Ohio ex rel. Fulton v. Purse
| Decision Date | 10 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | June Term.,No. 49,49 |
| Citation | 273 Mich. 507,263 N.W. 874 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO ex rel. FULTON, Superintendent of Banks of Ohio, v. PURSE et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by the State of Ohio, on the relation of I. J. Fulton, Superintendent of Banks of Ohio, etc., against James N. Purse and another and Maude Purse and Lida Purse. Judgment for plaintiff, and the last two named defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Theodore J. Richter, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Clyde C. Sanders and Douglas, Barbour, Desenberg & Purdy, all of Detroit, for appellants.
Goodenough, Voorhies, Long & Ryan, of Detroit, for appellee.
There is but a slight difference between the facts involved in this case, wherein a summary judgment was entered, and those presented in Ohio v. Purse (Mich.) 263 N.W. 872 (handed down herewith). Two brothers, James N. Purse and Artie Purse, residents of the city of Detroit, owned certain real estate in the state of Ohio and negotiated a loan thereon from the Commerce Guardian Trust & Savings Bank in the city of Toledo. In an affidavit of James N. Purse, filed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, he stated that, when the note and mortgage were ready for execution, the officers of the bank stated to him that the defendants Maude E. Purse, who was his wife, and Lida Purse, the wife of Artie Purse, must sign both instruments in order to bar their right of dower in the mortgaged property; that he then stated to them that their wives would not sign any papers which would involve them in indebtedness, and was assured that the only reason for requiring their signatures was to release their dower rights or any other rights they had in the property; that the officers stated that the wives could be brought to Toledo and sign there or that the note and mortgage could be executed by them in Detroit and the necessity for their signatures explained to them; that he took the note and mortgage to Detroit and there stated to his wife and to the wife of his brother what the officers had said to him as above set forth; and that they then executed the instruments and then they were delivered to the bank.
The defendants Maude E. Purse and Lida Purse, in affidavits filed in opposition to the motion, stated that they protested against signing the papers, but did so when informed that the officers of the bank had stated that their signatures were necessary only to bar their dower rights in the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...determination of the state in which a contract was entered is made in accordance with the law of the forum. Ohio ex rel. Fulton v. Purse, 273 Mich. 507, 509, 263 N.W. 874 (1935); Vanderveen's, supra 199 Mich.App. at 364, 500 N.W.2d The rule that contracts are interpreted pursuant to the law......
-
State ex rel. Squire v. Eubank
...the Conflict of Laws,’ 20 Col.Law Rev. 274), and is a preliminary question governed by the law of the forum. State of Ohio ex rel. Fulton v. Purse, 273 Mich. 507, 263 N.W. 874; 2 Beale, Conflict of Laws, § 311.2; American Law Institute, Restatement of Conflict of Laws, § 311. Generally spea......
-
House v. Lefebvre
...upon the note, while plaintiff relies upon Palmer National Bank v. Van Doren, 260 Mich. 310, 244 N.W. 485;State of Ohio ex rel. Fulton v. Artie Purse, 273 Mich. 507, 263 N.W. 874; and State of Ohio ex rel. Superintendent of Banks v. Eubank, 295 Mich. 230, 294 N.W. 166, 167. It is well settl......
-
Univ. of Chi. v. Dater
...doubt that the notes in question constituted Illinois contracts. See Palmer v. Hill, 140 Mich. 468, 103 N.W. 838;Ohio ex rel. Fulton v. Artie Purse, 273 Mich. 507, 263 N.W. 874. The facts are entirely different from those in Re Estate of Lucas, 272 Mich. 1, 261 N.W. 117, in which the loan w......