Wheeler v. West

• Decision Date: 31 October 1882
• Citation: 49 Mich. 505,13 N.W. 836
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: WHEELER v. WEST.

13 N.W. 836

49 Mich. 505

WHEELER v. WEST.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 31, 1882

Plaintiff indorsed a note to a justice of the peace in these words: "Pay V.R., J.P., or order, for collection;" and afterwards sued defendant on the note before V.R. as a justice of the peace. Held, that as the justice was the legal agent of plaintiff for the collection of the note, he could not at the same time, and in relation to the same matter, act also as a justice of the peace, and that the judgments below must be reversed, with the costs of all the courts.

Error to Hillsdale.

Millard, Weaver & Weaver, for plaintiff and appellant.

C.A. Stacy, for defendant.

GRAVES, C.J.

Volney Reynolds, a justice of the peace, gave judgment in the plaintiff's favor against the defendant on a promissory note and the circuit court affirmed the judgment on certiorari and the defendant brought error. The case was in substance this: The plaintiff held what purported to be a promissory note made by the defendant and payable to their order and they caused it to be left with the justice for collection under their indorsement made in these terms: "Pay Volney Reynolds, J.P., or order, for collection;" and the justice began the suit before himself on the note. The plaintiffs by a person acting as their attorney declared on the note and the defendant pleaded the general issue, but subsequently objected that the justice had no jurisdiction because of his being indorsee. The justice overruled the point and proceeded with the cause.

A trial followed and without any change in the indorsement or in its legal significance the justice gave judgment on the note in favor of the plaintiff as before mentioned. The good faith of the justice is not doubted. But the question is whether he was qualified to go on against the objection raised and render judgment on the note? My brethren are of opinion that it was the legal import of the facts that the justice was the plaintiff's agent for the collection of the note so continued. McMinn v. Richtmyer, 3 Hill, 236; and that being their legal agent therein be could not at the same time and in relation to the same matter act also as justice of the peace; that the characters were not compatible. The result is that both judgments below must be reversed with the costs of all the courts.

(The other justices concurred.)