History
  • No items yet
midpage
Littell v. Fitch
11 Mich. 525
Mich.
1863
Check Treatment
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.

Case Details

Case Name: Littell v. Fitch
Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court
Date Published: Oct 14, 1863
Citation: 11 Mich. 525
Court Abbreviation: Mich.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.