Case ID: ohio_14/html/0489-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "*Hitchcock, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*John Bodkins v. William C. Taylor.
    A party whose name appears upon negotiable paper, is not a competent witness to impeach its consideration.
    This is a motion for a new trial, reserved in Pickaway county.
    The action is assumpsit upon a promissory note signed by the ’ defendant, for the sum of $100, made payable to John T. Bichardson, or order, on or before the 1st day of March next after the date thereof, and bearing date September 27, 1837, and indorsed in blank, without recourse, by Bichardson, on May 11, 1838. The suit is in tho llame of Bodkins, as indorser, against Taylor, the maker of the note.
    Tho defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice that, on tho trial, ho would prove that said note was given for a patent right, which was void, so that the note was without consideration, and that Bodkins, when he took the assignment of the note, well knew it was given without consideration.
    The case was submitted to tho court at the last term, in Pick-away county, and the court found the issue for the plaintiff, and entered judgment accordingly.
    A motion was then made to set aside the judgment, and for a new trial, on tho ground that the court erred in rejecting certain evidence which was offered on the trial; and that motion was reserved for decision in bank.
    John L. Green and H. H. Hunter, in support of the motion.
    Finoii & Jones, contra.
   *Hitchcock, J.

On the trial of this case upon the circuit, the deposition of John C. Bichardson was offered in evidence by tho defendant to prove tho facts set up in the notice attached to tho plea of tho general issue. This deposition was objected to, and tho objection sustained by the court, on the ground that any person whoso name appeared upon negotiable paper could not be a witness to impeach the consideration. The only question now presented for consideration is whether the court erred in ruling out the testimony.

We very well know that this is a vexed question, and one upon which tho decisions of courts in England and the United States have been as various as upon any other question that could well be named. Any person desirous of ascertaining how various the decisions have been in this country, will find all tho eases referred to in a note to Greenlcaf’s Evidence, 385. Tho same question has been before this court at the present term, in tho case of Troon v. Brown et al., and the court have determined in that case to abido by the ancient rule, as established in the case of Waltcx v. Shelley, 1 Term, 296. That decision is decisive of this case.

The motion for a new trial is overruled.