Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

First National Bank of Ironton,
Leete et al v.............

417

Fleming and wife, Cory et al. v. 147

Folz, O'Brien & Co. et al., Cor-

ry v........

320

Frazier, Chambers v ..............

362
Frick, Farmers' Ins. Co. V........ 466

........

......

Haffy, Vogle v........

439

Hagany v. Cohen et al........... 82
Hallett v. The State.....

168
Ham et al. v. T., W. & W. R.
W. Co.........

174

Hamilton and Rossville Hy-

draulic Co. v. C., H. & D. R.

R. Co..........

341

Hamma, Ex’r, DeCamp ......... 467

Harmon et al., Mosier v... 221

Harsh, Brownell, Kleimeier &

Co. v....

631

Hart and Nelson v. The State... 666
Hart, Schlief v......

150
Hartshorn et al. v. The State.... 635
Hays v. Galion Gas Light and
Coke Co..........

330
Hill et al., Black v...................

86

Holdren v. The State........... 651

Holland & Pettitt v. Drake et

al.

441

Hollingworth v. The State....... 552

Hulbert et al. v. Mason

............ 562

Humphreys v. Safe Deposit Co.. 608

Humphries, Auditor, et al. v.

The Little Sisters of the Poor. 201

Huston v. Huston.....

600

Odd Fellows Beneficial Associa-

tion et al., Arthur et al. v...... 557
Ohio, Adams v. .......................

412

Ohio, Baker v..........................

184

Ohio, Bowers v...... ...............

542

Inskip, Abbott v............... 59

Iron R. R. Co. v. Lawrence

Furnace Co.............. 208

Johnson, McNichol 0............

Johnson v. Stewart..........

85

498

Kaucher et al. v. Blinn........... 62
Keith, Fairchild et al. ........... 156

226

651

Ohio v. Central Ohio Mutual Re- Sewell o. Board of Education,
lief Association....
399 etc.....

89 Ohio, Cole v......

226 Shaeffer, Adm'r, Keller et al. v. 264 Ohio, Erwin t.......

186
Sharpe v. The State....

263 Ohio, Gage & Gage v................

6 Shelton v. L., S. & M. S. Ry. Co. 214 Obio, Hallett 0.......

168 Sloan et al. v. Lawrence Fur. Ohio, Hart & Nelson v.... 666 nace Co.....

568 Ohio, Hartshorn et al. v. 635 Smith v. Black...

488 Ohio, Holdron v.......... 651 Smith, Butcher v......

604 Obio, Hollingsworth v..............

552 Smith et al., Cincinnati Street Ohio, Leonard v..................... 408 R. R. Co. v.......

292 Ohio o. Rhodes.......

171 Smith v. Lynch, Treasurer, etc.. 261 Ohio, Sharpe 263 Smith et al., Myers v..

102 Ohio, Webb 0........................

351 Stanley, White, Bonner & Ohio o. Wilson....... 347 Wright v.............

423 Ohio ex rel. Attorney-General State, Adams v.......................

412 v. Covington........ 102 State, Baker v.............

184 Obio ex rel. Attorney-General State, Bowers v....

542 v. Greenville Building, etc., State v. Central Ohio Mutual Association ........

92 Relief Association........ 399 Ohio ex rel. Werden v. Will- State, Cole v......... iams...... 161 State, Erwin v...

186 O'Viel, Ludlow 0..........

181 State, Gage & Gage v............ 6 Overturf, Adm'r v. Dugan.... 230 State, Hallett v...

168

State, Hart & Nelson V............ 666 Parker v. Burgett et al............ 513 State, Hartshorn et al. v.......... 635 Petty, Clark & Clark 0...........

452 State, Holdren v........... Phelps o. Cousins.....

135 State, Holling worth v.............. 552 P., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. and C., State, Leonard v............

408 H. & D. R. R. Co., Reynolds v. 602 State v. Rhodes..........

171 P., Ft. W. & C. Ry. Co. et al. v. State, Sharpe v....................

263 Bingham, Adm'x. 364 State, Webb v

351 P., Ft. W. & C. Ry. Co. et al. v. State v. Wilson ........

347 Brigham.

374 State ex rel. Attorney-General
Porter, Allison & Townsley v... 136 v. Covington...........
Potter et al., Gormley et al. v... 597 State ex rel. Attorney-General
Pugh, Godley et al. v...............

