Page Woven Wire Fence Co. v. Pool
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Montcalm; Davis, J. Assumpsit by the Page Woven Wire Fence Company against Phoebe M. Pool on a promissory note. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error. Plaintiff brought an action of assumpsit. The declaration was upon the common counts, with notice attached that plaintiff would “give in evidence a certain promissory note, copy of which is given below.”
Read the full summary
Error to Montcalm; Davis, J. Assumpsit by the Page Woven Wire Fence Company against Phoebe M. Pool on a promissory note. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error. Plaintiff brought an action of assumpsit. The declaration was upon the common counts, with notice attached that plaintiff would “give in evidence a certain promissory note, copy of which is given below.” The note and indorsement read as follows: “8200. “Grand Rapids, State of Michigan, Sept. 28, 1899. “Ninety days after date, I, of Lakeview post-office, residing in the town of Cato,…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). The court said there were two theories upon which plaintiff might have proceeded: (1) That the note was lost; and (2) that, if it was not lost, the declaration ought to apprise defendant of the plaintiff’s claim of the manner in which the note came into her hands. Before bringing suit plaintiff knew that defendant had the note in her possession. The payor of a promissory note cannot be subjected to a suit, and compelled to accept a bond of indemnity under the statute, when the payee knows where the note is, and has it in his power to produce it in court. It is not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mckinney v. Estate of HamiltonMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by2 opinions
- Page Woven Wire Fence Co. v. PoolMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
- Page Woven Wire Fence Co. v. PoolMichigan Supreme Court · 1905