Helmer v. Krolick
| Decision Date | 24 April 1877 |
| Citation | 36 Mich. 371 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Francis A. Helmer v. Adolph Krolick and others |
Heard April 11, 1877
Appeal in Chancery from Ionia Circuit.
Decree dismissing the bill affirmed, with costs.
Mitchell & Pratt, for complainant.
Wells & Morse, for defendants.
Several interesting questions of law were discussed in this case, but in the view we take of the facts they cannot affect the decision.
The bill was filed to restrain the collection of a mortgage on complainant's lands, given by herself and her husband to secure the payment of a promissory note of four hundred and fifty-five dollars, made by Benjamin Helmer, the husband payable to defendant Krolick, and which defendant Hill is now seeking to enforce. The grounds of relief which are relied upon are, that the note was given on a loan by Krolick to Helmer of three hundred and fifty dollars, and that usurious interest to the amount of one hundred and five dollars was included in it, which fact was concealed from complainant and she was induced to mortgage her lands to secure the payment of the note under the belief, fraudulently induced, that the note was for three hundred and fifty dollars only. The note was payable to bearer, but it is claimed that Hill (the usury and fraud being made out by the evidence) is not entitled to the protection of a bona fide holder until he shows that he purchased the securities in good faith and for value paid before payment was due; and this it is claimed he has not done. Complainant has made a tender of the amount of the admitted loan and interest, and relies upon this as a discharge of the mortgage.
As the note was payable on or before three years from date, it will be apparent from the statement here made of complainant's case that it depends altogether upon the question whether Hill is or is not entitled to the protection which the law accords to a bona fide holder of negotiable paper. It has been decided in this state that the assignee of a mortgage which is given to secure the payment of a negotiable note is entitled to the same protection that he would have as assignee of the note without the mortgage.--Dutton v. Ives, 5 Mich. 515; and the case of defendant Hill is therefore relieved of one difficulty which would exist in states where a conclusion has been reached on that point. It is also held that paper which is payable "on or before" a certain time,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guthrie v. Ensign
...Later v. Haywood, 14 Idaho 45, 93 P. 374; Ogden on Negot. Ins., sec. 95; Cole Banking Co. v. Sinclair, 34 Utah 454, 98 P. 411; Helmer v. Krolick, 36 Mich. 371; Nat. Bank v. Adams, 70 Vt. 132, 40 A. 166.) The court erred in not making the findings of fact and conclusions of law responsive to......
-
First Nat. Bank of Springfield v. Skeen
... ... 70 Mo. 290, relied on by appellant, does not construe an ... instrument like the one in question. Mattison v ... Marks, 31 Mich. 421; Helmer v. Krolick, 36 ... Mich. 371; Bates v. Laclair, 49 Vt. 229; Jordan ... v. Tate, 19 Ohio St. 586; Curtis v. Horn, 58 ... N.H. 504; Stillwell v ... ...
-
Cooper v. Merchants' & Manufacturers' Nat. Bank of Columbus
...v. Downey, 3 Ind. App. 325, 29 N. E. 606;Pape v. Hartwig (Ind. App.) 55 N. E. 271;Church v. Clapp, 47 Mich. 257, 10 N. W. 362;Helmer v. Krolick, 36 Mich. 371. If the fact that the note, at the time of its purchase, did not show upon its face that the past-due interest had been paid, can be ......
-
Cooper v. Merchants' And Munufacturers' National Bank
...Downey, 3 Ind.App. 325, 29 N.E. 606; Pape v. Hartwig, 23 Ind.App. 333, 55 N.E. 271; Church v. Clapp, 47 Mich. 257, 10 N.W. 362; Helmer v. Krolick, 36 Mich. 371. If fact that the note at the time of its purchase did not show upon its face that the past due interest had been paid can be consi......