Legal Opinion

Stoutenburg v. Lybrand

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1862PublishedCited by 25 opinions

ERROR to the district court of Delaware county. Lybrand, the defendant in error, brought suit, in the court of common pleas of Delaware county, in July, 1859, against J. B. Stoutenburg as the maker, and J. C. Evans as the in-dorser, of a promissory note, for one hundred and’ twenty-five dollars, dated April 22, 1857, and payable, with interest from date, to Jane Stoutenburg, or order, on or before the 22d day of April, 1859. The petition averred that the note in suit was…

Read the full summary

ERROR to the district court of Delaware county. Lybrand, the defendant in error, brought suit, in the court of common pleas of Delaware county, in July, 1859, against J. B. Stoutenburg as the maker, and J. C. Evans as the in-dorser, of a promissory note, for one hundred and’ twenty-five dollars, dated April 22, 1857, and payable, with interest from date, to Jane Stoutenburg, or order, on or before the 22d day of April, 1859. The petition averred that the note in suit was assigned by Jane Stoutenburg, the payee, on the 3d of May, 1858, for a valuable consideration, to one John Harper, who…

1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.

The question of the sufficiency of the answer of Stoutenburg, in the court below, may properly be considered under two heads:

1. Does it show such a want of consideration as would avoid the note in the hands of the payee ? And, if so, then,

2. Are such facts stated as make the same defense available against the plaintiff below, who sues as indorsee and holder of the note ?

As to the first point, we think it clear, both upon principle and authority, that a contract which provides that the defendant in a proceeding for divorce shall make no defense thereto, is against public policy, and therefore…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Viser v. BertrandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1853

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Pope Manufacturing Co. v. GormullySupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Stewart v. BalderstonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872
  3. Nachman Spring-Filled Corporation v. Kay Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
  4. Adams v. AdamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
  5. Blank v. NohlSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API