Three Rivers Nat. Bank v. Gilchrist
| Decision Date | 14 November 1890 |
| Citation | 47 N.W. 104,83 Mich. 253 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | THREE RIVERS NAT. BANK v. GILCHRIST et al. |
Error to circuit court, St. Joseph county; NOAH P. LOVERIDGE Judge.
S M. Constantine, for appellant.
Pealer Bros., for appellees.
This action was brought on a promissory note of $300, signed by Sarah A. Gilchrist and her husband, J. M. Gilchrist. The note sued on was the last of several renewals of a note for the same amount originally given in August, 1884. The defense on the part of Mrs. Gilchrist is that she was a married woman living with her husband, and that she signed the note as surety for her husband. The case was tried before the court without a jury, who found that the original note and its renewals were given by Mrs. Gilchrist for her own debt, and that she did not sign the same as surety for her husband. A judgment was entered for the plaintiff. Defendant excepted to the finding that there was no evidence to support it, and that is the only question we have to consider.
A careful examination of the record shows that the plaintiff put in evidence tending to prove that, in August, 1884, Mr Gilchrist went to the plaintiff's bank, and said that he wanted to borrow $300 for Mrs. Gilchrist; that she wanted the money to invest in property; and that she was going to use it in paying for such property.
Mrs Gilchrist did not go personally to the bank at the time the original note was made, nor at any time when it was renewed; Mr. Gilchrist doing all the business. After the notes were made out, Mr. Gilchrist took them to his wife for her signature, and returned them to the bank. Mr. Gilchrist always paid the interest on the notes. None of the officers of the bank saw Mrs. Gilchrist in relation to the loan, or the renewals, until just before this suit was brought, when Mr. Pealer, as attorney for the plaintiff, called on her for the purpose of securing it. He says: There was evidence also tending to show that Mr. Gilchrist had acted as agent for his wife in building the house in which they lived in the season of 1883, also in borrowing money that went into the house by mortgages on his wife's land, and that he had acted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Nelson
...v. Pfeiffer, 298 Mich. 721, 299 N.W. 780 (1941). The Michigan Supreme Court has also ruled, in Three Rivers National Bank v. Gilchrist, 83 Mich. 253, 255, 47 N.W. 104, 105 (1890), that the authority of a husband to act on behalf of his wife "cannot be legally shown by proof of his own decla......
-
Beunk v. Valley City Desk Co.
... ... 222, 75 N.W. 459 ... See, also, Bank v. Gilchrist, 83 Mich. 255, 47 N.W ... 104; Bond v ... ...
-
Bowles v. Trapp
...seeking to hold her for acts done by another must show affirmatively full authority to bind her. It was again said, in Bank v. Gilchrist, 83 Mich. 253, 47 N. W. 104: “The authority of a husband to act for his wife in the matter of making a loan will not be presumed from the circumstance tha......
-
Schaub v. Welded-Barrel Co.
...of law that agency cannot be proved by the acts or statements of the agent alone, citing Hatch v. Squires, 11 Mich. 189; Bank v. Gilchrist, 83 Mich. 253, 47 N.W. 104; Swanstrom v. Improvement Co., 91 Mich. 369, 51 941; Somerville v. Railroad Co., 109 Mich. 295, 67 N.W. 320; and other cases.......