Hovey v. Sebring
| Decision Date | 04 January 1872 |
| Citation | 24 Mich. 232 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Eli S. Hovey v. Henry Sebring |
Heard October 27, 1871
Error to Branch circuit.
Judgment of the circuit court, and that of the justice reversed with costs.
M. S Bowen, for plaintiff in error.
L. T N. Wilson and Ashley Pond, for defendant in error.
The main question in this case is, whether the maker of a promissory note payable to bearer has a right to show, as against the plaintiff producing the note on the trial, that the plaintiff did not obtain the title or the right by which he seeks to recover, until after the commencement of the suit.
It is well settled, as a general rule, that the possession of such note by the plaintiff producing it on the trial, is prima facie evidence of his title, or his right to sue upon it, and that the plaintiff need not be the real or beneficial owner to entitle him to recover.
The owner may bring suit, or rather allow it to be brought in the name of any other person with his assent. And if the plaintiff's right of action, whether as owner or otherwise, existed at the commencement of the suit, the ownership or title can be inquired into, only for the purpose of letting in any defense or set-off the maker would have had as against a former holder (when transferred after maturity or with notice), or for the purpose of showing that the plaintiff's possession of the note is not in good faith.
But all this is aside from the particular question above stated, as the main question in this case. And liberal as the law is as to the person in whose name the suit may be brought, and in presuming ownership from possession, we think it has not gone, and ought not to go, so far as to allow a party to bring an action before his right of action has accrued; and whatever may be the state of facts which authorizes the suit to be brought in the name of any particular person, that state of facts must, as a general rule, exist at the time the suit is instituted in his name. This, it is true, would, in ordinary cases, be presumed from the production of the note by the plaintiff on the trial. But the defendant, we think, may rebut this presumption, and defeat the action, by showing that the state of facts existing at the time of the institution of the suit, did not authorize the plaintiff to sue.
It is no substantial exception to this principle that the purchaser of a note payable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lilly v. O'Brien
...held to be matter in abatement or demurrer according as the fact appeared or not upon the record. To the same effect are Hovey v. Sebring, 24 Mich. 232, 9 Am. Rep. 122; Weinwick v. Bender, 33 Mo. 80; Storm v. Livingston, 6 Johns. (N.Y.) 45; Dean v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., 119 N.Y. 540, 23 ......
-
Mondou v. Lincoln Mut. Cas. Co.
...may not file an appeal first and obtain judgment afterward. This is in accordance with the established rules of pleading. Hovey v. Sebring, 24 Mich. 232, 9 Am.Rep. 122;Blackwood v. Brown, 29 Mich. 483;Moyer v. Scott, 30 Mich. 345; Carpenter v. Harris, 51 Mich. 223, 16 N.W. 383;Schwier v. At......
-
Waubun Beach Ass'n v. Wilson
...as of October 5, 1932, the date upon which suit was commenced by the filing of the bill of complaint herein. 1 C.J. 1149; Hovey v. Sebring, 24 Mich. 232, 9 Am.Rep. 122;Blackwood v. Brown, 29 Mich. 483;Moyer v. Scott, 30 Mich. 345; Carpenter v. Harris, 51 Mich. 223, 16 N.W. 383;Schwier v. At......
-
Corrigan v. Bank of Am., N.A.
...to 1898 support this sweeping pronouncement.3 Yet, of those cases, only two concerned foreclosure, and of those, only one, Hovey v. Sebring, 24 Mich. 232, 232 (1872), examined the precise issue we see litigated so frequently in foreclosure cases today: that of holding a mortgage note at the......