Hamilton v. Parent
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Brooke, J. Assumpsit by Delia Hamilton against Dollie Parent on a promissory note. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Plaintiff declared upon the common counts in assumpsit and set out a copy of the note sued upon. It is dated October 10, 1898, due five years after date, is for $385, and is signed by the defendant.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne; Brooke, J. Assumpsit by Delia Hamilton against Dollie Parent on a promissory note. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Plaintiff declared upon the common counts in assumpsit and set out a copy of the note sued upon. It is dated October 10, 1898, due five years after date, is for $385, and is signed by the defendant. Defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice that when the note was executed she was a married woman; that she received no consideration for giving the note, which was security for a previous indebtedness of her husband. The testimony…
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
(after stating the facts). The case was submitted to the jury upon the theory that if they found that plaintiff actually lent the money to the defendant, under .the circumstances which plaintiff claimed existed, upon her promise to repay it, their verdict should be returned for the plaintiff; that if the money was lent to the husband in 1891, as claimed by the defendant, then, even if the defendant signed a note for that money with her husband, she did not, by the execution of that note, become liable to pay the debt; that if the money was lent to defendant’s husband in 1891, as claimed, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Whelpley v. StoughtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by2 opinions
- Peoples Wayne County Bank v. WesolowskaMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
- Rogers v. EatonMichigan Supreme Court · 1914