Holland v. Hatch
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the superior court of Cincinnati. The case below was an action brought against the plaintiff in error, by Hatch as assignee of Hatch & Langdon, upon an alleged bill of exchange, of which the following is a copy: “ $2708.00. Brookville, October 28,1854. Thirty days after date, pay to the order of Tyner & Childers, twenty-seven hundred and three dollars, value received, without any relief from valuation or appraisement laws.
Read the full summary
Error to the superior court of Cincinnati. The case below was an action brought against the plaintiff in error, by Hatch as assignee of Hatch & Langdon, upon an alleged bill of exchange, of which the following is a copy: “ $2708.00. Brookville, October 28,1854. Thirty days after date, pay to the order of Tyner & Childers, twenty-seven hundred and three dollars, value received, without any relief from valuation or appraisement laws. “ To R. Tyner, Cincinnati, rS Ú “ Payable at Central Bank, g1^ Geo. Holland. “ (Indorsed) . “ Tyner & Childers.” Two defenses were set up in the court below: 1.…
1Opinion of the CourtWelch, J.
The plaintiff in error insists that there was error in the finding and judgment of the superior court, for two reasons: 1st. The plaintiff below was estopped by the judgment of the supreme court of Indiana; and 2d. The bill of exchange is not the bill of Holland, because of the unauthorized insertion of the words “ without relief from valuation or appraisement laws.”
It seems to us, that when the judgment of the Indiana circuit court was reversed in the supreme court of that state, and tire cause remanded, again to the circuit court for further pro*469¿eedings, the ease stood in the circuit court…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Davis v. ClemsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio · 1855