First National Bank v. Shue

Michigan Supreme Court

First National Bank v. Shue

78 N.W. 647, 119 Mich. 560, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 847

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 23, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 78 N.W. 647 (First National Bank v. Shue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First National Bank v. Shue, 78 N.W. 647, 119 Mich. 560, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 847 (Mich. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). The court below instructed the jury that plaintiff could recover only the amount actually due upon the note, and that it could not recover for that part of the note for which there was no consideration “until it acquired the whole property, [562]*562and became a bona fide purchaser,” This is the sole question presented by the plaintiff, and on which it seeks a reversal of the case. The court was in error. A party receiving negotiable paper, before due, as a collateral security to a loan then made, without notice of any infirmity in the note, is a bona fide holder, and will be protected. Williams v. Keyes, 90 Mich. 290 (30 Am. St. Rep. 438); Coleb. Coll. Sec. § 4; Railroad Co. v. National Bank, 102 U. S. 14; Helmer v. Commercial Bank, 28 Neb. 474.

It is, however, urged on the part of the appellees that, although the court may have been in error in this charge, yet upon the entire record the defendants were entitled to a verdict. There is nothing upon the record to indicate that these questions, now presented, were raised in the court below. The record does not purport to contain all the evidence. "We cannot, therefore, affirm the case upon the ground that the charge of the court was error without prejudice. Wierengo v. Insurance Co., 98 Mich. 621.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). The court below instructed the jury that plaintiff could recover only the amount actually due upon the note, and that it could not recover for that part of the note for which there was no consideration “until it acquired the whole property, [562]*562and became a bona fide purchaser,” This is the sole question presented by the plaintiff, and on which it seeks a reversal of the case. The court was in error. A party receiving negotiable paper, before due, as a collateral security to a loan then made, without notice of any infirmity in the note, is a bona fide holder, and will be protected. Williams v. Keyes, 90 Mich. 290 (30 Am. St. Rep. 438); Coleb. Coll. Sec. § 4; Railroad Co. v. National Bank, 102 U. S. 14; Helmer v. Commercial Bank, 28 Neb. 474.

It is, however, urged on the part of the appellees that, although the court may have been in error in this charge, yet upon the entire record the defendants were entitled to a verdict. There is nothing upon the record to indicate that these questions, now presented, were raised in the court below. The record does not purport to contain all the evidence. "We cannot, therefore, affirm the case upon the ground that the charge of the court was error without prejudice. Wierengo v. Insurance Co., 98 Mich. 621.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 N.W. 647, 119 Mich. 560, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-shue-mich-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack