Littell v. Fitch

Decision Date14 October 1863
Citation11 Mich. 525
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesAmos Littell v. Samuel A. Fitch and others

Heard July 17, 1863

Case made, from Macomb Circuit.

Littell brought suit against defendants to recover moneys which he had paid on a judgment, rendered upon a promissory note given by defendant Fitch, in the name of S. A. Fitch &amp Co., a copartnership, composed of the defendants, and signed by Littell as surety. Upon the trial the copartnership of the defendants was admitted, and that on September 25th, 1859 the note was made and signed in the firm name by Fitch, payable to one Dyer or bearer, but negotiated with one Prentiss, and the money obtained upon it. The plaintiff signed the note as surety, and at the request of Fitch, and suit being afterwards brought against him thereon, and judgment recovered, he paid the amount. On the trial of this suit the plaintiff testified that Fitch showed him the note with the name of the firm to it, and wanted him to sign the note with Fitch and the company; and he did so. Fitch told him the firm owed some money in Detroit, and he could not get out to collect, and wanted to borrow it, and asked him to sign so he could raise it until he got around.

On the part of defendants the following evidence was given:

George B. Van Eps testified, that he was a member of the firm of Van Eps & Co., and managing partner, doing business in Mount Clemens. "During the partnership of S. A. Fitch &amp Co., I made all the purchases of goods sold by that firm, upon the credit of Van Eps & Co. S. A. Fitch & Co. received their goods from Van Eps & Co., and purchased hides and sent them here. Their stock was drawn, from our stock here, and the money proceeds and such hides as they purchased were sent here. No goods were purchased by that firm to my knowledge, and no moneys were ever raised for the benefit of the firm of S. A. Fitch & Co. to my knowledge. They had no occasion to raise money. The members of both firms were the same."

Samuel A. Fitch testified, that he was doing business in Romeo about the first of March, 1857. That he heard the testimony of Amos Littell, and that he does not recollect of stating to him that the firm of S. A. Fitch & Co. wished to raise money to pay in Detroit; "don't think I said so when he came into my room, or at any other time. I told him I wanted to raise some money to pay some matters that I had in Detroit, and think I told him I could raise the money, if I could get any one to sign...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • First Nat. Bank of Mankato v. Grignon
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 24 Mayo 1901
    ...payee that the partner has authority to sign. (Kelton v. Leonard, 54 Vt. 230; Carrier v. Cameron, 31 Mich. 373, 18 Am. Rep. 192; Littell v. Fitch, 11 Mich. 525; v. Cook, 14 Nev. 265.) If a person known to be a partner retires and does not notify his retirement, he will continue to be bound ......
  • Carrier v. Cameron
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 26 Febrero 1875
    ...the rejected proof offered in defense, should have been allowed. The first question is substantially answered in the negative by Littell v. Fitch, 11 Mich. 525. It was there that when a member of a firm gives a note in the firm name, the presumption is, that it is given for a partnership pu......
  • Pease v. Cole
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 28 Agosto 1885
    ...or that the signing by Carrier had been approved or ratified?" The question was answered in the negative, upon the authority of Littell v. Fitch, 11 Mich. 525. It, Is to be noticed that the question was simply as to the burden of proof after the fact of partnership was admitted, and before ......
  • Guthiel v. Gilmer
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 3 Enero 1901
    ... ... partnership purposes; and the burden of proof is upon the ... co-partnership to show the contrary." Littell v ... Fitch, 11 Mich. 525; Carrier v. Cameron, 31 Mich ... After ... the fact of a partnership is proved by other evidence, the ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT