Case Name: CINCINNATI BRUSH & MOP MFG CO et v. WEBER
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1929-12-09
Citations: 8 Ohio Law Abs. 164
Docket Number: No. 3513
Parties: CINCINNATI BRUSH & MOP MFG CO et v WEBER
Judges: Cushing, PJ„ and Hamilton, J., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 8
Pages: 164–164

Head Matter:
CINCINNATI BRUSH & MOP MFG CO et v WEBER
Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
No. 3513.
Decided December 9, 1929
Messrs. S. Bruce Pollard and Clifford E. Frey, Cincinnati, for Brush & Mop Mfg Co et.
Messrs. Burch, Peters, Geismer & De-Fossett, Cincinnati, for Weber.

Opinion:
ROSS, J.
Section 8129 GC, provides that every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable consideration. Section 8130 GC, provides that value is any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract. There was no evidence introduced by the defendant to meet the presumption of value or any evidence indicating that value, within the meaning of 8130 GC did not exist, but, on the contrary, the evidence showed a promise to perform the work by the payee of the note which promise could be and was the supporting consideration for the note.
There was some question raised as to the negotiability of the instrument, owing to the presence of the words "for unfinished work on bldg.", appearing on the face of the note. Under 8108 GC, it is provided that: " An unqualified order or promise to pay is unconditional within the meaning of this chapter, though coupled with: x x x x 2. A statement of the transaction which gives rise to the instrument." The instrument was, therefore, negotiable, and clothed with all the presumptions accruing to a holder thereof. There being no evidencne introduced to show any infirmity in the inception of the note, or to meet these presumptions, the verdict was properly instructed, and the judgment is affirmed.
Cushing, PJ" and Hamilton, J., concur.