From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trust Co. v. Paving Co.

Supreme Court of Ohio
Apr 11, 1934
191 N.E. 4 (Ohio 1934)

Opinion

No. 24317

Decided April 11, 1934.

Banks and banking — Liquidation — Presentation of check for certification not presentation for "collection and payment" — Section 712, General Code.

ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Montgomery county.

Mr. John W. Bricker, attorney general, Mr. Sidney G. Kusworm, Mr. D.W. Iddings, Mr. Hubert A. Estabrook and Mr. Norman L. Weisman, for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Ozias Ozias and Mr. W.S. Rhotehamel, for defendant in error.


It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be, and the same hereby is, reversed and said cause is hereby remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery county, Ohio, with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the petition, for the reason that statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed, and under a strict construction of Section 712, General Code, presentation of a check for certification is not a presentation for "collection and payment". Fulton, Supt. of Banks, v. B. R. Baker-Toledo Co., post, 226.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ALLEN, STEPHENSON, JONES, MATTHIAS, BEVIS and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Trust Co. v. Paving Co.

Supreme Court of Ohio
Apr 11, 1934
191 N.E. 4 (Ohio 1934)
Case details for

Trust Co. v. Paving Co.

Case Details

Full title:THE UNION TRUST CO. OF DAYTON, OHIO, ET AL. v. THE REPUBLIC ASPHALT PAVING…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Apr 11, 1934

Citations

191 N.E. 4 (Ohio 1934)
191 N.E. 4

Citing Cases

Toledo Trust Co. v. Fulton

The trust company stood in the shoes of the payee, and it was a stranger to the debtor-creditor relationship…

McCoy v. Crutchfield

The Magistrate Judge also explained that the Sixth Circuit has approved the language in a Howard instruction.…