Kelly v. Collins
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Cuyahoga county. The plaintiffs in error gave a joint promissory note, which came by indorsement into the hands of Collins. The signatures were as follows: “ Gay &Hubbell, Irad Kelly, surety, Abraham Ilickox.” In the suit on this note, the common general judgment was ren. dered against all. A writ of error was prosecuted, because the court omitted to find, or certify the fact, that Kelly was surety.
Read the full summary
This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Cuyahoga county. The plaintiffs in error gave a joint promissory note, which came by indorsement into the hands of Collins. The signatures were as follows: “ Gay &Hubbell, Irad Kelly, surety, Abraham Ilickox.” In the suit on this note, the common general judgment was ren. dered against all. A writ of error was prosecuted, because the court omitted to find, or certify the fact, that Kelly was surety. At the term of the Supreme Court of Cuyahoga, in 1841, the judgment of the common pleas was affirmed. This writ of error is brought to reverse both…
1Opinion of the CourtLane, C. J.
Whenever it is made to appear to the court rendering a judgment, that one of the parties is a surety, the court is required to certify which is principal and which is ^surety, so that execution may be first levied on the property of the former. Swan’s Stat. 482. The plaintiff in error insists, that where this fact appears of pleading, as in this case, it is matter of error to omit the certificate. We think the party has mistaken his remedy. The judgment in such case is right, and there is nothing to reverse. There may be good cause why the certificate is omitted by the court. If it were…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Opinion No. 77-274 (1978) Ag, Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1978
- Rahilly v. WilsonDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1872