Palmer v. Yarrington
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a writ of error to the supreme court in Trumbull county, allowed by the late supreme court in bank. *The original action in the common pleas was assumpsit, brought by Yarrington against Palmer on the following note: “ Norwich, April 1, 1845. “ On demand, for value received, we, the subscribers, jointly and severally promise to pay Joseph A. Yarrington fifteen hundred dollors, with interest. John Abell. N. W. Palmer. “Indorsed: J. ~W. Abell.” J. W. Abell.”
Read the full summary
This is a writ of error to the supreme court in Trumbull county, allowed by the late supreme court in bank. *The original action in the common pleas was assumpsit, brought by Yarrington against Palmer on the following note: “ Norwich, April 1, 1845. “ On demand, for value received, we, the subscribers, jointly and severally promise to pay Joseph A. Yarrington fifteen hundred dollors, with interest. John Abell. N. W. Palmer. “Indorsed: J. ~W. Abell.” J. W. Abell.” The declaration contained a special count on the note, and also the money counts. The plea was non-assumpsit without affidavit.…
1Opinion of the CourtCorwin, J.
It is proper, in the first place, to notice the proposition of counsel for defendant in error, that, unless the plea of nonassumpsit be verified by affidavit, the party can not introduce evidence to disprove the execution of the note.
By the first section of “ An act to amend an act entitled ‘An act dispensing with proof in certain cases,’ ” passed March 9, 1838, it is provided:
*222“ That upon plea of non est factum, offered by the person charged as the obligor or grantor of a deed, or plea of non assumpsit, or nil debet, offered by the person charged as the maker or indorser of any promissory…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- New-Haven County Bank v. MitchellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1842
- Mitchell v. PrestonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1811
- Culver v. RobinsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1808