Garton v. Union City National Bank

• Decision Date: 13 June 1876
• Citation: 34 Mich. 279
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Jane Garton v. The Union City National Bank

34 Mich. 279

Jane Garton v. The Union City National Bank

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 13, 1876

Heard June 8, 1876

Error to Eaton Circuit.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

M. V & R. A. Montgomery, for plaintiff in error.

C. J Beerstecher, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Graves, J.

The bank sued, and was allowed to recover, on an instrument of the following tenor:

"$ 1,000. Union City, Mich., May 12, 1873.

"On demand, days after date, I promise to pay to C. T. Allen, cashier, or order, one thousand dollars at Union City National Bank, value received, with exchange on New York, and interest at ten per cent after maturity.

"Jane Garton.

"This note is to be used as collateral security to A. Climie's notes."

The declaration set forth the instrument, and averred that it was made to the bank and received bye the bank as collateral security for a demand it then held against Climie, and for advances it might make thereafter to Climie, and then alleged certain obligations from Climie to the Bank as covered by the note and charged to be due and payable. The general issue was pleaded, and the cause was tried by a jury.

A certificate of the comptroller of the currency, of the due organization of the bank in 1871, and of its right to carry on banking under the federal act, was admitted under objection. The point made against the admission of this evidence has no force. The certificate seems to have been unobjectionable. But whether it was or not, the case did not require its introduction to show corporate existence. For the purpose of the action that stood admitted.--§ 6547, C. L.; also Act 109, L. 1871, p. 176; Thatcher v. West River Nat. Bk., 19 Mich. 196; Society for Propagation of the Gospel, etc. v. Town of Pawlet, 4 Pet. 480.

It is said the note was wrongly admitted because it was made payable to the order of Allen, and was not indorsed by him. No indorsement was necessary. The instrument plainly indicated that it was made to Allen, not as an individual, but as a bank officer, and that it was a contract with the bank.

The evidence admitted in explanation of the true consideration of the note, and the identity, nature and amount of the Climie demands referred to, was not objectionable. The purpose was to correctly apply the note to the transactions it indicated it was intended to cover, and confine it to the very claims it purported to secure, and not to alter its terms or in any way inflame the liability of Mrs. Garton or prejudice her rights. It indicated on its face, or rather by the memorandum connected with it, that it was to be carried out and enforced restrictively as against Mrs. Garton, and with reference to particular bank demands against Clime, and the intent could not be carried out and strict protection be accorded to Mrs. Garton's rights without showing the facts. The evidence was favorable to her interests, and, as we think, was not objectionable under the rules of law.

An objection is made that two paragraphs of the charge, which are pointed out, were oral, and it is claimed that the judgment should be reversed on that account. We do not think so. No...