Littell v. Fitch

Michigan Supreme Court

Littell v. Fitch

11 Mich. 525, 1863 Mich. LEXIS 53

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 14, 1863

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 11 Mich. 525 (Littell v. Fitch) 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

Littell v. Fitch, 11 Mich. 525, 1863 Mich. LEXIS 53 (Mich. 1863).

Pincite

Opinion

Manning J.:

As the note was made in the name of the firm, by Fitch, who was a partner, and. signed by Littell as surety, the presumption is that it was to be used for the partnership. Fitch had no right to use the partnership name for any other purpose. It is for defendants to show Littell knew that it was to be used by Fitch to raise money for himself, instead of the firm. The affirmative of the issue upon this point is with -them. It is for them to prove it, and not for Littell to disprove it. We do not think it established by the evidence, but on the contrary that Littell supposed he was lending his name to the firm when he signed the note at the request of Fitch.

The judgment of the Circuit Court must be reversed, and judgment be entered for plaintiff, with costs of both courts.

Martin Ch. J. and Campbell J. concurred. Christiancy, J. was absent.

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

Manning J.:

As the note was made in the name of the firm, by Fitch, who was a partner, and. signed by Littell as surety, the presumption is that it was to be used for the partnership. Fitch had no right to use the partnership name for any other purpose. It is for defendants to show Littell knew that it was to be used by Fitch to raise money for himself, instead of the firm. The affirmative of the issue upon this point is with -them. It is for them to prove it, and not for Littell to disprove it. We do not think it established by the evidence, but on the contrary that Littell supposed he was lending his name to the firm when he signed the note at the request of Fitch.

The judgment of the Circuit Court must be reversed, and judgment be entered for plaintiff, with costs of both courts.

Martin Ch. J. and Campbell J. concurred. Christiancy, J. was absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Mich. 525, 1863 Mich. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/littell-v-fitch-mich-1863.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack