Sibley v. Muskegon National Bank
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon. Assumpsit by the bank against Watson A. Sibley, impleaded with William Glue and Alpheus G. Smith upon the following note: “ 500.00. Muskegon, Mich., Mar. 20, 76. Ninety days after date, we promise to pay to the order of George S. Goodale, Cashier, Five Hundred Dollars, at Muskegon National Bank, Muskegon, Mich., for value received, with interest after due at ten per cent, per annum. Glue & Smith.”
Read the full summary
Error to Muskegon. Assumpsit by the bank against Watson A. Sibley, impleaded with William Glue and Alpheus G. Smith upon the following note: “ 500.00. Muskegon, Mich., Mar. 20, 76. Ninety days after date, we promise to pay to the order of George S. Goodale, Cashier, Five Hundred Dollars, at Muskegon National Bank, Muskegon, Mich., for value received, with interest after due at ten per cent, per annum. Glue & Smith.” There was written on the back of this note the name “W. A. Sibley.” Plaintiff recovered and defendant Sibley brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMarston, J.
This case clearly comes within and is governed by Smith v. Long, 40 Mich., 555, where it was said that a third-person could not become an indorser until after the payee had indorsed the note. To recognize the distinction sought to be established in this case would but unsettle this branch of the law applicable to negotiable paper, so that the rights and liabilities of parties could only be determined by a resort tó litigation dependent upon conflicting oral testimony. Befined and technical distinctions should not be created under such circumstances. Certainty is far more desirable for all…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. LongMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
3Cited by4 opinions
- Borden v. Fletcher's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
- Greusel v. HubbardMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- J. A. Fay & Co. v. James Jenks & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Sidorski v. LeppakMichigan Supreme Court · 1923