Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Wright 459

Michenor v. Kinney

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1833

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1833-10-15

Debt. The obligation exhibited was a note for money with a scrawl in the place of a seal affixed, but no mention was made of a seal in the note. The question is whether the note can be recovered upon as a sealed note.

Decided 1833-10-15

BY THE COURT.

¶1The case of Howe v. Dawson, Tappan, 169, decides the precise point before us; and it is said, the same point has been repeatedly decided by this court, though we have no reported case. Suppose there was a seal of wax instead of a scrawl, would not the instrument be sealed ? Our law puts the scrawl upon the same footing as the wax seal.

¶2Judgment for the plaintiff.

¶3[Note with scrawl is sealed note, followed; Osborn v. Kistler, 35 O. S. 90, 101.]

/1/wright/459 · .json · Public domain