Case ID: ohio-cc-dec_28/html/0345-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JONES, (O. B.), J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BANKS AND BANKING.
    [Clinton (1st) Court of Appeals,
    June, 1914.]
    Swing, Jones and Jones, JJ.
    J. C. Cumberland et al. v. Farmer’s Exchange Bank.
    Depositor Charged Individually by Bank with Checks of Partnership Given by Him for Firm.
    Where a bank had charged a depositor against his account checks issued in payment of the expenses of a partnership of which he was a member, and where his bank book was balanced and his checks returned several times subsequent thereto and no protest was ever made until suit had been brought against him on a note which was renewed after the canceled checks had been returned to him. Held: That a jury was justified in a verdict against him.
    Error.
    
      Tí. S. Pulse, for plaintiff in error.
    
      
      G. W. Swain, for defendant in error.
   JONES, (O. B.), J.

While there were other points of error urged in the case, the one chiefly relied upon by counsel was that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence and was not sustained by sufficient evidence.

The checks which defendant claimed had been without authority charged against his account by plaintiff below were checks drawn by one Morris for expenses of a business in which he was engaged as a partner with the defendant below, and the bank book was balanced several times and the cheeks returned without a protest from the defendant. No claim was made that they were improperly paid until after the filing of this suit and' the note upon ‘which suit was brought was renewed by defendant below without objection-after the payment of these checks and without any claim for reduction on account of any unauthorized checks.

We therefore think the jury were justified in their verdict as returned, and as a careful examination of the record fails to disclose any errors prejudicial to the plaintiff in error, the judgment is affirmed.

Swing and Jones, (E. H.), JJ., concur.