Miller v. B. & O. R. R.

Ohio Supreme Court

Miller v. B. & O. R. R.

60 Ohio St. (N.S.) 374

DecidedJune 6, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 60 Ohio St. (N.S.) 374 (Miller v. B. & O. R. R.) 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

Miller v. B. & O. R. R., 60 Ohio St. (N.S.) 374 (Ohio 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The contention of plaintiffs in error is that the filing of the assignment with the clerk of the court and the copying of that paper on the appearance docket constituted notice of the assignment to The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, upon the ground that the assignment was a paper in the case, and that the garnishee was so far a party in the action as to be bound to take notice of its filing and recording. We think not. The case was concluded by the entry of final judgment, and whether or not the garnishee was bound to take notice of all papers filed in the case, no such duty devolved upon it to keep watch of the files and the docket to see whether or not the judgment in favor of Hull had been transferred to another. The payment to Hull having been made by the defendant in error in good faith, and without notice of the assignment, was a valid payment and discharg’ed the debt.

Judgment affirmed.

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

By the Court.

The contention of plaintiffs in error is that the filing of the assignment with the clerk of the court and the copying of that paper on the appearance docket constituted notice of the assignment to The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, upon the ground that the assignment was a paper in the case, and that the garnishee was so far a party in the action as to be bound to take notice of its filing and recording. We think not. The case was concluded by the entry of final judgment, and whether or not the garnishee was bound to take notice of all papers filed in the case, no such duty devolved upon it to keep watch of the files and the docket to see whether or not the judgment in favor of Hull had been transferred to another. The payment to Hull having been made by the defendant in error in good faith, and without notice of the assignment, was a valid payment and discharg’ed the debt.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Ohio St. (N.S.) 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-b-o-r-r-ohio-1899.