Case Name: HARBINE v. DAVIS et
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1926-06-09
Citations: 4 Ohio Law Abs. 484
Docket Number: No. 19882
Parties: HARBINE v. DAVIS et
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 4
Pages: 484–484

Head Matter:
HARBINE v. DAVIS et
No. 19882.
Supreme Court
Dock. June 9, 1926.
Attorneys — F. H. Dean and J. T. Harbine, Xenia, for Pltf.; A. H. Seharrer and O. J. Bard, Dayton, for Deft.

Opinion:
John T. Harbine, Jr., brought this action originally in the Montgomery Common Pleas agaist Robert Davis, upon a certain promissory note executed by Davis, the note being secured by a mortgage. The note was made payable to one Rawls who was also the mortgagee.
The defense was failure of consideration and a mortgage of such failure on the part of Harbine, said notes having been given in payment of a truck which was never delivered.
The Common Pleas overruled a motion and demurrer to the answer as it found that a good defense was stated, which ruling was affirmed by the Appeals.
Harbing in the Supreme Court contends:
1. That the demurrer should have been sustained because facts were not stated to constitute a good defense to the allegations in the petition.