Buhler v. Jennings

• Citation: 14 N.W. 488,49 Mich. 538
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 05 January 1883
• Parties: BUHLER v. JENNINGS.

14 N.W. 488

49 Mich. 538

BUHLER v. JENNINGS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 5, 1883

The evidence in this case failing to show that the defendant, a married woman, received any consideration for the execution of the promissory note sued upon, having executed such note simply to renew another note given by her for a debt of her husband, the court below committed no error in directing a verdict for the defendant.

Error to Wayne.

S.W Stewart and F.H. Culver, for plaintiff and appellant.

H.M Campbell, for defendant.

GRAVES C.J.

The plaintiff sued upon a note of which the following is a copy:

"$206.54. DETROIT, MICHIGAN, October, 10, 1876.

"Forty-days after date I promise to pay to the order of James Craig, $206.54 at the banking office A. Ives & Sons in Detroit, value received with 10 per cent. interest after date. MARY A. JENNINGS."

Indorsed: "James Craig." "Paid November 22, 1876, ($40,) forty dollars."

The execution of the note and the indorsements were admitted and it was also admitted that the maker, the defendant, was a married woman. The plaintiff then submitted the note in evidence and rested.

It is obvious that no cause of action had now been shown, because no evidence had been adduced of any consideration to sustain a finding against the defendant who was under coverture. Kenton Ins. Co. v. McClellan, 43 Mich. 564. She was not content, however, to rest on the plaintiff's failure to make out a case and she proceeded to give testimony to disprove liability. She gave positive evidence that the debt which the note represented was the sole debt of her husband and that the making of the note was by way of renewal of a prior note given by her husband for his own purpose and which prior note she had signed without consideration. The record affords no warrant for saying that the present note was given for the purchase of the former one. The evidence excludes such a construction.

The trial judge decided not to receive the oral statements of a justice of the peace as to what the defendant had sworn to on an examination before him as garnishee in another case, until the minutes made of such examination by the justice should be produced. These minutes were then shown and put in evidence and this was followed up by an offer from the plaintiff to show by the justice that statements on that examination were made by the defendant, and not taken down, which amounted to admissions of an...