Case Name: PEARCE'S ADMINISTRATOR v. BACON
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-06
Citations: 1 Ohio Ch. 627
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEARCE’S ADMINISTRATOR v. BACON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery Ohio
Volume: 1
Pages: 627–627

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.
Schench, 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.