Murphy v. Hagerman
Ohio Supreme Court
Assumpsit upon a promissory note for 6793, dated 2d November, 1821, payable in nine months. Issue was joined upon non assumpsit, with an affidavit. *The plaintiff read in evidence to the jury the depositions of [294 William and Aaron Hagerman, brothers of the defendant, and of Messrs. Bray, Lowe, Vetohe, Schench, Snyder and Dunham, taken in N. Jersey, and they examined before the jury Mr. Hardy, Col. Bigger, Judge Smith, and J. K. Wilds.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note for 6793, dated 2d November, 1821, payable in nine months. Issue was joined upon non assumpsit, with an affidavit. *The plaintiff read in evidence to the jury the depositions of [294 William and Aaron Hagerman, brothers of the defendant, and of Messrs. Bray, Lowe, Vetohe, Schench, Snyder and Dunham, taken in N. Jersey, and they examined before the jury Mr. Hardy, Col. Bigger, Judge Smith, and J. K. Wilds. These witnesses all testified to their knowledge of the defendant’s handwriting, and to their opinion that the signature to the note was his. The note was…
1Opinion of the Court 1
THE COURT..
The whole matter goes to the jury; we can make no order upon the plaintiff to prove a consideration; but if the jury áre led by the defendant’s evidence to doubt the consideration or suspect the fairness of the note, it will be a circumstance in his favor, and have its effect, unless the plaintiff rebut and do it away. The defence here closed.
The plaintiff -recalled Col. Bigger and Mr. Wright, who testified that although the defendant was reputed wealthy, he was somewhat embarrassed and straitened for money from 1820 to 1824.
*Aeontract, executed by the defendant, with several…
Also in this document: Opinion of the Court · Wright.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth ex rel. Armstrong v. CommissionersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
- Carter v. Philadelphia Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875