Case Name: CLARK v. MIDLAND BANK
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1926-07-08
Citations: 4 Ohio Law Abs. 650
Docket Number: No. 19959
Parties: CLARK v. MIDLAND BANK
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 4
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
CLARK v. MIDLAND BANK
No. 19959.
Supreme Court
Dock. July 8, 1926;
4 Abs. 475.

Opinion:
It appears that the note was delivered to the Hunter Crucible Steel Company, under an agreement which the company never complied with. Subsequently the company indorsed the note to the bank to secure a pre-existing debt.
Attorneys — C. S. Bentley for Clark; Baker, Hostetler & Sidlo for Bank; all of Cleveland.
The judgment of the Common Pleas in favor of the Bank was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Clark in the Supreme Court contends:
1. That after a defective title in the Steel Company was shown the burden of proof was upon the bank to show that it was a holder in due course.
2. The court erred in its charge to the jury.