Worth v. McConnell

• Decision Date: 20 January 1880
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CORNELIUS WORTH and others v. RICHARD L. MCCONNELL and others.

4 N.W. 198

42 Mich. 473

CORNELIUS WORTH and others v. RICHARD L. MCCONNELL and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 20, 1880

Certain letters of a purchaser of machinery, asking extension of time and expressing satisfaction with the machine, held properly admitted, and the comparison of the signature thereto with that of the note sued upon, proper. Certain expert testimony as to genuineness of signature held admissible. Mere commendation of goods will not amount to warranty.

Error to Genesee.

Gaskill & Thayer, for plaintiffs in error.

H.R Lovell, for defendants in error.

MARSTON C.J.

This action was brought to recover the amount due upon the joint promissory note of Worth & Bartell, given in part payment of a clover threshing machine purchased by Worth from the plaintiffs. The execution of the instrument sued upon was not denied in the pleadings.

The defence relied upon was that there was a warranty accompanying the sale of the threshing machine, a breach thereof, and a recoupment of the damages sustained in consequence of such breach.

To meet this defence the plaintiffs sought upon cross-examination of defendant Worth, when examined in his own behalf, to show that he had written certain letters to the plaintiffs and their agents, referring to the machine, asking an extension of the time of payment, and expressing satisfaction with the machine. It appeared that Worth was illiterate, and evidence was given tending to show that the letters referred to were not written by him, but by his wife and others under his directions, and he was asked and testified that his signature to the note was not written by him. This last was called out not for the purpose of questioning the validity of the note as against him, as under the pleadings this could not be done, but to permit a comparison by experts of the signatures to the note, and letters to prove that the latter were signed by Worth.

Evidence was given tending to show that the note was in fact signed by Worth, and one of the witnesses, when upon the stand testified that he had seen Worth write his name; that he, the witness, had a note in his possession given by Worth, and he was permitted to examine such note, with the one in suit, and give his opinion concerning the same; and also that Worth had written certain of the letters already spoken of.

The witness, Hakes, having seen Worth sign a note, and having that note in his possession, it was proper to allow him to compare the signature to the note in suit with the one in his possession, and then give his opinion, and to make a like comparison with and give his opinion therefrom; that the letters, also, were written by Worth. This comes clearly within what was said, and the authorities cited in Vinton v. Peck, 14 Mich. 293.

...