The Daily empire. (Dayton, Ohio) 1865-1867, 1866-05-10
LAW REPORT.
SUPERIOR ooUnr-JUDoE HAYNES.

John b. Taylor and VIE VS.. Henrv G,
Stims0n. Suit brought upon a contract OF
assignment of certain claims due TAYLOR
" Brother, in the form of judgments and
other claims, against the Greenyille and
Miami Railroad Company.
The petition averred that on the 10Th day
of April, 1859, the defendant entered into 4
contract, In writing, with said TAYLOR &
Brother, by which he agreed and bound
himself TO pay to them and their use the
sum of 81 l25-flfty dollars Mt the time OF
making said contract, 81 25 to said Taylor 4
Brothers attorney, and TO John b. Taylor
IN behalf of the firm of Taylor q Brother.
$l95, in consideration of which they agreed
to assign TO said defendant all the claims 81
every nature, including the judgments Sc
held against the Greenville and Miami
Railroad Company, without expense TO de-
PENDANT. III Is further averred that defend
ant paid the fifty dollars, as he had stipu-
lated, which was receipted for on his agree
ment. Taylor & Brother further aver that
as to the residue of their contract, tbey
were ready to perform at the time agreed
upon, but that defendant, there and then.
totally refused to perform his part.
They further aver that after the 9Th day
of June 1853, said Taylor & Bro, for val
liable consideration assigned said claims in
connection with the said contract of the de-
mits the holding of those judgments by
Taylor d Bro. and claim Of $500 against
said Rail Road Company as averred In the
petition, and denies every other material
allegation of the petition. Defendant also
plead specially that at the time when the
said contract was to be performed accord
ing to the allegations of the petition that
Taylor &Bro. were not the owners of those
Judgments. ltappeared further that the
contract hah haa "a l. Il.
fendant and signed by Taylor g. Bro, but
not by Stimson. 1t also appeared that the
assignments of the judgments and the con-
tract mentioned. to Martha Taylor, by the
firm of Taylor 81 Bro. for q valuable, was
made on account of Mrs. Taylor's having
paid debts of the firm to the amount OF
S2320, and that the judgments together
with the contract of defendant were, on
the H--A. D., 1862, assigned by
Taylor & Bro. to her in Consideration q
her releasing the firm from their indebted
ness tc her for the payment of her claim
against the firm.
Defendant claimed that the entire sum
should be considered as money as realized
! by the firm on said judgments, and that, il
the contract was found to have been made
by the parties, the amount of damages
should be reduced by that amount.
The plaintiff claimed that the contract
was binding on the defendant and that
Iaylor q Bro. were in situation to have
assigned their claims when the contract
should have been performed, and were
ready, and willingly offered TO do so and
that plaintiff was entitled to recover the
difference between the price stipulated fol
in the contract, and the value of the judg-
ments at the time the contract should have
been performed.
A number of interesting and important
0npQfinna M n tuo n =,
the progress of the case, which would rem
der a report too lengthy to furnish.
The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff
for S2,729 %.
Odlin q Cahill for plaintiff; J. A. Jordan
for defendant.