Cincinnati Brush & Mop Mfg Co. v. Weber

Ohio Court of Appeals

Cincinnati Brush & Mop Mfg Co. v. Weber

172 N.E. 568, 35 Ohio App. 506, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 164, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 344

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 9, 1929

Docket3513

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 N.E. 568 (Cincinnati Brush & Mop Mfg Co. v. Weber) 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

Cincinnati Brush & Mop Mfg Co. v. Weber, 172 N.E. 568, 35 Ohio App. 506, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 164, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 344 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSS, J.

Section 8129 GC, provides that every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable consideration. Section 8130 GC, provides that value is any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract. There was no evidence introduced by the defendant to meet the presumption of value or any evidence indicating that value, within the meaning of 8130 GC did not exist, but, on the contrary, the evidence showed a promise to perform the work by the payee of the note which promise could be and was the supporting consideration for the note.

There was some question raised as to the negotiability of the instrument, owing to the presence of the words “for unfinished work on bldg.”, appearing on the face of the note. Under 8108 GC, it is provided that: “ An unqualified order or promise to pay is unconditional within the meaning of this chapter, though coupled with: x x x x 2. A statement of the transaction which gives rise to the instrument.” The instrument was, therefore, negotiable, and clothed with all the presumptions accruing to a holder thereof. There being no evidencne introduced to show any infirmity in the inception of the note, or to meet these presumptions, the verdict was properly instructed, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cushing, PJ„ and Hamilton, J., concur.

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

ROSS, J.

Section 8129 GC, provides that every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable consideration. Section 8130 GC, provides that value is any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract. There was no evidence introduced by the defendant to meet the presumption of value or any evidence indicating that value, within the meaning of 8130 GC did not exist, but, on the contrary, the evidence showed a promise to perform the work by the payee of the note which promise could be and was the supporting consideration for the note.

There was some question raised as to the negotiability of the instrument, owing to the presence of the words “for unfinished work on bldg.”, appearing on the face of the note. Under 8108 GC, it is provided that: “ An unqualified order or promise to pay is unconditional within the meaning of this chapter, though coupled with: x x x x 2. A statement of the transaction which gives rise to the instrument.” The instrument was, therefore, negotiable, and clothed with all the presumptions accruing to a holder thereof. There being no evidencne introduced to show any infirmity in the inception of the note, or to meet these presumptions, the verdict was properly instructed, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cushing, PJ„ and Hamilton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 N.E. 568, 35 Ohio App. 506, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 164, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-brush-mop-mfg-co-v-weber-ohioctapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack