Case Name: DAVIS v. ARNETT
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1932-11-25
Citations: 13 Ohio Law Abs. 287
Docket Number: No 2236
Parties: DAVIS v ARNETT
Judges: HORNBECK and KUNKLE, JJ, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 13
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
DAVIS v ARNETT
Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Franklin Co
No 2236.
Decided Nov 25, 1932
David A. Peiros, Columbus, 'for plaintiff in error.
Horace S. Kerr, Columbus, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
ALLREAD, J.
In these proceedings in error, or at least in the brief, counsel for Davis offered a general trust agreement to which Arnett and Hughes were parties. We think it is not competent to supplement the record in this court. The trust agreement should have been offered in the court below, and brought to this court in the record. In the absence thereof, we can not consider the trust agreement. There is no averment which shows any consideration on the part of Arnett or connects him in any way with the transaction so that an implied consideration can be presumed. We are therefore of opinion that such connection was necessary tending to connect Arnett with liability. In the absence of such connection, we think the obligation of Arnett was without consideration and is therefore not enforceable.
Judgment affirmed.
HORNBECK and KUNKLE, JJ, concur.