Case Name: Asbury W. King et al. v. Edwin P. Safford
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1869-12
Citations: 19 Ohio St. 587
Docket Number: 
Parties: Asbury W. King et al. v. Edwin P. Safford.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 19
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
Asbury W. King et al. v. Edwin P. Safford.
Motion for leave to file a petition in error to reverse a judgment of the district court of Athens county.

Opinion:
By the court
Held :
1. Under the act of Eeb. 19th, 1864 (S. & S. 5?5), the holder of a note seemed by mortgage may, in a single action, demand and have a judgment against all the makers of the note, and a sale of the mortgaged premises, although the mortgage is executed only by a part of the makers of the note.
2. A district court held by three or more of the common pleas judges, without the presence of a judge of this court, is a lawful and constitutional district court.
Motion overruled.
R. A. Constable and R. E. Constable, for the motion,
cited in argument:
1. On the first point: S. & C. 968; Code, sec. 81; S. & S 575.
2. On the second point: Const. of Ohio, art. 4, secs. 3, 5, 15; Convention Debates, vol. i. pp. 590, 591, 592, 594, 597 624; vol. ii. p. 696; 67 O. L. 29.
Browns & Wildes, contra.
Thomas F. Wildes
cited, in argument:
1. On the first point: S. & S. 575; Code, secs. 80, 81, 35, 40, 90; Ladd v. James, 10 Ohio St. 437; McCarthy v. Garraghty, 10 Ohio St. 438; Story's Eq. Pl. secs. 530, 539 a; Van Santford's Pl. 118-121; New York & New Haven R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, Cross et al., 17 N. Y. 603.
2. On the second point: Hollister & Smith v. The Judges, &c., 8 Ohio St. 201.