Central Acceptance Corp. v. Bradfield

Ohio Court of Appeals

Central Acceptance Corp. v. Bradfield

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 566, 1928 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1015

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 12, 1928

DocketNo. 386

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 566 (Central Acceptance Corp. v. Bradfield) 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

Central Acceptance Corp. v. Bradfield, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 566, 1928 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1015 (Ohio Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

FARR, J.

It is provided in part of Sec. 8170 G.C. as follows:

“Every person negotiating an instrument by delivery or by a qualified in-dorsement warrants:

“1. That the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be.

“2. That he has a good title to it.

“3. That all prior parties had capacity to contract.”

Two things are to be noted in the above; first, that every person negotiating an instrument by delivery or by a qualified endorsement warrants that the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be. In the instant case the endorsement was qualified. It was without recourse.

And then in paragraph three it is provided, “That all prior parties had capacity to contract.”

The conclusion is therefore that the provisions of Sec. 8170 apply in the instant case, because, in the trial before the Municipal Court, it was established, beyond question, that Jefferies, at the time he signed the note, was a minor under the age of 21 years, towit, of the age of 18 years.

And having determined that the provisions of Sec. 8170 apply in this case, it follows that the judgment is contrary to law, and for that reason is reversed, and, the cause remanded.

(Pollock and Roberts concur.)

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