Barrie v. McDenegle

Circuit Court of the 10th Circuit of Michigan

Barrie v. McDenegle

1 Mich. N.P. 37

CourtCircuit Court of the 10th Circuit of Michigan

DecidedNovember 29, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Mich. N.P. 37 (Barrie v. McDenegle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 10th Circuit of Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrie v. McDenegle, 1 Mich. N.P. 37 (Mich. Super. Ct. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

The only question is, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover, on a note for $200, payable on demand, at a specified place, without showing a demand before suit, at that place.

This precise question has not been decided in this State; but it was held in the case of Reeve, et. al, vs. Peck, 6 Mich. 240, that a note payable at a particular place, need not, before suit, be presented there for payment.

Whether the same rule will apply to this note will perhaps admit of some doubt, for there are American cases opposed to it. 17 Mass. 389; 3 N. H. 333; 13 Pet. 36; 10 Leigh, 512. I think, however, that to permit suit to be brought without previous can be reconciled with the contract, is more convenient, and better accords with the practice and sense of businessmen. It is also supported by respectable authorities — 3 Wend, 13; 21 Me. 98; 6 Ala. 701; 1 Gill & John, 176.

Judgment for Plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

The only question is, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover, on a note for $200, payable on demand, at a specified place, without showing a demand before suit, at that place.

This precise question has not been decided in this State; but it was held in the case of Reeve, et. al, vs. Peck, 6 Mich. 240, that a note payable at a particular place, need not, before suit, be presented there for payment.

Whether the same rule will apply to this note will perhaps admit of some doubt, for there are American cases opposed to it. 17 Mass. 389; 3 N. H. 333; 13 Pet. 36; 10 Leigh, 512. I think, however, that to permit suit to be brought without previous can be reconciled with the contract, is more convenient, and better accords with the practice and sense of businessmen. It is also supported by respectable authorities — 3 Wend, 13; 21 Me. 98; 6 Ala. 701; 1 Gill & John, 176.

Judgment for Plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Mich. N.P. 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrie-v-mcdenegle-micirct10-1869.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack