Fredonia National Bank v. Tommei

Michigan Supreme Court

Fredonia National Bank v. Tommei

92 N.W. 348, 131 Mich. 674, 1902 Mich. LEXIS 720

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 2, 1902

DocketDocket No. 92

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 92 N.W. 348 (Fredonia National Bank v. Tommei) 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

Fredonia National Bank v. Tommei, 92 N.W. 348, 131 Mich. 674, 1902 Mich. LEXIS 720 (Mich. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). 1. A second deposition of the cashier was taken, after due notice, in Fredonia. Counsel for the defendant objected to the introduction of this deposition in evidence. Its admission rested in the sound discretion of the court, in the same manner as the recall of a witness for further examination rests in its discretion. The second deposition was taken mainly to show the condition of White’s account, which was not given in the first deposition. We think there was no error in admitting it.

2. We think the evidence on the part of the plaintiff [676]*676conclusively established that it was a bona fide purchaser of these notes. It paid for them by crediting the amount thereof upon White’s account, and permitting him to check It all out before their maturity. Defendant gave notice of fraud in the inception of the notes. Plaintiff then assumed the burden of showing bona fides. It was then incumbent upon defendant to first show some evidence of mala fides, before introducing evidence of fraud. The case is within Drovers’ Nat. Bank v. Blue, 110 Mich. 31 (67 N. W. 1105, 64 Am. St. Rep. 327). It was immaterial that subsequently White, who kept his account at the bank, had deposits equal to or exceeding the amount of these notes.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). 1. A second deposition of the cashier was taken, after due notice, in Fredonia. Counsel for the defendant objected to the introduction of this deposition in evidence. Its admission rested in the sound discretion of the court, in the same manner as the recall of a witness for further examination rests in its discretion. The second deposition was taken mainly to show the condition of White’s account, which was not given in the first deposition. We think there was no error in admitting it.

2. We think the evidence on the part of the plaintiff [676]*676conclusively established that it was a bona fide purchaser of these notes. It paid for them by crediting the amount thereof upon White’s account, and permitting him to check It all out before their maturity. Defendant gave notice of fraud in the inception of the notes. Plaintiff then assumed the burden of showing bona fides. It was then incumbent upon defendant to first show some evidence of mala fides, before introducing evidence of fraud. The case is within Drovers’ Nat. Bank v. Blue, 110 Mich. 31 (67 N. W. 1105, 64 Am. St. Rep. 327). It was immaterial that subsequently White, who kept his account at the bank, had deposits equal to or exceeding the amount of these notes.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.W. 348, 131 Mich. 674, 1902 Mich. LEXIS 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fredonia-national-bank-v-tommei-mich-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack