Newton v. Principaal
| Citation | 46 N.W. 234,82 Mich. 271 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
| Decision Date | 01 August 1890 |
| Parties | NEWTON v. PRINCIPAAL. |
Appeal from circuit court, Kent county.
Assumpsit on a promissory note by Lyman Newton indorsee, against Henry Principaal, payee. Tried in the circuit court, Kent county. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant.
Reuben Hatch, for appellant.
Arthur Jones, for appellee.
This action was originally brought in justice court by plaintiff as indorsee, against the defendant, as maker, of a promissory note, which, with its indorsements, reads as follows Indorsements: The plaintiff had judgment in justice court, and the defendant appealed. In the circuit the plaintiff again had judgment. The defendant brings error. The return of the justice shows that the pleadings before him were as follows: Nothing appears in the return of the justice relating to a promissory note, nor does it appear that the plaintiff recovered upon any such note. On the trial in the circuit, when the note was offered in evidence, the defendant objected that the note was not admissible in evidence without proof of two facts- First, the execution of the note by the maker; second, the authority of Delano & Bunker to indorse the names of Arthur Meigs & Co., the payees of the note. No proof was given tending to show the execution of the note by the maker, but counsel for plaintiff seems to have proceeded upon the idea that it was unnecessary. This would have been true if the note had been filed with the justice, but there is nothing in this record to show that the note in suit was so filed with the justice, or that the defendant ever had an opportunity to deny the execution of the note in justice court, or in the circuit, until it was offered in evidence on the trial. In such case the plaintiff cannot have the benefit of the statute, or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capitol Hill State Bank v. Rawlins National Bank
......Smith, 23 Mich. 96; St. Johns. Table Co. v. Brown, 126 Mich. 592, 85 N.W. 1124;. Canal Bank v. Bank of Albany, 1 Hill 287; Newton. v. Principaal, 82 Mich. 271, 46 N.W. 234; McCormick. v. Trotter, 10 S. & R. 94; Wallace v. Reed, 70. Ind. 263; Anniston Pipe Works v. Mary ......
-
Marks v. Munson
......197; Bates v. Hunt, 1 Blackf. (Ind.). 67; Reinhard v. Dorsey Coal Co., 25 Mo.App. 350; Schroeder v. Neilson, 39 Neb. 335, 57 N.W. 993; Newton v. Principaal, 82. Mich. 271, 46 N.W. 234; Hall v. Freeman, 59 Ill. 55; Johnston. v. Loar, 145 Ill.App. 443; Jackson Tp. v. Barnes, 55 Ind. 136; ......
-
State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Binder
...answer. The burden of establishing that authority rested on plaintiff as one of the essential elements of its case. Newton v. Principal, 82 Mich. 271, 46 N.W. 234; Peoples State Bank for Savings v. Bloch, 249 Mich. 99, 227 N.W. 778. Lack of such authority is not a metter of affirmative defe......
-
BLY v. Brady
...in evidence without first proving it. Colbath v. Jones, 28 Mich. 279;Bauer v. Wasson, 60 Mich. 194, 26 N. W. 877;Newton v. Principaal, 82 Mich. 271, 46 N. W. 234. This was recognized by plaintiffs on the trial, and it was not offered by them until they had offered proof of its execution. We......