Drennan v. Luschen

Opinion by

LOGSDON, O.

For reversal of this case, plaintiff relies upon two propositions. His first proposition reads:

“Since the defendant in his evidence admitted the execution of the uote sued on and admitted that he had not paid the same, but defended solely on the ground of fraud, the burden of proving fraud was upon him and the record shows that no fraud whatever was proved.”

This proposition raises and presents the question of the. sufficiency of defendant’s evidence to sustain his allegations of fraud inducing the execution and delivery of the note.

It appears from the evidence preserved…