Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 Mich. 425

Sage v. Walker

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1864

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1864-07-15

June 1st, 1861, George B. Russell made a note for $548.42, payable on the first of September following, to the order of C. I. & E. C. Walker, at the Michigan Insurance Bank, Detroit, with eight per cent interest. This note was indorsed by the Walkers, to plaintiff, who resides in New York city.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The effect of taking a second note upon the vitality of the'first is sometimes determinable by the law, and sometimes by the contract under which' it was given and received. In the present case the. correspondence of the parties, which went to make up the contract, shows that the. second note was given and received in discharge of the first. Walker sent forward that note to be retained only upon condition of a surrender of the first. Sage was bound to return one or the other. ' By retaining both, he left it with the defendants to say that he had taken the new note upon the conditions Walker required, and the first note must be considered as surrendered, up.” Sage v. Walker, 12 Mich. 425 .”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Chase v. Gregory, Ellis v. Ballou

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1864-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1935

3 state decisions

1018641870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Martin Ch. J.:

¶1The charge of the Court was clearly correct, and settles the whole case, rendering a consideration of the questions of evidence unnecessary.

¶2The effect of taking a second note upon the vitality of *427“the first is sometimes determinable by the law, and sometimes by the contract under which it was given and received. In the present case the correspondence of the parties, which went to make up the contract, shows that the second note was given and received in discharge “of the first. Walker sent forward that note to be retained Only upon condition of a surrender of the first. Sage was bound to return one or the other. By retaining both, he left it with the defendants to say that he had taken the Hew note upon the conditions Walker required, and the first note must be considered as surrendered up. This appears to have been Sage’s view, when he had by carelessness omitted to have the second note presented and protested; for he asked for a third note in renewal of the second.

¶3'The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
/12/mich/425 · .json · Public domain