief Judge.
The second defense states that Thompson was treasurer of Hartford township from April, 1871, to April, 1872 ; that Bennett was elected his successor in April, 1872 ; was qualified and acted as successor of Thompson, who had in his hands about $800 of the school funds, which should have been paid over to Bennett, yet plaintiffs, in violation of law, and in aid of Thompson in the disregard of his duty, induced Thompson to keep-said money, and give therefor the note sued on, all of which was in contravention of the statutes and against public policy, and void.
The reply says…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Barton v. Port Jackson & Union Falls Plank Road Co.New York Supreme Court · 1854
- Spurgeon v. McElwainOhio Supreme Court · 1834
- Gamble v. WarnerOhio Supreme Court · 1847
- Beman v. TugnotThe Superior Court of New York City · 1851