The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1878-12-12

chased said premises in trust Tor the MI
Union College; that Hartshorn, as ltf
president and trustee, induced him to
ostensibly take the purchase in his own
name for said Mount Union College Dc,
cause, as he alleged, the college could mol
purchase it Of Teeters, who was opposed
to that college; and upon the solemn as
surance given by said Hartshorn, tha'
said trustees would provide the means
as might be required, to pay the notes a5
fast as they matured; and that the said
Brainard should be saved harmless by
them against all personal Liabilities on
said notes and mortgages; and finally
that of all this said Lewis and Jacob
Miller, and Aultman, the trustees OF said
Mt. Union College, as well as the ONO
National Bank, and McClymonds, all the
parties in the case except Teeters, had
full knowledge at the time; by reasons Of
which, Brainard claims, that none OF
said parties, unless it be Teeters, who
had no knowledge of it, are entitled to
claim any personal relief against him by
reason of the non-payment OF the notes
and mortgages as given by him.
This then presents another Important
issue between Brainard and the parties
mentioned, some of whom ask the court
to award execution against him person
ally, in case the mortgsged property
should not sell for an amount sufficient
to satisfy all the notes in full.
Conflicting as are these various claims
of the respective parties, l may say the
testimony given at the trial is scarcely
less conflicting. A satisfactory solution
of the different questions at issue is,
therefore, rendered somewhat difficult
Considering, however, that this is a civil
case, and that the issues raised therein,
are to be determined by the weight Of
the evidence, or fair preponderance of
the proof, we can not fail to arrive at
lust conclusions, if we determine the
same by that safe criticism. This have
honestly endeavored to do, and after
weighing and considering all the ev-
idence in the case, have arrived at the
conclusions which / will now proceed to
announce.
1st. I find that the notes which are
alleged to have been paid, were in fact
paid as alleged; and that by reason of
such payment said notes have become,
and are, defunct and without validity as
notes. They we're paid with means pro-
vided by Lewis and Jacob Miller, Ault-
man and Hartshorn, who were at the
time trustees of the Mt. Union College,
Hartshorn being president of the same
For this purpose Lewis and Jacob Miller
and Aultman made their negotiable
promissory notes, payable to Hartshorn,
and delivered the same to him, to be by
him negotiated for the purpose Of rails
ing means to meet the payment of these
notes. Hartshorn took these notes to
the Ohio National Bank and had them
discounted in that bank; and with the
avails thereof he took up and paid the
notes, after their maturity, at the same
bank, where they had been left for pay
ment. This was done precisely as
Hartshorn had assured the parties wo'd
be done at the time he negotiated the
purchase of said property. The trustees
Of the college, Lewis and Jacob Miller,
and Aultman would stand behind him
and pay the notes, if the money was not
timely raised by subscription through |
bis efforts.
1t is true, that after thus paying the
first years notes, Hartshorn procured
MCClymonds to indorse the same, with
)ut recourse, to Lewis Miller, and to de-
liver them up TO Hartshorn thus indors-
I'd; and that Hartshorn afterward left
he same with AultmaD. Even the note
VI Teeters, of $2,625, which was left in
he bank simply for collection, was hon
red by the like Endorsement to Lewis
1iller. After payment no valid trans
er could be made of these notes. Such
ndorsement could not revive them, or
i've them new life. As notes they were
efunCt, and ceased to exist The testi.
lony satisfies me, however, that they
'ere so assigned, to serve as evidence, to
hoW how much these parties had paid
)ward purchasing the Alliance College
roperty for the Mt Union College, of {
'hich they were trustees; and as eV- {
lenCe to show that they had paid
le amount by them subscribed towards
that property, as Harthorn
aimed they had individually subscrib. /
| toward the same. {
The second years notes which were {
Md, and those of the third years notes
hiCh were paid, we're neither assigned
Or indorsed; but they were paid in the 7
me way the first years notes had C
zen paid and like them, they are /
,funCt and now invalid. It fellows /
at none Of these notes can now be set o
, as such, by equity, by either of the t
illers, Aultman or Hartshorn, or by 8
EN- collectively, as = good or valid G
aim, either against Brainard person. o
Iy or against The property, or the p
ails Of the same. [
1t is quite possible that Lewis and p
cob Miller and Aultman have been II
isled and deceived in these transac- I
us by Hartshorn, the man in whom G.
e proof shows they reposed 30 much CT
in the same manner that n
the other parties in the case claim to n
We been misled and deceived by him; o.
d as the proof tends to show they r.
IRE 80 by him misled and deceived u
3, however, was their agent. They a
trusted him with their negotiable u
per, and with full power and authori-
to negotiate the same as he might &c
EN- proper. He applied it for the
ry purposes he had told the bank, OF
d told McClymonds, and told Brai- N
I'd they had promised to authcrize I'll
n to use it. For the proof shows that pl
negotiating the purchase of the prop 70
y he assured Brainard, assured the l
nix and McClymonds, that he was ri
by the trustees of Mount pl
lion College TO have the property I'll
released, in the way the purchase was to
ected, for that college; that they ex- pl
,ted the money would be raised by NJ
,scription; but that the fact of the CT
rChase for the college should be kept II
ret, lest, if it were known, it might Iii
ltroy the prospect of SO raising the Gu
ney by subscription; that be was tr
tain, if the matter of the purchase no
8 kept secret, to speedily raise the re- sa
red amount of money by subscrip- dS
q, especially if the public were inn m
,ssed with the idea that there was m