Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-03
10. Statesman,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
bsssaq siqa TUESDAY, March a 1868.
Hon. LUTHER Day, Chief Justice, and Hon.
JACoB BRIN KERHoFF, Hon. JOSIAH SCOTT.
and Hon. JOHN WEIGH. Judges. l.. j.
CRITcHFIELD, E-q, Reporter.
GENERAL DOCKET.
William Hammond v. The State of
Ohio.
Error to the Common Pleas of Holmes
county.
WEIGH, j. Held:
l. In an indictment for larceny, it is
sufici-ntto to describe United States Treas
ury notes, as ''promisory notes of the
United States given for the payment of
money!" adding their denomination and
value. ~ ~ oboe.
g. In such an indictment it is not
misdescription of the notes of National
banks. to denominate them "National
bank notes, commonly called National
currency notes, being obligatory prom
isory notes of the National currency
issue, given for the payment of the
money" ...,. .5lg..g..55 ..l.-- .-s-
8. 1t is prinsa .tacie evidence of the
genuineness of such notes, that they pass
currently in the community as genuine.
4. It is not error in the court to refuse
to give it's opinion upon the weight of
testimony, or to refuse to exclude from
the jury evidence tending to prove the
issue, but which is insufficient of itself
for that purpose.
5. When oral evidence of the contents
of an instrument has been received with
out objection, it is not error in the court
to refuse to exclude such evidence after
the cause has been argued to the jury.
6. Where question put to a witness
is rejected by the court as incompetent,
in order to make the rejection ground
of error, it must appear what was pro-
posed to be proven, and that it was some
thing the rejection whereof would be
prejudicial to the plaintiff in error
Gandolfa ". State, II Ohio st. la, and
Hollister q Smith v. Resnor, I'd. l, fol-
lowed.
Judgment affirmed,
No. 81. Noble Porter v. Major Dun
lap. Error to the District Court of
PlckaWay county.
RRINKERHoFF, j.
O., being engaged in teaching pub
lie school, sold specific amount of his
wages, earned and unearned, to the
Township Treasurer, p, and received
his pay for the same in full and without
discount; G.. agreeing that P. should re-
tain the same, when earned, out of the
school funds in his hands. Afterwards,
when the amount thus assigned to P.
was fully earned, G. obtained from the
Township Clerk an order on the Town
ship Treasurer, P, for the amount, and
then transferred the order to D., who
paid for the same a valuable considera-
ton. and had no notice of the former
transfer to p. In an action by d.
against P. to recover the amount of the
order, held:
1. The transaction between G, and P.
constituted a good assignment in equity.
2. On the assignment by G. to D., the
latter stood in the shoes of the former;
and was estopped by the agreement Of
c., to claim the amount thereof from r.
3. The equity of P. was prior in time,
and therefore better in right.
4. Even had their equities been equal,
P. being in possession of the fund, his
equity would prevail. .f's
Judgment of District Court reversed,
and that of Common Pleas affirmed.
No. IS. Executor of Samuel Robinson
v. Samuel III. Robinson.
Reserved in the District Court.
ScoTT, j. Held:
Where an insolvent debtor, for the
purpose of securing his property against
the claims of his creditors, conveys it, or
causes it to be conveyed, without valua-
BILE consideration, to a grantee, who ac-
cepts the conveyance, upon secret
trust, to hold the property for the use of
the debtor, an action cannot be main
tanned by the voluntary grantor, for the
enforcement of such trust. And the rule
is the same, Notwithstanding the pro-
perty may have been acquired by the
debtor. after his insolvency, or from re-
sources which creditors might be unable
to make available.
Exceptions to report of referee sus-
tanned, and petition of plaintiff dis
missed.
No. 80. Nathan Vail and others "
Rebecca Mcmillan. Error to the Dis.
trict Court of Clark county.
BRINKERHoFF, j. Held:
l. In case of conveyance of land,
where the relations between the grantoI
and grantee are not such that valid
consideration of marriage, or of love and
| affection, can subsist between them, and
the deed expresses a pecuniary consid-
Grafton only, the grantor may show, by
parol, that a contract by the grantee to
support the grantor and wife for theil
lives respectively, constitutes further
and additional consideration for such
conveyance.
| 2. Where a plaintiff in proceeding
in equity, in order to perfect his right o
action, before the commencement of the
action, tenders to the defendant anC
brings into court sum of money, which
the defendant declines to accept; and the
plaintiff, after decree against him upor
the merits, by virtue of which the money
rendered remains the property of th'
plaintiff, withdraws from the hands o
the depositary the amount rendered
j Held:
That in proceeding in error to re
cover said decree, the fact of such with
drawal is not, in law, waiver of erro
in the proceeding and decree sought t.
be reversed, and plea of such fact il
bar of the petition in error is bad on de
murrer.
Judgment reversed and cause re
manded.
| No. so. P. W. Strader ct al. v. Mul
lane & johnson.
Error to Superior Court Of Cincinnati
IN General rTprm