Goodrich v. McDonald
| Decision Date | 08 November 1889 |
| Citation | 43 N.W. 1019,77 Mich. 486 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | GOODRICH v. MCDONALD. |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; C.J. REILLY, Judge.
Action by John C. Goodrich against John C. McDonald on a promissory note. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error.
Chamberlain & Guise, (Edwin F. Conely, of counsel,) for appellant.
Atkinson, Carpenter & Brooke, for appellee.
This cause was tried in the Wayne circuit court, before a jury where defendant had verdict and judgment. Plaintiff brings error. On the trial plaintiff put in evidence the following note, the execution of which was not in dispute: Plaintiff here rested his case. The defendant then introduced testimony tending to show that the note was given on the purchase by him of 20 bushels of what is called "Red Lion Wheat," and that at the time of the execution and delivery of the note, with another note of $200, he received from Mr. Williams and a man named Sherwood a bond in the following form:
[Signed] "THE OHIO AND GREAT WESTERN SEED CO.
Defendant testified that these men told him the company was good,-had a paid-up capital of $50,000,-and that some of the members of the company were very rich,-one man, by name of Hawes, being worth from $200,000 to $300,000; that the wheat was worth not to exceed one dollar per bushel; that the bond had never been kept, and no wheat ever sold for him. On cross-examination the defendant testified that he made no agreement with Williams and Peck outside of the bond, and that the bond contained the agreement which was made. Defendant further testified that he went into it as a speculation.
Defendant here rested his case, and the plaintiff then gave evidence upon his part showing the circumstances under which he procured the note, and from which he claimed to be a bona fide holder for value, under a purchase before maturity. Plaintiff testified that he acquired the note on the first day of March or the last day of February, 1887, and he thought the last day of February. That he was a dealer in real estate, and also engaged in insurance business, and made a trade of real estate with Elijah Bigelow, in which he deeded some real estate he had in Detroit, valued at $4,500, upon which was a mortgage of $2,000, and took in exchange a deed of real estate from Bigelow valued at $1,600, and $900 in notes for the balance. When he came to make his deed, at the request of Elijah Bigelow, his son, Warren Bigelow, was named as the grantee. That the deed was delivered to Elijah Bigelow in his [plaintiff's] office. Plaintiff then says: "He took it, and handed it back to me, and said I had better put it with his other papers, because he would not record it just yet." The deed was put, with Elijah Bigelow's other papers, in plaintiff's safe, which had a combination lock,-the combination known only to plaintiff and his two brothers. At the time of making this deed, plaintiff lived on the property described in the deed, and claims that he then made a verbal arrangement with Elijah Bigelow to continue in possession of it at a rental of $25 a month in advance. He paid the rent for the month of March by giving Bigelow credit for it on his books. This deed was afterwards taken from the safe with the consent of plaintiff, and given to Elijah Bigelow, and put on record on April 18, 1887. It appeared further in the case, upon the cross-examination of the plaintiff and by direct proofs offered by defendant, that while this deed was yet in the safe of the plaintiff that plaintiff commenced suit on some of these notes in justice's court; was present at the trial; and the whole transaction was gone into, as to the manner of obtaining the notes, giving the bond, etc. The same defense being made as to those notes as made in the present case in the court below. Defendant also gave evidence tending to show that among the notes so held by plaintiff was one against Sylvester Losey, who called upon the plaintiff in response to a letter informing him of the fact that plaintiff held the note, and in a conversation then had regarding these notes plaintiff said he got them of Mr. Bigelow, who told him they were wheat notes. This conversation was had while the plaintiff still held the deed in his safe. It appears that some time after this exchange of property was made between plaintiff and Elijah Bigelow, Warren Bigelow, the grantee in the deed from plaintiff, filed a bill in the circuit court for Wayne county, in chancery, against plaintiff and Elijah Bigelow, to set aside the deed from his father to plaintiff, and for other purposes. Plaintiff filed an answer to this bill. From these proceedings, it appears that Warren Bigelow did not know that the deed was to be executed to him, and plaintiff nor Elijah Bigelow ever informed him of the fact until after the time of the commencement of the suits on the notes and the trial of some of the cases in justice's court; and he never knew of it until after the deed had been recorded by his father.
It was claimed on the trial in the court below, and is claimed here that under these circumstances plaintiff was...
To continue reading
Request your trial