Everett v. Farmers Bank Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Everett v. Farmers Bank Co.

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 685, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 2004

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 8, 1923

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 685 (Everett v. Farmers Bank Co.) 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

Everett v. Farmers Bank Co., 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 685, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 2004 (Ohio Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

HUGHES, J.

Epitomized Opinion

This is an action for conversion. The opinion does not give the facts giving rise to the alleged conversion. It seems that bonds were stoien xrom the bank as alleged bailee. Reversal is asked on the ground that the evidence does not establish a relationship of bailee and bailor, that recovery should have been limited to the interest of the bailee and the property converted, and that only heresay evidence established the amount of the bonds stolen from the bank. In reversing the judgment the Court of Appeals held;

1. It was prejudicial error to allow proof of the amount of the bonds stolen by hearsay evidence entirely.

2. A bailee may re over the full value of prep-erty converted. For the conversion of money securities such as bonds, notes, etc., the owner is prima facie entitled to their face value. Either party may show the actual market value to increase cr decrease the damages.

3. The evidence establishes the bank as bailee under the decisions of 113 Atl. 681; 190 Pac. 946, and 95 N. E. 973.

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

HUGHES, J.

Epitomized Opinion

This is an action for conversion. The opinion does not give the facts giving rise to the alleged conversion. It seems that bonds were stoien xrom the bank as alleged bailee. Reversal is asked on the ground that the evidence does not establish a relationship of bailee and bailor, that recovery should have been limited to the interest of the bailee and the property converted, and that only heresay evidence established the amount of the bonds stolen from the bank. In reversing the judgment the Court of Appeals held;

1. It was prejudicial error to allow proof of the amount of the bonds stolen by hearsay evidence entirely.

2. A bailee may re over the full value of prep-erty converted. For the conversion of money securities such as bonds, notes, etc., the owner is prima facie entitled to their face value. Either party may show the actual market value to increase cr decrease the damages.

3. The evidence establishes the bank as bailee under the decisions of 113 Atl. 681; 190 Pac. 946, and 95 N. E. 973.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 685, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 2004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-v-farmers-bank-co-ohioctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack