Bacon v. Slabaugh

Ohio Court of Appeals

Bacon v. Slabaugh

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 281, 1922 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 186

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 19, 1922

DocketNo. 644

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 281 (Bacon v. Slabaugh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bacon v. Slabaugh, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 281, 1922 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 186 (Ohio Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

FUNK, J.:

Epitomized Opinion

Bacon brought action on two cognovit notes for $800 each, and judgment was taken upon warrant of attorney on each of the notes for $504. Upon motion of Slabaugh judgment was suspended. Slabaugh claimed that the notes were without consideration, that they were obtained from him by one Hostettle by false representations, and that Bacon knew of these facts. Bacon denied knowledge of these infirmities pertaining to the notes and claimed to be their innocent holder for value in due course. Upon judgment for Slabaugh, Bacon claims that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of evidence, and that the court erred in its charge to the .jury. The charge was copied verbatim to a certain point from the charge of the Ohio Supreme court in a similar case, but the final paragraph was somewhat confusing. ■

1. The Court of Appeals will not disturb a verdict unless it is manifestly against the weight of evidence.

2. When lack of consideration is a defense to an action on a promissory note, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, at every stage of the case.

3. Although one paragraph of a charge when taken alone is confusing, if it properly states the law when taken in connection'with the charge as a whole, it is not prejudicial .error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FUNK, J.:

Epitomized Opinion

Bacon brought action on two cognovit notes for $800 each, and judgment was taken upon warrant of attorney on each of the notes for $504. Upon motion of Slabaugh judgment was suspended. Slabaugh claimed that the notes were without consideration, that they were obtained from him by one Hostettle by false representations, and that Bacon knew of these facts. Bacon denied knowledge of these infirmities pertaining to the notes and claimed to be their innocent holder for value in due course. Upon judgment for Slabaugh, Bacon claims that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of evidence, and that the court erred in its charge to the .jury. The charge was copied verbatim to a certain point from the charge of the Ohio Supreme court in a similar case, but the final paragraph was somewhat confusing. ■

1. The Court of Appeals will not disturb a verdict unless it is manifestly against the weight of evidence.

2. When lack of consideration is a defense to an action on a promissory note, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, at every stage of the case.

3. Although one paragraph of a charge when taken alone is confusing, if it properly states the law when taken in connection'with the charge as a whole, it is not prejudicial .error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 281, 1922 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bacon-v-slabaugh-ohioctapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack