Standard Oil Co. v. Riddell
| Decision Date | 04 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 43,April Term, 1934.,43 |
| Citation | 267 Mich. 375,255 N.W. 212 |
| Parties | STANDARD OIL CO. (INDIANA) v. RIDDELL et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Blaine W. Hatch, Judge.
Action by the Standard Oil Company (Indiana) against Charles A. Riddell and George W. Colby. From a judgment against defendant Colby, he appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench, except NORTH, J.
Wm. J. Kearney, of Albion, and Horace M. Mechem, of Battle Creek, for appellant.
Linsey, Shivel & Phelps, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.
Plaintiff sued Riddell as maker, and Colby as indorser, of a promissory note and attached a copy of the note to its declaration. It had judgment against Riddell on default, and against Colby on trial. Colby reviews.
In his answer Colby denied execution of the note and further claimed that if his signature is genuine it was procured by fraud and deceit. He failed to file and serve an affidavit denying execution of the note as required by Court Rule 29, thereby admitting the genuineness of the signature. Lambert v. Smilansky, 246 Mich. 125, 224 N. W. 442.
On its main case plaintiff showed the circumstances under which Colby had indorsed the note. At the conclusion of plaintiff's proofs, defendant moved for leave to amend his answer by filing an affidavit of nonexecution. The court expressed itself as inclined to grant the motion. Counsel for plaintiff called attention to the fact that defendant had made no showing of cause for leave to amend, as required by the rule. Defendant made no reply to the objection and the court denied the motion. Defendant then presented his testimony and, at the conclusion of the proofs, he renewed his motion to amend the answer but made and offered no showing of cause for the omission or character of denial of execution, and the motion was denied. The case was submitted to the jury on the issue whether Colby had signed under circumstances which led him to believe that he was executing another kind of instrument. The jury held against him.
On motion for new trial Colby made affidavit that he believed his name was not placed on the note by himself; that if it is his genuine signature he did not know how it came there; that he did not sign it knowing the purport of the instrument or intending to be bound on it; that his signature was not placed on the note through his own fault or negligence, but, if genuine, it was procured by fraud, trickery, or deceit and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hardaway Auto Owners Ins. Co., Intervenor v. Consolidated Paper Co.
...Graham v. Thorman, 354 Mich. 629, 93 N.W.2d 264; Ensley v. Associated Terminals, Inc., 304 Mich. 522, 8 N.W.2d 161; Standard Oil Co. v. Riddell, 267 Mich. 375, 255 N.W. 212; Berston v. Gilbert, 180 Mich. 638, 147 N.W. 496; Randall v. Douglass, 321 Mich. 492, 32 N.W.2d 721; Grant v. National......
-
Pogletke v. Schwanz
...existence of such an instrument. The Portsmouth Savings Bank v. Circuit Judge, 83 Mich. 646, 47 N.W. 595. See, also, Standard Oil Co. v. Riddell, 267 Mich. 375, 255 N.W. 212. The judgment of the court below is affirmed. Costs to DETHMERS, C. J., and SHARPE, SMITH, KELLY, CARR, BLACK and VOE......