Valley Jitney Jungle Co. v. Hamady

Michigan Supreme Court

Valley Jitney Jungle Co. v. Hamady

249 N.W. 888, 264 Mich. 354, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 1015

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 29, 1933

DocketDocket No. 111, Calendar No. 37,309.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 249 N.W. 888 (Valley Jitney Jungle Co. v. Hamady) 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

Valley Jitney Jungle Co. v. Hamady, 249 N.W. 888, 264 Mich. 354, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 1015 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff, transferee of the payee of a promissory note, sued thereon. The defense being fraud and failure of consideration, the question is of plaintiff's holding in due course. Defendant had verdict and judgment. Plaintiff has appealed.

Plaintiff was a holder in due course in the sum of $1,000 and interest unless the knowledge of fact of defense of one Brown, an officer of the payee and sometimes attorney for plaintiff, can be held to be imputed or chargeable to plaintiff. Even if Brown were attorney or agent of plaintiff, his interest in *Page 355 transfer of the note was adverse to interest of plaintiff, and not imputable. The case is ruled by State Savings Bank of Ionia v. Montgomery, 126 Mich. 327. See Peoples Savings Bank of WestBay City v. Hine, 131 Mich. 181; Tapert v.Lehmann, 259 Mich. 447.

Plaintiff was entitled to directed verdict for amount stated.

Reversed, with costs, and remanded for judgment accordingly.

McDONALD, C.J., and POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, FEAD, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred.

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

Plaintiff, transferee of the payee of a promissory note, sued thereon. The defense being fraud and failure of consideration, the question is of plaintiff's holding in due course. Defendant had verdict and judgment. Plaintiff has appealed.

Plaintiff was a holder in due course in the sum of $1,000 and interest unless the knowledge of fact of defense of one Brown, an officer of the payee and sometimes attorney for plaintiff, can be held to be imputed or chargeable to plaintiff. Even if Brown were attorney or agent of plaintiff, his interest in *Page 355 transfer of the note was adverse to interest of plaintiff, and not imputable. The case is ruled by State Savings Bank of Ionia v. Montgomery, 126 Mich. 327. See Peoples Savings Bank of WestBay City v. Hine, 131 Mich. 181; Tapert v.Lehmann, 259 Mich. 447.

Plaintiff was entitled to directed verdict for amount stated.

Reversed, with costs, and remanded for judgment accordingly.

McDONALD, C.J., and POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, FEAD, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 N.W. 888, 264 Mich. 354, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 1015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valley-jitney-jungle-co-v-hamady-mich-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack