Loomis, Campbell & Co. v. Eagle Bank
Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati
General Term. — Proceeding in error to reverse a judgment of Gholson, J., rendered against the plaintiffs in error at the April special term, a. d. 1856. Action below was against Loomis, Campbell & Co., as makers of a promissory note, payable to the order of E. Gilbert & Co., of Rochester, N. Y. The note was given in payment of powder furnished and to be furnished to the makers by the payees; and the makers set up that the payees had refused to deliver certain powder in…
Read the full summary
General Term. — Proceeding in error to reverse a judgment of Gholson, J., rendered against the plaintiffs in error at the April special term, a. d. 1856. Action below was against Loomis, Campbell & Co., as makers of a promissory note, payable to the order of E. Gilbert & Co., of Rochester, N. Y. The note was given in payment of powder furnished and to be furnished to the makers by the payees; and the makers set up that the payees had refused to deliver certain powder in accordance vwith the contract existing between the parties; and that by reason of. the failure to deliver, they had been…
1Opinion of the CourtStorer, J.
The determination of this case involves a single question, and as it is resolved, the judgment at special term must be reversed or affirmed.
First. How far is the defendant in error affected, as indorsee of the promissory note, by a knowledge, on the part of one of its directors, that the makers, at the time it was discounted, set up a claim to recoup a part of the amount for an alleged breach of a contract between the makers and payees ?
The case shows that one of the directors of the bank was the payee ef the note, and that it was transferred by him for value before it became due, without any…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fulton Bank v. New-York & Sharon Canal Co.New York Court of Chancery · 1833
- Louisiana State Bank v. SenecalSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1839
- President of Hartford Bank v. HartConnecticut Superior Court · 1807