Medill v. Collier
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the court of common picas of Jefferson county. Be-served in the district court. On the 9th day of May, 1860, the plaintiff filed, in the *court of common pleas for the county of Jefferson, his petition again'st the defendants, which is as follows : “ J oseph Medill, plaintiff, says, that there is due to him from J ames Collier, Edwin H. Collier, Frederick Collier, John A. Collier, Arnold H. Dohrman, Jno.
Read the full summary
Error to the court of common picas of Jefferson county. Be-served in the district court. On the 9th day of May, 1860, the plaintiff filed, in the *court of common pleas for the county of Jefferson, his petition again'st the defendants, which is as follows : “ J oseph Medill, plaintiff, says, that there is due to him from J ames Collier, Edwin H. Collier, Frederick Collier, John A. Collier, Arnold H. Dohrman, Jno. S. Patterson, James O’Neal, Bobert Mears, Joseph-Means, William Stanton, William Elliott, Thomas Johnston, James Turnbull, Henry G-. Comingo, Charles O. Beatty, William Inglebright,…
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
There is no controversy but that the defendants, while • doing business under the name of the Citizens’ Bank of Steuben-ville, by their agents, received of the plaintiff the amount of money sued for, and promised to pay him the same, as stipulated in the instrument mentioned in the petition. These facts, as well as the averment in the petition that they refused, on demand, to pay the plaintiff such money due him, the defendants do not deny in their answers ; but they severally deny that they are jointly or individually indebted to the plaintiff therefor".
They claim that the transaction was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bissell v. Michigan Southern & Northern Indiana Railroad CompaniesNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Hood v. New York & New Haven RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1852
- Bank of Chillicothe v. DodgeNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Otis v. HarrisonNew York Supreme Court · 1862