Case Name: Inman v. Jenkins
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1827-12
Citations: 3 Ohio 271
Docket Number: 
Parties: Inman v. Jenkins.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 3
Pages: 255–256

Head Matter:
Inman v. Jenkins.
former recovery can not be proven by parol to bar an action, nor unless pleaded at bar.
Tried before Judges Hitohco.ok and Burnet, in Miami county, 1827.
This case was brought up by writ of error. It appeared, from the record, that the plaintiff below commenced his action, as assignee of a promissory note, before a justice of the peace. The cause was appealed to the common pleas. The plaintiff declared in the commpn form, and the defendant pleaded the general issue, without notice.
At the trial, the defend an ^attempted to prove a former recovery, and for that purpose, offered parol testimony to establish the following facts: that before the commencement of the present suit, an action had been brought .before a justice of the peace, and a judgment rendered an the same note, and that the docket of the magistrate containing the judgment had been lost or mislaid. The evidence was objected to, overruled, and a bill of exceptions taken.
The error relied on, was the rejection of the evidence stated in the bill.
Tho ease argued by Thomas, on the part of the plaintiff.

Opinion:
By the Court :
The evidence offered in the court below, was properly rejected for two reasons. First, it was not competent for the defendant to prove a former recovery by parol. The ^circumstance stated, in relation to the loss of the docket, does not take the case out of the general rule. The objection to that kind of testimony, and the uncertainty and danger to be apprehended from it, is still the same. The docket might have been lost or mislaid by accident; or it might have been put out of the way, by design, to lay the foundation for parol testimony. In either case, the consequences are the same.
The evidence is not the best the nature of the case admits of; nor is it such as the law requires.
Salutary rules must not be dispensed with, because eases may arise in which they are found to be inconvenient.
But, independent of this ground, we are of opinion that by our practice act, this defense could not be set up, under the general issue, without a notice. Although it has been considered by this court, that the act does not require a notice of every matter, which, if specially pleaded, would be a good bar; yet we think the defense attempted, in this case, does not require it. Such has been the practice, and we do not recollect a case in which a former recovery has been proved, under the general issue, without a notice.
Judgment affirmed.