Peninsular Sav. Bank v. Hosie
| Decision Date | 27 April 1897 |
| Citation | 112 Mich. 351,70 N.W. 890 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PENINSULAR SAV. BANK v. HOSIE ET AL. (TWO CASES). |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Willard M. Lillibridge Judge.
Claim by the Peninsular Savings Bank against the estate of J. Huff Jones, deceased, on a promissory note, and separate claim by the same claimant on another note. The commissioners on claims against such estate allowed both claims, and Robert Hosie and another, executors of the estate, appealed to the circuit court. From a judgment of the circuit court in favor of the estate on both notes, claimant brings error. Reversed.
De Forest Paine, for appellant.
Walker & Spalding, for appellees.
The Detroit Motor Company, a corporation, made and delivered to the Third National Bank of Detroit, in renewal of notes then held by said bank, its promissory notes, of the following tenor:
Said note was indorsed on the back in the following order
Said note was indorsed on the back in the following order:
The indorsements were procured before the delivery of the notes to the Third National Bank, and when the notes were received by said bank all the indorsers' names now upon them were then upon them. The notes were delivered to said bank on the day of their dates, respectively. The notes were in renewal of paper which the Third National Bank had paid value for to the Detroit Motor Company. The indorsers were directors of the Detroit Motor Company, and its chief stockholders, and put their names upon the paper for the accommodation of the company. Before either of the notes fell due, and on the 16th day of December, 1892, J. Huff Jones died, leaving a will, which was filed in the probate court for Wayne county, with a petition for its probate on December 28, 1892, and admitted to probate the 24th day of January, 1893. On the last-named day, Robert Hosie, who resides in Detroit, Mich., and Griffin D. G. Thurston, who resides in Sturgis, Mich., were appointed executors. On that day they filed their bonds, and letters testamentary were issued to them. Before the will was admitted to probate, and on the 20th day of January, 1893, the $10,000 note fell due, and was protested for nonpayment, in the manner hereinafter specified. The next day after the will was probated, and on the 25th day of January, 1893, the $7,500 note fell due, and was protested for nonpayment. The executor admits that he received, in due course of mail, notice of the dishonor of Exhibit B, which notice he produced, but denies that he received notice of the dishonor of the $10,000 note, Exhibit A. On the maturity of the notes they were duly presented for payment, and dishonored, and notices thereof were sent in the manner hereafter described. Shortly after the death of Mr. Jones, and before the notes fell due, one of the indorsers, Mr. Hance, mentioned to the cashier of the Third National Bank the fact of the death of Jones. On the 21st day of April, 1893, the Third National Bank took from the maker its note of the following tenor:
Memorandum on face of note: "Two notes, $10,000 and interest, $7,500 and interest, as collateral; indorsed J. Huff Jones and others." Indorsed on back: "Detroit Motor Co., by F. A. Blades, Treas."
Afterwards the Third National Bank transferred the $10,000 note and the $7,500 note to the Peninsular Savings Bank, the claimant, in payment of indebtedness of the Third National Bank to the Peninsular Savings Bank. The note of April 21, 1893, was delivered with the other two notes. By some accident or oversight, when the $7,500 note was delivered to the bank, Mr. Blades, who was the secretary and treasurer of the motor company, failed to indorse the name of the motor company upon the note. Mr. Blades prepared the notes sued upon, and procured the signatures of the indorsers to them. They are made payable to the order of themselves, which Mr. Blades says meant the corporation itself, and in indorsing them he so considered and treated it, as well as in indorsing the note of $10,000. The Peninsular Savings Bank presented to the commissioners on claims in the Jones estate the two notes sued upon, and the commissioners allowed the claim on the notes, one at the sum of $11,896.80, and one at the sum of $8,958.72. Thereupon the executors took separate appeals from the judgment of the commissioners, and in the circuit court a verdict was directed for the estate on each note. The Peninsular Savings Bank appeals.
It is claimed that the giving of the note of April 21, 1893 "payable on demand after date, with interest," gave one day's time to the motor company upon the notes sued upon, and, because of the extension of time, released Mr. Jones. The counsel for the estate has made an able argument in support of his contention, and cited a number of authorities. We understand the rule to be: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial