Barnes v. Peet

Decided November 8, 1889

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1889-11-08

Promissory note — Ownership of — Burden of proof — Charge to jury, 1. Where, in a suit upon a note delivered to the secretary of an insurance company as security for a loan made by him, the question of fact to be determined by the jury is whether the money loaned belonged to the secretary or to the company, they can determine such issue without any special instructions as to the law of ownership, or as to what would constitute an ownership of the note either in the secretary or in the insurance company. 2. While the unexplained possession of a note, indorsed in blank, is presumptive evidence of ownership and sufficient to warrant a recovery in a suit by the holder thereon, the introduction of evidence tending to show that the note belongs to an insurance company of which the holder is the secretary and treasurer, and ex officio the proper custodian of the note if it belongs to the company, will destroy such presumption, and cast the burden upon the holder to show his ownership. Bank v. Seymour, 64 Mich. 59.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1912

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1889-11-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Campbell, J.

¶1I concur in reversal, because I think that there is nothing to indicate that it was supposed any one but Barnes loaned the money on the note, and if it was delivered to him, as I think it clearly was, as indorsee, his liability to any one else for money due *401could not change such person or corporation into a contracting party, or make any but himself the holder. The persons liable on the note could only be reached by any creditor of Barnes by garnishee process or some similar means. But such creditor, who never held the paper, and for whom there was no understanding it should be held, could not become in law entitled to be regarded as holder by any such legal fiction as was allowed in this case.