Davis v. Bartlett
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the district court of Erie county. On the 8th of November, 1856, the plaintiff, Davis, filed his petition in the court of common pleas of Erie county, against the defendants, Bartlett and St. John, alleging that they, on the 15th July, 1856, executed and delivered their promissory note to Charles Woolsey, payable to him or order in one hundred and eight days (November 1, 1856), and that Woolsey indorsed and delivered the note to the plaintiff for a good and valuable…
Read the full summary
Error to the district court of Erie county. On the 8th of November, 1856, the plaintiff, Davis, filed his petition in the court of common pleas of Erie county, against the defendants, Bartlett and St. John, alleging that they, on the 15th July, 1856, executed and delivered their promissory note to Charles Woolsey, payable to him or order in one hundred and eight days (November 1, 1856), and that Woolsey indorsed and delivered the note to the plaintiff for a good and valuable consideration, before its maturity, to-wit: About the 20th of July, 1856, and that the defendants have neglected to pay…
1Opinion of the CourtSutlirr, C.J.
There is presented by the record in this •case but a single question for our consideration: upon which party was the burden of proof, under the issue made by the pleadings ?'
It is here to be observed that the pleadings in the case, the petition and answer, were filed previous to the amendment of April 8, 1857, and under the original provisions of section 84 of the code, which provided that “ the only pleadings ■allowed are the petition by the plaintiff; the answer or demurrer by the defendant; the demurrer or reply by the plaintiff ;” and of section 101, that “ there shall be no reply except…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vallett v. ParkerNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Holme v. KarsperSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813
- Ball v. AllenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819