Hogan v. Dreifus

• Decision Date: 03 October 1899
• Citation: 121 Mich. 453,80 N.W. 254
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: HOGAN v. DREIFUS et al.

80 N.W. 254

121 Mich. 453

HOGAN v. DREIFUS et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 3, 1899

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Willard M. Lillibridge Judge.

Action on several acceptances by Walter G. Hogan against Charles Dreifus, Emanuel Dreifus, and Leopold E. Block, co-partners as Dreifus, Block & Co. There was a judgment for plaintiff and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Wells Angell, Boynton & McMillan, for appellants.

Bowen Douglas & Whiting, for appellee.

LONG J.

This action is upon seven acceptances drawn in favor of the First National Bank of Chicago by the Columbian Exposition Salvage Company, of Chicago, Ill., upon Dreifus, Block & Co., of Pittsburg, Pa., and accepted in writing by that company. They were all drawn in 1895, and accepted within a few days after their respective dates. The Columbian Exposition Salvage Company had an account with the First National Bank of Chicago, and discounted these acceptances with that bank, the proceeds being placed to the credit of that company. When these acceptances became due, they were duly protested for nonpayment. They were each duly indorsed upon the back as follows: 'Without recourse. First National Bank of Chicago. H. Hoge.' It was shown on the trial that Mr. Hoge had authority to make these indorsements. The court below directed the verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount claimed. Defendants bring error.

The only question raised here as stated by counsel for defendants is whether, under the proofs in the case, the plaintiff showed title in himself to the acceptances at the time the suit was brought. Defendants' counsel asked the court to charge (1) that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover; (2) that if the jury found that plaintiff, Hogan, was not the owner of the acceptances in suit when this suit was begun, he was not entitled to recover. These requests were refused.

There is no proof in the case that the plaintiff ever became the owner of these acceptances, except the fact that his counsel had them in his possession, and produced them on the trial. They were indorsed by the bank in due form. Mr. Forgan, the vice president of the bank, was called as a witness, and testified that Hoge had authority to make the indorsements that Hoge was assistant cashier of the bank. Mr. Forgan was further examined, and testified as follows: That none of the acceptances had been paid by the acceptors. 'Q. What was done with them by the bank, as to being charged back to the company? A. They were carried past due upon our books until May 27, 1896. Q. How were they disposed of? A. I then called in Mr. Pollak [the treasurer of the Columbian Exposition Salvage Company], and told him we could not afford to wait for the adjustment of this matter until the acceptors paid, as they were resisting payment; * * * that he must come to the front and arrange the matters. He said the company was not prepared to pay us, but that they would give their own paper, and keep it alive with the guaranty of certain parties, and leave this paper [the acceptances] with us as collateral for their direct obligation, so that things would be changed on our books from past-due paper to a live piece of paper secured by past-due paper.' On cross-examination the witness testified: 'Q. You held the past-due paper until what time? A. We held it past due until May 27, 1896. Q. On May 27th what was the arrangement between you and the Columbian Exposition...