Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Ind. 180

Hall v. Harris

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 31, 1861

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1861-05-31

<p>Suit 'upon a promissory note, dated at “ Piqua, Ohio,” and payable at the Branch of the State Bank of Ohio, at that place.</p> <p>Held, that the note bore on its face presumptive evidence that it was mado in Ohio.</p> <p>Held, also, that the makers of the note were estopped to deny the legal existence of the State Bank of Ohio, at the time the note was given.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1893

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-05-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Guriam.

¶1Suit upon four notes, of which we copy one as a sample of the others.

¶2“ $97 TV\

¶3“ On or before January 1, 1859, for value received, I promise to pay Moffit c& Johnson, or order, at the Piqua *181Branch, of the State Bank of Ohio, the sum of ninety-two TV5o dollars, with ten per cent, interest from date, until paid, without any relief whatever from valuation .or appraisement laws of Indiana- ■

A. Steele and H. D. Thompson, for the appellant.John Brownlee, for the appellees.

¶4“Piqua, Ohio, Nov. 5, 1858. John F. Hall.”

¶5This note shows, on its face, that it was made in Ohio.

¶6The law of Ohio was pleaded, and proved by a certified copy from the Secretary of State of Ohio, under the seal of the State; which law authorized 10 per cent, interest.

¶7The party was estopped by his note, to deny the existence, at its date, of the State Bank of Ohio.

¶8We discover no error in the case.

¶9The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent, damages and costs.

/16/ind/180 · .json · Public domain