History
  • No items yet
midpage
Bacon v. Slabaugh
1 Ohio Law. Abs. 281
Ohio Ct. App.
1922
Check Treatment
FUNK, J.:

Epitomized Opinion

Bacon brought action on two cognovit notes for $800 each, and judgment was taken upon warrant of attorney on each of the notes for $504. Upon motion of Slabaugh judgment was suspended. Slabaugh claimed that the notes were without consideration, that they were obtained from him by one Hostettle by false representations, and that Bacon knew of these facts. Bacon denied knowledge of these infirmities pertaining to the notes and claimed to be their innocent holder for value in due course. Upon judgment for Slabaugh, Bacon claims that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of evidence, and that the court erred in its charge to the .jury. The charge was copied verbatim to a certain point from the charge of the Ohio Supreme court in a similar case, but the final paragraph was somewhat confusing. ■

1. The Court of Appeals will not disturb a verdict unless it is manifestly against the weight of evidence.

2. When lack of consideration is a defense to an action on a promissory note, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, at every stage of the case.

3. Although one paragraph of a charge when taken alone is confusing, if it properly states the law when taken in connection'with the charge as a whole, it is not prejudicial .error.

Case Details

Case Name: Bacon v. Slabaugh
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Dec 19, 1922
Citation: 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 281
Docket Number: No. 644
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.