Martin v. Butler

Ohio Supreme Court

Martin v. Butler

1 Wright 553, 1 Ohio Ch. 553

DecidedMay 15, 1834

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 553 (Martin v. Butler) 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

Martin v. Butler, 1 Wright 553, 1 Ohio Ch. 553 (Ohio 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

LANE, J.

This is not a promissory note nor a bill of exchange, and so is not within our statute dispensing with proof in certain ■cases. The right to read it in evidence must be determined on ■common principles. The plaintiff must prove the authority of the .agent and the execution by him of the paper, before he can read it.

Proof was then offered that before the date of this note Butler ■Carried on the factory at 'Wolcotville, that Wolcott was the agent, and éxecuted this receipt, and the Butlers failed in August, 1821. It also ápjpeared that Fred. Wolcott built the factory and failed, and that Butler came to Cincinnati in June, 1821, sick, and continued [570]*570so for some time, during which the factory stopped. It 'had frequently changed owners.

N. Wright for the plaintiff. Caswell and Starr for the defendant.

LANE, J. to the jury. If the evidence satisfies you that the defendant was interested in carrying on this factory at the date of the receipt, and that Wolcott transacted the business as agent, it is-not necessary, in the way the issue is made up, that Butler should-then have been sole owner. The plaintiff’s right to recover in case Butler had any interest in the factory, depends upon his satisfying you that Wolcott as Butler’s agent, bought the wool for him in pursuance of his authority, or that having purchased without authority, Butler received it and derived the benefit of the purchase,, as thereby he would ratify the purchase as made for him.

Jury being unable to agree were discharged.

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

LANE, J.

This is not a promissory note nor a bill of exchange, and so is not within our statute dispensing with proof in certain ■cases. The right to read it in evidence must be determined on ■common principles. The plaintiff must prove the authority of the .agent and the execution by him of the paper, before he can read it.

Proof was then offered that before the date of this note Butler ■Carried on the factory at 'Wolcotville, that Wolcott was the agent, and éxecuted this receipt, and the Butlers failed in August, 1821. It also ápjpeared that Fred. Wolcott built the factory and failed, and that Butler came to Cincinnati in June, 1821, sick, and continued [570]*570so for some time, during which the factory stopped. It 'had frequently changed owners.

N. Wright for the plaintiff. Caswell and Starr for the defendant.

LANE, J. to the jury. If the evidence satisfies you that the defendant was interested in carrying on this factory at the date of the receipt, and that Wolcott transacted the business as agent, it is-not necessary, in the way the issue is made up, that Butler should-then have been sole owner. The plaintiff’s right to recover in case Butler had any interest in the factory, depends upon his satisfying you that Wolcott as Butler’s agent, bought the wool for him in pursuance of his authority, or that having purchased without authority, Butler received it and derived the benefit of the purchase,, as thereby he would ratify the purchase as made for him.

Jury being unable to agree were discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 553, 1 Ohio Ch. 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-butler-ohio-1834.