Citizens' Commercial & Savings Bank v. Platt

• Decision Date: 22 December 1903
• Citation: 97 N.W. 694,135 Mich. 267
• Parties: CITIZENS' COMMERCIAL & SAVINGS BANK OF FLINT v. PLATT et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

97 N.W. 694

135 Mich. 267

CITIZENS' COMMERCIAL & SAVINGS BANK OF FLINT v. PLATT et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 22, 1903

Error to Circuit Court, Genesee County; Emmet L. Beach, Judge.

Action by the Citizens' Commercial & Savings Bank of Flint against Fred A. Platt and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant Michael E. Houran appeals. Affirmed.

In 1895 the defendants Houran and Whitehead were copartners doing business in Flint under the firm name of Houran & Whitehead. The defendants Platt and Gass were copartners doing business in the same city under the firm name of F. A. Platt & Co. About the 1st of October, 1895, Houran & Whitehead sold goods to Platt & Co., for which they received in payment a demand note for $1,570, executed by F. A. Platt & Co., payable to Houran & Whitehead. Houran & Whitehead indorsed it, and presented it at the plaintiff bank, which, at their request discounted it for Houran & Whitehead, who received and used the entire amount paid. It was three times renewed, the last note being dated December 8, 1899, and being the one now in suit. Houran alone defends. As each renewal note was presented at the bank, it was accepted, and the old note surrendered. At the giving of the last note Platt & Co. assigned some stock in a corporation as security, which proved to be worthless. The three renewal notes were given directly to the bank as payee, and all bore the indorsement of Houran & Whitehead. Whitehead had attended to the financial transactions of his firm. All the indorsements were signed by him for the firm. Houran & Whitehead dealt with the plaintiff all these years, and Whitehead attnded to all the business with the bank. A few small payments were made. Plaintiff made an effort to collect the first note from the makers. There is no evidence to show that the first note was protested. The only testimony upon the point is that of Houran that he knew of no protest being served. Under the undisputed evidence in the case it would have been served upon Whitehead, and not upon him. At the conclusion of the testimony the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff.

Rundell & Stockton and Black & Roberts, for appellant Michael E. houran.

Lee &amp Parker, for appellee.

GRANT J. (after stating the facts.)

The defense is that Houran & Whitehead were discharged on the first note, and that Whitehead had no authority to sign the firm name to the renewals, or to change the liability from indorser to that of maker. On the first note Houran &amp Whitehead were indorsers, and not joint makers. On the last note they were joint makers. Peninsular Sav. Bank v Hosie, 112 Mich. 351, 70 N.W. 890. Whether they were makers or indorsers of the two intermediate notes does not clearly appear; neither is it material. The receipt and acceptance of each renewal note and the surrender of the former note constituted a payment of the former. Childs v....