Johnston Harvester Co. v. Miller
| Decision Date | 01 November 1888 |
| Parties | JOHNSTON HARVESTER CO. v. MILLER. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
JOHNSTON HARVESTER CO.
v.
MILLER.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
November 1, 1888.
Appeal from circuit court, Wayne county; HENRY N. BREVOORT, Judge.
Assumpsit on a promissory note, brought by the Johnston Harvester Company against Joseph Miller. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Sprague & Carey, for appellant.
Samuel W Burroughs, for appellee.
MORSE, J.
The plaintiff sues the defendant in assumpsit upon the following promissory note:
“$100.
INKSTER, MICH., Nov. 28th, 1885.
“On or before the first day of January, 1887, for value received, I, the undersigned, of the township of Taylor, county of Wayne, state of Michigan, promise to pay to the order of the Johnston Harvester Company, one hundred dollars, ($100,) payable at express office, Dearborn, Mich., with interest at seven per cent. per annum from Nov. 1st, 1885, until due, and ten per cent. after due.
JOSEPH MILLER.
“P. O. Address: Taylor, County Wayne, State Mich.”
[40 N.W. 430]
This note was indorsed as follows:
“For value received I hereby guarantee the prompt payment of the within note, and waive protest, demand, and notice of non-payment thereof.
“GEORGE REYNOLDS.
“Post-Office: Inkster, Mich. Date Dec. 17th, 1885.”
The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice that the alleged note was without value and consideration, and that it was a forgery, and never executed by him. He also filed an affidavit, denying under oath its execution. Verdict and judgment in the court below for defendant.
Reynolds was the agent of plaintiff in selling machines, and acted as such agent under a written contract. One Samuel Clay, a farmer, was owing him $100. Clay had delivered oats under the usual Bohemian scheme to defendant, and held his note for $100. Clay said to Reynolds that if they could get defendant to take up his note, and give a new one to Reynolds, it would clear them “both.” Reynolds and Clay were the only witnesses or plaintiff. They testify that the note from defendant to Clay was written on an ordinary half sheet of white note paper, and Reynolds did not wish to take it, because his company (the plaintiff) would not receive a note in payment of Reynolds' indebtedness to them, unless it was written upon one of its blanks. They went together to Miller's house, and proposed the arrangement to him. He at once accepted the proposition, and executed and delivered the note in suit to Reynolds. The Clay note was then delivered to defendant, and burned. That Reynolds knew nothing of the consideration for the old note until after the new note was made and delivered to Reynolds. Then the defendant said that if the Bohemian Oats Company did what was right with him, he holding the usual bond, he would pay the new note, but if they did not he would not pay it. Reynolds also testified that he never acquainted the plaintiff with this transaction, or the consideration of the note, but indorsed it a few days after its execution, and forwarded it to plaintiff in payment of a balance due from him to the company. Miller testified in his own behalf that in the fall of 1885, one Riggs, an agent for a Bohemian Oats Company...
To continue reading
Request your trial