Leonard v. Sweetzer

16 Ohio St. 1
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1847
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 16 Ohio St. 1 (Leonard v. Sweetzer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leonard v. Sweetzer, 16 Ohio St. 1 (Ohio 1847).

Opinion

Avert, J.

In the first five counts of the declaration, it is the aim of the pleader so to shape his case that he may present a legal right to recover against the defendant, without proving the strict [4]*4notice and demand required against the indorser of negotiable paper. Numerous authorities have been cited by the counsel, to boar upon the case, in this aspect of it, and to show the duties and liabilities arising under a guaranty. But, by the interpretation which the court have put upon this instrument, the questions thus agitated by the counsel, do not call for a decision. We regard the defendant, Sweetzer, as an original contractor. The paper was executed by himself and Martin, both at the same time, Martin signing first, and Sweetzer connecting with his signature, just enough to show that he contracted as a surety. Indeed, he is liable in this case, precisely as he would have been, if he had barely written the word “surety” after his name, and an action could be sustained, upon the paper, against Martin and Sweetzer jointly, as well as against either of them separately. In this view, the only question involved was decided by this court, in the ease of Stage v. Olds et al., 12 Ohio, 158.

To the last count of the declaration, the only exception taken is that it contains no evidence of a sufficient consideration. Here, the instrument itself expresses the consideration, as is common in notes of hand, by the words “for value received;” and, if a count setting forth the consideration, as *it is found in the written promise, would be sufficient in a suit against Martin, it will be also against the defendant, Sweetzer. The decision and reasoning of the court, in the case of Dugan v. Campbell, 1 Ohio, 115, will support the form of declaring adopted in this count. Upon this count, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment; and under the decision that here is an original contract, on the part of .Sweetzer, and that a sufficient consideration is expressed in the instrument, all the other counts in the declaration may be sustained, for they are based upon the contract, and contain all the material averments to be found in the last count, besides those special allegations meant to raise the questions under a guaranty, and which may be stricken out, or treated as' surplusage.

The demurrer, therefore, is not well taken to either of the counts, and will be overruled.

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

Related

HARTLESS v. CLINE
2023 OK CIV APP 30 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2023)
GRAND CREST OWNERS ASSOC. v. STITES
2022 OK CIV APP 16 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2020)
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF HYER
2020 OK CIV APP 31 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2020)
Opinion No. Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1984
Opinion No.
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1973
Opinion No. 73-134 (1973) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1973
Opinion No. 71-271 (1971) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1971
Ort v. Hutchinson
181 N.E.2d 807 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1961)
Hunt v. Rohrbaugh Enterprises, Inc.
171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 92 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1960)
Minor v. Seliga
168 Ohio St. (N.S.) 1 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1958)
State v. Cimpritz
158 Ohio St. (N.S.) 490 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1953)
Williams v. O'Neill
52 N.E.2d 858 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1944)
State Ex Rel. Talaba v. Moreland
5 N.E.2d 159 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1936)
Shires v. Fesler
25 Ohio C.C. Dec. 162 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1914)
Papillion Times Printing Co. v. Sarpy County
123 N.W. 452 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1909)
Aetna Life Insurance v. Penn
1 Hosea's Rep. 217 (Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati, 1907)
Ossman v. Schmitz
14 Ohio C.C. Dec. 709 (Cuyahoga Circuit Court, 1903)
Hannum v. Norris
21 Kan. 114 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Ohio St. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-v-sweetzer-ohio-1847.