Citizens' Bank v. Closson
Ohio Supreme Court
Motion for leave to file a petition in error to reverse the judgment of the District Court of Ashland county. This was an action by the Citizens’ Bank against Clos•son, upon a promissory note alleged to have been made by him to R. R. Eenner & Co., or order, and indorsed to the bank before due.
Read the full summary
Motion for leave to file a petition in error to reverse the judgment of the District Court of Ashland county. This was an action by the Citizens’ Bank against Clos•son, upon a promissory note alleged to have been made by him to R. R. Eenner & Co., or order, and indorsed to the bank before due. Closson set up ,two several defenses in his answer: 1. He denied the execution of the note. 2. He alleged that if the signature to the note was his it was obtained by “ a fraudulent and cunningly-devised scheme,” or trick, without his knowledge ; that he was induced by false and fraudulent…
1Opinion of the CourtWelch, C. J.
The code allows a defendant to “ set forth in his answer as many grounds of defense, counter-claim,, *81or set-off as he may have,” and it contains no limitation upon this privilege, except what is implied in the provision that pleadings shall be verified by oath. There is no provision requiring the several grounds of defense to be technically consistent with each other, or requiring an express admission of the truth of averments sought to be avoided by new matter. It is merely required that the auswer shall be “ verified” by oath. When two alleged grounds of defense plainly contradict each…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Seattle National Bank v. CarterWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- De Lissa v. Fuller Coal & Mining Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1898
- Dick v. HyerOhio Supreme Court · 1916
- Veasey v. HumphreysOregon Supreme Court · 1895
- Disney v. St. Louis Jewelry Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1907
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.