Drovers' National Bank v. Potvin
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Alpena; Kelley, J. Assumpsit by the Drovers’ National Bank against Oliver Potvin on a promissory note. From a judgment for plaintiff on verdict directed by the court, defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
The plaintiff recovered, by direction of the court, a verdict of $101, being the amount of principal and interest of a note of $85, made by defendant May 31, 1894, due December 1, 1894, payable to the Chi*475cago Supply Company, and indorsed without recourse by the Chicago Supply Company, by G. M. Maibe, treasurer. It was conceded at the trial by plaintiff’s counsel that the note was obtained of the defendant by means of a fraud practiced upon him by the agent of the payee.
The only question for determination is whether the testimony offered by the plaintiff shows it to be a good-faith purchaser.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rosemond v. GrahamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Borden v. ClarkMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by8 opinions
- Boswell v. First National Bank of LaramieWyoming Supreme Court · 1907
- Thompson v. Village of MecostaMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- Central Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. StotterMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
- Van Slyke v. RooksMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Merchants' National Bank v. WadsworthMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.