Johnson v. Frisbie

Michigan Supreme Court

Johnson v. Frisbie

15 Mich. 286, 1867 Mich. LEXIS 16

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 3, 1867

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 15 Mich. 286 (Johnson v. Frisbie) 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

Johnson v. Frisbie, 15 Mich. 286, 1867 Mich. LEXIS 16 (Mich. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell J.

'Johnson was sued as endorser of two promissory notes to his order, dated and payable in Detroit (where the maker resided and the endorser did business), with current rate of exchange on JSTew York. His defense rests entirely xipon the want of negotiable character in such a note, and no other question is presented^

j We consider this point as settled by the decision in Smith v. Kendall, 9 Mich. B. 241, in which it was held by a majority of the court, that making a note payable ^with current exchange did not destroy its negotiability. An attempt has been made to distinguish this case from that, because it is said that note was actually payable in New York, and therefore there could be no exchange on [292]*292it. The court, however, had no judicial knowledge that the note was so payable, and the case was presented upon an entirely different basis, it being assumed to be payable elsewhere. The decision was based exclusively upon the assumption that such notes were negotiable wherever they might have been made payable, and no other question was entertained.

Regarding the point made in the case before us as precisely covered by that adjudication, we are not called upon to discuss it further, j

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Cooley and Christiancy JJ. concurred. The Chief Justice did not sit.

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

Campbell J.

'Johnson was sued as endorser of two promissory notes to his order, dated and payable in Detroit (where the maker resided and the endorser did business), with current rate of exchange on JSTew York. His defense rests entirely xipon the want of negotiable character in such a note, and no other question is presented^

j We consider this point as settled by the decision in Smith v. Kendall, 9 Mich. B. 241, in which it was held by a majority of the court, that making a note payable ^with current exchange did not destroy its negotiability. An attempt has been made to distinguish this case from that, because it is said that note was actually payable in New York, and therefore there could be no exchange on [292]*292it. The court, however, had no judicial knowledge that the note was so payable, and the case was presented upon an entirely different basis, it being assumed to be payable elsewhere. The decision was based exclusively upon the assumption that such notes were negotiable wherever they might have been made payable, and no other question was entertained.

Regarding the point made in the case before us as precisely covered by that adjudication, we are not called upon to discuss it further, j

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Cooley and Christiancy JJ. concurred. The Chief Justice did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Mich. 286, 1867 Mich. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-frisbie-mich-1867.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack