Littell v. Fitch
Decision Date | 14 October 1863 |
Citation | 11 Mich. 525 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | Amos 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 & 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.
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; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Nat. Bank of Mankato v. Grignon
...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
...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
...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
... ... 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 ... ...