Reynolds v. Kent

38 Mich. 246, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 46
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided January 24, 1878·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Campbell, C. J.

The only question in thi3 case is whether the court below erred in admitting evidence under the general issue that the plaintiff below did not own the note sued on when suit was brought. The note was payable to bearer.

It was decided in Hovey v. Sebring, 24 Mich., 232, that such a defense would defeat the action, and we can conceive no reason why it does not go to a direct denial of the allegations in the declaration averring ownership and contract relations between the parties. It is not matter in avoidance, and goes to the very foundation of the action.

The judgment below must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Reynolds v. Kent, 38 Mich. 246, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 46 (Mich. 1878).

38 Mich. 246 (Reynolds v. Kent) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cleveland v. Rothschild
94 N.W. 184 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1903)
Hogan v. Dreifus
80 N.W. 254 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1899)
Coon v. Dennis
69 N.W. 666 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1897)