Smead v. Burnet
Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati
Motion to set aside an amended entry of a judgment. This was an action against George W. Burnet, as the acceptor, and Edward M. Gregory and William Burnet as drawers of two bills of exchange. Upon a showing to the Court, and by agreement of the plaintiffs and George W. and William Burnet, the judgment was entered, so as to show, that Gregory and Burnet were the principals, and George W. Burnet the surety for the debt due.
Read the full summary
Motion to set aside an amended entry of a judgment. This was an action against George W. Burnet, as the acceptor, and Edward M. Gregory and William Burnet as drawers of two bills of exchange. Upon a showing to the Court, and by agreement of the plaintiffs and George W. and William Burnet, the judgment was entered, so as to show, that Gregory and Burnet were the principals, and George W. Burnet the surety for the debt due. This was done by an amendment, after the entry of the judgment had been made. Gregory, as to whom the judgment had been entered by default, now appeared, and moved to set…
1Opinion of the CourtGholson, J.
The whole question depends upon the proper construction of Section 449 of the Code. The origin of this Section is to be found, in the act regulating judgments and executions, passed Feb. 24, 1820, 2 Chase 1145, and the same provision, slightly modified but, perhaps, without any substantial change, has been continued to the present time.
*272Contemporaneous with the original adoption of this provision, the substance of which is, that the property of the principal debtor, without regard to the form of the contract, shall be first appropriated to the payment of the debt, was passed the act to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Douglas v. WaddleOhio Supreme Court · 1824
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rose v. MaddenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1863