Summit County Bank v. W. F. Smith & Co.

1 Handy 575
CourtOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati
DecidedJuly 1, 1855
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Handy 575 (Summit County Bank v. W. F. Smith & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Summit County Bank v. W. F. Smith & Co., 1 Handy 575 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1855).

Opinion

Gholson, J.

This is an action on a bill of exchange, for its amount and interest, and also for statutory damages and costs of protest. The pleader sets out a cause of action on the bill for the amount payable on its face and interest, under Section 122 of the Code; and then sets out another and distinct cause of action for the damages and protest. To this second cause of action, there is a demurrer.

Standing alone and without reference to the first cause of action, the facts to sustain the second are not sufficiently stated. To state them sufficiently, the bill, from the non-payment of which the damages arose, would have to be set out; and this clearly shows, that a claim for the damages, disconnected from the claim on the bill, is unnecessary. The Statute allowing the damages plainly contemplates, that they are to be recovered in an action on the bill; they become a part of the same cause of action, and need not be separated any more than the claim for interest.

The demurrer will be sustained, and the petition can be amended forthwith, by striking out the figures 1 and 2, separating the causes of action. The answer already filed, denying notice, will still be a perfect answer, and the case will at once stand for trial.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Handy 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summit-county-bank-v-w-f-smith-co-ohsuperctcinci-1855.