John F. Seymour & Co. v. Mickey
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the district court of Richland county. The original action in this case was brought by the present plaintiffs, against one Leyman and the defendant Mickey, upon a promissory note which reads as follows : “$200. Mansfield, Ohio, October 7,1854. “ Three years after date I promise to pay to the order of Mitchell, Harshbarger & Co., two hundred dollars, at-■with interest after six months, value received.” [Signed] “ H. Leyman.”
Read the full summary
Error to the district court of Richland county. The original action in this case was brought by the present plaintiffs, against one Leyman and the defendant Mickey, upon a promissory note which reads as follows : “$200. Mansfield, Ohio, October 7,1854. “ Three years after date I promise to pay to the order of Mitchell, Harshbarger & Co., two hundred dollars, at-■with interest after six months, value received.” [Signed] “ H. Leyman.” On the back of the note were the following indorsements: “ I guarantee payment on the within, and waive demand and notice.” [Signed] “ Thomas Mickey.” “ Pay to…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
It is.the well-settled law of this state (whatever the decisions may have been elsewhere), that the mere indorsement, upon a note, of the name of a stranger, in blank, is prima facie evidence of a guaranty. But, if it be shown, that such indorsement was made at the time of the execution of the note, and the party making it has not prescribed the limits of his responsibility, he authorizes the holder to regard him as a maker, and he is to be treated simply as a surety. These ordinary presumptions may, however, be rebutted by parol proof of a different intention and agreement of the parties. A…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Josselyn v. AmesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Trustees of Brimfield v. Commissioners of PortageOhio Supreme Court · 1840
- Sylvester v. DownerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Bright v. CarpenterOhio Supreme Court · 1839