Maine Mile-Track Ass'n v. Hammond
| Citation | 127 Mich. 690,87 N.W. 135 |
| Parties | MAINE MILE-TRACK ASS'N v. HAMMOND. |
| Decision Date | 19 July 1901 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Joseph W. Donovan, Judge.
Action by the Maine Mile-Track Association against George H Hammond, Jr., personally and as administrator. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Edward W. Pendleton, for appellant.
Chas W. Casgrain, for appellee.
This is an action on a check drawn on the Michigan Savings Bank of Detroit for the sum of $1,123.25, payable to the order of William A. Cloutman signed by the defendant. The defense was that the check was given in Maine for a gambling debt. The statute of Maine which was put in evidence, provides that all notes, bills, bonds, mortgages, securities, or conveyances given in whole or in part for money or goods won by gambling are utterly void against all persons except bona fide purchasers of real estate and holders of negotiable paper for a valuable consideration without notice. The jury found for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
The undisputed evidence shows that the plaintiff association owns and controls Rigby Park, at which place races are conducted; that in the year 1897 it leased the grand stand to Foss & Smith; that William A. Cloutman, the payee named in the check, was the cashier of Foss & Smith in their pool-selling business, and that this was known to be his business and connection with Foss & Smith by plaintiff's manager; that this check was given in payment for pool tickets, and was written in blank, and Cloutman given authority to fill it out for any balance due from defendant after the amount was ascertained at the close of the races. Numerous assignments of error appear in the record. They all relate to the testimony bearing upon the question of notice to the plaintiff, through its manager, H. F. Farnham, of the consideration of this check, and the instructions bearing on that phase of the case. It is stated in the brief of counsel for the appellant that Farnham had no notice of what this check was given for to the payee by the maker; that there was no conversation, prior to the delivery of the check, as to its consideration; that Farnham knew nothing about the check prior to the time it was given to him by Foss & Smith. If this is a fair deduction from the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses, it may be of some importance to inquire whether error was committed in the course of the trial in the respects claimed. But a careful examination of the record satisfies us that these deductions from the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses are not warranted, and that upon the undisputed testimony in the case it conclusively appears that plaintiff's manager had notice of the consideration of this check. While the check bears date September 28th, it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial