Little v. Mills
| Decision Date | 09 January 1894 |
| Citation | 57 N.W. 266,98 Mich. 423 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | LITTLE v. MILLS et al. |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Cornelius J. Reilly, Judge.
Assumpsit by Richard R. Little against Carlton H. Mills and others on a promissory note. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Alfred Russell, for appellants.
Dwight C. Rexford, for appellee.
The plaintiff recovered in an action on a negotiable promissory note made by defendant Dewey, payable to the order of Carlton H. Mills, by Mills indorsed payable to the order of T. M Billings, and by Billings indorsed to the plaintiff, and also upon a duebill made by Dewey, and indorsed by the same parties. On the trial the plaintiff introduced in evidence the note and certificate of protest, and rested. The defendant offered to show that by an arrangement between him and Mr. Billings, while the note was in Billings' hands an application of the note was made upon an indebtedness owing to defendant by Billings: The court excluded the testimony, unless it should be shown that the plaintiff was not a bona fide holder. Two questions are presented in this court: First, whether there was sufficient proof of protest to charge the indorser; and, second, whether the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to show that he was a bona fide purchaser under the testimony offered by the defendants, or whether the burden rested with the defendants to negative the good-faith holding.
As to the first question, the evidence offered to show protest was not objected to in the court below, and the objection now offered relates simply to the sufficiency of the notice of protest, it not appearing to be under seal. The objection comes too late, and will not be considered.
As to the second question, the defendants rely upon the cases of Paton v. Coit, 5 Mich. 505; Carrier v Cameron, 31 Mich. 375; Conley v. Winsor, 41 Mich. 255, 2 N.W. 31. In each of these cases the defendant had shown illegality in the original consideration of the note, or fraud in procuring the note of the maker; and it was held, in line with all the authorities, that this shifted the burden of proof upon the plaintiff, to show the good faith of his purchase before maturity. In Conley v. Winsor, Mr Justice Cooley used the following language: "The plaintiffs made out a prima facie case when the execution of the note, and its indorsement by Campbell, were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drovers' Nat. Bank v. Blue
...burden of showing bona fides is upon the plaintiff when there is testimony showing fraud in the inception of the note. Little v. Mills, 98 Mich. 423, 57 N. W. 266;Rice v. Rankans, 101 Mich. 385, 59 N. W. 660. But in this case the plaintiff attempted to show a bona fide holding; and it is ma......
-
Rice v. Rankans
... ... statement of the law. See Conley v. Winsor, 41 Mich ... 255, 2 N.W. 31; Mace v. Kennedy, 68 Mich. 398, 36 ... N.W. 187; Little v. Mills, 98 Mich. 424, 57 N.W ... 266. But we think, under the circumstances of this case, it ... is unnecessary to determine whether the other ... ...
-
Drovers' Nat. Bank v. Blue
...the burden of showing bona fides is upon the plaintiff when there is testimony showing fraud in the inception of the note. Little v. Mills, 98 Mich. 423, 57 N.W. 266; Rice v. Rankans, 101 Mich. 385, 59 N.W. 660. But this case the plaintiff attempted to show a bona fide holding; and it is ma......
- Rice v. Rankans