Turner v. Chrisman
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the court of common pleas of Union county. In the court below, Chrisman, as administrator of Moore, sued Turner, in 1847, in an action of debt, upon a single bill executed by Turner to Moore, dated March 10, 1834, payable one day after date. The declaration contains special counts on the note, charging the indebtedness to the intestate, and the common counts averring the indebtedness to the administrator.
Read the full summary
Error to the court of common pleas of Union county. In the court below, Chrisman, as administrator of Moore, sued Turner, in 1847, in an action of debt, upon a single bill executed by Turner to Moore, dated March 10, 1834, payable one day after date. The declaration contains special counts on the note, charging the indebtedness to the intestate, and the common counts averring the indebtedness to the administrator. Plea, general issue, with notice that defendant would give in evidence a certificate of discharge under the bankrupt law of Congress, of August, 1841. On the trial the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtSpalding, J.
The action is brought by the personal representative of the payee against the maker of a sealed note. A count •on a promise to the intestate is. joined in the declaration with a count on a promise to the administrator. This is good pleading. Mr. Chitty says: “It is frequently necessary to add a set of counts on promises to the plaintiff, in his representative capacity, in order to admit of evidence of a promise or acknowledgment to the plaintiff, to take the case out of the statute of limitations.” 1 Chit. Pl., 7 Amer. ed. 438.
The promise to the administrator could be given in evidence under…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Baker v. WheatonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Depuy v. SwartNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Graham v. HuntCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1847