Fralick v. Norton
Michigan Supreme Court
Case reserved from Washtenaw Circuit Court. The only question presented by tbe case was, whether the following instrument, and ten others in all respects similar, except in their amounts and times of payment, were promissory notes, and could be declared on, and given in evidence as such: $60. Plymouth, Jan’y 11,1841. Two years from date, for value received, we or either of ns promise to pay E. Woodruff or bearer, sixty dollars, with use.
Read the full summary
Case reserved from Washtenaw Circuit Court. The only question presented by tbe case was, whether the following instrument, and ten others in all respects similar, except in their amounts and times of payment, were promissory notes, and could be declared on, and given in evidence as such: $60. Plymouth, Jan’y 11,1841. Two years from date, for value received, we or either of ns promise to pay E. Woodruff or bearer, sixty dollars, with use. Said Woodruff agrees that if fifty dollars be paid on the first day of January, 1843, it shall cancel this note. The instrument was signed by the defendants.
1Opinion of the Court
Ry the Court, Green, J.
Promissory notes, like bills of exchange, enjoy the privilege, conceded to no other unsealed instruments, of being presumed to be founded *131upon a valid and valuable consideration. (Story on Prom. Notes, § ?, 181.) This character was given to them by the 3 and 4 Anne Ch. 9, to which our statute corresponds. (B. S., p. 156.)
Under this statute, the requisites of a promissory note are, that it be a written engagement by one person to pay another person therein named, absolutely and unconditionally, a certain sum of money, at a time specified therein. (Story on Prom. Notes, §…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Story v. LambMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- First National Bank v. CarsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. PlanckNebraska Supreme Court · 1915