Vanatta v. State Bank
Ohio Supreme Court
In error to tbe district court of Ashland county. The original action, the judgment in which is now sought to be-reversed, was brought by the State Bank of Ohio, against Nelson Yanatta and Ealph Yanatta, survivors of Jesse S. Yanatta, upon an, obligation of the following tenor: “Newark, Ohio, 28th April, 1852. Sixty days after date, for value received, we, or either of us, promise to pay the Licking County Bank, or order, at its office in Newark, Ohio, thirteen hundred…
Read the full summary
In error to tbe district court of Ashland county. The original action, the judgment in which is now sought to be-reversed, was brought by the State Bank of Ohio, against Nelson Yanatta and Ealph Yanatta, survivors of Jesse S. Yanatta, upon an, obligation of the following tenor: “Newark, Ohio, 28th April, 1852. Sixty days after date, for value received, we, or either of us, promise to pay the Licking County Bank, or order, at its office in Newark, Ohio, thirteen hundred dollars; and we hereby authorize and empower any attorney of any court of record in the United States of America, at any time…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
The judgment of the district court must be affirmed *26unless the facts stated in the answer of the defendants below, constitute a defense to both the causes of action set out in the petition..
It becomes necessary, therefore, to examine the validity of the defense set up in the answer, with reference to each of these causes of action.
And first, is the note described in the first cause of action stated in the petition void by reason of its form, in *being made payable to the Licking County Bank, or order.
The 64th section of the act, under which the Licking County Bank was organized, is as…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stoney v. American Life InsuranceNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
- Sam v. GreenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1819