Case ID: mich-np-r_2/html/0089-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Coodky. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Parsons vs. Dickinson.
    Objections taken to testimony before an officer taking' a deposition, must be reneewed in 'the court in which such, deposition is used, if the party would avail himself of the benefit of his objections.
    An indorser of a note though not legally notified of the dishonor of the same, will be deemed to have waived the want of notice, where it appears that he subsequently stated that he 'expected and intended to pay tho note.
    Error to Wayne Circuit.
   Opinion by

Coodky. J.

This cause was commenced in a Justice’s Court. The cause of- action was an endorsement by Dickinson of a note made by one Kibbee, payable at the First National Bank of Detroit. The defence was that defendant was never legally notified of the dishonor of the note. The Justice gave judgment for the plaiintiff, which was reversed by the Circuit Court, and the latter judgment comes up for’review.

Two alleged errors were considered: First, that the Justice erred in receiving evidence of the custom of the bank as to making inquiries for the residence of the indorsers when they were unknown to the officers to whom the paper was committed for protest. Second, that the Justice erred in rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff when there was no evidence in the case tending to show that proper steps had been taken to fix the liability of the defendant as endorser.

When the note fell due the defendant was a resident of Ma-comb county, and the only notice received by- him was one deposited in the post-office directed to him at Detroit. On the trial the officer who protested the note was allowed to testify through his deposition, as to inquiries which he made concerning the defendant’s residence, and also as to the diligence"generally émployed by the bank in these matters. It does not appear, however, that objection was made to this testimony. Defendant seems to have supposed that it was sufficient for him to make his objections before the officer taking the deposition; but this was an error. Objections taken before him are only for the purpose of reserving them for decision by the tribunal which is competent to pass upon them. No other rule would be fair either to the party offering the evidence or to the1 Justice.

The Court did not enter into the discussion of the question of diligence, as they deemed another point decisive of the case. Defendant was not bound to insist upon his defence on the ground of the want of notice, but might waive it if he so chose-It was proved on the trial that defendant, after the dishonor of the note, had an interview with the officers of the bank, and though he remarked that he had not received notice of its dishonor, he said he expected to pay it and wished the plaintiff to get it from Kibbee. The defendant was sworn in his own behalf and did not deny this statement. With full knowledge of the facts the defendant recognized his liability.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and that of the Justice affirmed, the plaintiff to recover costs in both courts.