TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

First National Bank v. Robert

First National Bank of Houghton v. Peter Robert

First Nat'l Bank v. Robert, 3 N.W. 199 (Mich. 1879)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 21, 1879
Judges
Graves, Other
Citations
3 N.W. 19941 Mich. 7091879 Mich. LEXIS 939
Cited by 9
Headnotes
Indorsement — Genuineness of signature — Comparison. "Where the genuineness of defendant’s signature is at issue, experts may properly compare it before the jury with his acknowledged signatures to other papers in the case. But defendant cannot on cross-examination be required to write his name in court for purposes of comparison; nor to introduce- signatures made by him before the instrument in suit.
Summary
Error to Baraga. Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Graves

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Graves, J.

The bank sued the defendant as endorser of a note for $5,000. The defense was that the endorsement was not genuine, and the usual affidavit in denial *711 of execution was filed. The evidence for the hank to prove that the endorsement was genuine was confined to the testimony of certain experts who were allowed to compare it before the jury with signatures of the defendant to papers in the cause and admitted to be his.

This was proper. Vinton v. Peck, 14 Mich., 295 . The defend ant,,being sworn in his own behalf denied the endorsement.

He was then cross-examined and was questioned in regard to his having signed papers not in the case, and was asked in particular whether he would not produce signatures made prior to the note in suit and whether he would not write his name there in court.

The judge excluded all these inquiries on objection, and it is of these rulings that complaint is made.

The object of the questions was to bring into the case extrinsic signatures for the purpose of comparison by the jury, and we think the judge was correct in ruling against it. The view explained in Vinton v. Peck, supra, applied.

There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →
1880–1881: 11884–1885: 11890–1891: 11898–1899: 11920–1921: 11932–1933: 11940–1941: 11970–1971: 11974–1975: 118802026peak 1880 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Harris236 N.W.2d 118 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
  2. Hanriot v. Sherwood82 Va. 1 (1884)
  3. People v. Cammarata240 N.W. 14 (Mich. 1932)
  4. Howard v. Patrick5 N.W. 84 (Mich. 1880)
  5. Travers v. Snyder38 Ill. App. 379 (1890)
  6. People v. Sturman176 N.W. 397 (Mich. 1920)

Most recent

  1. People v. Harris236 N.W.2d 118 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
  2. People v. Kennedy188 N.W.2d 140 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)
  3. People v. Lambath297 N.W. 519 (Mich. 1941)
  4. People v. Cammarata240 N.W. 14 (Mich. 1932)
  5. People v. Sturman176 N.W. 397 (Mich. 1920)
  6. Weidman v. Symes74 N.W. 1008 (Mich. 1898)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Vinton v. Peck, 14 Mich. 287 (1866) 47

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list