Maltz v. Fletcher

• Decision Date: 30 January 1884
• Citation: 52 Mich. 484,18 N.W. 228
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MALTZ v. FLETCHER.

18 N.W. 228

52 Mich. 484

MALTZ v. FLETCHER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 30, 1884

It is always competent to show that a contract sued upon is without consideration, and no rule or policy of the law is violated in an action between the original parties thereto by allowing proof of the purpose for which negotiable paper was given, or that such purpose does not require that payment should be enforced.

Error to Alpena.

J.D Holmes, for plaintiff.

Clayberg & Sleator, for defendant and appellant.

COOLEY, C.J.

The facts out of which this litigation arises appear in the opinion of the court in Beekman v. Fletcher, 48 Mich. 156; [S.C. 12 N.W. 37, 849.] In the year 1881, John G Beckman, assignee of the Alpena Lumber Company, filed his bill in the circuit court for the county of Alpena, in chancery, to restrain Fletcher from interfering with or taking legal or other measures to get possession of certain logs, the ownership of which was in dispute between them. The bill showed that the controversy respecting the logs was involved in another suit in equity, to which Beekman and Fletcher were parties, and it prayed no other relief than an injunction, and the appointment of a receiver for the logs, to abide the result of the principal litigation. In that injunction suit Maltz was appointed receiver by consent of the parties, and was authorized to sell the logs and hold the proceeds subject to the order of the court. This court was of opinion that there was no equitable ground on which the injunction suit could be maintained, and the bill was directed to be dismissed. As to the receiver, it was said in the opinion that he "got his appointment and all his powers from the consent of the parties, and became their bailee; and there will be no difficulty in reaching a disposition of the funds when the parties have settled their rights, which could not be done in this suit."

The present suit is brought on promissory notes given by Fletcher to Maltz. The defense which Fletcher undertook to make was that the notes were given for the logs of which Maltz was receiver, and which he allowed Fletcher to take at a price agreed upon; that it was understood when the notes were given that they were only to be paid if the logs should be adjudged not to belong to Fletcher, and that they were Fletcher's in fact. The circuit judge was of the opinion that this defense could not be made, because it would be in effect...