Citation Numbers: 65 Mich. 403, 32 N.W. 442, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 612
Judges: Other, Sherwood
Filed Date: 4/14/1887
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/10/2024
In this ease the plaintiff brought replevin against the defendant to recover the possession of a carriage, to which he claimed to be entitled under the following circumstances : On the fourth day of September, 1882, Bailey So Cahill sold to I. C. Hulbert the carriage in question, for which Hulbert gave the following note, signed by himself and Myres:
“$90.00. Hart, Michigan, September 4, 1882.
“On or before the fourth day of May, 1883, for value received, I promise to pay Bail'ev & Cahill, or order, ninety dollars, with interest at the rate of ten per cent., payable monthly, ten dollars per month, payable at Hart. In case the above note is not paid at maturity at the place the same is made payable, then and in such case, for and in considera*404 tion of the trouble and expense that said Bailey & Cahill are put to by reason of their being obliged to press collection thereof and taking the necessary steps therefor, together with their disbursements so occasioned by my delay, I hereby agree to pay them the sum of ten dollars as damage occasioned by such neglect, and interest thereon from the maturity of such note at the rate of ten per cent, per annum. And it is further agreed that the title to the carriage of Schofield, and •for which this note is given, shall remain in said Bailey & Cahill until the note is fully paid.”
Upon the back of this note was indorsed, when the suit was brought, the following sums: $6.50, $9.00, and “$50.00, note of D. B. Yaple.”
Myres was a surety upon the paper. Hulbert failed to pay the note when due, and delivered up the property to Bailey & Cahill, and they resold the same to the defendant for the sum of $50, 'with the consent of Hulbert, who was given credit on the note signed by the plaintiff for the same; but the surrender of the property by Hulbert, the sale of the same to Yaple, and the indorsement made of the amount for which it was sold upon the note, by Bailey & Cahill, all occurred without the knowledge of, or any consultation with, the plaintiff. After the amount for which the property was sold by Bailey & Cahill had been indorsed, there still remained due upon the note made by Hulbert and the plaintiff about $35. This the plaintiff was obliged to pay, and did pay, and took up the note. The plaintiff then went to Mr. Yaple, and demanded the carriage, and, on being refused, he again demanded the carriage, or pay for the moneys he had been obliged to pay on the note. The defendant refused to do-either, and thereupon the plaintiff brought this suit before a justice of the peace, where the cause was tried, and an unsatisfactory Tesult reached. The case was then appealed by the aggrieved party to the circuit court for the county of Oceana, where the cause was again tried before a jury, and the defendant had judgment. The plaintiff brought 'the case to this •Court by writ of error. The judgment at the circuit was