55 Mich. 592 | Mich. | 1885
Plaintiff sued, defendant as maker of a promissory note for $130, claimed to have been made by defendant to the order of one George D. Johnson, and endorsed with that name, and purchased by plaintiff from a person supposed to be the payee.
The defense was a denial that defendant ever executed and delivered any such instrument. The facts as shown by defendant to the satisfaction of the jury were that at the date of the pretended note a man calling himself George D. Johnson came to defendant’s farm and proposed to insure his new barn on favorable terms, including insurance against damage from cyclones, which had recently visited that neighborhood. After considerable talk they agreed that defendant should pay $12.50 for a policy of $1000 for a
The note bears date August 13, 1883, and as presented on trial is in the usual form and size of a promissory note in common use, with subjoined waiver of protest and exemptions and agreement for interest after maturity and payment of attorney fees. This note was purchased by plaintiff, September 7, 1883, of a person who called himself George D. Johnson. There is no testimony which identifies him with the person with whom defendant dealt, either by personal description, or in any other legal way, with any accu racy. He was not identified to the'bank officers except by his own statements, and he was not produced on the trial.
■If defendant’s story is true, and the jury believed it, the note was either an entire forgery, or procured by the substitution of one paper for another, either by actual change, or by misreading.
The charge of the court having been very strong in favor of plaintiff upon all issues of negligence and having treated plaintiff as a bona fide purchaser, it is admitted by counsel that the judgment cannot be disturbed unless, as against a bona fide purchaser, the law itself requires a more careful scrutiny than was made here, and imposed upon defendant an absolute duty to inform himself correctly of the contents of the paper which he signed. It is conceded that the case comes within our former decisions, unless it can be distinguished on this ground.
We do not think this case differs at all in principle from Gibbs v. Linabury 22 Mich. 479 and Anderson v. Walter 34 Mich. 113. The defense if made out is that the note is not defendant’s note at all, and was never executed by him. Sign
No other point in the case appears to us material.
The judgment must be affirmed.