Drovers' Nat. Bank v. Blue

Citation110 Mich. 31,67 N.W. 1105
PartiesDROVERS' NAT. BANK v. BLUE.
Decision Date30 June 1896
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

110 Mich. 31
67 N.W. 1105

DROVERS' NAT. BANK
v.
BLUE.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 30, 1896.


Error to circuit court, Wexford county; Fred H. Aldrich, Judge.

Action on a note by the Drovers' National Bank against George W. Blue. A judgment for plaintiff, rendered by a justice of the peace, was reversed on appeal to the circuit court, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

[67 N.W. 1105]

H. M. Dunham, for appellant.

Sawyer & Bishop, for appellee.


HOOKER, J.

The plaintiff commenced this action in justice court, and obtained judgment, which was reversed by the circuit court upon certiorari. It is here upon writ of error.

The case was first tried by a jury, the result being a disagreement. After the discharge of the jury, the parties stipulated in writing that the case might be decided by the justice upon the proofs taken upon the trial, all questions raised upon such trial to be saved to the respective parties, the same as though the proceedings upon such trial had been repeated before the justice. The stipulation takes the case out from the rule laid down in the case of Hollenberg v. Shuffert, 47 Mich. 126, 10 N. W. 137. The action was upon a promissory note executed and delivered by the defendant to the Chicago Supply Company, an Illinois corporation. The plaintiff offered in evidence the notice (the execution being admitted), and produced testimony to the effect that it purchased the note before maturity from the Chicago Supply Company in good faith, paying $70 therefor, by crediting the same upon the bank book of said company, which did banking with the plaintiff. The defendant thereupon offered to show that the note was procured through the fraud of the Chicago Supply Company, but this proof was excluded, on the ground that it must first be shown that the plaintiff was not a bona fide purchaser. Had the plaintiff merely introduced the note, with proof of ownership and amount due, and rested, the testimony offered would have been admissible, under the rule that the burden of showing bona fides is upon the plaintiff when there is testimony showing fraud in the inception of the note. Little v. Mills, 98 Mich. 423, 57 N. W. 266;Rice v. Rankans, 101 Mich. 385, 59 N. W. 660. But in this case the plaintiff attempted to show a bona fide holding; and it is manifest that, if he made out a prima facie case of such holding, no amount of evidence of fraud in the inception of the note would be of any avail, until such prima facie case should be attacked by evidence raising...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT