Behlen v. Fraas

Ohio Circuit Courts

Behlen v. Fraas

6 Ohio C.C. 153

DecidedJanuary 15, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Ohio C.C. 153 (Behlen v. Fraas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Behlen v. Fraas, 6 Ohio C.C. 153 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Shauck, J.

The burden of proof was upon the plaintiff below. The testimony of the parties was in direct conflict. It seems clear that if the jury had given its proper probative effect in her support to the fact that the sole note of the husband was taken in consideration of the loan, the verdict would have been for the plaintiff in error.

But upon principle and authority the acceptance of a note under such circumstances, is in law, conclusive of the question which the trial court left to the jury. There is neither allegation nor proof that the name of Mrs. Behlen was left off the note by mistake or omission, nor that any fact that is now disclosed was not then known by the lender of the money. If, therefore, he might elect whether the husband, or the wife, or both should be debtor to him on account of the loan, he made an election by which he is conclusively bound. Bishop on Contracts, 1078 and 1085 ; Paterson v. Gaudesequi, 15 East 62; Coxe v. Devine, 5 Harring, 375 ; Silver v. Jordan, 136 Mass. 319.

The judgment oí the court of common pleas will be reversed, final judgment will be rendered for the plaintiff in error and the cause remanded for execution.

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

Shauck, J.

The burden of proof was upon the plaintiff below. The testimony of the parties was in direct conflict. It seems clear that if the jury had given its proper probative effect in her support to the fact that the sole note of the husband was taken in consideration of the loan, the verdict would have been for the plaintiff in error.

But upon principle and authority the acceptance of a note under such circumstances, is in law, conclusive of the question which the trial court left to the jury. There is neither allegation nor proof that the name of Mrs. Behlen was left off the note by mistake or omission, nor that any fact that is now disclosed was not then known by the lender of the money. If, therefore, he might elect whether the husband, or the wife, or both should be debtor to him on account of the loan, he made an election by which he is conclusively bound. Bishop on Contracts, 1078 and 1085 ; Paterson v. Gaudesequi, 15 East 62; Coxe v. Devine, 5 Harring, 375 ; Silver v. Jordan, 136 Mass. 319.

The judgment oí the court of common pleas will be reversed, final judgment will be rendered for the plaintiff in error and the cause remanded for execution.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Ohio C.C. 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/behlen-v-fraas-ohiocirct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack