Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Wright 414

Kline v. Prindle

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 15, 1833

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1833-08-15

Assumpsit. On trial, it appeared in evidence, that the parties had purchased a drove of horses together, and started with them to an 415] *eastern market. Before they reached Pittsburgh, on the 19th of May, Kline sold his interest in the drove to Prindle, and took his due bill for four hundred and fifty dollars, which is the foundation of this suit.

Decided 1833-08-15

WRIGHT, J.

¶1to the jury. The defendant claims credit for the money received by Kline on his order at Lebanon, and if he is entitled to that credit, your verdict should be for him; if not, against him for that sum with interest. The plaintiff urges to you, that it is incumbent on the defendant to show that the $130 endorsed, was for so much cash. We think he is in error in this; the endorsement 'is apparently f or cash, and if not so in fact, it is for the plaintiff to show the fact; the legal presumption is against him. It is insisted that the evidence proves, that the $130 was for the order on Lebanon. The defendant insists that the proof is, that the sale and due bill were for cash, to be paid out of the sales, and when they separated, he gave $130 in cash, and orders for money to be collected by Kline, on his return home, for the balance. He claims, that if the parties intended to endorse the orders as cash, they would have so endorsed the whole; but as it was, they endorsed the cash, and •left Kline to endorse the other as he received it. That in fact, the *$130 was endorsed at Allentown, and $130 afterwards paid [416 =at Lebanon. You must look to the whole evidence, and determine the matter.

¶2Verdict and judgment for defendant.

/1/wright/414 · .json · Public domain