Stevens v. Oaks

Michigan Supreme Court

Stevens v. Oaks

25 N.W. 309, 58 Mich. 343, 1885 Mich. LEXIS 532

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 28, 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 25 N.W. 309 (Stevens v. Oaks) 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

Stevens v. Oaks, 25 N.W. 309, 58 Mich. 343, 1885 Mich. LEXIS 532 (Mich. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell, J.

Defendant was sued 'upon a note which he signed as joint maker with his brother C. S. Oaks in 1872. The note is in form joint and several. The defense was that defendant signed as a mere surety, and that C. S. Oaks was the principal debtor and had been given time by an extension to which defendant was not a party.

The testimony was uncontradicted that the money was lent to C. S. Oaks, and that the note was extended for a valuable consideration. There was nothing left for the jury unless there was some conflict. Plaintiff appeared as a witness and only testified that it was understood defendant was to be a joint maker. lie did not contradict the transactions of loan or extension, or the fact that C. S. Oaks was the principal debtor.

The note took the form which plaintiff said it was to take, and in one respect a more favorable one for him, by being several as well as joint. But the form of the obligation does not prevent a showing that one of the parties was a surety. He was bound by the obligation in the form which he adopted. But it is elementary law that a creditor who knows of the fact of suretyship must not violate the rights of the surety. That plaintiff knew the nature of the transaction was shown and not denied. Having taken the stand and not denied it, the jury could not regard it as matter of controversy.

Hpon the undisputed facts defendant was discharged, and no theories of law could lead to a different result.

The judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Campbell, J.

Defendant was sued 'upon a note which he signed as joint maker with his brother C. S. Oaks in 1872. The note is in form joint and several. The defense was that defendant signed as a mere surety, and that C. S. Oaks was the principal debtor and had been given time by an extension to which defendant was not a party.

The testimony was uncontradicted that the money was lent to C. S. Oaks, and that the note was extended for a valuable consideration. There was nothing left for the jury unless there was some conflict. Plaintiff appeared as a witness and only testified that it was understood defendant was to be a joint maker. lie did not contradict the transactions of loan or extension, or the fact that C. S. Oaks was the principal debtor.

The note took the form which plaintiff said it was to take, and in one respect a more favorable one for him, by being several as well as joint. But the form of the obligation does not prevent a showing that one of the parties was a surety. He was bound by the obligation in the form which he adopted. But it is elementary law that a creditor who knows of the fact of suretyship must not violate the rights of the surety. That plaintiff knew the nature of the transaction was shown and not denied. Having taken the stand and not denied it, the jury could not regard it as matter of controversy.

Hpon the undisputed facts defendant was discharged, and no theories of law could lead to a different result.

The judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 N.W. 309, 58 Mich. 343, 1885 Mich. LEXIS 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-oaks-mich-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack