Case Name: PEARCE'S ADMINISTRATOR v. BACON
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-06
Citations: 1 Wright 627
Docket Number: 
Parties: *PEARCE’S ADMINISTRATOR v. BACON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 647–648

Head Matter:
*PEARCE’S ADMINISTRATOR v. BACON.
Note — bill—dispensing with proof.
An assignment of an order for a title bond, with a promise in it to pay $200, if the bond was not obtained in sixty days, is not an instrument within the statute dispensing with proof, &c.
Assumpsit. Bacon held an order on Ward for a title bond for a town lot in Urbana, which he assigned to Pearce in consideration of $200. The assignment had this clause in it: “If I should not procure the bond for a title for the within lot from the director of the town of Urbana within sixty days, then I promise to pay said Pearce the above amount.” Non assumpsit was pleaded without affidavit.
The plaintiff offered to read the note without proving its execution.
Bacon objected.
Sohenck replied.

Opinion:
WOOD, J.
The instrument is not one described in the statute-dispensing with proof - in certain cases, and its execution must be-proven, as if the statute had never been enacted.