Rossman v. McFarland
Ohio Supreme Court
In error to the district court of Butler county. This suit was brought in the court of common pleas of Butler *eounty, to recover judgment against John Rossman, upon a promissory note which reads thus: “ $900.00. Hamilton, March 8, 1842. “Ninety days after date, we, or either of us, promise to pay to the order of the assignees of the Bank of Hamilton, at their office in Hamilton, nine hundred dollars, for value received. “McCleary & Johnson, “John Rossman, security.”
Read the full summary
In error to the district court of Butler county. This suit was brought in the court of common pleas of Butler *eounty, to recover judgment against John Rossman, upon a promissory note which reads thus: “ $900.00. Hamilton, March 8, 1842. “Ninety days after date, we, or either of us, promise to pay to the order of the assignees of the Bank of Hamilton, at their office in Hamilton, nine hundred dollars, for value received. “McCleary & Johnson, “John Rossman, security.” The plaintiff declared specially on the note, and added the common counts. Plea — the general issue. The cause was appealed to…
1Opinion of the CourtPeck, J.
The only points relied on for the reversal of the judg*303ment in this case, are : 1. The improper exclusion, *by the court below, of testimony offered by the plaintiff in error; 2. That the original note, of which the note sued is a mere renewal, was in law paid, and consequently that the note in suit was without any consideration to support it; 3. That even if the note in suit was, at its inception, a valid note, it having been retained by the payees until alter its maturity, should have been treated and regarded by the court below as paid off and discharged.
1. Did the court below err in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hampton v. ShehanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845