Case ID: ohio-st_119/html/0516-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Commonwealth Banking & Trust Co. v. The Smith & Oby Co. The John C. Boehm Co. v. The Commonwealth Banking & Trust Co.
    (Nos. 20744 and 21084
    Decided December 26, 1928.)
    
      Messrs. Dustin, McKeehan, Merrick, Arter. & Stewart, and Mr. G. M. Horn, for Commonwealth Banking & Trust Company.
    
      Messrs. Stearns, Chamberlain S Royon, for Smith & Oby Company.
    
      Messrs. White, Hammond, Brewer db Curtiss, for John C. Boehm Company.
   By the Court.

In the case of Commonwealth Banking & Trust Company v. Smith & Oby Company, cause No. 20744, a rehearing was granted and the case reargued and again submitted to the court; upon consideration thereof, the court adhered to its former conclusion, announced on March 28, 1928, ante, 514.

The case of John C. Boehm, Co. v. Commonwealth Banking & Trust Co., cause No. 21084, was argued and submitted to the court' at the same time as the Smith S Oby Company case.

The court is of opinion that there is some evidence tending to support the claim of the plaintiff in error as to the knowledge that the Commonwealth Banking & Trust Company had that there were restrictions and conditions upon the use of the notes in question, and that the trial court should have submitted the evidence to the jury for consideration, with proper instructions as to whether the bank was a purchaser of the notes in due course, before maturity, and without knowledge of any defects or infirmities in the title.

It therefore follows that the judgment of the Court of Appeals in cause No. 20744, Commonwealth Banking & Trust Co. v. Smith & Oby Co., be affirmed; and that the judgment of the Court of Appeals in cause No. 21084, John C. Boehm Co. v. Commonwealth Banking & Trust Co., be reversed, and both causes remanded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings according to law.

' Judgment affirmed in cause No. 20744, and cause remanded.

Judgment reversed in cause No. 21084, and cause remanded.

Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.