
    No. 384
    NORTON v. HENDERSON
    Ohio Court of Appeals, Allen County, Ohio
    No. 333.
    March 9, 1923
    Chittenden, Kinkade and Richards, of the Sixth District, sitting.
    This opinion has not been published except in Abstract.
    CONTRACT — (1) Surrender of stock in considera- . tion of execution of instrument in payment of services rendered is good consideration for — (2) No presumption of consideration except in negotiable , instruments — PROCEDURE—(3) Courses open to defendant when motion for directed verdict is refused — (4) Bill of exceptions must contain certificate that all the evidence heard is contained' therein.
    Error to Allen Court of Common Pleas
    Judgment Affirmed
    •Attorneys — Wheeler & Bentley, Stickle & Cessn and C. W. Faulkner, for Norton; W. H. Klinger ah Henderson & Durbin, for Henderson.
   CHITTENDEN, J.

Chittendon, Kinkade and Richards, JJ.

Epitomized Opinion

Norton and others agreed in writing to pay to Henderson $14,000 in consideration that Henderson transfer to The R. L. Dollings Co. certain stock which he held, partly in his own name and partly in trust, in the Champion Eng. Co. Part of the amount was to satisfy a claim by Henderson as attorney fees for services rendered and the whole transaction was purusant to a plan of reorganiztion of the Champion Eng. Co. Henderson brought suit on the instrumer and Norton set up as a defense lack of consideratior A motion by Norton for a verdict in his favor at th conclusion of plaintiff’s testimony was overruled an a verdict for Henderson in the lower court. Held b Court of Appeals in affirming the judgment:

1. Assignment and surrender of stock in consic eration of the execution of an instrument in paymen of services and the purchase price of other share of stock in sufficient consideration to allow an actio to be maintained on the instrument.

2. There is a presumption as to consideration onl in the case of negotiable instruments.

3. When at the conclusion of a plaintiff’s evidenc a motion is made by the defendant for a verdict i his favor and such motion is overruled,' the defenc ant has an election either to stand on the exceptio to the ruling on his motion and let judgment i entered accordingly or to proceed with his defense.

4. A reviewing court can only know that all th evidence is before the court by a statement in th bill of exceptions that it contains all the evidenc* 78 O. S. 326.  