Cameron v. Ham

Ohio Court of Appeals

Cameron v. Ham

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 220

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 29, 1926

DocketNo. 80

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 220 (Cameron v. Ham) 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

Cameron v. Ham, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 220 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

HOUCK, J.

Frank S. Ham sued upon a note endorsed:

“L. C. Cameron”

“W. E. Fowler”

“Without recourse”

Proper noticte and demand were made upon the said Cameron, who refused payment, asserting that he was an endorser without recourse.

“The note introduced into evidence showed the words “without recourse” under the name of W. E. Fowler and in his handwriting. The Fulton Common Pleas gave judgment on said note to Ham. Error was prosecuted and the Court of Appeals held:

1. The words “without recourse” appearing only after the name of Fowler, apply only to him.

2. Cameron cannot claim the rights of a qualified endorser by taking advantage of the qualified endorsement of Fowler.

3. A person wishing to qualify or limit his liability on the instrument must clearly indicate that his indorsement is limited or qualified.

Judgment affirmed.

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