Olinger v. McGuffey

Ohio Supreme Court

Olinger v. McGuffey

55 Ohio St. (N.S.) 661

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 10, 1896

DocketNo. 4418

StatusPublished

This text of 55 Ohio St. (N.S.) 661 (Olinger v. McGuffey) 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

Olinger v. McGuffey, 55 Ohio St. (N.S.) 661 (Ohio 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

The court is of the opinion that there is error shown by the record for which the judgment should be reversed, in this, to wit: That the said James W. Meek, in his answer and cross petition avers that the note on which the suit is brought had been paid off and extinguished, and that the indorsement on the note was placed thereon merely as a memorandum at the request of John G. McGuffey, and not to pass the title to the note, which was denied in the reply of the plaintiff. The burthen of this issue was on the said James M. Meek to establish the same, not by a mere preponderance of the evidence, but by clear and convine[662]*662ing proof. Prom an examination of . the evidence there does not appear to be such proof, and the court must have been of the opinion that such proof is not necessary and that a mere preponderance is all that is required.

Therefore, the court being of the opinion that the rule has been disregarded in this case, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded to the circuit court for a new trial. Ford v. Osborn, 45 Ohio St., 1.

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

The court is of the opinion that there is error shown by the record for which the judgment should be reversed, in this, to wit: That the said James W. Meek, in his answer and cross petition avers that the note on which the suit is brought had been paid off and extinguished, and that the indorsement on the note was placed thereon merely as a memorandum at the request of John G. McGuffey, and not to pass the title to the note, which was denied in the reply of the plaintiff. The burthen of this issue was on the said James M. Meek to establish the same, not by a mere preponderance of the evidence, but by clear and convine[662]*662ing proof. Prom an examination of . the evidence there does not appear to be such proof, and the court must have been of the opinion that such proof is not necessary and that a mere preponderance is all that is required.

Therefore, the court being of the opinion that the rule has been disregarded in this case, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded to the circuit court for a new trial. Ford v. Osborn, 45 Ohio St., 1.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 Ohio St. (N.S.) 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olinger-v-mcguffey-ohio-1896.