Zeller v. Harris
Circuit Court of the 43rd Circuit of Michigan
This case comes up from Justice’s Court on a writ of ccrtioran'i. Harris, the plaintiff in the Court below, brought suit on an instrument of which the following is a copy: “ $58 50. South Bend, Ind , April 2, 1868. “ Six months afterdate, for value received, we promise to pay to the order of S. H. Bell fifty-eight dollars and fifty cents ($58 50), without interest if paid when due; if not so paid, then with interest from date, waiving all benefit of valuation or appraisement…
Read the full summary
This case comes up from Justice’s Court on a writ of ccrtioran'i. Harris, the plaintiff in the Court below, brought suit on an instrument of which the following is a copy: “ $58 50. South Bend, Ind , April 2, 1868. “ Six months afterdate, for value received, we promise to pay to the order of S. H. Bell fifty-eight dollars and fifty cents ($58 50), without interest if paid when due; if not so paid, then with interest from date, waiving all benefit of valuation or appraisement laws, with five per cent, attorney’s fees if collected by suit. “ BENJAMIN ZELLER, “JOHN BARBER.” Tiiis paper is…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Brown, J.
I have some doubt whether the instrument declared upon is a promissory note, and weie it not for the decision in the case of Smith et al. vs. Kendall 9 Mich., 241, I should be of the opinion that it was not. I do not, however, think it necessary to declare what the instrument is for the, purposes before us. If it is not a promissory note, then there-is no force whatever in the first allegation of.error.
The paper declared upon, whatever it may be, is payable-to order, and íb indorsed by the payee in blank.. In the case of Peacock vs. Rhodes, 2 Doug. (Eng.), 633, Lord…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. KendallMichigan Supreme Court · 1861