TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Port Huron & Southwestern Railway Co. v. Potter

Port Huron & Southwestern Railway Company v. Hiram Potter

Port Huron & Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Potter, 22 N.W. 70 (Mich. 1885)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 14, 1885
Judges
Campbell, Other
Citations
22 N.W. 7055 Mich. 6271885 Mich. LEXIS 462
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Common counts — Suit on non-negoiiable note. A non-negotiable promissory note for a valuable consideration may be sued by tlie payee, when absolutely payable, in an action on the common counts. So held of a railroad aid note conditioned on the completion of the road to a certain point.
Summary
Error to Macomb. (Stevens, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant 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 — Campbell

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

Campbell, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant on a railroad aid note, conditioned on the completion of the railroad of plaintiff as far as the township of Eiley. The declaration was upon the common counts with a copy of the instrument attached, the execution of which was denied but fully proved, as well as the performance of the condition. The only defense is that the paper was not admissible under the declaration because it is claimed not to be a promissory note in its *628 proper sense. The plaintiff recovered below, and all the errors assigned rest on this objection.

The ground of it is that the statute concerning pleadings, which provides for declaring with common counts and a copy of the paper (How. Stat. §§ 7345-6 &c.), applies only to-bills of exchange and promissory notes negotiable under the law. But the only new rule brought in by that statute was-the provision which allowed a single suit to be brought against endorsers and other parties as well as makers. So far as the makers of notes are concerned it has always been competent, to sue them under the common counts. Brown v. McHugh 35 Mich. 50 . This doctrine is old and elementary, and it is-a novelty to see it questioned. See Chitty on Bills, 593. And it is equally well settled that a note not negotiable, if given for a valuable consideration and when it has become absolutely payable, may be sued for by the payee in the same way. Edwards, Cow. & H. notes 730, 731. In the present case a sum certain was shown to have become fully due under the agreement contained in the note, and it was properly recovered under the general counts.

The judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1888: 11891: 11912: 11916: 11967: 118882026peak 1888 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Comstock v. Potter158 N.W. 102 (Mich. 1916)
  2. Hinckley v. McLaughlin139 N.W. 50 (Mich. 1912)
  3. Rickey v. Morrison37 N.W. 56 (Mich. 1888)
  4. Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. v. McKittrick48 N.W. 1086 (Mich. 1891)
  5. Duncan v. Baskin154 N.W.2d 617 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967)

Most recent

  1. Duncan v. Baskin154 N.W.2d 617 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967)
  2. Comstock v. Potter158 N.W. 102 (Mich. 1916)
  3. Hinckley v. McLaughlin139 N.W. 50 (Mich. 1912)
  4. Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. v. McKittrick48 N.W. 1086 (Mich. 1891)
  5. Rickey v. Morrison37 N.W. 56 (Mich. 1888)

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
Brown v. McHugh, 35 Mich. 50 (1876) 4

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