Ohio Supreme Court, 1832

Ford ex rel. Patterson v. Haft

Ford ex rel. Patterson v. Haft
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided October 15, 1832
1 Wright 118; 1 Ohio Ch. 118

Ford ex rel. Patterson v. Haft

Opinion of the Court

BY THE COURT.

There is no affidavit to the plea, and if the note is substantially described, it may be read. Though Cole and Lindsay cannot have a common seal, yet each may have used the same seal, and made it his. The note may go in evidence; but whether, unexplained, it will avail the plaintiff, is another question.

The note was then read. A witness was called, who proved the signature of Cole and Lindsay to be the writing of Cole, and his act alone.

The plaintiff rested. The defendant moved for a non suit.

BY THE COURT. The plaintiff cannot recover. He has sued three upon an obligation of two.

*119Non suit ordered. See Button & Freeman v. Hampson, et al. Ante 94.

[Attaching seal does not vitiate note; Johnson v. Nelson, 3 W. L. M. 306, 310.]

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.