The Daily empire. (Dayton, Ohio) 1865-1867, 1867-01-24
LAW REPORT.
coMMoN rLEAs--Jupor sMrn

COMMON PL.EAs--JuDGE SMITH,
Samuel Tate against Jackson A Jordan
This was an ectlon brought upon n promis.
sorry note for $500. The petition sets forth
that the note was made by M. b. Walker TO
a. ~ Mcclure and ID. A. Haynes and en-
dorsed by them TO Jordan, and endorsed nv
him TO the plaintiff, that the same was made
payable on or before April lst, 1866.
The defendant denies that he endorsed
the note TO the plaintiff, and he AYERS that
he transferred the same to Stlth M. Sulli-
van, who held the note until December %
1903, when Walker paid the note to Sulll-
van and took possession of Il that i'm nav
ment of the note, Walker delivered n note
and mortgage TO Sullivan; that Mcclure.
haynes and walker are liable with him for
che same; that the note aud mortpaoe ,ycro
transferred by the defendant 60 Sullivan.
and walker for the purpose of getting pos
session OF the same to transfer ii to Innocent
persons, delivered note and mortgage 10
sullivan; that the note In petition mentIon
ed was endorsed In blank by Mcclure.
Haynes and Jordan, and that Sullivan fail
ed TO cancel the same, and that Il was for tho
purpose of defrauding the holder and in
dorsers of said note that Sullivan deliv
cred said note and mortgage TO Walker
without cancellnR, and that he purposely
and intentionally Omitted to cancel II and
that walker transferred the same to Davis
and Cuppy prior TO January o, 1861. Plain-
till demurred TO the fifth ''answer of the
DEFENDANT and replied TO the second, third
and fourthN answers that the note was In
dorsed In blank before due by the defend-
ant, and put In circulation by him, and
that IN the due course of business the same,
for valuable consideration, came into the
possession of the plaintiff before n was
due; and chat at the time he received Il he
had no knowledge of any payment or pre-
tended payment OF the same, nor any
knowledge Of any defense TO the same.
The defendant demurred TO the second. |
third and fourth replies of the plalntia.
The case was heard on the demurrers. and
the Court said; This question. so far as he |
knew, had never been made. He believed |
that the maker OF the note had the legal
right, at any time before Il was due. 10 10
10 the holder pay II of and take IL up, and |
whether after being paid aud again put In
circulation by the maker and again nego-
tiated 70 an Innocent holder Il could be re-
covered upon ae against the previous en-
dorsers, must depend upon the language Of
the Statutes 8. aud g. page S02. section 4
and q He thought this note was a nepoti. \
able promissory note, within the meaning
Of the statutes, and Il before the day when
the holder could demand payment it had
been transferred In due course Of business !,
70 the plaintiff who had no notice Of the
payment or accord and satisfaction, he
should recover.
The Court sustained the demurrer 10 the /
itth answer and overruled the defendants
demurrer 70 the second. third and fourth
replies, and gave Judgment for the plaintiff.
The defendant excepted 10 the opinion of
the Court.
Howard & Son for plaintiff; Hart a.
Jordan contra.
coAMoN PLEAs-7JUDaE ALLEN.
The State Of Ohio against Joseph Slang
stein, alias Louis Nelgley, indicted for bio
amy, he having been married In January
1852 to one Louisa Nelgela, in the KIM. (
dom Of Bavaria, aud In November, 1868, was
married Ia Germantown to one Bena :
sohafief. The Jury, after a short dellbera-
u9n, returned verdict of "Gniltyn
Inc counsel for the defense made
nAotlon In arrest OF judgment.
a., al,eengsr, ,ellg prosecuting attorney; Thomp-