Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

100 Mich. 314

Von Eherenkrook v. Webber

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 7, 1894

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1894-11-07

<p>Alteration of instrument — Burden of proof — Evidence. ,,</p> <p>1. Where, in a suit brought to recover money deposited with a banking firm, the plaintiff claims that a certificate of deposit was issued to her, which she afterwards indorsed in blank and delivered to one of the defendants, to be placed to her credit and checked out for the use of a firm of which she was a member, and the defendants claim that the certificate was indorsed so as to be payable to another firm, of which plaintifi’s husband had been a member, and was placed to their credit, and the certificate, on being introduced in evidence by the plaintiff, bears such latter indorsement, which the plaintiff claims was made, except as to her name, after she had indorsed the certificate in blank, the burden is upon the defendants to substantiate their claim as to said indorsement.</p> <p>2. One of the defendants having testified that, when plaintiff indorsed the certificate, she told him that her husband had sent word that he wanted the money placed to the credit of the firm of which he had been a member, plaintiff called her husband, and he was asked if he had sent such word, and replied that he had not. And it is held that this testimony was admissible as bearing upon the probabilities.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1923

2 state decisions

Relies on Stewart v. People

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1894-11-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Upon plaintiff’s application, a rehearing was granted June 16, 1894, the case again submitted, and the judgment below affirmed by the following opinion, filed November 7, 1894:

McGrath, C. J.

¶2Upon rehearing, we are satisfied that *321the testimony of the plaintiff’s husband as to the fact that he had not sent word to his wife to have the money turned over to E. Curtis & Co. ivas admissible. The defendants sought to show upon cross-examination of plaintiff, and insisted upon' the trial, that the money in fact belonged to E. Curtis & Co. Plaintiff denied this. Her husband had been a member of that firm. After these facts had been brought out, it would have been competent to show by plaintiff, as bearing upon the probabilities, that no such word had been sent by the husband. It Avould also have been competent for defendants to show that the husband had actually given directions respecting it. Stewart v. People, 23 Mich. 63, 73; Riley v. Conner, 79 Id. 497; Banghart v. Hyde, 94 Id. 49.

¶3The judgment of the court beloAV is therefore affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.
/100/mich/314 · .json · Public domain