Morse v. Blanchard
| Decision Date | 10 May 1898 |
| Citation | 75 N.W. 93,117 Mich. 37 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | MORSE v. BLANCHARD ET AL. |
Error to circuit court, Kent county; Allen C. Adsit, Judge.
Assumpsit by Charles Morse against Duane Blanchard, impleaded with Elmer E. Johnson. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
F. W Hunter, for appellants.
Lawrence E. Carroll, for appellee.
Plaintiff brought suit in assumpsit against the defendants declaring upon the common counts. A bill of particulars being demanded he furnished one, declaring his demand to be upon a promissory note dated November 3, 1894, for $150, due one year from date thereof, with interest at 8 per cent., and signed by defendants. Blanchard was an accommodation maker. The defense was that plaintiff had extended the time of payment without the consent of Blanchard, and had thereby released him from liability. The case was tried without a jury, and the court made a finding of facts and law, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff.
1. It is urged that the court erred in receiving the note in evidence, because an alteration appeared upon its face, which required explanation before it was entitled to be admitted. It was claimed that the word "one" had been changed to "two," making it read payable in two years instead of one. No exception was taken to the ruling of the court admitting it, and therefore this objection cannot be considered.
2. It was conceded that the word "two" and the word "one" had been written in the note. It was a question which was written first.
The note was written by Johnson's wife. Johnson procured the signature of Blanchard, and then delivered the note to plaintiff, and received the money. The testimony on the part of plaintiff was direct and positive that the note was in the same condition when received by him as when produced upon the trial. The defendants gave evidence tending strongly to show that it had been changed. Both parties conceded that it was executed and delivered as a note for one year. The court found as follows: "The note, when produced in court bore upon its face a blot or smear which the court finds by examination of the said note to consist of a blurred 'two' over which there is written the word 'one,' and that this condition existed at the time that the note was delivered to the plaintiff." It is urged as error that the judge, after the submission of the case, made a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valentine v. Malone
...is the determination of my Brother POTTER, in my opinion, in accord with the law as established by our own decisions. Morse v. Blanchard, 117 Mich. 37, 75 N. W. 93, 94, was an action on a promissory note, tried without a jury. It was conceded that the word ‘two’ and the word ‘one’ had been ......
-
Alexander v. Blackburn
...Short v. State, 63 Ind. 376;White Sewing Machine Co. v. Gordon, 124 Ind. 495, 24 N. E. 1053, 19 Am. St. Rep. 109;Morse v. Blanchard, 117 Mich. 37, 75 N. W. 93;Hatch v. State, 6 Tex. App. 384. [4] The latter part of the third instruction, taken alone, was erroneous. But in this case the cour......
-
Alexander v. Blackburn
... ... Short v. State (1878), 63 Ind. 376; ... White Sewing Mach. Co. v. Gordon (1890), ... 124 Ind. 495, 24 N.E. 1053, 19 Am. St. 109; Morse v ... Blanchard (1898), 117 Mich. 37, 75 N.W. 93; ... Hatch v. State (1879), 6 Tex. Ct. App. 384 ... The ... latter part of ... ...
-
Falletti v. Brown, 42641
...who had lost his spectacles, in order this juror might examine written evidence this juror was required to examine. In Morse v. Blanchard, 117 Mich. 37, 75 N.W. 93, that court declared there was no more mystery in a magnifying glass than in ordinary eyeglasses in daily use. We agree in the ......