438 V. Greenville Building, etc.,
Association.........

92 Quinlan v. Myers.....

500 State ex rel. Werden v. Will.
iams...

161 Raccoon River Navigation Co. Stephens et al., Bulkley V......... 620 0. Eagle............

239 Stephens v. United R. R. St. Rammelsberg et al. v. Mitchell

Yds. Co..........

227 and Lape.. 22 Sterling v. Drake.......

457 Reynolds v. P., C. & St. L. Ry. Stewart, Johnson V.................

498 Co. and C., H. & D. R. R. Co. 602 Stone v. Rockefeller....

625 Rhoades, The State v..... 171 Strader & Co., M. C. R. R. Co. v. 448 Ridenour v. Mayo et al.

138 Sutton, Goode & Stimmel v ...... 587 Rockefeller, Stone ......

625 Rooker v. Rooker............

1 Talbott, Bancroft & Co. V......... 538 Ross r. Doland.........

473 Talmadge et al., Dennison & Ross & Lennan, Farmers' Ins. Niel, Ex’rs V.........

433 Co. 0......

429

Tenney et al., Bell 0 .......... Rowley, Cooper V....

547 Taylor et al., Boggs, Adm'r v... 172 Rush v. Rush et al.......

440 Taylor et al., Miller v.............. 257

Taylor et al. v. Thorn, Adm’r... 569 Safe Deposit Co., Humphreys v. 608 T., W. & W. R. R. Co., Ham et Schleif 0. Hart........ 150 al. v.......

174 Schrock and Schneider v. Cleveland .....

499 United R. R. St. Yds. Co. et al., Scott et al., Wilson et ux. 0...... 636 Stevens v..........

227

102

240

[blocks in formation]

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO,

DECEMBER TERM, 1875.

PRESENT :

Hox. JOHN WELCH, CHIEF JUSTICE.
Hon. WILLIAM WHITE,
Hox. GEORGE REX,

JUDGES.
Hon. WILLIAM J. GILMORE,
Hox. GEORGE W. McILVAINE,

MELISSA ROOKER V. NELSON ROOKER ET AL.

1. To defeat the title of an innocent purchaser to a note, on the ground of

inadequacy of the price paid for it, the inadequacy must be such, under

the circumstances, as to impeach the good faith of the purchase. 2. Where the purchaser of such note receives it in part payment of prop

erty sold, his title to the note is not affected by the fact that he retains the title and possession of the property sold as security for the unpaid purchase money.

Reserved in the District Court of Geauga

APPEAL. county.

This action was commenced on the 31st day of January, 1870, to subject certain promissory notes described in the - petition to the payment of a decree for alimony, rendered in favor of the plaintiff, against the defendant, Nelson VOL. XXIX-1

(1)

Rooker v. Rooker et al.

Rooker, in the Court of Common Pleas of Geauga county at its September term, 1869, and which was in full force and unsatisfied at the commencement of this action.

The petition states that at the time of the rendition of the decree for alimony, the defendant, Rooker, was the owner of the promissory notes described, and combining and confederating with the defendants, Emmit H. Hickox and Talcott C. Carpenter, to defraud the plaintiff, and hinder and delay the collection of her decree, fraudulently and without consideration transferred certain of the notes described in the petition to Carpenter, who had knowledge of the fraudulent intent and purpose of Rooker and Hickox, and who now pretends to be the owner of the notes so transferred. The prayer of the petition is that the parties be restrained from selling or otherwise disposing of the notes, and for other proper relief.

The defendant, Carpenter, answered, denying the allegations of the petition as to all fraud or knowledge of fraud charged on his part, and averring that the notes described were sold, transferred and delivered to him by Hickox for a good and valuable consideration, and that he is the legal owner thereof.

The trial in the court of common pleas resulted in a decree in favor of the plaintiff, from which an appeal was taken by the defendant, Talcott C. Carpenter, to the district court.

On the hearing in the district court of the issues joined between the plaintiff and the defendant, Carpenter, that court found, in substance, that five of the promissory notes described in the petition, all of which were negotiable and one past due, of the face value of $1,989, were at the time of the decree for alimony the property of Nelson Rooker, who, for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff and preventing her from subjecting the same to the payment of her decree, transferred and delivered them to Emmit H. Hickox, who received and held them for a like purpose, and who, with a like intent, on the 30th day of September, 1869, at which time interest had accrued on the notes to the amount of $137, transferred and delivered them to the defendant,

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »